HIGH HOPES, WILD MEN AND THE DEVIL’S JAW - Willem Barentsz Kolderstok 1:50

pingu57 said:
So we are getting the pleasure of another version as well Heinrich. I love it.
Thank Admiral Anna for this my friend:):)
Click to expand...
I will gladly convey your message my friend, This time it wasn't so easy. The conversation more or less went like this:

Admiral: Why do you want another WB?
Me: There are some things which are not quite right on this ship.
Admiral: So, did you make a mistake?
Me: No, not really.
Admiral: Did Hans make a mistake?
Me: No, not really.

And then I was stuck ...Redface
 
rtibbs said:
I know the feeling. When (if) I get started again I will probably start something new even though all I need to finish the Speeljacht is the rigging which really isn't a great deal.
Click to expand...
To me the exact sequence is not really important Ron. Because of my glue of choice, I sometimes spend a long time waiting on glue to dry - I might just be tempted to spend my time more productively having two models to work on at the same time. On the other hand, space is always a problem, so it makes a lot of sense to finish this one first.
 
Heinrich said:
To me the exact sequence is not really important Ron. Because of my glue of choice, I sometimes spend a long time waiting on glue to dry - I might just be tempted to spend my time more productively having two models to work on at the same time. On the other hand, space is always a problem, so it makes a lot of sense to finish this one first.
Click to expand...
Of course there is always “strike while the iron is hot” or in your case while the enthusiasm is at its peak.
I’ll go with your “While the glue is drying”
 
RDN1954 said:
Waiting for the first material cut on your second WB2.
Expect that to happen in the next couple of days, if not hours.
Click to expand...
No chance of that Johan. This is not a kit that Hans can simply take from the shelf and send to me. There are many things that he first has to design, draw and then manufacture. It has to be seen as a true once-off or custom kit that will take some time to come to fruition.
 
rtibbs said:
Of course there is always “strike while the iron is hot” or in your case while the enthusiasm is at its peak.
I’ll go with your “While the glue is drying”
Click to expand...
Thank you for the backdoor Ron. I'm not so good when it comes to making excuses.! ;)
 
THE NAME - ISSUE: THE PLOT THICKENS ...

In 1979, Dimitri Kravchenko – a Russian amateur archeologist – was doing research on a section of beach on Nova Zembla (close to the original location of Het Behouden Huys) when his digging revealed part of a ship’s construction. He did make a (very rudimentary) sketch of his findings, before he left, leaving the construction as he had dug it up. For a considerable period of time nothing happened – that was until 1992 when an expedition under the leadership of one Peter V. Boyarsky arrived on Nova Zembla. To cut a long story short they re-discovered the piece of ship construction originally found by Kravchenko and took it back to Moscow. Six months later this piece of wreckage was surveyed by Henk van Veen (Chairman of the National Committee of Willem Barentsz, archeologist Pieter Floore (on behalf of the Institute for Pre- and Protohistory of the University of Amsterdam and @Ab Hoving Ab Hoving on behalf of the Rijksmuseum. The purpose of this is not to discuss the section of wreckage and what it revealed (that will be done later) but to show that the Russians had a vested interest in the ship of Willem Barentsz as well.

THE RUSSIAN CONNECTION AND THE NAME ... MERCURIUS

The following article was sourced from the following website: Polar explorers go in search of willem Barents' caravel (vesti.ru)

Polar explorers go in search of Willem Barentsz’s ship. 25 September 2012 19:10 GTRK "Region-Tyumen"

3.jpg

On September 28, a group of scientists – researchers goes on a difficult journey – to Novaya Zemlya. It was there in 1596 that the ship "Mercury" (Mercurius) of the Dutch navigator Willem Barentz got stuck in pack-ice. For the researcher, this expedition was to be his last. Scientists continue to search for the legendary ship, and this year Igor Emelyanov, a journalist of the GTRK "Region-Tyumen", also takes part in the search.

Willem Barentsz’s ship is not some "flying Dutchman", but a very real vessel, which is a matter of principle to find. The expedition starts from Arkhangelsk and directly to Novaya Zemlya. Barentsz called these places "ice harbor". When his Mercury (Mercurius) got stuck, it became clear that the expedition was over. Having not opened a new path to India, the explorer himself soon died.

"The task of the expedition is not to raise the entire bottom at once, but to collect artifacts: cannons, cannonballs, anchors, weapons. The expedition is led by a full member of the Russian Geographical Society, historian, Arctic researcher. Dmitry Kravchenko is a northern polar navigator!", says Igor Emelyanov. He himself plays the role of co-ordinator in this adventure. He is a journalist, a director, and a cameraman.

For three weeks, travelers will search. The shelter for them will be a modern ship, and in the event of a storm, the group will have to spend the night in tents on the shore.

And then this related article: https://barentsobserver.com/en/arct...6-09?msclkid=8eb0c871ce8311ec8dc711127b62ab69

Untitled.pngUntitled2.png

Which, of course, begs the question: Why were the Russians so sure the ship was called the Mercurius? We do know that there were two ships named Mercurius which took part in the Voyages of 1594 and 1595. We also know that Barentsz indeed traveled on the Mercurius in 1594. We also know that both were classified as "jachten" (which is correct) and both were of 50 lasten. We also know that one of the two ships in the 1596 expedition was of 50 lasten (the other of 30 lasten).

And this raises another question: Were Ab Hoving and Gerald de Weerdt both wrong in assuming that Barentsz and Van Heemskerck traveled on the smaller of the two ships? What if they traveled on the larger ship of 50 lasten? Then the name Mercurius would come squarely into play!
 
This is typical for what happens when choices are made by people who are not acquainted with old-time shipbuilding rules. The standard misunderstanding is, that the number of lasts would be equivalent with the size of a ship. It is not. Lasts only indicate the loading capacity of a ship and nothing else.
Now what was the standard combination for ships that were sent for an expedition like this? One ship was 'heavily' armed, the other transported goods. Exactly how it was done with Abel Tasman's voyage around Australia and New Zealand in 1642: A yacht (Heemskerk) of 100 lasts and a fluit (Zeehaen) of 120 lasts. The yacht measured 106 feet, the fluit 100 feet. If the carrying capacity of a ship is sacrificed for armory, its loading capacity gets lesser.
Gerald de Weerdt followed a trace in the archives and found a 30 lasts 'vlieboot', which most likely was adapted to become Barendts discovery vessel. The name was 'Swaen' or 'White Swan'. No doubt he will publish about this in due time.
It's not really a guarantee for solid scientific work by these Russian researchers to make such a mistake. Perhaps they could learn by consulting people who do know a bit about such matters.
 
Last edited:
Ab Hoving said:
This is typical for what happens when choices are made by people who are not acquainted with old-time shipbuilding rules. The standard misunderstanding is, that the number of lasts would be equivalent with the size of a ship. It is not. Lasts only indicate the loading capacity of a ship and nothing else.
Now what was the standard combination for ships that were sent for an expedition like this? One ship was 'heavily' armed, the other transported goods. Exactly how it was done with Abel Tasman's voyage around Australia and New Zealand in 1642: A yacht (Heemskerk) of 100 lasts and a fluit (Zeehaen) of 120 lasts. The yacht measured 106 feet, the fluit 100 feet. If the carrying capacity of a ship is sacrificed for armory, its loading capacity gets lesser.
Gerald de Weerdt followed a trace in the archives and found a 30 lasts 'vlieboot', which most likely was adapted to become Barendts discovery vessel. The name was 'Swaen' or 'White Swan'. No doubt he will publish about this in due time.
It's not really a guarantee for solid scientific work by these Russian researchers to make such a mistake. Perhaps they could learn by consulting people who do know a bit about such matters.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much for your observation Ab. I am fully aware that lasten does not equate to size in length. (I have after all read your book and not just once!) I explained that as well in the section on the challenge associated with determining the size of Barentsz's ship.

I am merely trying to understand the name issue.

You say that Gerald has followed a trace in the archives ... Below are the actuarial notices I have available and have worked through. as per the Linschoten Vereeniging

Linschgoten 2.png

Bijlagen betrekking hebbende op de eerste reis, 1594.

I. Remonstrantie van Baltasar De Moucheren 183
II. Concept-instructie (Narratie) van De Moucheron voor Cornelis Cornelisz Nay 188 VII Bladz.
III. Schrijven over de voorgenomen expeditie dd. 7 Maart 1594 191
IV. Monsterrol van het schip De Zwaan (van Zeeland), tevens nominatieve staat der opvarenden 192
V. Instructies voor Brant IJsbrantsz en voor Willem Barents . 194

Bijlagen betrekking hebbende op de tweede reis, 1595.

I. Schrijven van Emanuel van Meteren (te Londen) aan Jacob Valcke, dd. 15 (25) Decemb. 1594, met: vertaling van een brief van Richard Hakluyt aan Emanuel van Meteren, dd. 6 Decemb. 1594 201
II. ld. van Van Meteren aan Jacob Valcke, dd. 18 (28) Januari 1595 204
III. ld. van Van Meteren aan Jacob Valcke, dd. 8 ( 1 8) Februari 1595 206
IV. ld. van Van Meteren aan Jacob Valcke, dd. 14 (24) Februari 1595 • • 209
V. Artikelbrief voor de schepen der expeditie, vastgesteld 13 Juni 1595 211
VI. Instructie voor Brant IJsbrantsz van Enkhuizen, den Viceadmiraal der vloot, dd. 16 Juni 1595 (met die voor Hendrik Hartman) 218
VII. Monsterrol van het Enkhuizer schip de „Hoop", dd. 19 Juni 1595, tevens nominatieve staat der opvarenden . . 226
VIII. Monsterrol van het Enkhuizer schip de „Mercurius", dd. 19 Juni 1595, tevens nominatieve staat der opvarenden . 228
IX. Uittreksels uit Purchas' „Hakluytus Posthumus" (His Pil- grimes), houdende gegevens omtrent aanteekeningen van Willem Barents 229

Bij lagen betrekking hebbende op de derde reis, 1596—1597.

I. Bezoldigingen. Uitrusting der schepen. Schafting . . 233
II. Resolutie van Amsterdam, uitlovende 25000 Gld. belooning op het vinden van den doortocht naar China en Indië . 235
III. Resolutie van de Staten Generaal, eveneens uitlovende 25000 Gld
IV. Extract-journaal van Willem Barents, boekstavende de ontdekking van Beren-Eiland en van Spitsbergen (in fransche vertaling) 237
V. Verklaring van Jan Cornelisz Rijp, boekstavende de ont-dekking van Beren-Eiland en van Spitsbergen (in fran- sche vertaling) 243 vin BUdz.
VI. Verklaring van Theunisz Claesz omtrent idem (in fransche vertaling) 245
VIII. Verklaring van Arent Martensz omtrent idem (in fransche vertaling) 247

Bijlagen betrekking hebbende op den afloop der reizen.

I. De in het „Behouden Huys" teruggevonden voorwerpen . 251
II. Staat van de magnetische variaties, waargenomen in 1594, '95) '96 en '97 263
BiBLioGRAPHiE van de „Drie Seylagien" en literatuur over de noordelijke reizen van 1594— 1597, door Dr. C. P. Burger Jr. . 267
Register, door W. C. Muller 325 Platen en kaarten:
Portret van Petrus Plancius, naar W. Delff(uit Scheurleer, Mannen ter Zee) ii

As an example of how detailed the commentary is on these:

Untitled.png

As you can see there is a LOT of information available on the First and Second Expeditions. Even a novice like myself, had little troubling finding that (with the great help of SOS members of course). But when an organization like the Linschoten Vereeniging which at the time of publication was a formidable international organization concludes that the names of the 1596 expedition remain unknown (and that as recent as 1917 when this report was published) I ask again:

How is this possible? And why are we waiting such a long time for any information on how the ship's name was found - especially when the ship has been christened in 2018 already!

Things are terribly vague here - in complete contrast to the first two expeditions.
 
And just in case you think I am all research and no build, the first one of the two bigger lifeboats has been planked.

微信图片_20220508173613.jpg

微信图片_20220508173620.jpg

Now I can start installing the keel, the rudder and tiller, flooring and the seat benches.
 
Of course there is a lot of information available, but refering to a more than 100 years old book does not necessarily show that all info is there or was available at that time. Happily the research has gone further and more information is accessible today, as Gerald’s finding shows. My reaction was more triggered by the ignorance of the Russian ‘researchers’. How is it possible to get money for a project if you are so badly informed…
 
Ab Hoving said:
Of course there is a lot of information available, but refering to a more than 100 years old book does not necessarily show that all info is there or was available at that time. Happily the research has gone further and more information is accessible today, as Gerald’s finding shows. My reaction was more triggered by the ignorance of the Russian ‘researchers’. How is it possible to get money for a project if you are so badly informed…
Click to expand...
Your point is taken Ab! :) ... though I remain skeptical as to why the information that was available at the time of De Veer's publication in 1598 with regards to the first two expeditions was not available for the third one. But be that as it may ... please do me a favour and ask Gerald the next time you speak to him, to reveal his sources! ROTF

It would make me very happy to tick one more box!
 
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Elling Carlsen.

During a voyage to the Arctic Ocean in 1871, Carlsen discovered the lodge of Willem Barentsz on the north-eastern shore of the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya. This winter camp had been used as shelter by Barentsz and his crew on their third voyage in 1597, shortly before Barentsz's death. The lodge had been perfectly preserved when Carlsen found it, and he made a sketch of its construction. He records finding two copper cooking pots, a barrel, a tool chest, clock, crowbar, flute, clothing, two empty chests, a cooking tripod and a number of pictures.[2].

Elling Carlsen had obviously found more than what is listed. The name of Willem Barentsz for one was recorded somewhere in the cabin else how did he know who's cabin it was some 270 years later. Surely the name of the ship he was on is in a log somewhere also from the cabin?? Perhaps an answer lies with further research into Elling Carlsen.
 
It is not really surprising that info on the third expedition was notfound on the same places as for the other two. The third one was a failure. That’s how archives work. Data will get lost or get stored in completely different places. The story of the wintering became popular after a couple of years.
 
@Daniel20:
Carlson did not find the hut undamaged. It was halfway broken up and had suffered from visits by polar bears. The srtory of Barendts’s visit is still very much alive up north. I was in Vardo where I stayed in the Barendts Hotel and there was even a museum. Probably the story of the wintering was famous in Carlson’s time…

Indeed he donated part of his findings to the North Pole Museum in Tromso: part of the Amsterdam flag, a hat (probably from one of the men, not necessarily Barendts’s) and some more small stuff. It can still be seen there.

Barendts’s journal was never found. Not to my knowledge that is. ;-)
 
Ab Hoving said:
@Daniel20:
Carlson did not find the hut undamaged. It was halfway broken up and had suffered from visits by polar bears. The srtory of Barendts’s visit is still very much alive up north. I was in Vardo where I stayed in the Barendts Hotel and there was even a museum. Probably the story of the wintering was famous in Carlson’s time…

Indeed he donated part of his findings to the North Pole Museum in Tromso: part of the Amsterdam flag, a hat (probably from one of the men, not necessarily Barendts’s) and some more small stuff. It can still be seen there.

Barendts’s journal was never found. Not to my knowledge that is. ;-)
Click to expand...
Thank you for your reply Mr. Hoving.
270 years is a long time for nature to leave something completely alone.
 
Daniel20 said:
The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia on Elling Carlsen.

During a voyage to the Arctic Ocean in 1871, Carlsen discovered the lodge of Willem Barentsz on the north-eastern shore of the archipelago of Novaya Zemlya. This winter camp had been used as shelter by Barentsz and his crew on their third voyage in 1597, shortly before Barentsz's death. The lodge had been perfectly preserved when Carlsen found it, and he made a sketch of its construction. He records finding two copper cooking pots, a barrel, a tool chest, clock, crowbar, flute, clothing, two empty chests, a cooking tripod and a number of pictures.[2].

Elling Carlsen had obviously found more than what is listed. The name of Willem Barentsz for one was recorded somewhere in the cabin else how did he know who's cabin it was some 270 years later. Surely the name of the ship he was on is in a log somewhere also from the cabin?? Perhaps an answer lies with further research into Elling Carlsen.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Daniel. Yes you are absolutely correct with regards to the findings of Elling Carlssen. We know that it was Barentsz's hut because of a note that Barentsz had left there.

Items.png
Just some of the recovered objects.

In 1876 the Englishman Charles L.W. Gardiner visited the place where Willem Barentsz had spent the winter (l’Honoré Naber, 1917). He had been urged to do so by the Dutch polar explorer Koolemans Beynen. He arrived at the spot on 29 July, and collected another 112 objects. The most important object in his collection is the warrant: the message signed by Barentsz and Heemskerck to account for the existence of the house to later visitors (de Jonge, 1877).

Also in the above, there is no mention of the ships' names.

Sequence.png

This is the sequence in which explores/researchers have visited Het Behouden Huys. Now what is interesting that according to the latest findings, they have actually conducted a computer drawing of what Het Behouden Huys "really looked like".

HBH.png

So my friend - the search continues. I will not rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top