Unveiling the Dungeness Shipwreck
In 2022, workers at Cemex’s quarry near Dungeness unearthed the remains of a 16th-century shipwreck, offering a rare glimpse into the changing practices of shipbuilding during the later Tudor period. This discovery captivated the marine team at Wessex Archaeology, who, through careful investigation and state-of-the-art recording methods, revealed significant details about the vessel’s original design and construction. This article provides a summary of the discovery, its significance, and the methods employed to uncover its story.
The recording and assessment of the wreck were made possible through funding from the UK Government and Historic England, following an emergency funding application led by Casper Johnson of Kent County Council (KCC).
Where it all began: Dungeness
Dungeness Foreland is no ordinary stretch of land. A vast and isolated landscape, it extends as a low expanse of gravel and shingle into the English Channel. Located about 100 kilometres from London, this desolate terrain has long been marked by instability, rapid shoreline changes, and a notorious reputation as a shipping hazard. Historically known as Denge Marsh and Denge Nesse, it was annexed to the small but strategically significant coastal market town of Lydd, a member of the Cinque Ports confederation since the 13th century. Nearby towns such as Romney, Rye and Winchelsea were also part of this network, which played a crucial role in English maritime history.
The Dungeness wreck’s precise plank alignment and tight seams suggest a high level of expertise rather than a makeshift solution, and when tested the seams held water without leaking, showing the technique’s effectiveness after almost 500 years.
Historical records, such as The Chronicle of Battle Abbey[fn1], confirm that this area was no stranger to shipwrecks, often noting disputes over their ownership. By the 14th century, the right to salvage wrecked goods was granted to towns like the Cinque Ports or to manorial lords. During the 16th century, agreements between the Portsmen and the Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports governed the distribution of such goods. Piracy and shipwrecking were common, particularly during times of war.
During the reigns of Henry VIII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, and James I, the Cinque Ports, including Lydd and New Romney, played a significant role in facilitating travel and trade, with records indicating the presence of foreign craftsmen from Germany, Italy, France, Spain, and the Low Countries in nearby towns.
The Nesse served as a lookout point against foreign invasions but also hosted seasonal fishing settlements for the residents of Lydd (called cabins in the Matthew Poker map of 1617)[fn2]. Historical records from the 15th century mention West Country fishermen, or ‘Westernmen,’ who frequented the Nesse for fishing and drying their catch.
Reverse engineering a Tudor ship
The wreck, located within a flooded quarry that has been operational since the 1940s and currently managed by Cemex, was about 500 meters from the sea, behind the line of coastal houses that overlooks Dungeness’ shingle beach.
As is often the case, the Dungeness wreck was not discovered by archaeologists but by workers performing their daily tasks – in this case, quarry workers excavating aggregates. Their diligence in reporting the find led to one of the most exciting maritime discoveries in recent years.
The workers recovered over 140 ship timbers (Fig. 1), primarily from four articulated sections of the shipwreck. While the vast majority of the material belonged to the Dungeness wreck, the assemblage included loose timbers which could indicate the existence of more than one wreck in the area, including parts that fell back into the quarry lake before archaeologists arrived on-site.
[fg]jpg|Fig 1: Two archaeologists moving a large timber for scanning ©Wessex Archaeology|Image[/fg]
The surviving material mainly came from the starboard side of the ship (Fig. 2), with the keel likely remaining at the bottom of the quarry. Fragments of the stern and bow were also preserved, including a large timber (apron or inner stempost) that once formed the rising curve of the bow. Altogether, the remains span over 12 metres, suggesting a significant portion of the original vessel.
[fg]jpg|Fig 2: The largest of the sections recovered is 6.8 by 2.8 m ©Wessex Archaeology|Image[/fg]
The hull was virtually devoid of artifacts, with only a handful of items discovered, lost between timbers in hard-to-reach areas of the lower bilge. These include an almost complete wooden dish, a sherd of a 16th-century stoneware jug, and a fragment of a turn- welt shoe, offering glimpses into the lives of those on board.
A variety of archaeological techniques were used to investigate the Dungeness wreck, with a strong focus on understanding its structure. A method similar to reverse engineering was employed, involving the careful deconstruction of the remains combined with photogrammetry and 3D scanning technology (Fig. 3).
This allowed for the accurate recording of the timbers within the project’s timeframe and facilitated the study of the construction sequence of the ship by creating a digital twin for each element, which were then combined in a process that is akin to solving a giant jigsaw puzzle.
[fg]jpg|Fig 3: The Dungeness wreck is one of the few known examples of 16C English-built wreck that have been fully documented with modern 3D methods ©Wessex Archaeology|Image[/fg]
The complex geometries of ship curves are challenging to record with sufficient precision, making the use of advanced digital methods crucial, and this process not only revealed the ship’s construction methods but also created a comprehensive record that will serve as an invaluable reference for future research into early English shipbuilding (Fig. 3).
This is especially important as the wreck is no longer readily accessible. Due to the high costs of conserving waterlogged wood and the lack of a suitable repository, it was agreed with Historic England to re-deposit the recorded timbers within the quarry in a specific area deemed appropriate for long- term preservation.
The ship’s construction: A story of innovation and tradition
The Dungeness wreck offers fascinating insights into its construction. Made primarily from oak sourced from forests in the South and South-east England, with limited use of elm, and held together by treenails, the ship’s materials do not differ much from those used in other English ships of the time. Yet, it incorporates unusual features that distinguish it from most other known ships of the same period.
The hull was built using carvel construction, where planks are fastened edge to edge resulting in a smooth outer hull, prioritizing the framework of the ship. This method, introduced to English shipbuilders in the late 15th century by Mediterranean and Iberian shipwrights, replaced the traditional Northern European clinker technique, where planks overlap. The Mary Rose, launched in 1511, is one of the earliest large surviving examples of carvel construction in England[fn3].
In the Dungeness wreck, the framing of the ship reveals signature traces of these foreign influences, including the dovetail mortices and pre-assembly and erection of the frames – typical of Mediterranean and Ibero-Atlantic constructions. However, the Dungeness wreck is not a traditional carvel. It highlights that the shift in shipbuilding methods was not complete and stands out as an anomaly, blending the new carvel technique with older local traditions.
For instance, the outer planks are joined together with vertical scarfs, a feature more commonly associated with clinker construction. This is a deviation from the typical carvel method, where the ends of the planks are often butted together and caulked.
Could this have been the work of a master carvel shipwright working in a yard where clinker tradition was prevalent?
Was the vessel framed under one shipwright’s direction and completed by others who did not share the same expertise? Or was this simply an attempt to build a carvel by people who had not quite mastered the new methods, and were not ready to let go of techniques that had served well in the past?
Leaky carvels
Another distinctive feature is the waterproofing method used on the hull. Unlike traditional carvel ships, where oakum is driven between planks to create a waterproof seal, the Dungeness wreck’s builders used a unique sealing technique. They cut shallow V-shaped grooves along the lower edge of the planks, which were lined with tarred animal hair (likely from calves). The edges were then drawn together, likely with wedges and clamps, resulting in a connection similar to a bird-mouth joint.
This method, while time-consuming and labour-intensive, appears to have been a deliberate choice. Again, it may have been an experimental technique from the time when Northern European shipwrights were still perfecting carvel construction and seem to have had problems with waterproofing their hulls, or it could reflect a lack of confidence (or knowledge) in traditional carvel caulking methods, leading to a preference for relying on a more familiar approach.
In any case, the Dungeness wreck’s precise plank alignment and tight seams suggest a high level of expertise rather than a makeshift solution, and when tested the seams held water without leaking, showing the technique’s effectiveness after almost 500 years.
The origin of this technique remains unclear, but it has been found in a very small number of wrecks. One theory is that it reflects a regional feature specific to the wider Thames area, with broadly similar techniques evidenced in the edge- fastened tenoned bottoms of 16th–18th century West Country barges[fn4]. A comparable but slightly different practice is also historically documented in the 19–20th century in some of the barges that navigated the Thames Estuary and its tributaries. Though there is no direct continuity, and the similarities are intriguing, it is possible that this method is an independently developed feature of South-east England shipbuilding.
[fg]jpg|Fig 4: The ship was built following some concept of a pre- determined design. And, we have features like pre-erected frames and dovetail mortices that are generally associated with the Ibero -Atlantic tradition ©Wessex Archaeology|Image[/fg]
Despite its efficacy, this method was likely too labour- intensive to gain widespread use, and the difficulty of replacing planks may explain why it did not become more common in shipbuilding practices.
Less than perfect shape?
While examining the wreck, more fascinating details about the ship’s construction were uncovered.
A fragment of the sternpost showed signs of modification, suggesting the ship may have been lengthened at the stern soon after its original construction. The original sternpost had been covered with a second layer of planking and extended with an additional section of the keel at the rear. This practice appears to be described in Sir Henry Manwaring’s The Sea-man’s Dictionary, written in 1623, while he was Lieutenant of Dover Castle, having received a Royal pardon from James I for his past life as a pirate. The book is one of the earliest English dictionaries of maritime terms, offering definitions and explanations of shipbuilding, navigation, seamanship, and naval warfare. When Manwaring defines the run – the shape of a ship’s hull at the stern –he writes:
“The Run is of much importance for the ship’s sailing; for if the water come not swiftly to the rudder, she will never steer well; and it is a general observation that that ship which does not steer well cannot sail well, and then she cannot keep a good wind. For if a ship has not a fresh way through the sea, she
must needs fall to leeward with the sea, and therefore when ships will not steer well, they lengthen them aftward on, or put to a false sternpost. Merchantmen do not give so much Run as a man-of-war may do, because the narrowing-in of the ships below does lose much stowage.”
This may very well explain what happened to the Dungeness wreck.
Another intriguing detail concerns the tar coating on the inner face of the outer planks (Fig. 5). As dismantling of the frames began, it was noticed that the tar pitch compound covering the hull was missing in certain areas. These gaps corresponded exactly to where filler frames had been added later in the ship’s construction. Clearly, the tar had been scraped off before the filler frames were installed, but it was never reapplied. Since tar plays a crucial role in preserving timber, its absence raises some important questions:
was this an oversight? A cost-cutting measure? Or even malpractice in the shipyard? If so, it was clearly a crafty move, as the lack of tar would have been hidden beneath the timbers, unseen by anyone else.
[fg]jpg|Fig 5: Pine tar costs money, and the space is hidden under the filler frame so why bother? ©Wessex Archaeology|Image[/fg]
Dating the ship and its loss
Overall, the study of the timbers, along with the dendrochronological analyses undertaken by Historic England, suggest that the ship was built not earlier than the mid-1540s, potentially after 1561/2 with modifications possibly occurring in the 1570s. Although on balance, the lack of major re-building and wear and tear seem to point to the hull being reshaped within a few months to around two years after the initial build, potentially dating the ship construction to the mid-1560s.
This period was pivotal in English maritime history – just one or two generations after the construction of the Mary Rose and amidst a time of rapid change in shipbuilding. It was also a period when England distanced itself from Catholic influences, and tensions with Spain were rising. Meanwhile, London and new shipyards like Deptford and Chatham were emerging as hubs of innovation, eventually leading to new approaches to the design and construction of ships with the development of the Race-built Galleons.
The payroll of the Royal shipyards during these years included notable figures, such as the Venetian shipbuilder Agostino Levello, alongside some of England’s most innovative master shipwrights – Mathew Baker (who had returned from his formative journey in the Mediterranean), Richard Chapman, and Peter Pett of the renowned Pett shipbuilding dynasty.
It is not known how the ship was lost. The extremely limited number of finds suggests that the wreck may have been abandoned, possibly left to decay as a hulk, though the evidence is too scarce to draw any firm conclusions. While the quarry is landlocked today, the geoarchaeological assessment suggests that the shipwreck likely rested on the shoreline or within gravels facing the sea before being preserved beneath prograding gravel deposits. Evidence of hacking on the upper part of the sternpost indicates that the ship was probably salvaged for its wood at some point.
There is no definitive identification for the ship, and many questions remain unanswered at this stage. There is a short letter dated 4 November 1570 from Lord Cobham, Warden of the Cinque Ports, to the Jurats of Lydd that mentions that bearers had arrived to claim part of the goods wrecked at the Nesse[fn5]. Amongst the various candidates, this aligns well with the available evidence in terms of location and date, though no further details about the ship itself are provided.
Conclusion: Innovation and failure, two sides of the same coin
The carpentry and construction processes of the Dungeness wreck closely resemble those of another famous local wreck, the Gresham/Princes Channel ship[fn6]. Believed to have been built about a decade later, this Elizabethan vessel was found in the Princes Channel in the Thames Estuary.
Once considered a unique example within the landscape of English carvel shipbuilding, these two ships can now be seen as part of a broader tradition, highlighting a regional style that emerged during the 16th century.
In many ways, the construction of this ship embodies a narrative that speaks not only to the globalization and transfer of knowledge within England and Europe but also to the ongoing reliance on traditional craftsmanship.
The Dungeness wreck represents a story of innovation and experimentation. The evidence shows how shipbuilders could have been adopting new ideas in a process marked by both successes and failures, in what might have been a rather time-consuming and expensive endeavour.
As research continues, the Dungeness wreck will offer important insights into the evolution of English shipbuilding and the broader transfer of knowledge across Europe during a time of religious conflict and exploration[fn7].
The whole dataset including the 3D data, timbers catalogues, grey literature report and all the specialist assessments will be deposited on ADS and become available at no cost once this stage of the project is finalized by end of 2025.
[fn]1|Searle, Eleanor, ed. and trans., 1980. The Chronicle of Battle Abbey. Oxford Medieval Texts. Oxford: Clarendon Press.[/fn]
[fn]2|Cock, F. W., 1914. The Oldest Map of Romney Marsh, Archaeologia Cantiana 30: 219–224.[/fn]
[fn]3|Adams, J. R. 2013. A maritime archaeology of ships. Innovation and social change in late medieval and early modern Europe. Oxford: Oxbow.[/fn]
[fn]4|Goodburn, D., 2009. A newly discovered lost tradition of river barge building on the Thames 16th–18th centuries. In R. Bockius (ed.), Between the Seas, transfer and exchange in nautical technology, ISBSA 11 Mainz 2006, 451–458. Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum.[/fn]
[fn]5|Murray, K. 1935. The Constitutional History of the Cinque Ports. Manchester: Manchester University Press.[/fn]
[fn]6|Auer, J., Maarleveld, T., 2014. The Gresham Ship Project. A 16th-century merchantman wrecked in the Princes Channel, Thames Estuary. Volume I: excavation and hull studies. Oxford: Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports 602.[/fn]
[fn]7|The completion of this work was inspired by and built upon the efforts of numerous individuals, and we wish to express our sincere gratitude to all those who contributed to the realisation of this project. Special recognition is owed to Damian Goodburn, Casper Johnson, Cathy Tyers, Gill Draper, Serena Cant, Andrea Hamel and each member of the team.[/fn]
[fg]jpg||Image[/fg]
Paolo Croce is a marine archaeologist working for Wessex Archaeology. Originally from Italy, he has been living in the UK with his family for over 10 years. With a long-standing passion for the sea and all things maritime, he has worked on several shipwrecks in UK and abroad.