The Tune Viking Ship Reconsidered

The Tune Viking ship has been a riddle for more than 150 years, since being found within a burial in the Oslo fjord area in 1867. It was long thought that the ship's freeboard was too low for it to have crossed the North Sea. Advances in documentation methods and a detailed study of the preserved parts of the ship have provided new data, and this article outlines a new proposal for how the ship looked when it was built in the early 10th century AD. The Tune ship is reinterpreted as a seagoing vessel, in no way inferior to the Oseberg or Gokstad Viking ships. El barco vikingo de Tune reconsiderado El barco vikingo de Tune ha sido un acertijo durante más de 150 años, desde que fue hallado en el fiordo de Oslo en 1867. Largamente se pensó que el francobordo del barco era muy bajo para que hubiese cruzado el Mar del Norte. Avances en los métodos de documentación y el estudio detallado de los componentes preservados del barco han proveído nuevos datos. Este artículo delinea una nueva propuesta a cerca de cómo se veía el barco cuándo fue construido en el siglo X AD temprano. El barco de Tune es reinterpretado como una embarcación de alta mar que de ninguna manera era inferior a los barcos vikingos de Oseberg o Gokstad. Palabras clave: arqueología de barcos, barco de Tune, montículo funerario, Oseberg, Gokstad, escaneo laser, vikingo “杜枭号”维京船的再认识 1867年在奥斯陆峡湾地区的一个墓葬中发现了“杜枭号”维京船。这一百五十多年来, 它一直是一个难解之谜。长期以来, 人们一直认为由于这艘船的干舷太低, 它是无法跨越北海的。文献方法的发展以及对船体留存部分的详细研究提供了新的数据。本文提出了该船在公元10世纪初期建造时外观的新提案。“杜枭号”被重新诠释为一艘远洋船, 其绝不逊色于“奥瑟伯格号”或“戈克斯塔德号”维京船。 关键词:船舶考古学, “杜枭号”, 墓穴, “奥瑟伯格号”, “戈克斯塔德号”, 激光扫描, 维京人。 “杜枭號”維京船的再認識 1867年在奧斯陸峽灣地區的一個墓葬中發現了“杜枭號”維京船。这一百五十多年來, 它一直是一個難解之謎。長期以來, 人們一直認爲由于這艘船的干舷太低, 它是無法跨越北海的。文獻方法的發展以及對船體留存部分的詳細研究提供了新的數據。本文提出了該船在公元10世紀初期建造時外觀的新提案。“杜枭號”被重新诠釋爲一艘遠洋船, 其絕不遜色于“奧瑟伯格號”或“戈克斯塔德號”維京船。 關鍵詞:船舶考古學, “杜枭號”, 墓穴, “奧瑟伯格號”, “戈克斯塔德號”, 激光掃描, 維京人。 In 1867 the Tune ship emerged from the earth of Østfold, making it the first well-preserved Viking ship to be found in the Oslo fjord area. The landowner at Nedre Haugen, Ole Arnesen Haugen, reported the ship discovery at his farm in Rolvsøy (Fig. 1). The ship was named after Tune, a parish in the county of Smaalenen, today in the municipality of Sarpsborg. This article reviews the history of the find, then, based on the author's doctoral research, presents a reconstruction of the ship and discusses its potential as a seagoing vessel (Paasche, 2010). To present a reconstruction of the Tune ship it is first necessary to discuss some of the events surrounding its discovery and the investigations that took place at that time, as the relatively rough treatment the ship received undoubtedly left its mark. The on-site investigations were conducted by civil engineer B. Chr. Arntzen with the assistance of local workers. Oluf Rygh, at that time director of the Oldsaksamlingen (Antiquities Collections) and a newly appointed professor of history, was notified of the find by post in the autumn of 1867 and given responsibility for the excavation. Alongside the letter was the first sketch of the ship, which included an image of the stern, a section, and some details of one of the frames, the mast partner, and the rudder (Fig. 2). Work was completed in 14 days at the end of September and the beginning of October 1867, with a further eight days spent transporting the ship to Oslo (Arntzen, 1868: 3; Brøgger, 1921: 7). This very short period alone indicates that the ship was not handled with care. Among other indications, there are several marks from the spades used to remove clay from the underside of the ship. The excavation was described by Haakon Schetelig in a publication of 1917, again by Shetelig and Brøgger in 1950,11 Schetelig altered his name to ‘Shetelig’ during the Second World War, hence the variation in spelling found in his earlier and later publications. and, most vividly, by Marstrander in a book of 1986. The landowner, Ole Arnesen Haugen, had already begun removing earth from the site in the early 1860s, meaning that the contents of the barrow had been exposed to the air for a substantial period before the ship was discovered and excavated in 1867. This is probably one of the main reasons why the ship's hull is not preserved above its waterline. The earth beneath the ship was mainly clay, and that above was a mixture of humus and sandy soil. The best-preserved parts of the ship lay in the middle of the grave, where the soil was most dense. The extremities of the ship were located at the edge of the mound where the soil or clay layer was thin; this was probably a major reason for the gradual deterioration of the stems. Even though parts of the fore and aft of the ship, both stem and stern, were missing, along with most traces of rig and sail, the central parts of the ship survived including ten strakes on each side, the keel in one piece, keelson with the mast step, a mast fish, 13 floor-timbers with ten of them paired with thwarts, knees, and beams. Except for the thwarts made of pine, the rest was entirely made of oak. The hull is a lapstrake construction with clenched nails joining the planks. The keel is T-shaped and has a transition piece in the aft. The rudder was found lying in the aft of the ship. Cleats were used to lash the planks to the floor-timbers, but the upper knees were fastened with treenails going through the hull from the outside. To get the ship out of the barrow and down to the local river, the Visterflo, a wooden frame was nailed to the underside of the ship. This wooden frame can be seen in the photographs of the Tune ship taken in the university garden, after the ship had arrived in Christiania (Fig. 3). The ship was pulled down to the river with the help of horses from nearby farms. There it was placed on a barge, floated and towed down to the local town of Fredrikstad, and then taken by boat to the capital. The burial mound must have been clearly visible from the river, the lake, and the surrounding region (Fig. 4). After the Tune ship arrived in Christiana, it was temporarily stored in a shed in the university garden. But later that year, the ship was placed in its own building specially designed by the architect Georg Andreas Bull. This building was torn down in 1911 to make way for the University Aula, and the Tune ship was deposited behind another university building at Fredriksgate 3. It reached its present location at the Viking Ship Museum at Bygdøy only in 1932 (Figs 5, 6). Except for treating its exterior with carbolineum (or creosote), turpentine, and linseed oil the ship received no other conservation treatments. Viking Age finds from Haugen farm in Tune and nearby areas are described in a number of archaeological texts (Schetelig, 1917a; Brøgger; 1921; Johansen, 1986; Johansen, 1994). More recent publications are the first volume of Østfolds Historie, which includes a full description of the Tune ship as well as a comprehensive discussion of Viking Age finds from the area (Norseng and Stylegar, 1999), and Jan Bill's discussion of the history of the ship find or finds at Rolvsøy (Bill, 2017). The burial mound at Haugen was approximately 4m high and 80m in diameter (Schetelig, 1917a: 5), making it the second-largest burial mound discovered in Norway to date; only surpassed by Raknehaugen on Romerike (Skre, 1997: 26). The Tune ship sat with its keel at the base of the mound and was oriented almost directly north-south. The remains of a four-sided burial chamber of vertical planks of oak were found in the middle of the barrow. These were set into the clay partially outside the ship's railing. An example of a similar grave chamber is found in Queen Tyra's barrow at Jelling in Denmark (Schetelig, 1917a: 6; Krogh, 1993: 93). In Brøgger's reconstruction drawing, the burial chamber is set into the clay around the ship (Brøgger, 1921: 12). The inside of the ship's hull was covered with a thin layer of moss, and there was residue from juniper branches. The rudder was found lying across the ship's stern, behind the mast. Otherwise, only a few small grave goods are preserved: two glass beads, a piece of carved wood that Schetelig interpreted as part of a saddle, and some simple wooden items. According to the engineer Arntzen, all wooden items were made of oak (Arntzen, 1868: 1). Brøgger and Shetelig describe small wooden items, including animal figures, with carved ornamentation in high relief (Shetelig, 1950: 86). Today, the level of preservation makes it very difficult to recognize these details. There are also records of evidence of iron items too damaged by rust to be saved, including a piece of rolled-up chainmail and a large lump of iron at the southern stem, believed to be the remains of an anchor. Furthermore, excavators discovered the remains of a human skeleton, some preserved remnants of textiles and clothes, and three horse skeletons—one inside and two outside the ship. Additional finds included part of a ski, the remains of a sword, two spearheads, a shield boss, a wooden spade, a wooden lever, and a bung for a barrel (Rygh, 1867: 4; Schetelig, 1917a: 7). Based on the overall composition of the discovery, the ship was dated to the Viking period (Rygh, 1867). Although there are few published contemporary vessels of approximately the same size as the Tune ship (15–20m), some should be mentioned: for example, the largest of the two Kvalsund boats (18.5m), Skuldelev 1 (16.3m), Skuldelev 5 (17.3m), Äskekärr 1, dated AD 977 (15.8m), and Hedeby graveyardship (17–22m) (Lindøe, 1930; Borg, 2000; Crumlin-Pedersen and Olson, 2002). The ship from Kvalsund is 200 years earlier than the Tune ship (AD 690) and was an oared vessel, and the Skuldelev ships are more than a 100 years later. Of course, the Gokstad and Oseberg ships, both burial finds from the same area and the same period, are the most important parallels (Nicolaysen, 1882; Brøgger et al., 1917). There are also important iconographic and runic material sources for the earliest Viking ships (Jesch, 2001; Heide, 2014). The Tune ship was the first reasonably well-preserved Viking ship to be archaeologically excavated, the Borre ship excavation in 1852 having revealed only a few nails from the ship itself. The ship was roughly sketched on site, first probably by the landowner O. Haugen and secondly by B. Chr. Arntzen, the engineer conducting the excavation on site. Later on, E. Skari painted a watercolour of the ship in perspective (Fig. 7) (Haugen, 1867; Arntzen, 1868; Skari, 1869). In Schetelig's 1917 publication, he included a plan and profile drawing of the ship, as well as cross-sections of the individual frames (Schetelig, 1917a: Chart I-III). The drawing is both a record and reconstruction of the discovery (Fig. 8). The strakes in the hull and internal timbers are also shown on a clear and technically sound ink drawing by Bergen Museum's artist, M. Abel, that is included in Schetelig's publication; however, none of these early drawings are truly accurate representations. For instance, in Schetelig's drawings, a ruler has been used to straighten deformed parts of the hull. It is clear that the frames are straightened, and their positions have been adjusted. Since only those ship parts that survived are shown, Schetelig's drawings do not qualify as reconstructions. Overall, none of these depictions can be called accurate archaeological drawings, additional documentation of the discovery, or reconstruction proposals, but rather something in between all three. Ship engineer Fredrik Johannessen came up with a proposal for the ship's appearance in the late 1920s (Johannessen, unpublished). Johannessen's drawing were modified by Arne Emil Christensen in connection with an exhibition at the Viking Ship Museum in 1980 (Fig. 9). Werner Dammann later produced several ideas about the ship's design, but he was also unable to solve the riddle or find evidence that could support a reconstruction of the ship's main features (Dammann, 1997). Seán McGrail briefly mentions that he considered it likely that the Tune ship would originally have had more than ten strakes; however, he does not pursue this idea any further as he is merely questioning the ship's stability when heeled under sail (McGrail, 2001: 216). It is odd that the Tune ship challenge hadn't been thoroughly worked on prior to the project reported here. Schetelig's drawings of the Tune ship from 1917 were based on manual measurements of the original parts; but these measurements have been fared, and, through extensive use of a ruler, idealized and adapted in many ways. Regular strake lines and a high degree of symmetry on each side of the keel show that the ruler often took over from reality. The measurements from the drafting film, which can be seen today at the Museum of Cultural History in Oslo (Archive number C23838), do not always agree with those of the final drawing. The plan and layout were drawn with a ruler so that the frames were placed at right angles to the keel. The shape of the ship was based on the shape of the hull below the waterline and the ship's width at the beams. The problem with this method is that some of the frames are very deformed, allowing for several different interpretations. Cumulatively, small adjustments of the floor-timbers, based on matching visible features on the frames and planking, indicate a different strake placement, and therefore ship shape. Furthermore, as Schetelig used the ship's curves to extend the lines of the preserved strakes, neither the actual shape of the strakes nor the extension of the individual strakes is correct. While working on the Tune ship a Cyra laser scanner was used for data collection creating a 3D point cloud (Fig. 10). Both the plank runs and the thickness of the strakes are clearly visible in the scans of the ship, as well as the placement of nails and joints between the various planks in the strakes. Additional drafting was carried out using CAD software, with all plotted coordinates from the laser scan transferred to AutoCAD. In order to get a correct representation of individual parts of the ship, the perspective and the section were selected in the point cloud and then lines were drawn from point to point to create an accurate drawing. The final plans were drawn by hand using three projections on the drawing board. Attempts to create a plan of the floor-timbers and strakes showed that it was possible to draw most of the sections at 1:1 based on the scan. Three different projections were drawn: the plan, sections, and longitudinal profile (Fig. 11). The plan is based on reconstructed sections at each frame station, along with a layout of the digital scan of the ship in plan and elevation. The dimensions of the strakes and keel were transferred to the plan. Here the internal strake runs are used, and the drawing is an orthographic projection of the placement of the strakes within the plan. Scarf joints are drawn where they can be detected on the original ship and transferred to the plan from the digital drawing. In the part of the ship that is not preserved, none have been inserted. The ship was reconstructed without ceiling so that its hull shape and lines can be clearly seen. The profile (longitudinal section) has been developed using the same methods as the plan. Here it is the outboard strake runs that are the starting point for the lines. For the rudder, Schetelig's drawing from 1917 has been used. There is no simple solution for creating a drawing of the Tune ship. In architectural documentation of a ships’ hull, it is normally sufficient to mirror one side of the keel against the other following the measurement of one side of the ship. Since ship hulls are not always symmetrical, accurate archaeological documentation requires the two sides of the ship to be measured. A good example on the Tune ship is that the ninth strake amidships on the starboard side is 0.05m wider than its equivalent strake on the port side. The construction of the Tune ship shows that the use of materials was adjusted and adapted along the way in order to make the shape of the hull approximately symmetrical, but probably also to utilize the material that was available. This is exemplified by the very roughly hewn floor-timbers, which are made of compass wood. This has resulted in great variation in the shape of the floor-timbers, which seem to have been adapted depending on their position. The basis of both the plan and section drawings in this process are individual transverse sections where floor-timbers, beams, and knees were placed. The thickness of the strakes indicates that they have an almost rectangular cross section. Thickness varies between 16mm and 22mm, this both between individual planks and in relation to where on the ship they are located. Estimates of average shrinkage of old oak from wet to dry states tell us that the oak of the Tune ship has shrunk by a maximum of 2–3% radially (Schiewind, 1990: 94–98). As the planks are radially cleft, this means that the width of the planks is likely 2–3% narrower now than when the ship was built, while the shrinkage lengthwise is insignificant. The impact of the radial shrinkage can be seen in the hull as it is now displayed. The planks have split in the middle, while the nails are still in approximately the right places. The fractures vary in width from 1–10mm, which corresponds very well to the predicted 2–3% shrinkage of boards with widths between 0.18m and 0.25m. By centring the individual strakes in relation to the cleats used to lash the planks to the floor-timbers and the corresponding fastening holes underneath each frame, the planks can be correctly repositioned and made to cover the ship's side again. The shape of the keel not only provides information about the ship's construction, but also its design. The Oseberg and Gokstad ships have relatively flat mid sections then rise slowly towards the stems. A more curved keel raises the stems and increases the width of the ship's mid section. The shape and curve are controlled through the process of laying and fairing the planks. Studies of the lap angles and the correct placement of the strakes have provided valuable information about the original design of the keel. As mentioned, the keel of the Tune ship was hewn from a piece of solid oak. The T-shape of the keel determines the placement of the first strake, which in turn determines the shape of the entire side of the ship. The keel changes from a T-shape to a rabbet at the lot, the transition piece between the keel and the stem and sternpost. Today, the keel of the Tune ship hangs down somewhat towards the stern (Fig. 12). This does not seem to be its original shape, but a result of pressure in the burial mound, and probably insufficient support while the ship has been exhibited, as well. The unusual curve in the middle of the keel also shows that it has sagged slightly. This problem has been compounded by the weight of the mast partner and the keelson, which had probably already begun to overburden the keel within the burial mound. In the reconstruction presented here, the curvature of the middle of the keel is maintained but the sagging towards the stern, which is deemed post depositional, has been straightened out. Stems were undoubtedly curved in the Viking Age. Straight stems were rare in the early Middle Ages and have not been found in any Viking ship excavations. The shape of the stems in this reconstruction are primarily based on the angle of the stern between the keel and the lot, as well as the lines of the strakes drawn from preserved parts of the hull. The proposed stems can be compared to two Viking Age finds from Western Norway: a stem fragment discovered at Nordre Raudeberg in Vågsøy in Sogn and Fjordane (Christensen, 1963: 97) (Fig. 13), seems to fit with the design of the Tune ship; and the lot from Raudeberg, which is almost identical to the preserved lot in the stern of the Tune ship (Paasche, 2010: 152–153). Furthermore, the find from Raudeberg can be matched with a stem from Sunnanå in Vikedal, Ryfylke (Helliesen, 1903; Paasche, 2010: 153) (Fig. 14). The mouldings, nail attachments, width, thickness, length, and overall shape and size all fit almost exactly the Tune ship. The Sunnanå stem was chosen as a starting point for this reconstruction. The characteristic bend in the stem profile on Sunnanå is also found on the Gokstad ship, as well as a boat find from Haukenes Huftern in Hordaland (Nicolaysen, 1882: Chart II; Johannessen and Schetelig 1929: 42–53). We therefore have an apparently contemporary match that fits the shape and design of the Tune ship. Although we have found very few Viking Age ships with preserved stems, and it is therefore difficult to be definitive, the Tune ship has been reconstructed with a curved stem, albeit not as curved as that found on the Oseberg ship, which matches other ships built in the late 9th or early 10th century. The stern of the Tune ship starts with a steady curve of the lot. In addition to the Oseberg stem and stern, comparison can be made with the preserved part of the stern on the Gokstad ship and the smoothly rounded stem from the Skuldelev 3 in Denmark (Nicolaysen, 1882: Chart I; Schetelig, 1917b: 339; Crumlin-Pedersen and Olsen, 2002: 202). A fragment of tapestry also from the farm Nedre Haugen depicting the stem of a ship is another important source used in this reconstruction (Fig. 15). The tapestry fragment was discovered during the excavation of another Viking Age site on the farm (Brøgger, 1921: 28; Johansen, 1986: 147–153). It provides us with a contemporary image of a Viking vessel, and researchers such as Erling Johansen fancy that it may even depict the burial of the Tune ship itself (Johansen, 1986: 150). The placement of the strakes towards the stem and the characteristic break in the rabbet shown in the tapestry are also found on the Tune ship. The stem and stern design chosen for the Tune ship reconstruction also fits with the neighbouring preserved beams and ribs fore and aft. Close study of the hull shows that several of the floor-timbers have spread and no longer have their original shape or position (Fig. 16). The main reason for this is probably the weight of the mound that once covered the ship has caused cracks across the grain of the wood. The knees on top of the beams originally had a sharper angle than is currently seen; cracks along their upper sides show they have changed shape and spread out (Fig. 17). Brøgger and Shetelig believed that the knees were ‘almost completely preserved’ and that there was no evidence of top frames for attaching more planks above (Brøgger and Shetelig, 1950: 172). This led Rygh, Schetelig, and later Brøgger and Shetelig, to conclude that the Tune ship had a peculiarly low freeboard (Rygh, 1872: 2; Schetelig, 1917a: 112; Brøgger and Shetelig, 1950: 173). With the exception of Dammann's suggestions in Das Logbuch (1997: 92), this view, which is brought into question by a close inspection of the knees, has hindered new attempts to reconstruct the ship. Careful inspection of the upper ends of the knees on top of the beams shows that the original ends are not preserved (Fig. 18). They have all decayed due to exposure to oxygen and drying out. The knees are sharpened and broken as a result of this decomposition process, rather than having their original ends. The upper ends of the knees are rather short, this shows that they probably extended further. Their shape, along with unfinished remnants of embellishments (decorative lines), indicates that the knees used to be higher, giving room for two more strakes (Fig. 19). As far as we can see, the knees have treenails all the way up to the end, which suggests that they once went higher, probably up to the rail. Even though there are examples such as Hedeby wreck 3 or Skuldelev wreck 6 (Crumlin-Pedersen, 1997: 248, Crumlin-Pedersen and Olsen, 2002: 288), where treenails are used to fasten the very top of the frames, holes placed towards the end of a timber would have weakened it, possibly causing fractures or cracks. Today, traditional boatbuilders on the Norwegian coast avoid finishing the ends of the knees on top of the beams with treenails. Both the Gokstad ship and the small boats from the same site use clenched nails to attach the ends of the knees to the planking (Nicolaysen, 1882: Chart I; Christensen, 1976: 275–278). The upper nail holes seen on the Tune ship knees indicate that the knees once rose to a greater height along the side of the ship than they now do, which would have allowed for more strakes and therefore a higher freeboard. It is also important to question Schetelig's measurement of the angle between the beams and the side of the hull (Fig. 19). Schetelig used his measurement of this angle as the basis for calculating an average shape of the knees in his reconstruction of the Tune ship. Moreover, the original angle was probably altered when the ship was compressed within the burial mound. A more closed angle of the knee would mean that the ship's side would be straighter and, therefore, that the freeboard would have been somewhat greater as well. The ship would then probably also have been able to ride larger waves more securely, since the danger of the bow wave turning in midship is less when the ship's side is higher as waves that don't go beneath the hull will creep up the sides of the ship. The ninth strake in Schetelig's drawing of the cross section has a sharp curve. In this way Schetelig enabled the strakes to stand more upright towards the sheerstrake. There is no evidence of this hollow shape in the Tune ship. It appears that, to solve the problem created by a ship with a low freeboard and only ten strakes on each side, this shape was hypothesized by Schetelig. Recent inspection has shown the presence of treenail holes in the surviving top strakes throughout the hull. This indicates that top frames were put inside the hull as support for the additional strakes (Fig. 20). Treenail holes have been noted every third room from the mast both fore and aft, and it is conjectured that they were placed every third room throughout the length of the ship. Although the top frames overlap and are positioned alongside the standing knees, they are not fastened directly to them. Based on the pattern of treenail holes and examples from other ship finds, the top frames are not of a regular shape (Nicolaysen, 1882: Chart I and II; Christensen and Leiro, 1976: 17; Crumlin-Pedersen, 1997: 88–90). Before we can determine the total number of strakes and the ship's length it is important to consider the condition of the wood. The excavation process, being nailed to a frame for transportation, the transportation itself, and temporary storage by the university took a toll on the fragile ship. But the speed of this process also had benefits. As the entire operation took only 14 days, it reduced the risk of the Tune ship rapidly drying out. The fact that the ship was left outside and housed in a temporary shed for some time means that it was kept in a humid environment during the first few years after its excavation. This has probably helped to limit post excavation deformation of the wood. A detailed review of the materials used in the construction of the ship shows that all the planks are hewn from radially cleft oak. The exception is the meginhufr, which is thicker and made from cleft quarter logs. It is generally known by traditional boatbuilders that the strong medullary rays in oak make it necessary for thin strakes to be radially cleft to avoid cracks (Finderup, 2017: 201). On the other hand, the meginhufr is thicker and can therefore be partly cut across the medullary rays. The evenness of the material indicates that it is the portion of the tree trunk under the crown that has primarily been used (Finderup, 2017: 43). It is also easiest to make planks from this part of the trunk. Based on general experience, we know the shape of wooden objects changes over time. Drying out or undergoing fluctuations in temperature and humidity can affect wood, and knowledge of these factors is extremely important in this reconstruction project. Establishing how much the Tune ship has shrunk in relation to its size at the time it was found, and, possibly, when it was in use, has been crucial during this process. Oak can shrink lengthwise, according to Kollmann, by 0.1–0.2% (Kollmann, 1951: 387). For planks up to 8–10m long we can, according to tests done on oak from the Tune ship, count on 0.2–0.3% shrinkage (Paasche, 2010: 137). The longest plank on the Tune ship is 8m long; shrinkage of 0.2% would then amount to a maximum of 16mm lengthwise. For most of the strakes, shrinkage will have been even less. An average plank length of approximately 4m would give a maximum shrinkage of approximately 8mm. The shape might also have been changed by decomposition, but the fact is that in the reconstruction of the ship the planking is quite easily fitted together. This shows that shrinkage and decomposition are minimal. Dammann was the first to propose the Tune ship had a greater freeboard in his article Das Tuneschiff ein Stiefkind der Schiffsarchäologie (1997), believing that the ship must have had more strakes in order to function properly. He illustrated his hypothesis by adding people to an illustration of the ship, which clarified the mismatch between the ship's freeboard and its crew (Dammann, 1997: 90). Dammann also presented a long discussion about the location and angle of the oars. Furthermore, he suggested that the hrodarhufr, the Old Norse name for a strake with oar-ports, were higher than previously assumed (Dammann, 1997: 90). Dammann never examined the original material, and he was therefore unable to find sufficient archaeological or ship-specific evidence to propose new drawings. He accepted Schetelig's rendition of the frames and hull design below the waterline, and he ended up with a hull shape that