I live in a late 18th-century rowhouse where there is large stonework for window sills/surrounds/doorways all done in a very specific pink granite that was carved from a shoreline quarry a significant distance away. Massive stones, 100kg+ each, had to be transported by horse-drawn cart, over not-easy-terrain, a distance that would have taken two horses probably 8-9 hours per trip, and enough stones that it was probably 15-20 trips. Let alone the effort that had to have been required to carve surprisingly square/cuboid shapes from solid granite without power tools. It's mindblowing to me that someone was able to afford such a home construction, let alone the time taken to do it, in ~ 1790. It isn't a particularly rare style in this neighborhood either.

Fast forward 200 years, and I was sweating at the cost just to hire someone to deliver new hardwood countertops from a place not much further away. By truck. By a single person. In a single afternoon. No horses required.

Well, as the article says:

> Per the statement, the large vessels were made to sail north from the Netherlands, around Denmark and toward the Baltic Sea. [...] Uldum adds that shipbuilders made the cogs as large as possible to transport bulky cargo, like timber

Once you've built one cog, you've got the ideal tool to fetch Polish timber to build more!

Check out the History of the Germans season on the Hanseatic League [0]. The bulk goods trade was in the Baltic / Northern Europe was actually huge. The Hansa themselves traded all the way from London to Novgorod. Anyway, it's an absolutely fascinating subject and period.

[0] https://historyofthegermans.com/hanseatic-league/

I’m more surprised we can tell so precisely where wood that spent 600 years under the sea came from

You might be interested in tin transport during the bronze age then - You'll find tin mined in Cornwall in ships that sank off the coast of Turkey 3500 years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_sources_and_trade_during_a...

Is it possible the ship was rebuilt?

‘Folksal’?

You aren’t wrong.

I am wondering if there is any historical record of the ship and/or its sinking.

No. It's going to take some time, and theres a good change it'll come as a danish language monography or one or more phd thesis'.

Smithsonian Mag used to be the Institution’s brain‑child, now it’s just a click‑bait lifestyle tabloid full of celebs. The magazine’s editorial directives have diverged from the institutions mission. They care more about pageviews and ads than research.

I can appreciate their troubles. How is someone supposed to pay for all the overhead that goes into research and writing these articles without a source of income. People also seem dead against subscriptions. The only way that seems to work is appealing to the LCD and raking in stream bucks but not all media/literature, especially the valuable kind, is conducive to that model.

Ads ? What Ads...

I forgot that I use Firefox for Android with uBlock Origin. I don't see any ads NEVER.

The baltic has tons of wrecks. Because of its brackishness, both marine and fresh water wood decomposing organism dont survive there and thus old ships got preserved really really well. Some are in really shallow (walkable) water, especially in areas where the land is rising.

That may be not that amazing for a shipwreck in the Øresund. According to Wikipedia, its maximum depth is 40m (130’) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Øresund), so chances are a lot of it is less deep. There also may be sampling bias, with shipwrecks in shallower water being more likely to be found, and, if the tides flow faster in deeper water, survivorship bias.