Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T10:21:07.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Boats from North Ferriby, Yorkshire, England, with a review of the origins of the sewn boats of the Bronze Age

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 May 2014

E. V. Wright  and
D. M. Churchill
E. V. Wright
Affiliation:
Sub-department of Quaternary Research, Cambridge
D. M. Churchill
Affiliation:
Sub-department of Quaternary Research, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fortunate discovery by the first author and his son, R. W. Wright, in March 1963 of a third in the series of sewn boats from North Ferriby, making the fourth in the group from the Humber basin, if the Brigg ‘Raft’ is included, has provided a convenient starting point for a review of the whole subject in the light of new evidence as to age. This in turn has led to rather firmer conclusions about their possible affinities and origin than were possible when the report on the first two examples was prepared. There are reasonable grounds now for putting out speculations about the pattern which has resulted in the occurrence of related techniques of boat-building over a great span of time and distance.

The preliminary excavation and recovery were directed by Mr Bartlett and the first writer. Preservation is being carried out at the Hull Museum under Mr Bartlett's control. Such photographic recording as was attempted was largely done by Miss Isla McInnes of the Hull Museum Staff, Mr Derek Cutts and his wife (who also achieved a graphic motion picture record of the proceedings in colour) and Mr Allen Binns. Limitations on photography were accepted deliberately in the interests of speed since no attempt was made at detailed cleaning before removal of the remains. The weather seldom helped.

Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society , Volume 31 , December 1965 , pp. 1 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Prehistoric Society 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 1 note 1 PPS, XIII (1947), pp. 114–38Google Scholar.

page 1 note 2 A very sincere tribute must be paid to those who took part in the excavation and recovery of boat 3. The band of volunteers from the East Riding Archaeological Society and elsewhere spent themselves without stint in conditions which were taxing in the extreme. Those principally involved were: Mrs Bartlett, Mrs Cutts, Miss McKinnes and Messrs Berkin, Binns, Boylan, Candler, Cutts, Daae, MacGregor, Mackay, Naish, Richardson, Spalding and Watt.

There were a number of others who lent a hand at various stages. To all of these thanks are due.

page 1 note 3 The operation would not have been possible without the contribution made by Priestman Brothers Ltd., of Marfleet, Hull. The ‘engineering’ side began with a reconnaissance by Mr James Priestman and Mr Fred Ingram of Priestman's with Mr Bartlett and the author. A scheme was worked out between us, for which Priestman's provided all the materials and a magnificent ‘Caribou’ mobile crane with crew to do the pulling and lifting. Mr Ingram himself was present throughout our dig.

page 1 note 4 The process is by impregnation with polyethylene glycol ‘4000’ (see Organ, R. M.Studies in Conservation, 1959, 4Google Scholar). Shell Chemical Co. Ltd. have most generously supplied polyethylene glycol ‘4000’ in sufficient quantity for the treatment of the large timbers lifted. It is likely that the process of preservation will be extended over several years before completion.

page 2 note 1 E.V.W. also acknowledges his special debt to his secretary, Mrs J. Wick, for typing and retyping successive drafts.

page 2 note * Denotes that the wood has been identified only after microscopic study of thin sections, with the aid of keys and comparison with reference material.

page 5 note 1 Op. cit., Appendix B. for identification (p. 138).

page 6 note 1 Op. cit., Appendix B. p. 138 Sample (iv).

page 7 note 1 The trackway resembles most closely in size of branches and general appearance the Honeygore Track: illustrated in pl. III of Godwin's paper on the Somerset Trackways, PPS, XXVI (1960)Google Scholar. The Honeygore Track is, however, of Neolithic age whereas the Ferriby ones are most probably Bronze Age.

page 8 note 1 New Zealand Dominion Museum Bull. No. 7 ‘The Maori Canoe’, Elsdon Best (1925), pp. 61–2, figs. 26 and 27 for ‘NGAO-TU’ method.

I have seen a good example of a canoe-hull showing this technique in the Wanganui Museum.

page 8 note 2 Guide to the Whales, Porpoises and Dolphins, B.M. (Natural History), (1909), p. 17Google Scholar.

page 9 note 1 Wright, E.V. and Wright, C. W., PPS, XIII (1947), pp. 114–38Google Scholar.

page 12 note 1 Godwin, H. and Willis, E., Radiocarbon, vol. 31 (1961), p. 69Google Scholar.

page 12 note 2 Smith, A. G., PPS, XXIV (1958), pp. 78–84Google Scholar and New Phytol., vol. 57, pp. 19–49Google Scholar.

page 12 note 3 Swinnerton, H. H., Quart. Journ. Geol. Soc. Lond., LXXXVII (1931), pp. 360–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 12 note 4 Wylie, W. M., Proc. Soc. Ant., (N.S.), X (1884), pp. 110–15Google Scholar.

page 12 note 5 Atkinson, A. E., Archaeologia, vol. 50 (1886), pp. 361–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

page 12 note 6 Sheppard, T., Trans. E. Riding Ant. Soc., XVII (1910), pp. 33–54Google Scholar.

page 13 note 1 Wylie, W. M., Proc. Soc. Ant., (N.S.), X (1884), pp. 110–15Google Scholar.

page 13 note 2 Smith, A. G., PPS, XXIV (1958), pp. 78–84Google Scholar and New Phytol., vol. 57, pp. 19–49Google Scholar.

page 13 note 3 H. Godwin and E. Willis, loc. cit.

page 14 note 1 Godwin, H., Veröff. Geobot. Inst. Rübel, Zurich, vol. 37 (1962), pp. 83–99Google Scholar and A. P. Conolly, vol. 40 (1941), p. 299.

page 14 note 2 Smith, A. G., PPS, XXIV (1958), pp. 78–84Google Scholar and New Phytol., vol. 57, pp. 19–49Google Scholar.

page 14 note 3 Unless otherwise stated the North Ferriby finds are recorded in Wright and Wright, PPS, XIII (1947), pp. 114–38Google Scholar.

page 15 note 1 PPS, XXVI (1960), p. 351Google Scholar and see also p. 11 and p. 16.

page 15 note 2 See forthcoming note by Prof. Hawkes.

page 15 note 3 PPS, XIII (1947), p. 128Google Scholar and Naturalist, No. 920 (1933), pp. 210–12Google Scholar.

page 15 note 4 See Smith, A. G., PPS, XXIV (1958), pp. 78–84Google Scholar.

page 16 note 1 P.S.A. Scot, XCV (1961–1962)Google Scholar, Appendix II and Refs.

page 17 note 1 See pls. VI, VII and VIII.

page 17 note 2 The current British scheme for Middle Bronze Age (Hawkes, Scheme for British Bronze Age, 1960) gives:— B.C. 1400–1200 M.B.1.

1200 – 1000 M.B.2.

1000 – 900/850 M.B.3.

page 18 note 1 Prehistoric Europe, London (1952), pp. 284–8Google Scholar.

page 18 note 2 M.M., vol. 50, 2 (1964), p. 91Google Scholar.

page 19 note 1 Clowes, , Sailing Ships, London, H.M.S.O. (1932)Google Scholar, pt. 1, pl. 1.

page 19 note 2 Zaki-Nour, Mohammed et al. , The Cheops Boats (Cairo, 1960)Google Scholar, pt. i. Illustrated also in Keating, , Nubian Twilight (London, 1962)Google Scholar, pls. xxvii and xxviii.

page 19 note 3 Hornell, , Water Transport, p. 193Google Scholar. Text, fig. 29 A.

page 19 note 4 Hornell op. cit., pls. xxxv and xxxvi and p. 221.

page 19 note 5 PPS (1947). fig. 2(a), p. 119.

page 19 note 6 PPS (1947). fig. 7. p. 124.

page 20 note 1 Graphically described and illustrated by Thesiger, in The Marsh Arabs, p. 192Google Scholar and pls. 71–4.

page 20 note 2 Rosenberg, Jessen and Johannessen, , Hjortspring-fundet, Copenhagen (1937)Google Scholar, and Marstrander, , Ostfolds Jordbruksristninger-Skjeberg (Oslo, 1963), p. 450Google Scholar.

page 21 note 1 Well illustrated in Landstrom's, The Ship, figs. 125–30 and 132–34 on pp. 54–5Google Scholar.

page 21 note 2 Especially in the orembai from the Moluccas and the mon from the Solomons, see Hornell, Water Transport and M.M., vol. 21, 4 (1935)Google Scholar. A similar boat comes from Botel Tobago Island, Worcester, , M.M., vol. 42, 4 (1956), pp. 306–8Google Scholar.

My attention has been drawn by Mr G. P. B. Naish to Brindley's paper on the Siberian boats (Brindley, H. H., ‘Some Notes on the Boats of Siberia’, M.M. (1919–1920)Google Scholar). As so often happens, many of the descriptions, mainly from accounts by 19th-century travellers, are tantalizingly vague. There are, however, several references to a wide variety of sewn boats in the most easterly regions of Siberia, Kamchatka and the Kuriles. Some of these show similarities with our group in methods of caulking (with moss) and covering of seams with laths, as well as the use of what is variously described as wicker, wattle or osier stitching. One, the Karbass of the Lamout (Tungus) tribe along the Yassachua River, a tributary of the Lena, is reminiscent of the Hjortspring type in its thin planking and use of resin for caulking. More akin to Ferriby techniques is the boat of the Ainu from the Kurile islands, which is carvel-built, sewn (with whale sinews), the seams caulked with moss and covered with battens, holes stopped with wood plugs. Of the Schitiki from the Kolyma River region, Capt.Burney, James (A Chronological History of North Eastern Voyages of Discovery, London, 1819)Google Scholar, quoting Martin Sauer writes: ‘The planks were sewed together with twisted osiers and fastened to the timbers only by leathern straps in lieu of nails or pegs. The interstices were stuffed with moss and the seams were covered with laths to prevent the moss being washed out. Notwithstanding the slightness of their construction, these boats were decked’.

Brindley certainly took all these to be intrusive designs into the regions where they were found and not native to the tribes using them. Hornell speculates about dispersion along the Arctic coast eastward or westward in periods of more genial climate than the present. There would seem to be good reason to connect some of the Siberian and North Pacific types with the early Scandinavian boats of the rock-engravings and Hjortspring, whereas the carvel-built Ainu boat may well have features derived from the South, possibly Indonesia rather than the North West.

page 21 note 3 Hornell, op. cit., p. 211, fig. 40.

page 21 note 4 Hornell, op. cit., pl. xxix B.

page 21 note 5 Bass, G. F., Am. J. Archaeology, vol. 65 (1961), pp. 267–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Casson confirms in correspondence that there is clear evidence of mortises and tenons, but that their precise nature could not be determined.

page 21 note 6 Am. J. Philology, LXXXV (1 Jan. 1964), pp. 61–4Google Scholar.

page 22 note 1 Classical Review (N.S.), XIII, No. 3 (Dec. 1963), p. 258Google Scholar.

page 22 note 2 The American Neptune, XXIV, No. 2 (April 1964), pp. 90–1Google Scholar. See also Casson's reference (p. 92) to a passage in Procopius writing in the 6th cent. A.D. and implying that the sewn boats in use then in the Arabian Sea were an object of amazement to a Mediterranean eye. There is a good description of such vessels in Marco Polo also.

page 22 note 3 See especially the representations on the Medinet Habu reliefs.

page 22 note 4 Notably the Masula type from the coasts about Madras (see pl. VIII).

page 22 note 5 Hornell, in Man, 1 (1928)Google Scholar.

page 22 note 6 Hornell, , Water Transport (Cambridge, 1946)Google Scholar, pl. xxviii B and Illustrated London News (26 Oct. 1935), p. 691Google Scholar.

page 23 note 1 I am indebted to Mr C. A. Rider Runton for investigations into these craft.

page 23 note 2 M.M., vol. 42, 4 (1956), pp. 279–90Google Scholar.