the de liefde out skerries, shetland islesorapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/wp/00/wp000727.pdf · 2013. 5....

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SERVICES IN RELATION TO THE PROTECTION OF WRECKSACT (1973)

DE LIEFDE, OUT SKERRIES, SHETLAND ISLES

UNDESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

Prepared by:

Wessex ArchaeologyPortway HouseOld Sarum Park

SalisburyWILTSHIRE

SP4 6EB

Prepared for:Historic Scotland

Head OfficeHistoric ScotlandLongmore HouseSalisbury Place

EdinburghEH9 1SH

April 2006

Ref: 53111.02q-2

© Wessex Archaeology Limited 2006Wessex Archaeology Limited is a Registered Charity No.287786

De Liefde Undesignated Site Assessment Ref: 53113.02q-2

i


UNDESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENT

REF: 53111.02Q-2

Summary

Wessex Archaeology was commissioned by Historic Scotland to undertake a diver survey ofan Undesignated Site believed to be the wreck of De Liefde. The site lies off the islands ofOut Skerries, Shetland Islands. The work was undertaken as part of the Contract forArchaeological Services in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973).

Operations took place between 16th and 29th August 2005. Diving operations were hamperedby high (up to Gale Force 11) winds, with the result that it was not possible to extensivelysurvey the area of the known and suspected wreckage.

The wreck site of De Liefde is believed to lie in at least two sections, the original discovery,termed the Inshore Site, was made in 1964. Since it’s discovery the Inshore Site has beensubjected to extensive salvage, with some archaeological recording. A recently discoveredsection of wreckage, termed the Offshore Site, is the subject of a licence application by Mr R.A. Price. The location of this site is not known, and contact details for Mr. Price (other than apostal address in Perthshire) were not available to WA.

Diver survey, and research conducted in the Shetlands have determined that following itsinitial discovery, the major block of salvage work on the Inshore Site involved the use ofexplosives to remove concretions from the seabed. Thereafter a section of the seabed that wasbelieved to derive from a collapsed cliff was also broken up using explosives, and removedwith the aid of a Naval Cutter.

Coins and small artefacts were recovered from both areas. The WA diver survey in the area ofthis early salvage revealed no archaeological finds or deposits in this area. This appears toconfirm reports that suggest that this site has been so heavily ‘worked over’ that furtherdiscovery of anything other than stray finds is unlikely.

Without a position to work on, finding and diving on the Offshore Site was problematic. Itwas reported to WA that Mr Price had left the islands two days before WA arrived, and thegeneral position of his diving activities was indicated. Exploratory diver searches in thereported area of his activities failed to reveal any archaeological material. Further, it was feltthat diving ‘blind’ in this manner was unlikely to be productive – there were numerouspossible targets on the vessel’s echo-sounder (too many to dive in the time available). Also,the area is heavily dredged for scallops - an activity that tends to cover over objects on theseabed.

As a result the recommendations are as follows: there is no evidence to suggest that there aresufficient remains within the area of the Inshore Site to warrant designation under theProtection of Wrecks Act (1973). The location of the Offshore Site is not known, andtherefore until the site is available for archaeological survey it is not possible to commentupon its suitability for designation.


ii


UNDESIGNATED SITE ASSESSMENTREF: 53111.02Q-2

Acknowledgements

This investigation was commissioned by Historic Scotland and the assistance provided byAndrew Burke of Historic Scotland is gratefully acknowledged

Wessex Archaeology would also like to thank the following people:

• Pete Pritchard of Pritchard Diving services who acted as diving supervisor and providedinvaluable local knowledge;

• Callum Irvine, skipper of the MV Hegrie for excellent support and technical assistance;• Mrs Anna Henderson and the people of Out Skerries for their support and warm

welcome.

The fieldwork was carried out by Margaret Christie, Hanna Steyne and Frank Mallon ofWessex Archaeology and by Pete Pritchard of Pritchard Diving Services. The report wascompiled by Frank Mallon, with contributions from Margaret Christie, and Kitty Brandonprepared the illustrations. The project was managed for Wessex Archaeology by SteveWebster.

Data Licences

The chart used in Figure 1 was obtained from the UK Hydrographic Office. The followingnotice applies:

This product has been derived, in part, from Crown Copyright Material withthe permission of the UK Hydrographic Office and the Controller of Her

Majesty's Stationary Office (www.ukho.gov.uk) All rights reserved.

NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION.

WARNING: The UK Hydrographic Office has not verified the information within this reportand does not accept liability for the accuracy of reproduction or any modifications madethereafter.

The material derived from the UKHO is subject to licence 820/020220/11 and the conditionson end-users and third parties contained therein. The following charts and wreck requestshave been added to Schedule 1 Annex A: Digital use of Chart 3284 (dated 2002). A copy ofthe report will be sent to UKHO.


iii



Contents

1. ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND.................................................................................. 11.1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. 11.2. BACKGROUND TO THE ASSESSMENT ............................................................................... 12. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES............................................................................................ 12.1. AIMS ................................................................................................................................. 12.2. OBJECTIVES...................................................................................................................... 23. EXISTING SITE DATA ................................................................................................ 2

4. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................................... 3

5. RESULTS ........................................................................................................................ 35.1. SUMMARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY......................................................................... 35.2. WA SURVEY ..................................................................................................................... 66. ASSESSMENT AGAINST STATUTORY CRITERIA.............................................. 76.1. ASSESSMENT SCALE ......................................................................................................... 77. RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 10

8. REFERENCES.............................................................................................................. 12

APPENDIX I: DIVE DETAILS............................................................................................ 13

APPENDIX II: SHORT HISTORY OF DE LIEFDE ........................................................ 14

Figures

Figure 1 De Liefde Site Location

Plates

Plate 1 Southern Dregging Geo, main inshore sitePlate 2 Seabed in deeper water looking NW from main inshore sitePlate 3 Seabed in deeper water looking SW from main inshore sitePlate 4 Seabed in the mouth of the Southern GeoPlate 5 Diving on the inshore sitePlate 6 Post to aid artefact recoveryPlate 7 Remains of the chain mooring

Front Cover Photo: Sunset over the Out SkerriesBack Cover Photo: Fisherman’s hut


1



1. ASSESSMENT BACKGROUND

1.1. INTRODUCTION

1.1.1. This document constitutes an Undesignated Site Assessment Report for a programmeof archaeological work undertaken as part of the Contract for ArchaeologicalServices in Relation to the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). This document has beenprepared by Wessex Archaeology (WA) for Historic Scotland (HS). It constitutes anassessment of De Liefde: an undesignated wreck site off Mio Ness, Out Skerries,Shetland Isles (Figure 1).

1.1.2. The work was conducted in accordance with a Written Scheme of Investigation(WSI) prepared by WA, which was produced as a response to a verbal brief producedby HS.

1.2. BACKGROUND TO THE ASSESSMENT

1.2.1. The wreck site of De Liefde is believed to lie in at least two sections, the originaldiscovery (hereafter termed the Inshore Site) was made in 1964. Since it’s discoverythe Inshore Site has been subjected to extensive salvage, with some archaeologicalrecording. A recently discovered section of a wreck (hereafter termed the OffshoreSite) is the subject of a licence application by Mr R. A. Price. The location of thissite is not known, and contact details for Mr. Price (other than a postal address inPerthshire) were not available to WA.

1.2.2. The relationship between the Inshore Site and the Offshore Site has yet to bedetermined. Likewise, the relationship between De Liefde and the Offshore Site hasyet to be adequately demonstrated.

2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

2.1. AIMS

2.1.1. The overall Aim for the work, as defined in the WSI, was for recording to Level 1b.This level is defined in the following table:


2

Level Type Objective Sub-level Character Scope

1aIndirect(desk-based)

A basic record based on documentary,cartographic or graphic sources, includingphotographic (incl. AP), geotechnical andgeophysical surveys commissioned forpurposes other than archaeology.1 Siteassessment

A recordsufficient toestablish thepresence,position andtype of site. 1b Direct(field)

A basic record based on field observation,walkover survey, diving inspection etc.,including surveys commissionedspecifically for archaeological purposes.

Table 1: Description of recording level 1

2.2. OBJECTIVES

2.2.1. This was further defined, specifying the following objectives:

• Providing an accurate location for the site;• Determine the extent and nature of the seabed remains;• Identify and characterise the main elements of the site;• Assess the remains against the Criteria for Designation.

2.2.2. A secondary task was to ascertain the position of the ‘deeper site’ and the nature,condition and extent of any remains.

3. EXISTING SITE DATA

3.1.1. The position of the Inshore Site is as follows:

• 60º 24.616´ North• 00º 47.712´ West

(WGS 84)

3.1.2. The above position for the Inshore Site represents a centre point of ‘silver gully’, atopographic feature located in the mouth of the Southern Dregging Geo on Mio Ness,Out Skerries (Plate 1). This position was taken from a geo-referenced site plan of thesearch and excavation area from the 1964-1968 seasons reproduced in The LiefdeAdventure (Bax 1974).

3.1.3. Other information available prior to the assessment was as follows:

• 2002: ADU report (02/27);• 1984: Discussion of the salvage operations on the Inshore Site of De Liefde by

the curator of the Shetland museum and conservator of the bulk of theexcavated material (Henderson 1985);

• 1974: Summary of the 1966-1968 excavations in The Liefde Adventure, (Bax1974);

• 1974: Assessment of De Liefde archaeological remains in IJNA 1974, (Baxand Martin 1974).


3

4. METHODOLOGY

4.1.1. A four-person surface supplied diving team was deployed during fieldworkoperations from the diving support vessel MV Hegrie. A one-ton mooring block waslowered on to the seabed in each search area, and a GPS position taken from thispoint.

4.1.2. The mooring block position was used as the start of each seabed search, with thediver attaching a 50m baseline to the block. The diver then conducted circular seabedsearches and relayed measurements and bearings from a wrist-mounted compass.

4.1.3. Digital still photographs were taken using a Canon G2 digital camera in an Ikeliteunderwater housing with a 0.56 wide angle lens. Video images were taken using ahat-mounted single chip Colourwatch Digital Inspection Camera recorded onminiDV tape.

4.1.4. It had been intended to utilise an acoustic diver tracking system to aid seabedsearches and to accurately position archaeological features. Unfortunately the GlobalPositioning System used in conjunction with the diver tracking system experienceddifficulties in maintaining a continuous satellite lock and tracked dives wereunachievable.

4.1.5. Details of the methodologies used during the 2005 PWA survey are detailed in aseparate document (WA 2003).

5. RESULTS

5.1. SUMMARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORY

17115.1.1. De Liefde wrecked after sailing on to reef at Mio Ness, Out Skerries, a few days after

having set sail from Texel on 3rd of November.

1711-17125.1.2. The Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) or Dutch East India Company, sent

salvage vessels to the site but the operation met with limited success, although localtradition says that much was recovered by the islanders.

1720s5.1.3. Jacob Rowe of London conducted diving operations on the site using his patented

diving engine under contract to the VOC to recover material.

1729-355.1.4. Several salvage attempts by various parties, including the noted Shetland ‘wrack

man’ Captain William Irvine, who conducted several rewarding dives on De Liefde,including some dives on the nearby VOC wreck the Kennemerland. Captain Irvineused a similar ‘diving engine’ to that of Jacob Rowe. Exactly what was salvagedduring this early period is unknown, but may account for the fact that in recent timesonly three cannon are known to have been recovered.


4

19005.1.5. Storms threw coins up on to Mio Ness rocks, with some being recovered by local

boys.

19645.1.6. De Liefde became the first VOC wreck to be rediscovered off the British Isles.

During the summer Royal Naval divers from HMS Shoulton located a cast ironcannon on the site and an unknown quantity of coins. During the same summer a MrEric Giles raised the gun. The gun and two silver ducatoons were given to theCounty Museum at Lerwick.

19655.1.7. Brothers John and Peter Bannon organised a salvage expedition to Out Skerries with

the intention of working on the Kennemerland. After having been informed locallyabout the extent of contemporary salvage making recovery of large amounts ofspecie unlikely, they decided to move operations to the Inshore Site of De Liefde.Diving was conducted over a four-day period with around 70 coins being recovered.Plans were then made to conduct a more extensive salvage operation the followingyear.

19665.1.8. A large-scale excavation was conducted on the Inshore Site with operations being

directed for part of the time by Lt. Cdr. Alan Bax (Fort Bovisand Underwater Centre,Plymouth). After diving operations had ceased a total of 300 coins had beenrecovered.

19675.1.9. The Bannon brothers then went into partnership with Anthony and Brian Lonsdale

and formed a limited company registered as Scientific Survey and Location Ltd.(SSL). They had also obtained a contract from the Netherlands Government tosalvage the Inshore Site De Liefde on a percentage basis.

5.1.10. Lt. Cdr. Alan Bax of HMS Delight led a large party of naval divers to the site at thestart of the dive season. Some large boulders were removed and around 100 coinsand a few un-named artefacts were recovered.

5.1.11. SSL arrived at the start of August with Owen Gander leading. Salvage workcontinued into September with numerous artefacts and a few hundred coins beingrecovered.

5.1.12. At the end of the SSL salvage season, Owen Gander discovered an intact chest full ofsilver coins. The chest was destroyed during the recovery of the coins. The majorityof finds recovered from this season of excavation were contained within a large,thick concretion, which had many large boulders resting on top of it, possiblyderived from cliff falls.

5.1.13. The excavation involved the removal of large boulders by flotation bags or liftingtackle and the clearing of shingle by hand tools or airlift. Some of the larger rockswere split into manageable masses by ‘the careful use of explosives’. The totalamount recovered during this season of salvage amounted to 4320 silver coins and afew gold ducats, with 3300 of the silver coins having been recovered from the chest.


5

19695.1.14. There was an auction of 332 lots of coins from the Inshore Site (ducats, ducatons and

half ducatons) by Glendining and Co. London.

19725.1.15. Colin Martin visited Shetland and recorded a selection of De Liefde material, with

the results being published in the International Journal of Nautical Archaeology andUnderwater Exploration (Bax and Martin 1974).

19735.1.16. Members of the Aston University Diving team, working on the recently discovered

(1971) wreck of the VOC vessel Kennemerland discovered by chance another wreckduring a pleasure dive. The remains were described as an unknown Dutch vessel andtwo bronze cannon were recovered. There is no exact position for this other site but itmay represent part of the Liefde wreck that is now known to lie in deeper water offthe Inshore Site.

5.1.17. The curator of the Shetland Museum, Mr Tom Henderson, addressed a memorandumto the Zetland County Council (now Shetland Islands Council) stressing his concernregarding the salvage of the Inshore De Liefde site and of other Shetland wrecks. Hisproposal for the Council to lease from the Commissioners of Crown Lands theseabed rights of specified areas in which the more important wrecks lie was acceptedand came into force.

19745.1.18. Richard Price and Keith Muckleroy, on the Out Skerries to excavate the

Kennemerland site, dived the Inshore Site of De Liefde, believing SSL to havediscontinued their interest in salvage operations on the site. They concluded thatthere was much still to be done.

19765.1.19. After informing the Netherlands Government and obtaining the consent of the

controlling authority, Richard Price and Keith Muckelroy spent most of theKennemerland dive season on the Inshore Site of De Liefde. Few artefacts werefound, although 1600 silver coins and 12 gold coins were recovered. SSL thenrenewed its interest in the site.

19785.1.20. SSL raised an action of interdict against Richard Price in the Court of Session, to

prevent his further interference with the Inshore Site of De Liefde, on which theyclaimed exclusive rights. Ruling was postponed. A new salvage operation wasundertaken on behalf of SSL during this season.

19815.1.21. Further postponements to rulings on the interdict continued up to 1981 when, in the

Court of Session at the start of the year, the Judge refused further postponements. Hethen raised the interdict, granting Richard Price freedom to continue his work on theInshore Site of De Liefde.


6

1982 – present5.1.22. Richard Price conducted a successful season, and is understood to have continued

salvage operations up to the present day.

19965.1.23. Two more cannon reported to have been found on the Offshore Site (ADU 2002).

20025.1.24. An ADU site visit also failed to encounter anything of archaeological significance

(ADU 02/27). During this ROV inspection the ADU did not have a position for thedeeper site, so operations were restricted to the Inshore Site, with extensive kelpgrowth hindering this inspection.

20055.1.25. WA conducted diving operations in the area to assess the site for designation.

Nothing of archaeological significance was observed. Richard Price was on OutSkerries up to two days prior to WA’s site visit.

5.2. WA SURVEY

5.2.1. A total of four dives were achieved, with a combined dive time of 130 minutes.Three of these dives were conducted in the deeper water, with the zero point of thesearch area in each point being:

• 340m north-east of ‘silver gully’ in the Inshore Site;• 650m east-north-east of ‘silver gully’ in the Inshore Site;• 450m south-east of ‘silver gully’ in the Inshore Site.

5.2.2. Around each of these points, circular seabed searches were conducted, with amaximum radius of 50m being achieved.

5.2.3. One dive was conducted at the mouth of the Dregging Geo and the diver moved inalong the northern edge of the Geo, and returned along the southern edge.

5.2.4. It had been hoped to conduct further dives but unfortunately, due to excessiveweather conditions, with winds reaching 60mph at times, diving operations wereseverely restricted.

5.2.5. Diving operations were conducted in the reported general position of the OffshoreSite, but nothing was found. Pete Pritchard of Pritchard Diving Services (workingunder contract as part of the WA diving team) had been in contact with the captain ofthe Out Skerries ferry, Mr. Lindsey Brown. Mr. Brown was able to give someindication of the position Mr. Price has been working on in recent years. Thisposition presumably represents that of the Offshore Site, reported to be part of DeLiefde.

5.2.6. Mr. Brown places this Offshore Site relatively close to the Inshore Site (located inDregging Geo on Mio Ness), somewhere in an arc from north-east to south-east,between 150m and 500m away from the original site. It was therefore decided toconduct limited seabed searches within this area in an attempt to locate anyarchaeological remains.


7

5.2.7. Three dives were conducted, one to the north-east in 23m of water, one to the east in26m of water and one to the south-east in 15m of water. Nothing of archaeologicalsignificance was observed during any of these dives.

5.2.8. Evidence of recent scallop dredging was observed both from geophysical evidencevia MV Hegrie’s echo-sounder and from diver observations. The echo-sounderindicated an area of flat seabed and diving investigation showed this to be an area offeatureless seabed, comprising clean white sand with small sand waves, withminimal marine growth. Plate 2, looking north- west from the main inshore, clearlyshows the sand, rock interface, while Plate 3 illustrates the lack of marine growthand the small sand waves, looking south-west from the Inshore Site.

5.2.9. Discussions with a local fisherman and diver (Mr. John Weston pers. Comm.)confirmed that this was an area of recent scallop dredging.

5.2.10. The last dive was conducted east of the mouth of the Geo, with the divercommencing seabed searches at a depth of 24m and c.140m away from the InshoreSite proper and finished the dive at 20m deep c.70m away from the site. Extendingfrom the Geo, which is a narrowing gully in the gneiss that forms the bedrock of OutSkerries, the seabed topography slopes down to a jumble of small rocks and largerboulders (Plate 4). Depths in the Geo vary from 7m to 14m. From the mouth of theGeo moving east down the slope the depth reaches a maximum of 26m, the pointwhere the seabed changes to a flat sandy bottom devoid of marine growth. Plate 5shows diving operations moving into the mouth of the Geo.

5.2.11. It was also possible to walk along the Mio Ness peninsula and look down on top ofthe Inshore Site itself. During one of these walks conducted by a member of the diveteam two posts were observed, hammered firmly into a crevice in the cliff (Plate 6).It is possible that these may have formed part of the winch mechanism used duringthe excavation/salvage operations during the 1960s and 1970s to recover artefactsand remove the rock overburden.

5.2.12. Also discovered during this walk was a long iron bolt driven into the lower face ofcliff within the southern Geo and which would probably have formed part of thechain mooring for salvage vessels working on the site during the initial 1964-1968seasons (Plate 7).

6. ASSESSMENT AGAINST STATUTORY CRITERIA

6.1. ASSESSMENT SCALE

6.1.1. For each criterion, one of the following draft grades has been selected. This has beendone on an experimental basis to help assess the relative importance of the criteria asthey apply to the sites. Feedback will be sought with regard to the usefulness of thisgrading scheme.

6.1.2. The following categories are ‘scored’ in accordance with the following scale:


8

• Uncertain - Insufficient evidence to comment;• Not Valuable - This category does not give the site any special importance;• Moderately Valuable - This category makes the site more important than the

average wreck site, but not exceptional;• Highly Valuable - This category gives the site a high degree of importance. A

site that is designated is likely to have at least two criteria graded as highlyvaluable;

• Extremely Valuable - This category makes the site exceptionally important.The site could be designated on the grounds of this category alone.

Period6.1.3. Moderately Valuable. The Verenigde Oostindische Compagnie (VOC) or Dutch East

India Company began trading in 1602 and ceased trading as a company in 1800.During the 17th and 18th centuries the Dutch East Indies trade was at its peak, and thewreck of the De Liefde represents archaeological evidence of this trade.

Rarity6.1.4. Moderately Valuable. During the lifetime of the VOC over 1500 vessels were built

by or for the company, which completed over 8000 voyages. To date there areknown to be around 650 VOC wreck sites world-wide, with 30 of these being locatedin the UK, five of which are to be found in the Shetland Isles. A further six areknown to have been lost around the Shetland Islands but have yet to be relocated.

6.1.5. There are examples of similar VOC vessels to the De Liefde within UK waters, sothe vessel cannot be considered particularly rare. However, it is representative of afamous merchant vessel type that has to date been largely exploited for their financialartefactual wealth rather than their historic and representative value. Located VOCvessels can be considered as rare, and archaeologically excavated and publishedVOC wrecks are rarer still.

Documentation6.1.6. Highly Valuable. There are extensive contemporary records for most of the VOC

vessels and related trading activities, as well as contemporary accounts of salvageoperations conducted on behalf of the VOC on various sunken company vessels.Some of these records relate to the De Liefde, including reports being published inthe Amsterdam Courant of the wrecking and salvage attempts. There are also someVOC accounts regarding the wrecking and salvage attempts (see Appendix II).

6.1.7. There has been some limited publication relating to the salvage work conducted onthe site since its discovery in 1964, but a comprehensive record of recoveredarchaeological material does not exist. There is no published documentation thatcovers all of the salvage operations, although the Receiver of Wreck has receivedvarious submissions regarding material recovered in various seasons by a variety ofpersons.

Group Value6.1.8. Highly Valuable. The wreck site of De Liefde lies less than three miles from the

Designated Historic wreck site, the Kennemerland, another VOC vessel lost on OutSkerries in 1664. Also, De Liefde was part of a large Dutch convoy that had sufferedseveral losses as she tried to clear the Out Skerries, with at least seven other vesselsknown to have been lost on the same night as De Liefde.


9

6.1.9. There are two other known VOC (or VOC related) wreck sites on or near theShetland Islands:

• Lastdragger, lost on Yell in 1653;• Curacao, Dutch man-of-war, lost off Unst while on convoy protection duty

for returning VOC vessels.

6.1.10. Other known East Indiamen wreck sites on or near the Shetland Islands include:

• Vendela, Danish East Indiaman, lost on Fetlar in 1737;• Stockholm, Swedish East Indiaman, lost at Dunrossness in 1745;• Concordia, Danish East Indiaman, lost on Cunningsburgh in 1786.

6.1.11. In addition to the VOC connection the wreck of the De Liefde must be seen as part ofa wider group of wrecks of all dates, types and nationalities within the Shetlands, thatform an important part of the areas maritime heritage.

Survival / Condition6.1.12. Uncertain. As observed during the WA visit, the wreck site of De Liefde is extremely

vulnerable to south-easterly and easterly gales and this will undoubtedly have hadsome bearing on the survivability of ship structure on the Inshore Site. Delicateartefacts have been recovered during the various salvage operations on the InshoreSite, but these were invariably protected in large mats of iron concretion. In someinstances these concretions were broken up into manageable blocks with explosives,with hand tools being used to free artefacts from these smaller blocks.

6.1.13. Where archaeological objects do remain on the Inshore Site (i.e. where they haveescaped the attention of the various salvours), they are likely to be protected under orwithin these mats of concretion, or under areas of rock collapse. There is also thepossibility for some artefacts to be found in the small sand filled crevices along theslope down from the Inshore Site to the flat sandy seabed in deeper water.

6.1.14. It is not possible to comment on the survivability and/or condition of remains on theOffshore Site as nothing of archaeological significance was encountered duringseabed searches. However, as the seabed in the vicinity of the deeper wreck site isalso likely to be sand, there is a good chance of survivability of ship structure and/ordelicate artefacts (where these elements are covered by sand).

6.1.15. Any upstanding or exposed artefacts are likely to have been eroded by tidalmovements, with sand particles borne in strong currents or storm swells having astrong abrasive action.

Fragility/Vulnerability6.1.16. Uncertain. WA is unable to comment on the fragility of archaeological remains on

either site as nothing was observed during diving operations.

6.1.17. It may be assumed that the Inshore Site has a low level of vulnerability as there islikely to be little of archaeological significance remaining. The extensive salvagesessions have recovered large quantities of artefacts and coins, with delicate artefactssuch as the wooden chest containing the 3300 coins being destroyed during theirremoval shortly after having been discovered in 1967.


10

6.1.18. The deeper site is likely to be highly vulnerable. It has been noted locally that scallopdredging has occurred in the general vicinity. Evidence of this dredging wasobserved during diving operations.

6.1.19. The salvage methodology may also have an adverse effect on any remains on thedeeper site. As no archaeological reports for the Inshore Site or the Offshore Sitehave been published in recent times (i.e. less than ten years prior to the 2005 sitevisit), it is not possible to comment on this salvage methodology.

Diversity6.1.20. Moderately Valuable. The wreck of De Liefde represents one of the 1500 armed

merchant vessels built by the VOC during its 200 year history. As De Liefde sankduring the height of VOC trading operations in the early 18th century, it may beconsidered as a fairly common example of a Dutch East Indiaman workhorse.

6.1.21. From early in its existence the VOC attempted to standardise the sizes of its vessels,and by 1640 gave ship specifications according to length rather than the system oflasts (a formula for calculating tonnage) and gradually took more control overvessels' specifications from individual shipwrights. Modifications in the size andform of VOC vessels continued throughout the company's 200 year history, changingto smaller standard rates in the 18th century, and bringing in alterations to thestrength of framing, stern shape, sheer and rigging. Company directors broughtshipwrights from England to Amsterdam in 1727, illustrating a willingness to adoptnew ideas in vessel construction for the 'standard' VOC vessel types.

6.1.22. Clearly, while there was a standardisation of VOC ships from an early stage, there isreason to believe that some degree of diversity can be attributed to VOC vessels fromdifferent times during the company's existence.

Potential6.1.23. Uncertain. A low level of potential can be expected for the Inshore Site, given the

extensive salvage seasons, both in contemporary and more recent times.

6.1.24. As the deeper site may consist of vessel structure there is likely to be a high level ofarchaeological potential. Whilst only one cannon has been found from the InshoreSite (there is also a VOC stamped breech block in the Shetland Islands Museum),there have reportedly been up to four found on the Offshore Site. Two bronze cannonwere recovered by the Aston University Diving Club in 1973 (possibly from theOffshore Site), with two more cannon reported to have been found in 1996 (ADU2002).

6.1.25. It is possible that these cannon may have been pinning down sections of the hull,with the increased weight burying the structure in the sediment. If this hypothesis canbe proven to be true then there will be an increased potential for the survivability ofarchaeological remains which may be contained within this sediment.

7. RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1.1. There is no evidence to suggest that there are sufficient remains within the area of theInshore Site to warrant designation under the Protection of Wrecks Act (1973). Thelocation of the Offshore Site is not known, and until the site is available for


11

archaeological survey it is not possible to comment upon its suitability fordesignation.

7.1.2. Given the amount of explosives used during the years of salvage and the tons ofmaterial reported to have been moved from this area there is little expectation offinding any major artefacts. The highly dynamic nature of the site, exposed at the tipof a headland that has a very strong tidal run between it and the neighbouring islandof North Benlip and sandwiched between two nearby tidal overfalls, also suggeststhat preservation of wreck material in the area is likely to be slight.

7.1.3. A dialogue with Mr. Richard Price is required before the assessment of the OffshoreSite can proceed. The exact position of the deeper site needs to be obtained, and Mr.Price remains the best option for acquiring this information.

7.1.4. Failing that, a small scale geophysical survey (e.g. side-scan sonar andmagnetometry) appears to be the best available means of identifying the OffshoreSite. As it is known to be relatively close to the Inshore Site this survey could beconducted quite quickly, and would greatly aid diving operations.

7.1.5. Once the exact position is known diving investigation will be required. It has yet tobe proven that the Offshore Site has any direct relationship with the Inshore Site, andit remains a possibility that it represents another of the recorded VOC or other losseswithin the area.

7.1.6. If the Offshore Site proves to be part of De Liefde then designation must beconsidered, depending on the extent of degradation to the site from salvage, dredgingand other marine processes. If the site cannot be positively identified as being part ofDe Liefde wreck site it may still be a possible candidate for designation, dependingon its nature and extent.

7.1.7. Of secondary importance would be the compilation of all the data pertaining to workconducted on the site. Several parties have conducted various salvage/excavations onboth the Inshore and Offshore Site, little of which has been published.


12

8. REFERENCES

ADU, 2002, Site visit report (ROV inspection), ADU 02/27.

Bax, A and Martin, C.J.M., 1974, ‘De Liefde a Dutch East Indiaman lost on the OutSkerries, in 1711’, in International Journal of Nautical Archeaology 3.1: 81-90.

Bax, A., 1974, The Liefde Adventure, Buried and Sunken Treasure, London .

Bax, A., and Gill, J., 1978, Liefde – VOC, privately published.

Cherry, J., 1968, ‘Post-Medieval Britain in 1967: Wrecks’, in Post MedievalArchaeology 2, 1968.

Glendining’s and Co., 1969, ‘Coins of the Netherlands recovered from the DutchEast Indiaman De Liefde’, in Auction report.

Henderson, T., 1985, ‘Shipwreck and Underwater Archaeology’, in ShetlandArchaeology, Lerwick.

Hurst, D.G., 1975, ‘Post-Medieval Britain in 1974: Wrecks’, in Post MedievalArchaeology 9, 1975.

Martin, C.J.M, 1998, ‘Scotland’s Historic Shipwrecks’.

Muckelroy, K (ed.), 1980, Archaeology under water: An Atlas of the World’sSubmerged Sites.

http://www.vocshipwrecks.nl/, Description of the wrecking of De Liefde.

Wessex Archaeology, 2003, ‘Archaeological Services in Relation to the Protectionof Wrecks Act (1973): Recording Methodologies’, Unpublished Report Ref:53111.04a.


13

APPENDIX I: DIVE DETAILS

Date Diver Depth Current Duration Visibility Time in Time out20/08/05 Christie 23m Slack 37mins 10m+ 11:18 12:0020/08/05 Pritchard 14m Slack 29mins 10m+ 19:07 19:4221/08/05 Christie 26m Slack 33mins 10m+ 12:06 12:3922/08/05 Christie 24m Slack 31m 10m+ 12:48 13:28


14

APPENDIX II: SHORT HISTORY OF DE LIEFDE

Built: 1698, VOC boatyard, Amsterdam.Type: Dutch East Indiaman.Dimensions: Length: 150ft, Beam: 40 feet (Amsterdam feet).

In English feet, the approximate measurements would be:Length: 166ft (50m), Beam: 44ft (13m).

Tonnage: 250 lasten: the last being approximately equal to 2 tons (2000kg).Lost: Sank after striking a reef at Mio Ness, Out Skerries, during a storm during the

night of 3rd November 1711.Cargo: Ordnance: 10 iron 12-pounders, 2 bronze 8-pounders, 18 iron 8-pounders, and

10 smaller guns (the latter including bassen, small breech-loading swivel guns).Complement: 300.Location: Inshore Site: Dregging Geo, Mio Ness, Out Skerries, Shetland Islands.

Second site: thought to lie in deeper water in the general vicinity of the InshoreSite but precise position unknown.

The VOC owned three ships called De Liefde (The Love): the first was lost near Japan in1600 and the second was wrecked at Baios de Padua in 1668, on her way home from Persia.

The third De Liefde was on her fourth voyage, with the intention of sailing around the Cape,Ceylon and on to Batavia, when she sank during the first leg after she struck the reef at MioNess, Out Skerries. For this fourth voyage she was commanded by Barent Muijkens and had acrew of 300, of which around 100 were VOC soldiers. De Liefde left Amsterdam in lateOctober 1711 and made her way to Texel, where she took on the bulk of her heavy cargo andstores. On 3rd November she set out with two smaller VOC vessels, the Mossel and theKockenge.

They then joined other vessels to form a convoy up the North Sea, using the ‘achter om’ ornorth about route. The other ships contained within this convoy were heading to differentdestinations: two or three East Indiamen, several West Indiamen, ships for North Russia, forPortugal, and for the Mediterranean. They would have tried to keep together until well pastthe Shetlands Islands, until dispersing and moving on to their intended destinations.

This longer route was often easier in the winter than forcing their way up the English Channelagainst prevailing winds, but the main reason why this route was chosen by Dutch vessels wasdue to the extent of enemy activity in the Channel. In 1711 the War of Spanish Successionwas still underway, with French privateers practically bringing Dutch trade to a halt. Thisconvoy of November 1711 was intended to break this ‘blockade’.

By the time the convoy had reached the Shetland Islands they found themselves in the grip ofa storm, with part of the convoy too far to the west. At least seven vessels were lost, perhapsmore. Not all the names of those vessels lost are known. Those that we do have details forare:

• De Liefde, lost on Mio Ness, Out Skerries;• The Weresteyn, on voyage for Cape of Good Hope;• Two other vessels, possibly West Indiamen, lost on the ‘blind rocks’ south-

east of Whalsay, possibly the Fladdicap.


15

A later report in the Amsterdam Courant states that seven rudders and the stern castle of oneship were seen among the floating wreckage.

News of the disaster reached the VOC’s Court of Directors (Heeren XVII) in a dispatch fromLerwick, presumably by the masters of the Mossel and the Kockenge who would have been inposition to witness the aftermath of the wrecking.

The Resolution Book of the Amsterdam Chamber of the VOC records the event as follows:‘From letters we received from Laarwijk (Lerwick) in Hitland (Shetland) on 17th and 29thDecember last, we learned that the Company’s ships which had sailed from Texel on 3rdNovember ran into a bad storm off Hitland, as a result of which one of them, De Liefde, waswrecked by sailing on to a reef named Mioni (Mio Ness) off Uutscheren (Out Skerries). Therewas only one survivor, the shipwreck was not far from shore, and the bow of the ship wasunder water.’

This one survivor was the lookout stationed in the fore-top who, when the ship struck,scrambled out over a yard and managed to drop on to the cliffs.

The VOC later sent two small salvage craft, the Arent and the Otter, in an attempt to recoverthe considerable quantity of specie known to have gone down with the wreck.

The above summary history of De Liefde has been adapted from Shipwreck and UnderwaterArchaeology in Shetland (Henderson 1985) and from the definitive web site on the history ofVOC shipwrecks and voyages: http://www.vocshipwrecks.nl/.

De Liefde site location

WessexArchaeology

Date: Revision Number:

Scale: Illustrator:

Path:

Figure 1

(WGS. 84)

Position for Site:60 24.616' N 00 47.712' W

07/04/05 0

KJB1:1,500,000,1:40,000

U:\Projects\53111\Drawing Office\.Report Figures\2005\z30_De Liefde

De Liefde

This product has been derived, in part, from Crown Copyright Material with the permission of the UK Hydrographic Office and theController of Her Majesty's Stationary Office (www.ukho.gov.uk) All rights reserved. (Wessex Archaeology Licence Number 820/020220/11)NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATIONWARNING: The UK Hydrographic Ofice has not verified the information within this product and does not accept liability for the accuracy ofreproduction or any modifications made thereafter.

Admiralty Chart 3284 (2002)

ShetlandIslands Out Skerries

cover.pdfPage 1Page 2

Plates_A4.pdfPage 1Page 2Page 3Page 4

the de liefde out skerries, shetland islesorapweb.rcahms.gov.uk/wp/00/wp000727.pdf · 2013. 5....

Documents