Connected by the Sea: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Denmark 2003

Published in honour of Seán McGrail

Published in the United Kingdom in 2006 by

OXBOW BOOKS

10 Hythe Bridge Street, Oxford 0X1 2EW

and in the United States by

OXBOW BOOKS

1950 Lawrence Road, Havertown, PA 19083

© Oxbow Books and the individual authors 2006

Reprinted in paperback 2016

Paperback Edition: ISBN 978-1-78570-157-3

EPUB ISBN: 978-1-78570-367-6

PRC ISBN: 978-1-78570-368-3

PDF ISBN: 978-1-78570-369-0

A CIP record for this book is available from the British Library

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the publisher in writing.

For a complete list of Oxbow titles, please contact:

UNITED KINGDOM

Oxbow Books

Telephone (01865) 241249, Fax (01865) 794449

Email: oxbow@oxbowbooks.com

www.oxbowbooks.com

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Oxbow Books

Telephone (800) 791-9354, Fax (610) 853-9146

Email: queries@casemateacademic.com

www.casemateacademic.com/oxbow

Oxbow Books is part of the Casemate Group

Contents

List of Contributors

Preface

Keynote address: An international forum for nautical research 1976–2003 by Ole Crumlin-Pedersen

Seán McGrail: Walking on water: Maritime archaeology by air, land and sea by Jonathan Adams

List of Contributors

JONATHAN ADAMS

Centre for Maritime Archaeology, School of Humanities,

University of Southampton, Southampton,

S017 1BJ, United Kingdom

Email: jjra@soton.ac.uk

JOHN ATKIN

University of Michel de Montaigne-Bordeaux III,

19, avenue du Prince Noir, 33750 Camarsac, France

john.atkin@etu.u-bordeaux3.fr

JENS AUER

104 Lower Road, Salisbury, Wiltshire,

SP2 9NL, United Kingdom

j.auer@wessexarch.co.uk

LAWRENCE E. BABITS

Maritime Studies, East Carolina University,

Greenville, NC 27858, USA

KROUM N. BATCHVAROV

IN A Research Associate, 4200 Scotland, Apt 58,

Houston, TX 77007, USA

batchvarov@neo.tamu.edu

TOMASZ BEDNARZ

Polish Maritime Museum in Gdansk,

ul. Ołwianka 9-13, 80-751 Gdansk, Poland

t.bednarz@cmm.pl

CARLO BELTRAME

Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia, Università degli studi della Tuscia Viterbo,

Dorsoduro, 269 30123 Venezia, Italy

archeonautica@libero.it

SWARUP BHATTACHARYYA

18-D, Bagbazar Street, Kolkata 700003, India

saranga_nao@yahoo.com

LUCY BLUE

Centre for Maritime Archaeology,

School of Humanities,

University of Southampton, Southampton,

SO17 1BJ, United Kingdom

lkb@soton.ac.uk

RONALD BOCKIUS

Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum,

Forschungsbereich Antike Schiffahrt, Mainz, Germany

GIULIA BOETTO

Centre Camille Jullian UMR 6573 CNRS – Université de Provence, Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme, 5, rue du Chateau de l’Horloge BP 647,

F-13094 Aix-en-Provence, France

gibo23@libero.it

MAURO BONDIOLI

Via Strada Vecchia, 68/1 42011 Bagnolo in Piano (RE),

Italy

CLAIRE CALCAGNO

79 Sturges Road,

Medford,

MA 02155, USA

clairec@mit.edu

FRANK CANTELAS

Maritime Studies, East Carolina University,

Greenville, NC 27858, USA

FILIPE CASTRO

Nautical Archaeology Program,

Department of Anthropology, Texas A&M University,

College Station, TX 77843-4352 USA

fvcastro@tamu.edu

CARL OLOF CEDERLUND

Södertöms högskola (University college),

Box 4101, 141 89 Huddinge, Sweden

carl-olof.cederlund@sh.se

JOHN COLES

Fursdon Mill Cottage, Thorverton, Devon,

EX5 5JS, United Kingdom

jmcoles@btintemet.com

OLE CRUMLIN-PEDERSEN

Former Head of Institute and Centre for Maritime Archaeology, Danish National Museum, Roskilde, The Viking Ship Museum, Roskilde Box 298,

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

ocp@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk

AOIFE DALY

Nationalmuseet, Forsknings- & Formidlingsafdelingen Dansk Middelalder & Renæssance, Frederiksholms Kanal

12, DK – 1220 Copenhagen K, Denmark

aoife.daly@natmus.dk

ROBERT DOMZAL

Polish Maritime Museum, Gdansk, Poland

MARION DELHAYE

ANTON ENGLERT

Viking Ship Museum, Vindeboder 12

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

ae@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk

MIRAN ERIČ

Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia,

Cankarjeva 4, SI-1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia

miran.eric@guest.arnes.si

VALERIE FENWICK

4 Nightingale Mews, Royal Victoria Country Park,

Netley Abbey, S031 5GB, United Kingdom

vterrafirma@aol.com

THOMAS FINDERUP

Viking Ship Museum, Vindeboder 12

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

ANDREJ GASPARI

Institute for the Mediterranean Heritage,

Science and Research Centre of Koper,

University of Primorska, Garibaldijeva 18,

SI - 6000 Koper, Slovenia

andrej.gaspari@siol.net

EDWIN AND JOYCE GIFFORD

Little Pundells, Brockishill Road, Bartley,

Southampton, S040 2LN, United Kingdom

joycegiff@waitrose.com

MORTEN GØTHCHE

Viking Ship Museum, Vindeboder 12,

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

mg@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk

MATTHEW HARPSTER

Dibner Institute, MIT,

Cambridge, MA USA

DAVID HINTON

Archaeology, School of Humanities,

Avenue Campus, University of Southampton,

Southampton, United Kingdom

dah5@soton.ac.uk

FRED HOCKER

National Maritime Museums of Sweden,

Box 27131, S-102 52, Stockholm, Sweden

fred.hocker@maritima.se

ANDRÉ F.L. VAN HOLK

Nieuw Land Erfgoed Centrum (NLE), Oostvaardersdijk 01-13, 8242 PA Lelystad, The Netherlands

a.vanholk@nieuwlanderfgoedcentrum.nl

AB HOVING

Rijksmuseum, P.O.Box 74888,

1070 DN Amsterdam, The Netherlands

a.hoving@rijksmuseum.nl

GEORGE INDRUSZEWSKI

Vikingeskibsmuseet, Vindeboder 12,

DK-4000 Roskilde, Denmark

gi@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk

YAACOV KAHANOV

Recanati Institute for Maritime Studies,

University of Haifa, Israel

yak@research.haifa.ac.il

SVEN KALMRING

Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesmuseen Schloß Gottorf, Archäologisches Landesmuseum,

Forschungsprojekt Haithabu, Schloß Gottorf

D-24837 Schleswig, Germany

ESF.Haithabu@t-online.de

INESE KARKLINA

University of Latvia, Kundzinsala 13. line 9-2

LV1005 Riga, Latvia

inesekarklina@inbox.lv

BRAD LOEWEN

OLE MAGNUS

Rebslageriet, Borupvej 51,

8543 Hornslet, Denmark

rebslaaeriet@mail.tele.dk

CHRISTINA MARANGOU

Neophytou Douca 6, Athens 106 74, Greece

christina.marangou@eudoramail.com

SABRINA MARLIER

Centre Camille Jullian (CNRS-Université de Provence),

Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme,

5 rue du Chateau de l’Horloge,

BP 647, 13094 Aix-en-Provence Cedex 2, France

marliersab_archeonavale@yahoo.fr

SEÁN MCGRAIL

Centre for Maritime Archaeology, School of Humanities,

University of Southampton,

Southampton, S017 1BJ, United Kingdom

KEITH MEVERDEN

Maritime Studies, East Carolina University,

Greenville, NC 27858, USA

HADAS MOR

Department of Maritime Civilizations,

University of Haifa, Israel

SØREN NIELSEN

Head of the boatyard, The Viking Ship Museum,

Vindeboder 12, 4000 Roskilde, Denmark

sn@vikingeskibsmuseet.dk

MARCUS NILSSON

Virtual Maritime Institute,

Polgatan 8.F, S-21611 Limhamn, Sweden

min1318@linuxmail.org

WALDEMAR OSSOWSKI

Polish Maritime Museum,

ul. Ołowianka 9-13, 80-751 Gdañsk, Poland

A J. PARKER

University of Bristol, 10 Montrose Avenue,

Redland, Bristol, BS6 6EQ, United Kingdom

A.J.Parker@bristol.ac.uk

PATRICE POMEY

Directeur de recherche au CNRS, Directeur du Centre Camille Jullian, Archéologie méditerranéenne et africaine, Centre Camille Jullian (UMR 6573),

Université de Provence-CNRS,

Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme,

5, rue du Chateau de l’Horloge, 13090,

Aix-en-Provence, France

pomey@mmsh.univ-aix.fr

CHRISTIAN RADTKE

Archäologisches Landesmuseum in der Stiftung, Schleswig-Holsteinische Landesmuseen Schloß Gottorf,

D 24837 Schleswig, Germany

bibliothek.alm@t-online.de

EDOARDO RICCARDI

Subacquea Navale Marittime,

Via A. Faggi 13, 17028 Bergeggi, Savona, Italy

ERIC RIETH

CNRS (LAMOP-UMR 8589),

Musée national de la Marine, Palais de Chaillot,

75116 Paris, France

e.rieth.cnrs@libertysurf.fr

PATRICIA SIBELLA

University of Michel de Montaigne-Bordeaux III,

Centre Camille Jullian, Aix-en-Provence, France.

psibella@hotmail.com

MARIJA ŠMALCELJ

Department of Archaeology,

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb,

Ivana Lucica 3, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia

marija.smalcelj@zg.hinet.hr

PETR SOROKIN

The Institute of the History of Material Culture,

Russian Academy of Science/191186, Dvorzovaja nab. 18.,

St. Petersburg, Russia

Petrarh@PS2333.spb.edu

BEATRICE SZEPERTYSKI

Laboratoire d’Analyses et d’Expertises en Archéologie et

Oeuvres d’Art, 10, rue Sainte Thérèse

33000 Bordeaux, France

ULRIKE TEIGELAKE

Landschaftsverband Rheinland,

Archäologischer Park/Regionalmuseum Xanten,

Trajanstr. 4, 46509 Xanten, Germany

uteigelake@freenet.de

KATRIN THIER

OED, Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street,

Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

katrin.thier@oup.com

DANIEL VERMONDEN

Centre d’Anthropologie Culturelle, Institut de Sociologie, Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB),

Avenue Jeanne 44, CP 124, B-1050 Bruxelles, Belgium

Daniel.Vermonden@ulb.ac.be

TIMM WESKI

München, Germany

JAMES WHARRAM

James Wharram Designs, Greenbank Road,

Devoran, Truro, Cornwall TR3 6PJ, United Kingdom

wharram@wharram.com

TOMASZ WAZNY

Academy of Fine Arts, Laboratory of Dendrochronology,

ul. Wybrzeże Kościuszkowskie 37,

PL-00379 Warszawa, Poland

twazny@mercury.ci.uw.edu.pl

STÉPHANIE WICHA

Centre Camille Jullian, (UMR 6573, CNRS et Université de Provence) Maison Méditerranéenne des Sciences de l’Homme, 5 rue du Chateau de l’Horloge, B.P.647, 13094 Aix en Provence cedex 2, France

Institut Méditerranéen d’Ecologie et de Paléoécologie (UMR 6116 CNRS-Aix Marseille) Faculté des Sciences et Techniques de St Jérôme, avenue Escadrille Normandie Niemen, 13397 Marseille, France

Wichafr@yahoo.fr

Preface

The 10th International Symposium of Boat and Ship Archaeology was held in Roskilde, Denmark 21–25 September, 2003 and was attended by more than 200 participants from 26 countries. The host institutions were the Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, the National Museum of Denmark’s Institute of Maritime Archaeology (NMU) and the Centre for Maritime Archaeology of the University of Southampton. In addition, the National Museum’s Centre for Maritime Archaeology (NMF) took a leading role in the organisation of the symposium and was the initial administrative home. Unfortunately, NMF closed its doors just three weeks before the symposium began, in accordance with the grant from the National Research Foundation under which it had been founded in 1993, but is still listed here as one of the official sponsors.

The theme of the meeting was Connected by the Sea, to emphasise the role of the sea, seafaring and watercraft as bridges rather than barriers between cultures. The administrative reality of cultural heritage management in recent decades is that maritime archaeology tends to take place within national borders, with a national focus. Yet the very premise of seafaring is the desire to travel beyond the horizon, to establish contact with other places and cultures. The history of maritime endeavour thus cannot be understood if examined on the basis of modern national boundaries, and the conference theme was chosen in order to encourage the maritime archaeological community to think in international terms. A grant was sought and received from the Danish Humanities Research Council (SHF) in order to provide assistance to scholars attending from countries that are generally perceived as less traditional bases of maritime archaeology than western Europe, the Mediterranean and North America. And a key theme of the meeting was long-distance seafaring and the connections between cultures.

The theme of connection was also explored in the context of the coastal zone, where the land meets the sea. As the purpose of maritime travel is to reach a particular destination, seafaring is oriented around the land as much as it is the sea. An entire day of the symposium was focused on this theme, particularly in relation to the development of shipbuilding, as well as coastal seafaring. A third aspect of the main theme was the role of maritime archaeology as a connection between different research disciplines. This field has, since its beginnings, attracted a wide range of specialists in maritime engineering, navigation, as well as craftsmen, in addition to traditional academic archaeologists. There is thus a long history of interdisciplinary study, with a particular emphasis at previous ISBSA’s on the theory and practice of experimental archaeology. As Roskilde has been the home of a long-term program of sailing replica building and testing, it was only natural that one day of formal sessions should be devoted to this topic. In addition, one day was spent on the practical exploration of the Roskilde approach to experimental archaeology. Participants divided up into groups to try their hands at splitting oak logs into planks, testing Viking woodworking tools, hand-laying bast rope, and sailing the Viking Ship Museum’s fleet of reconstructions and traditional small craft. Many of the most spirited discussions of the entire week arose on the water or in the boatyard, and several of the presentations made by Roskilde’s craftsmen-researchers have been developed into papers for publication in this volume.

During the planning for this symposium, it was thought appropriate to recognise the longevity of the ISBSA and its continuing relevance to the field of maritime archaeology. This was the 10th meeting, at regular three-year intervals, since the initial one-off symposium held at the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, England in 1976. This meeting had been conceived by the museum’s director, Basil Greenhill, and the organisation and publication were entrusted to the head of the underwater archaeology unit, Seán McGrail. Professor McGrail has continued to be active in the organisation and publication of subsequent meetings, and it was the desire of the organising committee to commemorate his dedication to the symposia on the occasion of the 10th meeting. Thus it was decided that the publication of the proceedings would also be a Festschrift for Seán, and he was asked to give a plenary lecture during one evening. In typical McGrail fashion, he used this occasion to challenge us all to do a better job of publishing the results of experimental archaeology! This lecture appears in this volume as well, even if it is not traditional to include a paper by the honouree in a Festschrift. It was also decided to invite papers in honour of Seán from several of his colleagues who were not able to attend the meeting but who have worked in the areas in which he has concentrated his own research.

All of this material, along with several poster presentations that the organising committee thought deserved publication, makes for a very large book, one of the heaviest ISBSA publications to date. It is our hope that it will be used as much as previous proceedings, most of which end up quite dog-eared and festooned with bookmarks, rather than simply act as bookshelf ballast.

Acknowledgments

Although the symposium was primarily funded by the sponsoring institutions from their operating funds and by the participants’ fees, grants were most gratefully received from the Danish Humanities Research Council and from Queen Margrethe’s Fund. The organising committee in Roskilde had the assistance and advice of several previous ISBSA organisers, Patrice Pomey (Tatihou 1994), Jerzy Litwin (Gdansk 1997) and Carlo Beltrame (Venice 2000). Their participation was most welcome. Many of the technical and administrative staff of the Viking Ship Museum, NMU and NMF committed untold hours to the answering of queries, booking of accommodation, organisation of transport, and the multitude of other tasks that have to be done in order for a conference to function. We are extremely grateful to those whose labour behind the scenes made the conference function, even when electrical power failed over most of Denmark just before one of the afternoon sessions commenced! Oxbow Books, who have published several other ISBSA proceedings, have been unfailingly helpful and generous in agreeing to fund the printing and distribution of this volume. Finally, Lucy Blue and Fred Hocker are very grateful to Anton Englert, who repeatedly tried to downplay his role in the editing and production of this volume, but without whom it would not have seen the light of day.

Keynote address:

An international forum for nautical research 1976–2003

Ole Crumlin-Pedersen

Recently, when sorting out some of my papers I came across the file of the first International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, held at Greenwich in 1976 (Fig. 1.1). This cast my mind back to those formative years in the 1970’s when research in maritime archaeology in northern Europe became truly internationalised for the first time.

The key person leading this international development was Basil Greenhill, who in 1967, at the age of 47, had been appointed director of the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich, having completed a diplomatic career that had taken him to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Japan and Canada. One might think this was a strange choice but Mr. Greenhill was already an esteemed maritime historian, having published the two volumes on The Merchant Schooners in 1951 and 1957 which were later printed in three new editions as the standard work on the subject (Greenhill 1968). In 1967 Westcountrymen in Prince Edward’s Isle came out (Greenhill and Giffard 1967, 3rd edition in 2003), in 1971 his book on Boats and Boatmen of East Pakistan followed, and in 1976 the Archaeology of the Boat, published very appropriately in the year of the first ISBSA meeting and later in a revised new edition (Greenhill 1976, 1995).

Basil Greenhill had considerable talents as an organiser, both within the museum and in establishing international contacts, such as the formation in 1972 of the International Congress of Maritime Museums. In the course of a few years he had transformed the museum from what has been described as a dusty shrine to Admiral Horatio Nelson into a more dynamic and wide-ranging institution dealing with a much broader range of maritime matters than ever previously imagined.

Fig. 1.1. Group photograph of (most of the participants in ISBSA 1, outside the Queen’s House, National Maritime Museum, Greenwich in September 1976. Photo National Maritime Museum, Greenwich.

An interest in the history of boats and ships had followed Basil Greenhill ever since, at the age of 16, he was given the chance to join Viking, one of the last surviving large cargo-carrying, square-riggers, sailing from the Severn to her home port, Mariehamn in the Åland Islands, calling at Elsinore in Demnark en route. This early experience from his first visits to foreign countries obviously had a strong influence on him, since Demnark and Finland were amongst the first places he visited after his appointment as museum director, and he subsequently maintained strong links with both countries.

From Denmark, Basil Greenhill brought back to Greenwich some of the inspiration that was to materialise in the ‘Department of the Archaeology of the Ship’, that was established in the museum in 1973. By 1976 the department had developed into a regular research unit, the Archaeological Research Centre (ARC), under the direction Seán McGrail, and employed a staff of scholars including maritime historians, archaeologists, anthropologists and conservation specialists to deal with the challenges of the archaeology of the boat.

The archaeology of the boat was a subject that had already been brought into focus in 1970 when a well preserved 10th-century vessel was found at Graveney in the Thames Marshes and excavated by local archaeologists (Fenwick 1978). On this occasion a link was established between the archaeologists of the British Museum, who at that time had little knowledge about boats, and the staff of the Maritime Museum at Greenwich, who had limited archaeological experience. The find was eventually taken to Greenwich for conservation, and research into the vessel was undertaken by Eric McKee. A member of the British Museum staff who had been involved with the re-excavation of the Sutton Hoo ship burial (Bruce-Mitford 1975) assisted with editing the final publication (Fenwick 1978). The remarkably successful ARC unit remained functioning for ten years until, regrettably, in 1986, the entire unit was dismantled by Basil Greenhill’s successor.

However, another incident provided further impetus for Basil Greenhill to pursue his interest in maritime archaeology; the discovery by Ted Wright of the remains of a number of Bronze Age boats buried in the Humber mudflats at North Ferriby (Wright 1990). Wright is reported as having suggested to Greenhill that Greenwich Museum should assemble the ship and boat archaeologists of the world and host a seminar on the North Ferriby and other early boat finds. Seán McGrail subsequently expanded the theme of the seminar to encompass a general focus on sources and techniques in boat archaeology (McGrail 1977). However, without Basil Greenhill’s sincere interest in the subject and his organisational talents, the seminar would probably have never taken place. Basil Greenhill maintained an interest in the subj ect until his death in 2003, issuing with Sam Manning The Evolution of the Wooden Ship in 1988, as well as writing and editing numerous other books on maritime subjects. As late as 2000, he contributed to the scholarly discussion on European medieval ships and their possible connections to traditional boat types in the Indian subcontinent (Greenhill 2000).

Immediately following the symposium in September 1976, a hand-picked selection of the participants met in Basil Greenhill’s office to discuss any further steps to be taken. It was generally agreed that such symposia should continue to be held at regular three yearly intervals. It was also suggested that a permanent organisational structure should be set up to support these meetings that would also aim to establish a common terminology and a database with information about all relevant finds. It was suggested that such a structure would require a financial basis for a semi-permanent staff with secretariat and a governing body with a president. I was, however, opposed to this proposed structure, fearing that it would soon divert the initiative away from active researchers to museum personnel wanting to promote their museums without themselves being engaged in research. By keeping the organisation of future meetings in the hands of active researchers, the initiative would live as long as there was a need for it – and it would die out once the interest or relevance faded. In the end, this less traditional approach was finally accepted, and a model established which has functioned until today. A working group is selected to organise the next symposium having the new host as chairman and three or four of the previous ISBSA hosts as advisors in the selection of themes and the practicalities of the meeting itself, including the publication of the proceedings (McGrail 2000).

This model has functioned well over the years, with Seán McGrail having edited many of the proceedings commencing with the first symposium published in the Archaeological Series of the National Maritime Museum and the British Archaeological Reports series (McGrail 1977). The second meeting took place in 1979 in the newly established Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum in Bremerhaven, Germany. It was hosted by Detlev Ellmers and had medieval ships and harbours as the main theme since the Bremen cog was then being re-assembled in the museum (McGrail 1979).

The third meeting was held 1982 in Stockholm, Sweden, where Carl Olof Cederlund organised the themes around post-Medieval ships, since the Vasa and other large and well preserved Renaissance and later ships served as the focal point of Swedish maritime archaeology (Cederlund 1985). At the fourth meeting in 1985, focus moved away from Northern Europe to the Atlantic seaboard where Octavio Lixa Filgueiras in Lisbon, Portugal, invited his international colleagues to discuss local boats from Iberia and around the world (Filgueiras 1988).

At the fifth session of ISBSA in 1988, Reinder Reinders in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, took up the theme of carvel construction techniques from antiquity to modern times with an approach inspired by Olof Hasslöf s distinction between shell- and skeleton-based design (Hasslöf 1972; Reinders and Paul 1991). For the sixth seminar in 1991, held at the Viking Ship Museum in Roskilde, Denmark, the interaction between different shipbuilding traditions was the main theme (Westerdahl 1994). The idea of holding the seminar outside the big cities as was the case with ISBSA 6, was also adopted by Patrice Pomey and Eric Rieth for ISBSA 7, held in 1994 on the small island of Tatihou, off the coast of Normandy in France. The publication edited by the organisers was delayed due to factors beyond their control, but finally came out in 1999 (Pomey and Rieth 1999).

As there was a strong interest in engaging our Eastern European colleagues as much as possible in the symposia, the invitation from Jerzy Litwin to hold the eighth ISBSA in Gdansk, Poland, in 1997, was gladly accepted. Here the obvious theme was the interaction between river navigation, coastal and deep-sea seafaring (Litwin 2000). Since the Mediterranean and extra-European regions had also been poorly represented during the early meetings of ISBSA, there was a need to widen the field of contact, and the first move into the Mediterranean came with the acceptance of Carlo Beltrame’s invitation for ISBSA 9 to take place in 2000 in Venice with its famous Arsenal and with ships and shipyards as a main theme (Beltrame 2003).

Set against this background, the choice of Roskilde to act once again as host for the tenth session of ISBSA in 2003 may seem to counteract attempts to widen the scope of the institution. However, the fact that scholars from as many as 28 different countries are attending the present symposium is a strong indication that the most important criteria for participants to travel from all over the world is not the location but the potential of the host country to provide a stimulating basis for discussions and workshop activities (Fig. 1.2). In our case, we feel that the collaborative efforts of the Viking Ship Museum, the National Museum of Demnark and the University of Southampton in hosting this meeting has a great deal to offer, not least the results of intense international research in maritime archaeology that has been undertaken at these institutions over the last ten tears.

Fig. 1.2. Group photograph of (most of the participants in ISBSA 10, in front of the Skuldelev 2 longship reconstruction at the Viking Ship Museum’s boatyard in Roskilde, September 2003. Photo Werner Karrasch, Viking Ship Museum.

Just as the Archaeological Research Centre at Greenwich was only funded for ten years, the Centre for Maritime Archaeology of the National Museum of Denmark, situated here in Roskilde with close links to the Viking Ship Museum, has now been closed down after ten golden years. The last issue in the series of newsletters published by the Centre presents the history and achievements of the Centre in widening the approach to maritime archaeology over the ten years since 1993 (Crumlin-Pedersen 2003), which now includes many aspects of life in the past that were influenced by the interaction between man and the sea, but which were previously only seen from a landlubber’s perspective.

In contrast to the situation at Greenwich however, and in spite of severe budget cuts and a reduced staff, maritime archaeology has a future in Roskilde. This has been demonstrated during this seminar in the efforts of the new generation at the Viking Ship Museum. The aims are to carry on and further develop the work which has been on going since the museum opened in 1969 (Damgård-Sørensen and Bill 2003). Thus, the present meeting is not the funeral feast for the Centre that is now closing but a demonstration of a strong will to find new ways in the years ahead to pursue the archaeological study of the interaction of man with the sea in the past, a theme for which Demnark has huge potential and consequently therefore a strong research obligation.

References

Beltrame, C. (ed), 2003, Boats, Ships and Shipyards: proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Venice 2000. Oxbow Books. Oxford.

Bruce-Mitford, R.L.S., 1975, The Sutton Hoo Ship-Burial vol. I. Excavations, Background, the Ship, Dating and Inventory. British Museum. London.

Cederlund, C.O. (ed), 1985, Postmedieval Boat and Ship Archaeology. BAR International Series 256. Oxford.

Crumlin-Pedersen, O., 2003, Ten golden years for maritime archaeology in Denmark, 1993–2003. Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde, 20: 4–43.

Damgård-Sørensen, T., and Bill, J., 2003, Maritime Archaeology in Roskilde – a glimpse into the future. Maritime Archaeology Newsletter from Roskilde, 20: 48–51.

Fenwick, V. (ed), 1978, The Graveney Boat. BARBritish Series 53. Oxford

Filgueiras, O.L. (ed), 1988, Local Boats. BAR International Series 438, I–II. Oxford.

Greenhill, B., 1968, The Merchant Schooners I–II. David and Charles. Newton Abbot Devon.

Greenhill, B., 1971, Boats and boatmen of East Pakistan. David and Charles. Newton Abbot Devon.

Greenhill, B., 1976, Archaeology of the Boat: a new introductory study. A. and C. Black. London.

Greenhill, B., 1988, The Evolution of the Wooden Ship. Batsford. London.

Greenhill, B., 1995, The Archaeology of Boats and Ships. An Introduction. Conway Maritime. London.

Greenhill, B., 2000, The Mysterious Hulk. The Mariner’s Mirror 86.1: 3–18.

Greenhill, B., and Giffard, A., 1967, Westcountrymen in Prince Edward’s Isle. University of Toronto Press. Canada.

Hasslöf, O., 1972, Main Principles in the Technology of Ship-Building. In O. Hasslöf, H. Henningsen and A.E. Christensen (eds), Ships and Shipyards, Sailors and Fishermen. Introduction to Maritime Ethnology, 27–72. Copenhagen University Press. Copenhagen.

Litwin, J. (ed), 2000, Down the River to the Sea: proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology’, Gdansk 1997. Polish Maritime Museum. Gdansk.

McGrail, S., 2000, The ISBSA: past, present and future. In J. Litwin (ed), Down the River to the Sea: proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology’, Gdansk 1997, 269–272. Polish Maritime Museum. Gdansk.

McGrail, S. (ed), 1977, Sources and Techniques in Boat Archaeology: papers based on those presented to a symposium at Greenwich in September 1976, together with edited discussion. BAR Supplementary Series 29. Oxford.

McGrail, S. (ed), 1979, The Archaeology of Medieval Ships and Harbours in Northern Europe: papers based on those presented to an International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology at Bremerhaven in 1979. BAR International Series 66. Oxford.

Pomey, P., and Rieth, E. (eds), 1999, Construction navale, maritime et fluviale. Approches archéologique, historique et ethnologique. Archaeonautica 14. CNRS editions. Paris.

Reinders, R., and Paul, K. (eds), 1991, Carvel Construction Technique. Oxbow Monograph 12. Oxford.

Westerdahl, C. (ed), 1994, Crossroads in Ancient Shipbuilding: proceedings of the sixth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, Roskilde, 1991, Oxbow Monograph 40. Oxford.

Wright, E.V., 1990, The Ferriby Boats: Seacraft of the Bronze Age. Routledge. London.

Walking on water:

Maritime archaeology by air, land and sea

Jonathan Adams

The tenth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology was obviously going to be a special event and so when invitations went out to potential hosts, it was no surprise that several institutions put themselves forward. This tenth triennial event would mark nearly three decades of research into all aspects of ancient watercraft and seafaring, core concerns of ‘maritime archaeology’, a field that in a growing number of countries around the world is becoming one of the most dynamic in the discipline. Over that period ISBSA has, in a real sense, both contributed to the development of maritime archaeology and manifested its output. An indication of its long term consistency is the way each of the volumes of proceedings have passed out of print and remain high on many students’ lists of library reading.

At the University of Southampton we wanted to host ISBSA 10 for a very specific reason. Seán McGrail has been formally associated with the university since 1990. He had also been a key figure in the organisation and publishing of the very first ISBSA when it was held at the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich in 1976. What better way of celebrating the tenth symposium than by returning to some of the themes that drove that first meeting, particularly as many of them have subsequently remained or resurfaced as key concerns. In the event we became co-organisers with the Viking Ship Museum at Roskilde and the National Museum of Denmark’s Centre for Maritime Archaeology. Roskilde was the obvious venue, a place that was inextricably linked to the subject’s development and the home of Ole Crumlin-Pedersen, one of Seán’s oldest friends and collaborators. How appropriate too, to use the symposium as a way of generating a hefty Festschrift for Seán in tribute to his inestimable role in the subject’s development, a contribution that has been made in every facet, whether through carrying out and publishing research, education, heritage management or professional advice.

By way of illustrating the nature of that contribution, a brief look backwards is instructive, for Seán’s arrival in archaeology coincided with the period when the British Isles began to tentatively investigate maritime archaeological sites both coastal and underwater. Compared to many of our neighbours, we were rather slow on the uptake. Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and Olaf Olsen’s work on the Viking ships discovered at Skuldelev in Denmark and the rediscovery, salvage and excavation of Vasa in Stockholm harbour (Cederlund forthcoming), both had begun in the 1950s. By the time the excavation phase of these projects was completed, George Bass had carried out his groundbreaking excavation at Gelidonya in 1960, the Bremen cog had been recovered and Ulrich Ruoff had taken archaeology under water into the Swiss lakes. There are many other examples but Britain largely missed this burst of activity, the work of Joan du Plat Taylor and Honor Frost notwithstanding. The first projects that were set to have a long term influence in Britain cluster around the late 1960s and early 1970s. Ironically, this was just at the time when the New Archaeology was beginning to affect the cosy world of what it disparagingly called ‘traditional archaeology’. Maybe this is one reason why British archaeology in general did not take too much notice of what was beginning to go on under water. Another reason was that many people carrying out investigations under water were not archaeologists by training and this contributed to a certain degree of development in isolation. Seán McGrail was to be one of the first who championed the potential synergy between maritime source material and archaeology at large. So while the likes of Muckelroy, Parker and Rule blazed a trail under water, McGrail did the same above it, emphasising a broader approach, as demonstrated by his definition of the subject (McGrail 1984a: 12) as compared to Muckelroy’s (1978: 4).

But before attempting to place McGrail in the context of a developing maritime archaeology, we need to go even further back. It might surprise many who have only known him as the eminent professor of maritime archaeology and author of hundreds of publications, to learn that archaeology is his second career. His first, between 1946 and 1968, was in the Royal Navy, from 1951 onwards as a pilot in the Fleet Air Arm. I have known Seán since 1977 and until recently I knew very little of his former existence. I knew he was a Master Mariner and that he’d been to sea in ‘grey boats’. I also knew he’d been a pilot but not of what or where. I found out when I was visiting Fred and Emma Hocker’s house in Roskilde. Fred, a connoisseur, not just of boats but of all technology, showed me into his beautifully equipped workshop and there on a table was a book about aircraft. It was open at a page showing a Fairey Firefly FR (fighter-reconnaissance) Mk.5 in Korean War markings. The caption read: "Lieutenant J.F.K. ‘Sean’ McGrail … carried out many of 118 operational sorties against Korean targets (between 12 November 1952 and May 1953) in VT488 205/R from the deck of HMS Glory" (Fig. 02.1; Harrison 1998: 129). This was only one part of a flying career that included no less than 500 deck landings and 300 catapult launches. I had never heard Seán talk about this, not because he wouldn’t if asked, but because it is unlikely to be pertinent to discussions centred on maritime archaeology. If it isn’t germane to the issue he’s the last person to throw in anecdotes simply for effect. However, there is an aspect in which this particular plane and others that he flew are relevant to his subsequent research interests and to our field in general. It is often acknowledged that boats are among the most symbolically laden of all artefacts (Crumlin-Pedersen and Munch Thye 1995). They typically last for a human lifespan, they are gendered, they are given names and in some societies are even afforded mortuary rites at the end of their use life (Adams 2003: 30). No wonder then that they are so often adorned in various ways, not in the sense of ‘pretty’ decoration but as a means of signifying and projecting aspects of identity, status, association and meaning. McGrail’s Firefly carried similar messages, in the aerial equivalent of the oculus, his plane was decorated with ‘nose art’, one of the few British aircraft in that theatre to be so. The image was even painted on a removable panel so that it could be transferred to another aircraft (Harrison 1998: 129).

Fig. 2.1. Fairey Firefly FR Mk.5 VT488, Lieutenant McGrail’s mount during the Korean War, with nose art on the panel just behind the exhaust (after Harrison 1998: 129).

Following operational flying he spent periods as an instructor, an examiner and also took command of a squadron. In 1968, armed with his Board of Trade certificate ‘Master Mariner (Foreign Going)’, he left the navy and headed for academia. Out of uniform, his progress was characterised by the same sense of purpose. Winning a scholarship, he predictably gained his BA in mathematics, history and econometrics with first-class honours. He was part way through his MSc in statistics when he was snapped up by the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich to fill a newly created post of Assistant Keeper (archaeology). The museum director at this time was the late Basil Greenhill, and in Seán he recognised someone who could help deliver his vision of a dynamic national museum that wasn’t simply a repository of archives and dusty objects but an active research centre and a world class centre of excellence. Within a year Seán had become head of the Museum’s newly created Department of Archaeology of Ships. In 1976 he became the museum’s Chief Archaeologist and head of its Archaeological Research Centre. This was the year of the first ISBSA held at Greenwich, in which Seán was so central (Crumlin-Pedersen this volume). Its proceedings were published the following year, edited by Seán as Sources and Techniques in Boat Archaeology (BAR S29. Oxford). Never content with doing one thing at a time he had started a PhD at the Institute of Archaeology in London. This was published as Logboats of England and Wales in 1978, the same year as Keith Muckelroy’s seminal Maritime Archaeology. Soon afterwards Muckelroy also went to work at Greenwich in the ARC under Seán, a partnership that would surely have been highly significant for maritime archaeology had it not been so tragically cut short when Keith was drowned in 1980. Indeed the ARC itself was not to last. The retirement of Basil Greenhill and changes in museum policy shifted the trajectory of the whole discipline. In 1986 Seán became Professor of Maritime Archaeology at the Institute of Archaeology in Oxford, where among his flock of bright young PhD students was Lucy Blue. His interest, indeed his passion for education in maritime archaeology has been a constant thread right through his work.

He ‘retired’ from Oxford in 1993 but by then he had already become Visiting Professor at Southampton, a post through which he still contributes regularly to postgraduate teaching in the Centre for Maritime Archaeology (CMA). In fact the creation of the CMA at Southampton is something that Seán had promoted for many years. At Southampton he found a department of archaeology keen to embed maritime archaeology in its undergraduate syllabus in response to growing student interest. He taught the first complete course in maritime archaeology at Southampton in 1991. I started teaching another a year later. It was the success of these two courses that convinced the Department to launch a Masters programme in 1995 and in 1997 to launch the CMA. Seán has therefore been something of a father figure for maritime archaeology at Southampton just as he has been in Britain as a whole.

But to return to his archaeological context so to speak: The cathartic crisis of identity induced by the New Archaeology in the late 1960s – early 1970s was referred to by David Clarke as archaeology’s ‘loss of innocence’ (Clarke 1973: 6), the very period when Seán was getting to grips with the discipline. One of the most substantive publications of this era was Clarke’s ‘Analytical Archaeology’ published in 1968, the same year that Seán swapped naval life for civvy street. With his mathematical acumen and his navigator’s mind set, it is not surprising that this book made a deep impression. Archaeology was donning the white coat of the natural sciences and Seán had the skills to explore that approach. I believe he’d agree that his advocacy of rigorous method in the pursuit of quantifiable data is at least partly informed by the approaches of Clarke and others at that time (Adams 2003: 13). This fed through into his recording and reconstruction of ancient watercraft and of course his use of experimental archaeology (Fig. 2.2). Here then is the germ of the McGrail ‘floating hypothesis’ (McGrail 1992), complemented by his ethnographic application (McGrail 1984b; McGrail et al 2003; Blue et al 1997). Just how far the elastic of inference can be stretched using experimental and ethnographic analogy were principal themes of ISBSA 1 and therefore explicitly of ISBSA 10.

Fig. 2.2. A guiding hand on the ‘tiller’ – a habitual role for the Professor. Seán acting as Trierarch aboard Olympias.

It is this potent combination of experiment and ethnography that prevent McGrail being simplistically pigeonholed. No one who has worked with, been mentored or taught by Seán, was ever left in any doubt about the McGrail approach to study: rigour! Yet this has never been in an unthinking, procedural sense, rather that there must be a quantifiable chain of reasoning between the data, their analysis and subsequent conclusions. On the basis of the data he is quite happy to discuss the possible symbolic significance of the Hasholme logboat or its relations to social status and power, as well as calculating its stability and capacity. He would of course point out that in the case of the latter we can arrive at definitive conclusions about performance while the metaphysical aspects remain rather more diffuse. Perhaps this is why he has been such a good mentor and educator, never discouraging interpretation but always advocating firm anchorage in the data. So, while in the 1990s McGrail’s approaches appeared to be a little at odds with the increasingly post-processual thrust of much maritime archaeological work, things are now less polarised. Just as archaeological thinking in general has seen a gradual shift to the centre ground, so maritime archaeology acknowledges the importance of those aspects imported into the field by McGrail and Muckelroy in the 1970s and 80s. Maritime archaeology now relies on scientific analysis of the post-depositional processes of site evolution, yet admits no contradiction in seeking to understand the symbolic, as well as the functional meanings of ‘active’ material culture in pre-depositional and depositional contexts (Adams 2002: 330).

Fig. 2.3. Experimental technology: The Kitchen Sink Mk 1 before being loaded. Seán McGrail second from Right (Photo S. McGrail).

I cannot end without providing an insight into Seán’s own development as a scholar. For although David Clarke made such a strong impression on him since he has become an academic, his predisposition for scientific enquiry is evident much earlier. It dates to 1956 when Seán was Air Warfare Instructor of 824 squadron. They flew Fairey Gannets, and were embarked in HMS Ark Royal, in Gibraltar. The Gannet, although one of the ugliest and most improbable looking aircraft to ever take off from a carrier, was said to be so versatile that it could be loaded ‘with everything but the kitchen sink’. Never one to accept theory unchallenged, Seán decided that this particular hypothesis ought to be tested. Accompanied by the chief armourer, he scoured Gibraltar dockyard, found and ‘liberated’ a pusser’s kitchen sink. At 14.20 on the 25th March, accompanied by his observer and a representative from Fairey Aviation, Seán flew the Gannet suitably ‘armed’ on the last sortie of the commission. The sink was loaded ‘bung up and bilge free’, suspended by wire strops and with two sonobuoy parachutes attached (Fig. 2.3). They flew alongside the Ark and dropped an antisubmarine flare, a marker marine, a non-serviceable, non-directional sonobuoy, a 251b practice bomb, an 821b breakup bomb, a smoke-flame float, and finally, the kitchen sink. Needless to say, a full report was written and submitted, anticipating the timely manner in which his archaeological publications have appeared. Ballistics of the sink were said to be ‘not unlike those of a brick-built chicken house’. Underwater trajectory was impossible to ascertain ‘owing to marked disintegration on impact’ (McGrail 2005: 23).

In 2003, we instituted the now annual Land and Sea conference at Southampton, an explicit attempt to promote integrative approaches across maritime archaeology and beyond. In reviewing the career of Seán McGrail, perhaps we ought to re-name it Air, Land and Sea, for the remit of the maritime archaeology he has helped to build clearly encompasses it all.

References

Adams, J., 2002, Maritime Archaeology, in C. Orser (ed), Encyclopedia of Historical Archaeology, 328–330. London: Routledge.

Adams, J., 2003, Ships, Innovation and Social Change. Stockholm: University of Stockholm.

Blue, L., Kentley, E., McGrail, S. and Mishra, U, 1997, The Patia Fishing Boat of Orissa: A Case Study in Ethnoarchaeology. South Asian Studies 13: 198–207.

Cederlund, C. O., forthcoming, Vasa I: The archaeology of a Swedish warship of 1628. Stockholm.

Clarke, D. L., 1968, Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen and Co.

Clarke, D. L., 1973, Archaeology: the loss of innocence. Antiquity 47: 6–18

Crumlin-Pedersen, O. and Munch Thye, B., (eds), 1995, The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark.

Harrison, W., 1998, Fairey Firefly variants. Wings of Fame 12: 112–141.

McGrail, S., (ed), 1984a, Aspects of Maritime Archaeology and Ethnology. Greenwich: NMM

McGrail, S., 1984b, Boat Ethnography and Maritime Archaeology. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 13.2: 149–150

McGrail, S., 1992, Replicas, reconstructions and floating hypotheses. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 21.4: 353–5.

McGrail, S., Blue, L., Kentley, E., and Palmer, C., (eds), 2003, Boats of South Asia. Studies in South Asia Series. RoutledgeCurzon: London.

McGrail, S., 2005, The Fairey Gannet: ‘everything and the kitchen sink’. Jabberwock 53: 22–23. The Society of Friends of the Fleet Air Arm.

Muckelroy, K., 1978, Maritime Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1 Experimental archaeology and ships – principles, problems and examples

Ole Crumlin-Pedersen

In the pursuit of an understanding of the past, Experimental Archaeology can offer a methodology that may provide further insight into the subjects being studied, primarily with regard to aspects of technology, the consumption of resources and cultural interaction. This is not least the case when studying the remains of ancient ships in context, seeing the construction, maintenance, and use of the vessels as reflections of maritime aspects of the past, since these vessels were some of the most complex and challenging structures built and used by early man.

At the same time, Experimental Ship Archaeology is a problematic field since a research oriented approach to these projects is often overruled by other, conflicting aims. In recent years, full-scale reproductions of several ships of the past have been built around the world, claiming to provide important contributions to our understanding of amongst other things, the conditions of navigation in the past. In some of these cases, however, the use of the terms ‘experimental’ and ‘replica’ is just a cover-up for raising money for a project whose aims have little relevance to scholarly study. Frequently, entrepreneurship rather than scholarship determines the objectives and sets the scene. Therefore, the present symposium has set aside two full days for papers, discussions, and practical demonstrations relating to issues of Experimental Archaeology. However, the discussion will no doubt still remain unresolved and continue to present a topic for discussion by new generations of maritime archaeologists in the years to come.

In order to demonstrate the range of aims that Experimental Archaeological projects pursue, fourteen vessels that were constructed in modern times with the declared intention to represent important examples of ship and boat building of the past, have been selected, listed and classified (Table 1.1). Most of these examples are generally well-known and some of them represent excellent scholarship and authentic craftsmanship. For others of these vessels, however, the construction is based on such insubstantial evidence that there is hardly anything to ‘replicate’ in the true sense of the word. The list might have been much longer, but these examples may suffice to illustrate the confusing and sometimes conflicting motives behind these prestigious and expensive projects.

Among these fourteen projects a mixture of at least nine different motives have been identified (Table 1.2). The first two are related to what we may call individual or national self-promotion through the use of famous ship types, voyages, or epochs in order to justify the endeavour. The next two are for profit, primarily geared towards the tourist and charter business. Motives five and six relate to social activities, either officially organised for the un-employed, or non-profit challenges taken up by private groups in order to promote community activity. Educational and museological aims are behind motive number seven, while the eighth motive group may be considered part of the protection or re-vitalisation of the physical heritage. Finally, the ninth is research-related in that it sees the project primarily as an important element in the scholarly analysis of a ship find or an ancient boat type.

For each of these fourteen vessels, two or more of these aims have been identified from the published evidence. In Table 1.1, the major aims are listed in priority sequence for each project. This is of course a subjective evaluation of the projects by the present author but this classification may still open up discussion on the different objectives behind the construction of these vessels.

For researchers and museum staff concerned with scholarly studies of maritime aspects of the past, as well as with the problems of protection of the maritime heritage, focus should be on those projects that have given priority to aims 9, 8 and 7. For those projects where ‘fame’ or ‘business’ are the primary objectives, scholarly research is often neglected or given a subordinate role, generally leading to weak academic analysis.

It is a fact, however, that most replica project managers have to play several cards in order to assemble the necessary resources and to get the project-organisation established to deal with the full range of problems, from the initial enquiry that helps determine the selection of materials, to the actual construction and sea trials and, finally, publication and long-term maintenance. Therefore, a project cannot be dismissed as not having scholarly objectives simply because there are elements of ‘business’ or ‘prestige’ involved, as long as these aims are not given priority over the research aims.

Table 1.1. Examples of ‘replicas’ 1893–2004 (Crumlin-Pedersen).

Table 1.2. Reasons for building a ‘replica’ (Crumlin-Pedersen).

But even in cases where original archaeological, iconographic or textual evidence – or a combination of these – is at hand to inform the replica builder, there are frequently large lacunae in the sources on the nature of the rigging and equipment, and even of important parts of the hull. In the worst case, inadequate scholarship at the research phase, poor craftsmanship during construction, and incompetent seamanship due to lack of relevant experience, can lead to false conclusions on the nature and seaworthiness of ancient vessels.

The challenge of reproducing and testing an ancient seagoing vessel calls for a coordinated effort based on the professional aptitude of the archaeologist, historian and naval architect, combined with those of the boat builder, sailor, and navigator. This approach is necessary since the methodology involved in the replication process must involve the application of academic scholarship in combination with experienced and exploration-minded craftsmanship and seamanship. Only then can one expect to be able to appreciate building techniques and elements of seamanship that are now obsolete but which were highly functional within the technological options at the time after having been developed and handed down through the generations.

But even then there is a tendency to see the construction of a ship in the past as little more than a technological problem, separate from the vessel’s complex role in contemporary society. Modem day social and mental constructs and limited relevant knowledge and skills, will inevitably impede our ability to replicate ancient vessels. The complex context including rituals, initialisation processes and beliefs relating to the construction phases, choice of colour and decoration of the vessels, will invariably allude us. Such aspects are examples of what is lost to the modern observer. Secular symbolism also played an important role in many vessels, as reflected, for instance, in the motto of the Vasa exhibition in Stockholm: The Power and the Glory, being a clear reflection of the immense symbolic importance attributed to this royal ship by the king of Sweden in the early seventeenth century (Kvaming and Ohrelius 1998).

Therefore, one must not, in the study of the remains of an ancient vessel, neglect the wide range of links, beyond the purely functional, that probably existed between the vessel in question and the society that built it. These aspects may not materialise clearly in an initial study of the archaeological remains of a vessel but become more evident once the construction process is being replicated. Consequently, these aspects should be kept in mind in order for the study of the vessel to provide insight into the society that had the vessel built – exploiting the potentials of the find to illuminate several facets of life in a maritime community of the past in the course of the modern experimental process.

Even when not taking this wider perspective into full consideration, a ship-archaeological find may have much to offer. As stated by Dick Steffy (1994: 5), a vessel of the past carried much more than its cargo of goods and people, since it carried an immense cargo of knowledge. Therefore, one needs excellent recording and research procedures in order to exploit such monuments of technology as primary sources in the study of past societies.

When taking up the challenge of making a full-size reconstruction of an ancient vessel (whether the actual vessel is a clay pot or a ship) one is faced with a series of questions that would not usually concern scholars describing an archaeological find, thus demanding further rigour with respect to the recording and research methods. Reproducing the vessel forces the investigator to deal with problems of selection and processing of materials, with design and production procedures, as well as with aspects of its use.

The replication process of a boat or ship is far too complex to be reduced to a simple hypothesis-and-test-procedure, as recently claimed by some British scholars based on the standards of experiments in physics; there are simply too many variables at play simultaneously (Coates et al 1995; Crumlin-Pedersen 1995). The strength of single elements, such as individual fastenings, ropes, etc., may be tested following standard procedures (for example Valbjøm et al 2003: 95). However, no computer models currently exist that can truthfully simulate the behaviour at sea of an ancient sailing vessel, under various weather conditions, without allowing for extensive approximations and modifications that will require correlation with the results of full-scale trials for scaling. In effect we are not yet able to assess this in a comprehensive manner.

This calls for an effort combining naval architectural calculations, testing in