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

RDN1954 said:
You bet I do!
You've gotten yourself some big shoes to fill now, Heinrich; "conclusive"...
Following with great interest; how this will evolve.
Click to expand...
I knew you would say that - and I am with you. :) Look, I am forever indebted to Ab who got down to the nitty-gritty of the name. I did mention earlier tonight that I find De Zwaan "particularly interesting" and that was before Ab had messaged me. So I think we are all moving towards the same conclusion but from totally different directions.
 
@Ab Hoving Dear Ab. Last question: Gerald did not by any chance say which Admiralty had De Zwaan put up for sale? My rationale is that if it is Zeeland, then we have doubled the chances that Gerald's Zwaan is "our" Zwaan that you have also referred to in your book.
 
Extract from Ab's book: Het Schip van Willem Barents

微信图片_20220512003125.jpg
微信图片_20220512003119.jpg

Translated: illustration 23: Picture 2 from De Veer's journal which depicts the ships from the Second Expedition. De Zwane must be the small "Zeeuwse" Zeeland ship in the middle of the fleet. - Ab Hoving
 
Gerald is convinced that Barendts's Zwaan was not the same ship as the one of the second expedition. He thinks a vlieboot (not a naval but a merchant ship) was purchased and refitted, probably in Edam. The names coincided incidentally.
 
Heinrich said:
I knew you would say that - and I am with you. :) Look, I am forever indebted to Ab who got down to the nitty-gritty of the name. I did mention earlier tonight that I find De Zwaan "particularly interesting" and that was before Ab had messaged me. So I think we are all moving towards the same conclusion but from totally different directions.
Click to expand...
This story is so b....y intriguing and I can't help myself being interested. The story of Willem Barentsz was taught to us at elementary school. One had to learn, by heart of course, the year, the location and of course of "het behouden huis". The various posts in this log from various contributors make this history come to live, still with many details hidden in the shrouds of history, including the name of Barentsz's ship.
 
Ab Hoving said:
Gerald is convinced that Barendts's Zwaan was not the same ship as the one of the second expedition. He thinks a vlieboot (not a naval but a merchant ship) was purchased and refitted, probably in Edam. The names coincided incidentally.
Click to expand...
Thank you very much Ab.
Ab Hoving said:
Gerald is convinced that Barendts's Zwaan was not the same ship as the one of the second expedition. He thinks a vlieboot (not a naval but a merchant ship) was purchased and refitted, probably in Edam. The names coincided incidentally.
Click to expand...
1594.png

1594 Voyage

1595.png

1595 Voyage

I checked again - As you can see, according to Jan Huyghen van Linschoten De Zwaan from Veere Zeeland WAS a Vlieboot! If Gerald is dismissing De Zwaan from Zeeland on the premise of De Veer calling it a jacht, he is making the same mistake that De Veer made. Van Linschoten was the chief merchant on both these trips and was reporting directly to Balcheron Moucheron - he would have made absolutely sure that his facts were straight.
 
RDN1954 said:
This story is so b....y intriguing and I can't help myself being interested. The story of Willem Barentsz was taught to us at elementary school. One had to learn, by heart of course, the year, the location and of course of "het behouden huis". The various posts in this log from various contributors make this history come to live, still with many details hidden in the shrouds of history, including the name of Barentsz's ship.
Click to expand...
Johan yes. As I have mentioned to other members, this has progressed way beyond the build of a model. This research has given me a tremendous sense of satisfaction and I actually feel as if I am making a worthwhile contribution towards this piece of history. And the reason why there is such a mystery about the third trip, is because researchers have for centuries followed De Veer's journals and tried to get the answers from that. And I can tell you without any fear of being wrong that De Veer's accounts are flawed and they are flawed badly. Heck, he wasn't even on the first trip. So when I was follwing De Veer's journals, I was butting my head against the same old obstacles.

But then you also have to understand why De Veer's accounts were flawed. He was never a scholar - and as a child he was paid by his grandmother to tell her "fantastical stories". So whilst he could relate the story of the overwintering on Nova Zembla with much detail and in an interesting fashion, his recording of facts and figures were doubtful.

However, when I started reading Van Linschoten's accounts, the whole story started to make a lot more sense.
 
@Ab Hoving Ab, Van Linschoten actually puts behind the descriptions of the vlieboten Zwaan & Mercurius, in brackets, the words (thans genaamd jacht) - implying that "jacht" was just a generic term.
 
Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion. A 60 lasts vlieboot is not really the same as a 30 lasts vlieboot. The difference is huge, although some variation in measuring did occur (depending of the type of cargo). And the Zealand admiralty was no longer involved in Arctic voyages. But if the Zealand Zwaan was the ship you want the one to be your model: please go ahead and be my guest, I don't have much more data or proof than you do. :-)
 
Ab Hoving said:
Everybody is entitled to have his own opinion. A 60 lasts vlieboot is not really the same as a 30 lasts vlieboot. The difference is huge, although some variation in measuring did occur (depending of the type of cargo). And the Zealand admiralty was no longer involved in Arctic voyages. But if the Zealand Zwaan was the ship you want the one to be your model: please go ahead and be my guest, I don't have much more data or proof than you do. :)
Click to expand...
Thank you Ab for your input - it is as always very much appreciated. I want to make it clear that I have no preference for any name. I am looking at facts only:

The Facts are::

De Veer says 30 last - De Zwaan was 40 last for the 1595 trip. You taught me not to dismiss a ship on varying lasts.
De Zwaan was a good-performing ship and at the end of the 1595 journey, remained the only ship to have reached the Kara Zee.
For the 1595 expedition, De Zwaan was re-fitted for polar expeditions, thus eliminating the need for further costly preparations for the 1596 trip.
Barentsz would have been very well aware of all of the above.
The fact that Zeeland was no longer involved in arctic journeys, may have been the exact reason for putting it up for sale.
At the back of your book you have the bestek of what Barentsz ship could have looked like.
In the Zeeuws Archief there are two "bestekken boekjes" of the Zwaan, written by her captain, Lambertsz Gerrit Oom, in 1595.

Conclusion:

If his bestekken could be compared to yours, the Zeeland Zwaan could either be discounted or not; but not before that time.
 
"I think that writers of today's books and model makers attach just a little too much value to the words that were used, in practice as well as in professional language, by sailors of earlier centuries. I think the vocabulary of those sailors was not as set in stone as ours is today. These words undoubtedly received somewhat different definitions at different times and received somewhat different definitions in different countries."

The above is taken from a recent post from a different build log here on SOS and I felt it may be appropriate to this discussion. Different languages and their translation has always, and still is, confusing at times. It's difficult even today let alone from hundreds of years past.
 
rtibbs said:
"I think that writers of today's books and model makers attach just a little too much value to the words that were used, in practice as well as in professional language, by sailors of earlier centuries. I think the vocabulary of those sailors was not as set in stone as ours is today. These words undoubtedly received somewhat different definitions at different times and received somewhat different definitions in different countries."

The above is taken from a recent post from a different build log here on SOS and I felt it may be appropriate to this discussion. Different languages and their translation has always, and still is, confusing at times. It's difficult even today let alone from hundreds of years past.
Click to expand...
Ron I certainly believe language has the potential to be problematic at times, but here I honestly think it does not play a role. I am only dealing with Dutch, so you quickly learn to pick up the variations, because essentially it is all maritime technology and linguistics at play. Here, the challenge lies in what is available?, is it correct? (something which is always doubtful unless proven)? and then is it applicable. Like Ab said, can we use Witsen's interpretations of the seventeenth century to apply to ships built in the sixteenth century? But to me, the big issue is simply logistics. If I had been in the Netherlands now and could have visited the archives in person, it would have made things so much easier.
 
Now we are talking ... Nothing has changed - Just as effective as they were 427 years ago, just as effective are they today. Within 24 hours of my e-mail to the Zeeland archives, I have my answer.

Zeeuws.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top