A comparison of the sound accounts and the Amsterdam Galjootsgeldregisters

Abstract

Ever since Nina Bang and Knud Korst published their compilation of the Sound Toll Accounts (STA) for the years 1497 to 1783, the data contained in this massive seven-volume work, conventionally known as the STT, have proved invaluable for the study of the economic and maritime history of early modern Europe. Nevertheless, some of the basic assumptions made and methods used in compiling the STT have received serious and well-founded criticism. Within a few years after the publication of the first volume in 1906, the Dutch historian, Brakel pointed out quite correctly that the nationality of the ship and the domicile or homeport of the captain were by no means the same. Brakel showed that such a connection was at most fortuitous since the logical conclusion of Bang's interpretation would be that the maritime strength of Holland was centered not in Amsterdam, but in the small ports on the Zuiderzee, where most of the Dutch captains lived. A further blow was struck by Brünner in 1922. Basing his criticism on the scabinale acten (ship acts) of the sixteenth century, which contain the contracts made between the captains and the shipping firms of certain Zuiderzee ports, Brünner demonstrated quite clearly that the domicile af the majority of the captains and that of the shipping firms (or the domicile of the majority of shareholders) were not the same. He also pointed out that there was no necessary relationship between the nationality of the captain and that of the merchant whose goods he transported. Brünner and others also criticized Bang for separating the connection between the ports of departure and destination, which is given in the original sources: the STT give detailed information for the major Baltic ports, but group those west of the Sound by nation or region. This detracts from the value of the STT since it prevents the reader from obtaining an insight into the coherence of the European-Baltic system.