|
|
Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 13:05:53 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <sohela@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
> I accept all that but on top of it are all the questions of hull
> shape, rig, sail handling details, steering etc. In some cases the
> planking was built first and the framing was later constructed to fit
> the frame. In other cases the framing was built first and the planking
> came afterwards. It is possible to take certain extremes and label
> them as, say, Norse but for the most part the classificatoin of ship
> construction lay somewhere on a continuum.
Nope.
They are within one of two seperaste continuii.
Either the nordic or the romano-celtic tradition.
That is the whole point
>
> For that matter, I would take issue with your identification of a
> 'celtic/Roman' tradition. Celtic boat building had a separate
> tradition from Roman boat building (as Julius Caesar found out the
> hard way)
You may not know, but old JC was responsible for a lot of
roman influence on the socalled celtic areas in the following
centuries.
The original "celtic" shipbuilding tradition was one of the areas
that became influenced by roman techniques.
Hense the term "romano-celtic"
> and in my mind they are sa distinctive as the Norse
> tradition. What you really seem to have done is divide boat building
> traditions into 'norse' and 'not-norse'
I didn't invent these classifications.
It is the mainstream thesis within marinearchaeology, sofar it has
survived the evidence for decades..
>and I think that overplays the
> role of the norse in the wider scheme of things.
In what way?
I'm not the one proposing vikings in Minnesota.
> I don't see thinks in
> such a cut and dried, black and white fashion, and I am inclined to
> agree with Tomi that the traditions which formed the seagoing ships of
> the era came from many different sources, including the Frisians and
> the Hollanders.
For that matter it could have come from the Swizz and the Poles.
You are confusing national labels with shipbuilding traditions.
>> But sofar has he failed to demostrate any seperate ship building
>> traditions outside the two mentioned that contributed to the
>> development of the seagoing ship in the medieval period.
>
> Well, for a start, the cog seems to predate the arrival of the Romans
> or the development of the great Scandinavian ship building tradition
>
> http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/ships/html/sh_014000_bremencog.htm
> "The hull form had been evolving for 1,500 years (the earliest
> evidence is a 200 bce clay model found at the town of Leese on
> the Weser),.."
Now you are confusing ship type with building tradition.
That a 200 bce ship model had a hullform similar to a cog
does not mean that it represented a 200 bce cog..
BTW the Hjortspring boat (norse building tradition) is older than that.
This doesn't mean that knarrs are that old.
> People such as the Portuguese, the Venetians etc had long and
> honorable sea going traditions making use of ships which owed more to
> the ancient greek and later arab ship building than it did to what you
> described as celtic/Roman.
Indeed these traditions had at the time in question fused to a common Med
tradition.
We are however discussing north west Europe.
BTW There is no indication of the Arab(TM) shipbuilding tradition being
transferred to the Med.
This is a good example of why it is very bad idea to equate ethnic
labels with building traditions. The arabs in the Indian Ocean worked
in the original arab tradition, while the arabs in the Med joined the
common Med tradition.
>>
>>>
>>> The truth of the matter is that while every little port or river
>>> mouth had its own tradition of shipbuilding,
>>
>> But it would no doubt be clearly traceable into one of the main
>> traditions.
>
> Which as I said, mainly form a continuum.
Actually they dont.
|
|