• Beginning at 5:00AM PST (13:00 UTC) on Friday February 14th, all services in the Los Angeles, California, USA Data Center will be offline to perform a Data Center Migration. Due to the nature of this migration, we anticipate up to 24 hours of downtime to safely complete this work. Please be patient during this time and thank you for being a valuable member of our community.

Samuel 1650 – a Dutch mid-17th century trader

.​

For readers who do not realise how much is at stake in this whole “game”, I would like to clarify that the general conclusions expressed in the above post, and resulting from the analysis of source materials, incidentally much ignored or not investigated properly so far, imply, to a large extent, the annihilation of the existing perception of the evolution of early modern naval architecture, expressed in perhaps thousands of works, and for many decades by generations of scholars and less ‘official’ authors as well.

For those better versed in the subject, it will be shown below, using the example of the French transport ship La Belle 1684 (or rather its equivalent – the fluit Le Profond 1685, designed according to the same principles), how the hitherto desperate lack of recognition in general and, in particular, of defining the ‘’omnipresent‘’ after all, North Continental/Dutch method, has negatively affected the conceptual interpretation of this wreck in an otherwise valuable monograph published by Texas University Press in 2017 (La Belle. The Archaeology of a Seventeenth-Century Ship of New World Colonization), and in an equally valuable monograph on this ship published by Ancre in 2000 (Cavelier de La Salle. L'Expédition de 1684. La Belle).

In the first of these publications, the process of generating the frame contours is presented as follows (concept and illustration by Taras Pevny):


La Belle 1684 - generating frames - Taras Pevny.jpg


In the above interpretation, the most important part of the hull – the „flat”, is left unexplained or undefined at all. The bilge curves are depicted as arcs of a circle, as geometrical continuation of the futtock sweeps, and the resulting inconsistency with the actual contours of the wreck's frames was simply justified by some contrived anomalies. And then it stops. In the second publication mentioned, the process is presented in a perhaps even less satisfactory manner.

Edit: Not only that, the alternative interpretation of this shipwreck, sporting identified design diagonals, in the monograph by Texas University Press, as representative of the classical Mediterranean method of ship design, is already a complete misunderstanding.

In reality, it is precisely another developmental variation of the North Continental/Dutch method, but already using design diagonals, just entering into common use in ship design. One of these two diagonals, the lower one, replaces the hitherto traditional line of the ‘flat’ , and the other diagonal, the upper one, is in a sense the equivalent of the ‘boeisel’ line (though not quite), anyway used to form futtock sweeps. In this particular design sub-variant, as in any other in the North Continental/Dutch method, it is the ‘flat’ which is formed first, and only then it is connected to the futtock sweeps, in this case necessarily via elliptical curves, as shown in the diagram below.


Le Profond 1685.jpg


.​
 
Last edited:
For readers who do not realise how much is at stake in this whole “game”, I would like to clarify that the general conclusions expressed in the above post, and resulting from the analysis of source materials, incidentally much ignored or not investigated properly so far, imply, to a large extent, the annihilation of the existing perception of the evolution of early modern naval architecture, expressed in perhaps thousands of works, and for many decades by generations of scholars and less ‘official’ authors as well.
And this is exactly why I say that your work marks the single most significant aspect of earlier Dutch naval research to date.

My key takeaways here are:

1. The analysis of source materials has not been properly researched - or even worse - ignored altogether. And to this I would like to add, seemingly in favour of a "general" set of "rules and/or parameters" which was only published at much later date.

2. As a result of source materials not being properly researched or ignored, the existing perception of early modern naval architecture is based on nothing more than hypotheses and assumptions which makes nonsense of a large portion of findings which have so far been regarded as gospel.

3. Leaving the flat portion of La Belle's hull unexplained or undefined and merely using diagonals as a means of connecting the futtock sweeps to the keel, ignores the basic foundation of the hull which, in turn, is instrumental as to the how the actual shape of the hull is formed. The fact that two "academic" publications on the subject are both guilty of the same omissions, is disturbing to say the least.
 
Last edited:
.​
That´s interesting! Could there be a certain similarity between this and the heavy Chaillie-fregate, which you already described?


Ara? How did you miss the recent, embarrassing carpet bombing on this thread of quite silly entries by members of, say, the Fellowship of the Ring? :)

To your question, I'll answer this way — can the administrators, in between warnings about closing my threads and removing my entries in other users' threads, change the thread title ‘French heavy frigate of 1686 - designing a ship in the Dutch(?) manner by graphic means’ to ‘French heavy frigate of 1686 – designing a ship in the Dutch manner’. Thank you.

Also, please note that there are a dozen more of my other threads on this forum about designing in the North Continental/Dutch method. The former ones may not be quite perfect yet, as breaking free from anachronistic orthodoxy must of necessity have taken some time, but the later ones I already consider quite good.

:)

.​
 
.​



Ara? How did you miss the recent, embarrassing carpet bombing on this thread of quite silly entries by members of, say, the Fellowship of the Ring? :)

To your question, I'll answer this way — can the administrators, in between warnings about closing my threads and removing my entries in other users' threads, change the thread title ‘French heavy frigate of 1686 - designing a ship in the Dutch(?) manner by graphic means’ to ‘French heavy frigate of 1686 – designing a ship in the Dutch manner’. Thank you.

Also, please note that there are a dozen more of my other threads on this forum about designing in the North Continental/Dutch method. The former ones may not be quite perfect yet, as breaking free from anachronistic orthodoxy must of necessity have taken some time, but the later ones I already consider quite good.

:)

.​
Hi Waldemar,

Changed it for you because you asked so nicely :-)
 
.​
Changed it for you because you asked so nicely :-)

Thank you, Maarten, for an equally nicely prompt handling of the matter, much appreciated. Do you think this generally nice atmosphere here will prompt anyone above to make the expected substantive comments? Sadly, a re-reading of the relevant, pre-publication scholar review of the monograph by Texas University Press does not make me overly optimistic in this regard...

.​
 
.​


Thank you, Maarten, for an equally nicely prompt handling of the matter, much appreciated. Do you think this generally nice atmosphere here will prompt anyone above to make the expected substantive comments? Sadly, a re-reading of the relevant, pre-publication scholar review of the monograph by Texas University Press does not make me overly optimistic in this regard...

.​
Hi Waldemar,

You can allways invite them by putting there blog alias in the post.
Put in in like @-Waldemar- and they will be noticed.
Discussions are always welcome and will help develop the hobby as long as they are friendly and polite.

Ps do you have a link to this monograph of texas university press?
 
Last edited:
.​
Discussions are always welcome and will help develop the hobby as long as they are friendly and polite.

Naturally, one should always be polite to all who are themselves polite to others. At the same time, however, I must warn, or rather confirm, that my personal criteria for politeness are probably a bit more sophisticated than the standard ones, and include not only the so-called ‘fake smile’, but also refraining from manipulation, double standards, insinuation, personal insults, clowning and so on. If these rules are already too difficult for someone to follow, they can simply stay away.


Ps do you have a link to this monograph of texas university press?

There is also a link to the relevant chapter in the monograph by Texas University Press in question. Unlike in the final publication itself, there are also some comments there, from academic peer-reviewers, made before the actual publication (first page and 202–203). However, quite a lot of this may already be considered seriously outdated.


.​
 
.​


Naturally, one should always be polite to all who are themselves polite to others. At the same time, however, I must warn, or rather confirm, that my personal criteria for politeness are probably a bit more sophisticated than the standard ones, and include not only the so-called ‘fake smile’, but also refraining from manipulation, double standards, insinuation, personal insults, clowning and so on. If these rules are already too difficult for someone to follow, they can simply stay away.




There is also a link to the relevant chapter in the monograph by Texas University Press in question. Unlike in the final publication itself, there are also some comments there, from academic peer-reviewers, made before the actual publication (first page and 202–203). However, quite a lot of this may already be considered seriously outdated.


.​
Offcourse politeness is different from culture to culture and from person to person. Being Dutch we are often considered being direct and unpolite. But being direct is not unpolite to us but more being honest. So I guess we understand each other clearly.

This paper I have read a while ago and found it quite interesting. Is the new book adding and updating a lot?
 
.​
This paper I have read a while ago and found it quite interesting. Is the new book adding and updating a lot?

I had only received the book itself (hard copy) a week or two earlier, so there wasn't much time to get through the whole thing. Nevertheless, my initial estimate is that it is a worthwhile work, certainly worth the price.

As for the chapter of particular interest to me (i.e. by Pevny; the copy on academia.edu is perfectly the same as in the hard copy), there's a whole lot of useful, valuable stuff in there too, but just to the exclusion of the most important, truly fundamental conclusions. Because, after all, it is not even a matter of determining the dimensions or shapes of a ship with one-centimetre accuracy, or even the run of its design lines in the most accurate way possible, but precisely the most important thing is the correct recognition of the design method used.

The imperative of correctly recognizing the design method cannot be overestimated in this case, because such artefacts are scarce, and it so happens that until now even French historians (including the incomparable Jean Boudriot) have spread their hands helplessly when it comes to how ships were designed/built on the Atlantic coast of France in this early period.

Now, taking into consideration the frigate by Chaillé of 1686, already recognised in this conceptual sense, and some surviving designs by Hubacs from around 1680, this overall picture is beginning to clear up, clearly pointing to the North Continental/Dutch method.

.​
 
.​
Is the new book adding and updating a lot?


My goodness... I have just (partially) read the content of the chapter on the competing, so much misguided (Mediterranean) conceptual interpretation of La Belle 1684 and at the same time came across the information in the post-publication review in a scholar journal that it was the basis for the proud award of a doctoral degree to its author.

One can hardly even blame this author anymore, who after all claims to have consulted numerous, considered to be the most reputable scholars in the field (beside the peer-review process itself), but under the circumstances, it is probably already many presentations of hobbyist model building shown on a modelling forums that look to be more serious.

At this point, perhaps Heinrich's brief observation seems to be worth repeating:

the existing perception of early modern naval architecture is based on nothing more than hypotheses and assumptions which makes nonsense of a large portion of findings

.​
 
Back
Top