View of the Brede valley, taken from the Winchelsea-hill. © Thomas Dhoop

On the 26th of April 2015, the Winchelsea Archaeological Society (WAS) and members of the archaeology department of the University of Southampton are holding a one-day conference titled ‘Medieval Ports, Ships and Sailors‘. The central theme of the day will be the changing relationships between medieval cargo ships, waterfront infrastructure and the built-up town environment.

Program:

09:00-10:00     Registration and coffee

10:00-10:05     Welcome by the Winchelsea Archaeological Society
10:05-10:15     Welcome by the East Sussex County Archaeologist, Casper Johnson

10:15-10:40     Prof. David Hinton (University of Southampton) – Port Development in Post-Roman England
10:40-11:05     Thomas Dhoop (University of Southampton)  – The Medieval Harbour of Winchelsea: Questions and Preliminary Findings
11:05-11:30     Chris Butler (Chris Butler Archaeological Services) – Recent Excavations in the Strand, Winchelsea

11:30-12:30     Guided tour of the town and cellars
12:30-13:30     Lunch (not provided)

13:30-13:55     Dr. Julian Whitewright (University of Southampton) – Sailors and Navigators on the English Channel
13:55-14:20     Dr. Joe Flatman (Historic England) – Historic England’s Medieval Marine Data Holdings
14:20-14:45     Dr. Fraser Sturt (University of Southampton) – The Sea in Medieval Seafaring, an Environmental Study

15:00-15:15     Coffee

15:15-16:00     Prof. Jonathan Adams (University of Southampton) – From Iberia and Gascony to the British Isles: The medieval shipwrecks in St Peter Port, Guernsey
16:00-16:30     Panel discussion

16:30     End of conference

Date: Sunday 26^th April 2015
Venue: New Hall in Winchelsea, East Sussex, UK (Post Code: TN36 4AA)
Fees: £10 students, £20 working professionals, to be paid on the day of the conference
Registration: Please use the Contact form to email me or email was@winchelsea.net.

The post Medieval Ports, Ships and Sailors – Winchelsea 26/04/2015 appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

View of the Brede valley, taken from the Winchelsea-hill. © Thomas Dhoop

On the 26th of April 2015, the Winchelsea Archaeological Society (WAS) and members of the archaeology department of the University of Southampton are holding a one-day conference titled ‘Medieval Ports, Ships and Sailors‘. The central theme of the day will be the changing relationships between medieval cargo ships, waterfront infrastructure and the built-up town environment.

Program:

09:00     Registration and coffee

10:00     Welcome by the Winchelsea Archaeological Society
10:10     Prof. David Hinton (University of Southampton) – Port Development in Post-Roman England
10:30     Thomas Dhoop (University of Southampton)  – The Medieval Harbour of Winchelsea: Questions and Preliminary Findings
10:50     Questions

11:00     Guided tour of the town and cellars
12:00     Lunch (not provided)

13:00     Dr. Julian Whitewright (University of Southampton) – Sailors and Navigators on the English Channel
13:20     Dr. Joe Flatman (English Heritage) – Title TBC
13:40     Dr. Fraser Sturt (University of Southampton) – The Sea in Medieval Seafaring, an Environmental Study
14:00     Questions

14:15     Coffee

14:30     Prof. Jonathan Adams (University of Southampton) – From Iberia and Gascony to the British Isles: The medieval shipwrecks in St Peter Port, Guernsey
15:15     Panel discussion

15:45     End of conference

Date: Sunday 26^th April 2015
Venue: New Hall in Winchelsea, East Sussex, UK (Post Code: TN36 4EA)
Fees: £10 students, £20 working professionals, to be paid on the day of the conference
Registration: Please use the Contact form to email me.

The post Medieval Ports, Ships and Sailors – Winchelsea 26/04/2015 appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

Guernsey © Stephan Vanfleteren

Maritime archaeology; the study of the material culture that can inform us about the ways in which peoples in the past engaged with and were impacted by the seas and other waterbodies (Author’s definition). Is the Atlantic Wall maritime archaeology? In his introduction to his magnificent new photobook ‘Atlantic Wall‘, Stephan Vanlfeteren certainly seems to think so. In all honesty, before buying this book, the 5283 kilometres of bunkers along the Atlantic coastline had never really occurred to me as ‘maritime archaeological heritage’. As a maritime archaeologist mainly concerned with ‘old things’, perhaps its relative young age has something to do with it. On the other hand, growing up in West Flanders, second world war monuments were ubiquitous and perhaps this somewhat dulled my sensitivities for war-heritage?

However, when I think about what maritime archaeology is, and the way in which the Atlantic Wall is a clear reflection and reminder of the intense interactions between peoples and the sea during the second world war, it has dawned on me that this monument is perhaps one of the most important pieces of maritime archaeological heritage around. It is equally important as the HMS Wakful, the British destroyer that sank during the evacuation of Dunkirk on 29 May 1940, or the German U-Boats.

The wall, in effect a defence line made up of coastal batteries, barricades and bunkers running from the northern tip of Norway to the southernmost point in France, took less than four years to build. In this short time, the Germans managed to build over fifteen thousand bunkers along the Atlantic coastline. An accomplishment that deserves to be in the list with world-renowned monuments such as Hadrian’s Wall in northern England, the Great pyramid of Giza in Egypt, the Channel Tunnel connecting the United Kingdom with France and Burj Khallifa in Dubai. Although it was the Festungspioniere and later the Organisation Todt that designed the bunkers and supervised their construction, we should not forget who actually built these bunkers. Here and there German soldiers themselves built the fortifications, but elsewhere they recruited workers from among the local populations, first volunteers, later conscripts. Also a large number of Russian prisoners of war and Jews were used and treated as slave-labourers.

George S. Patton, a general in the United States army once said “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man”. He was right. No matter how impressive the wall was, on the 6th of June 1944, in the course of one long day on four beaches with fifteen thousand casualties, it was breached. D-Day in Normandy rendered the Atlantic Wall useless. The way in which people thought about coastal defence was forever changed. Now, nature has started to reclaim its territory and as Vanfleteren aptly notes “The Atlantic Wall’s fight today is no longer against the Allies, but against nature”.

Løkken, Denmark © Stephan Vanfleteren

As a photographer, Vanfleteren casts a different perspective on these grey concrete bunkers. He finds a certain aesthetic value in them that might initially go unnoticed. Especially on the Channel Islands, German architects designed some masterpieces. The observation tower on Guernsey can easily stand along the Guggenheim Museum in New York, while the bunker in Løkken in Denmark reminds of a mosque in the Middle East.

The Atlantic Wall also forces us to face facts on more contemporary issues: our coastlines are changing. As the bunker in Huequeville in France balances on the edge of the cliff it was once solidly embedded in, it is clear nature is gnawing at our coastlines. Because of this, bunkers gradually end up on beaches and sometimes even drown in the sea.

Huequeville, France © Stephan Vanfleteren

Luckily, there has been a growing trend to protect these monuments from destruction. As I am writing this post, the Netherlands is taking the first steps towards protection and making them accessible for the public. In Germany however, most of the remains have disappeared. An attempt to erase a shameful page in history? In Normandy, D-Day is booming business and bunkers are an important part of tourism revenue. Also in Belgium, a number of bunkers have been protected and an impressive open air museum is located in Raversyde. Also in Denmark and Norway parts of the wall have been preserved (Strubbe & de Meyer 2014).

Even though the Atlantic Wall has certainly not been neglected by historians, I am convinced maritime archaeology can make some interesting contributions as well. Thinking about my own research, a spatial analysis of a bunker complex and landscape come to mind. Furthermore, the ways in which ‘space’ was organised inside these bunkers might cast some light on how military hierarchical structure was (or was not) translated into architecture. I think research like this is certainly justified. After all, is there another monument in our landscape that is such a clear reminder of military interaction with the sea?

Bibliography

Vanfleteren, S. 2014. Atlantic Wall. Uitgeverij Hannibal.

The post The Atlantic Wall: Contemporary Maritime Archaeology appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

Guernsey © Stephan Vanfleteren

Maritime archaeology; the study of the material culture that can inform us about the ways in which peoples in the past engaged with and were impacted by the seas and other waterbodies (Author’s definition). Is the Atlantic Wall maritime archaeology? In his introduction to his magnificent new photobook ‘Atlantic Wall‘, Stephan Vanlfeteren certainly seems to think so. In all honesty, before buying this book, the 5283 kilometres of bunkers along the Atlantic coastline had never really occurred to me as ‘maritime archaeological heritage’. As a maritime archaeologist mainly concerned with ‘old things’, perhaps its relative young age has something to do with it. On the other hand, growing up in West Flanders, second world war monuments were ubiquitous and perhaps this somewhat dulled my sensitivities for war-heritage?

However, when I think about what maritime archaeology is, and the way in which the Atlantic Wall is a clear reflection and reminder of the intense interactions between peoples and the sea during the second world war, it has dawned on me that this monument is perhaps one of the most important pieces of maritime archaeological heritage around. It is equally important as the HMS Wakful, the British destroyer that sank during the evacuation of Dunkirk on 29 May 1940, or the German U-Boats.

The wall, in effect a defence line made up of coastal batteries, barricades and bunkers running from the northern tip of Norway to the southernmost point in France, took less than four years to build. In this short time, the Germans managed to build over fifteen thousand bunkers along the Atlantic coastline. An accomplishment that deserves to be in the list with world-renowned monuments such as Hadrian’s Wall in northern England, the Great pyramid of Giza in Egypt, the Channel Tunnel connecting the United Kingdom with France and Burj Khallifa in Dubai. Although it was the Festungspioniere and later the Organisation Todt that designed the bunkers and supervised their construction, we should not forget who actually built these bunkers. Here and there German soldiers themselves built the fortifications, but elsewhere they recruited workers from among the local populations, first volunteers, later conscripts. Also a large number of Russian prisoners of war and Jews were used and treated as slave-labourers.

George S. Patton, a general in the United States army once said “Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man”. He was right. No matter how impressive the wall was, on the 6th of June 1944, in the course of one long day on four beaches with fifteen thousand casualties, it was breached. D-Day in Normandy rendered the Atlantic Wall useless. The way in which people thought about coastal defence was forever changed. Now, nature has started to reclaim its territory and as Vanfleteren aptly notes “The Atlantic Wall’s fight today is no longer against the Allies, but against nature”.

Løkken, Denmark © Stephan Vanfleteren

As a photographer, Vanfleteren casts a different perspective on these grey concrete bunkers. He finds a certain aesthetic value in them that might initially go unnoticed. Especially on the Channel Islands, German architects designed some masterpieces. The observation tower on Guernsey can easily stand along the Guggenheim Museum in New York, while the bunker in Løkken in Denmark reminds of a mosque in the Middle East.

The Atlantic Wall also forces us to face facts on more contemporary issues: our coastlines are changing. As the bunker in Huequeville in France balances on the edge of the cliff it was once solidly embedded in, it is clear nature is gnawing at our coastlines. Because of this, bunkers gradually end up on beaches and sometimes even drown in the sea.

Huequeville, France © Stephan Vanfleteren

Luckily, there has been a growing trend to protect these monuments from destruction. As I am writing this post, the Netherlands is taking the first steps towards protection and making them accessible for the public. In Germany however, most of the remains have disappeared. An attempt to erase a shameful page in history? In Normandy, D-Day is booming business and bunkers are an important part of tourism revenue. Also in Belgium, a number of bunkers have been protected and an impressive open air museum is located in Raversyde. Also in Denmark and Norway parts of the wall have been preserved (Strubbe & de Meyer 2014).

Even though the Atlantic Wall has certainly not been neglected by historians, I am convinced maritime archaeology can make some interesting contributions as well. Thinking about my own research, a spatial analysis of a bunker complex and landscape come to mind. Furthermore, the ways in which ‘space’ was organised inside these bunkers might cast some light on how military hierarchical structure was (or was not) translated into architecture. I think research like this is certainly justified. After all, is there another monument in our landscape that is such a clear reminder of military interaction with the sea?

Bibliography

Vanfleteren, S. 2014. Atlantic Wall. Uitgeverij Hannibal.

The post The Atlantic Wall: Contemporary Maritime Archaeology appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

The ‘Faro Rhino Archaeological User Group‘ or FRAUG started out as an informal gathering of maritime archaeologists experimenting and sharing experiences in using the Faro-arm and Rhinoceros-software to record boats, ships and wrecks. As the projects progressed, so did the conference and although it still has a strong methodological component and serves as a platform to discuss new and innovative ways to record shipwrecks, this year’s focus lay primarily on the interpretation of ships and boats in the archaeological record.

On the Sunday evening before the boat building activities commenced, Pat invited Juan Pablo Olaberria and myself to give a presentation on our ideas concerning ‘mental templates in Viking Age shipbuilding’ which again stirred a nice discussion on how design could have been translated into wood in the Viking Age. We were pleased to hear that Fred Hocker, director of research at the Vasa Museum, had taken an interest in our work and throughout the week we had the opportunity to pick his brain which resulted in some very valuable comments and contributions to our paper.

The next few days, it was time to put what we all write about into practice. Could we actually build a boat? At Haggerty’s shipyard, six keels with stem and stern were prepared for us. The challenge was to construct a clinker-built boat of about 12 feet (+/- 3,5m) long and 4 feet (+/- 1,2m) wide. Two of the boats were to be build with moulds, the remaining three without. Several traditional boat builders were on hand to offer (a minimum of) advice and guidance. By Thursday, much to our own and the boat builder’s surprise, using a variety of different methods, every team had built a ‘boat’.

Our team, consisting out of Sarah Stark, Micheal Cepak, Rodrigo Ortiz, Dr. John Cooper, Juan Pablo Olaberria and myself came up with a very simple method of construction and design. We did not use a mould and did not put much thought in the final shape of our vessel, it therefore took the shape that the pliability of the +/-8 inch (20,3cm) planks would allow it to take, something which resembled a canoe. However, the choice not to shape our planks or even reduce them in width did have the advantage that the progress on ‘uncompromising quality’ was quick, which gave us the time to caulk the weak spots, a definite advantage during the launch of the boats.

Overall, building a boat, comparing our approach and result with the other groups and the discussions with the traditional boat builders proved to be very instructive and an invaluable experience for my research. This entire process was also recorded by Dr. Lucy Blue of the University of Southampton to investigate the advantages of having a more intense dialogue between maritime archaeologists and traditional boat builders.

On the final day, presentations were given by all involved projects and it was decided the next meeting will be held in Lelystad, the Netherlands and will focus on sailing. Thank you for this wonderful experience Pat! I can hardly wait to see what next year’s FRAUG will bring.

The post FRAUG 2014, Starting the Dialogue between Archaeologist and Boat Builder appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

In Baasrode, I was warmly welcomed by volunteers of the VZW Scheepsvaartmuseum Baasrode. In collaboration with the province East-Flanders and the city of Dendermone, these enthusiastic men and woman succeeded in saving the ship wharfs ‘Van Damme’ and ‘Van Praet-Dansaert’ from the sledgehammer. More than that, they have managed to make the place into something very special. The museum houses a permanent exhibition about inland shipping in Flanders, maintains three historic ship wharves with workshops and tidal docks which they keep in their original state, houses a model building school and has ambitions to restore the 38m long spits ‘Alyv’ from 1938, built by the wharf Van Praet-Dansaert.

However, as a maritime archaeologist who is passionate about wooden shipbuilding, it was the construction of the Rosalie, a new 16m long Baasroodse palingbotter, that impressed me the most. The botter, traditionally a Dutch sailing vessel, was scaled up and contructed at the wharfs in Baasrode. It was mainly used to transport large quantities of eel from the Netherlands to Belgium.

Even though small botters still sail on the IJselmeer in the Netherlands, the construction of a new ship of this size is unique. These vessels were originally built without plans, instead using moulds and the optical judgement of experienced shipwrights (See my post of 17 March 2014). Therefore, the museum relies on the experience of boat builders of the ship wharf in Niewboer, Spakenburg in the Netherlands, who still have experience in making
repairs to this old ship-type.

A unique reconstruction project like this, along the banks of the Scheldt in Flanders, can only be encouraged and I am very much looking forward to following the progress made on the construction of the ship.

The post Heritage Day Flanders: Visiting Some Ship Wharfs appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

My first impression of the library at the museum (see my blog post of 10 February 2014) as a treasure trove proved to be practically an understatement. It is almost as if it was tailor-made for my PhD subject. Also the expertise, critique and advice of Anton Englert, head of research, has proven to be invaluable.

On the 3rd of March, I had the opportunity to present my research to the boat builders, archaeologists and staff at the museum. I prepared two separate presentations, one explaining the concept and preliminary research questions of my PhD research and one on the ideas my colleague at the University of Southampton Juan Pablo Olaberria and I have developed on Viking Age shipbuilding from a conceptual point of view.

Juan Pablo and I studied the applications of rules of thumb and ‘mental templates’, specifically in planking the hull of a Viking Age ship. One of the points we try to get across is that it is necessary to carefully define what building ‘by eye’ means in the archaeological literature on Viking Age ship construction. In the majority of the literature today, building ‘by eye’ seems to imply that clinker builders base most of their design decisions on a visual appreciation of the shape as it is being built. Tools and rules of thumb appear to preform a secondary role. We would argue that the ‘rule’ and the ‘eye’ are inseparable and were both important parts of building a Viking Age ship and deserve to be on equal footing. Furthermore, we believe it is important to look at shipbuilding on a deeper level and study the knowledge behind the techniques.

The Viking Ship Museum, the world-leading institution for Viking Age shipbuilding, is of course the ideal platform to test these ideas with the opinions of both traditional boat builders and archaeologists. An interesting discussion followed the presentation during which rightful criticisms were raised, new questions posed and insights offered. The basis of our ideas however, in our opinion, passed the test with flying colours.

There are a couple of people that deserve a special mentioning and thank you for making this trip such a success. First of all, Anton Englert for his willingness to invest the time to act as an external supervisor for my PhD project and his useful advice. Also Vibeke Bischoff, ship reconstructor at the museum, for her rightful critiques to my presentation and her help in dealing with these. Finally, also Morten Ravn, member of the research team, for fruitful discussions and a lot of good advice.

Fortunately, this is only goodbye for now. Over the next 2,5 years, I will make frequent 5 to 6 week long visits to the museum and try to take full advantage of the peaceful but stimulating environment, library, and expertise of the staff.

The post Goodbye Viking Ship Museum, For Now appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

A talk on my MA-research, conducted at the University of Southampton under supervision of Fraser Sturt (senior lecturer at the University of Southampton), would be the ideal topic for this. Instead of presenting my research in a straightforward manner, I decided to tell the ‘story’ of writing the dissertation, from where I got inspiration for the topic, to transforming the dissertation into article-format.

For my masters in Southampton, I tackled a topic that up until then was fairly new to me: Connectivity during the Bronze Age. I used studies of bronzes, house architecture, settlement patterns and burial practices in the Scheldt basin and its surrounding territories to show that this river was part of an exchange network of objects and ideas with southern England, northern France and the southern Netherlands. Furthermore, I tried to push beyond all-encompassing monolithic concepts of ‘connectivity’ and tried to introduce a variable sense of intensity and directionality to this network. I have included three references below for those interested.

On the day of the presentation, I was warmly welcomed by my friend Niels Jennes, currently a maritime archaeology student at SDU, and Jens Auer, associate professor at SDU. Not only was this a great opportunity to present a piece of my research to a completely new audience, it was also very interesting to note the differences in programs and the ways in which the dissertations are set up. It was a great and educational experience for me and I hope the masters at Esbjerg found my talk informative for their future theses.

Literature:
– Fontijn, D. 2009. Land at the other end of the sea? Metalwork circulation, geographical knowledge and the significance of British/Irish imports in the Bronze Age of the Low Countries. In Bronze Age connections, cultural contact in Prehistoric Europe, P. Clark (ed.), pp. 129-148. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
– Bourgeois, J. & Talon, M. 2009. From Picardy to Flanders: transmanche connections in the Bronze Age. In Bronze Age connections, cultural contact in Prehistoric Europe, P. Clark (ed.), pp. 38-59. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
– Needham, S. 2009. Encompassing the sea: ‘maritories’ and Bronze Age maritime interactions. In Bronze Age Connections, Cultural contact in Prehistoric Europe, P. Clark (ed.), pp. 12-37. Oxford: Oxbow Books.

The post Visit to the Southern University of Denmark appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

Already on this first day I experienced what a treasure trove the library of the museum is for my research. From a recent book that brings together Danish historical sources between 1000 and 1550 to hard-to-find works on ship construction and wonderfully illustrated works on Viking ships from the late Ole Crumlin-Pedersen‘s private collection. It seems this collection has an endless amount of information to offer.

In a couple of weeks, I will have the opportunity to present my current research to the staff at the museum. One could not ask for a better (or more critical crowd) to test new ideas on Viking Age shipbuilding from a conceptual point of view or to present preliminary research questions! This should be a highlight during my visit!

The extensive library, together with the expertise of Dr. Anton Englert, an expert in Medieval ship technology, specifically Danish large scale cargo carriers, and the other staff members at the museum make this the ideal research environment for a student of Medieval maritime archaeology like myself. On to an exciting five weeks of PhD research!

Update 15/02/2014: This visit is now partly financed by the Humanities PGR Research Fund from the University of Southampton for which I am of course very grateful.

The post Viking Ship Museum Roskilde appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.

Even though I have been living in the UK for almost a year and a half with the specific purpose of immersing myself in maritime archaeology and history, I had never explored ‘maritime London’. Perhaps the reason why it took so long is the fact that London museums tend to focus on maritime matters from 1700 onwards and my (archaeological) focus is on our maritime heritage that comes before that. Nonetheless, I found out that London offers a varied perspective of maritime activity from the latter periods and is a must for all people visiting the British capital.

It would take me way too long to discuss everything I saw and learned, so what follows are three maritime-related objects that I particularly enjoyed.

The Cutty Sark (1869)
The famous British clipper is definitely a sight for sore eyes. Built right before the dominance of steam ships, she was one of the last tea clippers and one of the fastest. However, It was during the days she transported Australian wool (from 1883 until 1895) that she would establish herself as the fastest of all clippers. Under her last master, Richard Woodget, she set record times of 70 days or less for the voyage which no other sailing ship could match.

The Cutty Sark now symbolises and honours the English merchant fleet as a museum ship. Next to some items showcasing her varied use-life, reminding us of the fact that a ship almost always is a palimpsest of different usages and physical transformations, it is the Cutty Sark herself, as an archaeological artefact that is important here. She is not just a ship, she is a symbol of English nationalism, mercantile and economic history, technological innovation, and most of all, she reveals England’s enduring commitment to her national maritime cultural heritage.

The port engine of the tug Reliant (1907) in The National Maritime Museum
Reliant, who was originally named Old Trafford, was built for the Manchester Ship Canal, a 36-mile long, man-made channel connecting the River Mersey to Greater Manchester. The tug was vital for the narrow canal. Ships are difficult to manoeuvre at slow speeds. Her job was to guide large merchant ships safely to their destination. Today, as they did in the past, tugs play an important role in guiding ships into ports and docks.  

The tug is a clear reminder of the fact that, also in archaeological contexts, there is more to maritime trade than ships, their cargoes and ports. There are a myriad of actors at work in a mercantile network that facilitate the maritime trade between cities.

The Greenwich Time Ball at the Royal Observatory
The time ball on the roof of the Flamsteed House at the Royal Observatory in Greenwich was made by Maudsley, Son & Field, installed in 1833 and drops daily at 1:00 PM.

By the 1830′s, most British sailors navigated using marine chronometers. These were clocks that were precise enough to be used as a portable time standard and could therefore be used to determine longitude by means of celestial navigation.  However, these needed to be set accurately before sailing. The time ball allowed anybody in sight of the Royal Observatory to obtain Greenwich Time.

As maritime archaeologists, we sometimes tend to focus on the marine environment itself and lose track of the dialectic relationship the marine has with the terrestrial. This clever mechanism, vital for sailors of the time, is a clear reminder of this relationship between two different environments, not only from an environmental- but also cultural perspective. ‘Maritime’ matters interspersed mainstream ‘terrestrial’ culture in numerous ways.

All in all, one could argue this has little to do with any of my main research topics. Yet, exploring maritime archaeology and history in its widest sense is something which every maritime archaeologist enjoys. In doing so, I find that this reminds me of certain aspects of my research that had slipped to the background or even opens up new perspectives all together.

The post Maritime London appeared first on Shipwrecks and Submerged Worlds.