Originally posted by Jenni: I was a bit disappointed - from the prelim about a boat being "found", I actually expected TT to make the discovery, not for the archaeologiests to know exactly where it was and almost everything about it except its age! The "solving a mystery" aspect of TT is one of my favourites and there didn't seem to much of a mystery here - the Dutch archaeologists just seemed to want the publicity (in a nice way!) and manpower. The programme didn't beat last week's, IMHO.
I couldn't agree more. The positive side of the episode was the sheer quality and significance of the find - very impressive - but this is Time Team, not Timewatch. I was disappointed at just how much the TT team were spectating and would hate the programme to take this direction in the future. More genuine investigation and less PR please. Oh, and did the Dutch archaeologist's exuberance at the dendro result grate on anyone else's nerves? You wouldn't catch Mick behaving so theatrically. [Sorry - I'm in a right grump - but I love this show and hate it being used in this way.]
It could only carry the equivalent of the weight of water the cargo would displace. The draft was quite shallow so not so much a industrial barge more of a people ferry perhaps
It would have been interesting to know the width of the river at that time. Considering the length of the boat, perhaps it could have been used as a portable bridge rather than a ferry ?
........................................................................ Support the PAS Go with the FLO
Watching the programme with increased interest as I realised that the shape of the barge, the size of it, to be used as a "river barge" transporting goods seemed to be a waste of a prefect method for dispatching troops and a foriegn shore, wether it be a beach or a river bank.
Going back to the size, could this not carry a full "Cohort" 60 armed men, if so that means that a number of these could despatch a large body of troops ashore at once!
I think we Time Team has found a Roman form of "Landing Craft".
Do not under estimate the Roman know how, what they bult we are atill using today!
All the best, this is just another possible use of such an incredible craft.
Originally posted by hopski: It could only carry the equivalent of the weight of water the cargo would displace. The draft was quite shallow so not so much a industrial barge more of a people ferry perhaps
I'm not sure whether I blinked and missed it, but what was the evidence that backed up the theory that the boat was deliberately sunk and used to 'shore up' the quay sides? It would seem to me more likely that it fell into disuse / disrepair and became abandoned, sunk and silted next to the quay, and the stones fell in as the quay itself collapsed.
Mixed feelings about this programme - fantastic to see a Roman boat in such good repair, but like others I much prefer the 'back garden' style digs. This one seemed to be almost cheating!
Lesley - I think it was the angle of the boat which gave them their "evidence" - the bottom was at such an angle to the river bottom that it would have been unlikely to sink in that position (sort of more on its side than on its bottom).
I use the quotes, as I agree it seems to be more of an idea rather than actual evidence!
WazzaRSA - in a word, no! Some used to, but we haven't seen any actual TT members around here for quite some time.
Hi, Like most people, I enjoyed the programme but it's not the Time Team that we all love.
I wonder if they were expecting to find more in the other trenches and only spend half the programme on the boat but when these came up empty they ended up with half the team twiddling their thumbs and a Time Team Special instead!
Originally posted by Jenni: Lesley - I think it was the angle of the boat which gave them their "evidence" - the bottom was at such an angle to the river bottom that it would have been unlikely to sink in that position (sort of more on its side than on its bottom).
Thanks Jenni - I missed any reference to where this idea came from. I'm not convinced - I've spent many years pottering around on boats, and have seen a large number of abandoned boats fall into all sorts of positions!
I don't remember any reference as to the relationship of the boat to the river bed, but assuming that simple burial has taken place, and that no relative movement has occurred, the angle at which the boat lay is typical of an abandoned boat lying on a tidal mud river bank. IMHO the evidence needed to make an assumption that the boat had been used to 'shore up' the quayside would be a large number of the quay-reinforcing rocks being found underneath the flat hull timbers. This may have been the case, and this evidence may have hit the cutting room floor!
...Surprised someone hasn't mentioned the taking of a chainsaw to a piece of wood...
The idea of taking a chainsaw to a 2,000 year old boat made me cringe, but I can understand why they did it. If they didn't take a chainsaw to it, it would just be a very old boat, rather than knowing its date and thus how important it is (11 on a scale of 1 to 10 I think they said )
Oh, and did the Dutch archaeologist's exuberance at the dendro result grate on anyone else's nerves? You wouldn't catch Mick behaving so theatrically.
Mick has had his 'theatrical' moments in the past! But what worried me here was - being the scientific pedant that I am - the apparent willingness to accept the dendro date from one piece of wood as evidence for the date of the whole boat. All dendro dating can do is give the date at which that piece of wood was felled. It is possible that this specific piece of wood had been reused or had been cut some considerable time before being used. To accurately date the boat a dendro date from several independent timbers would have to be taken, and even then doesn't tell you when they were used, only when the trees were cut down.
I can remember a programme hosted by Prince Edward on the restoration of Windsor and when they installed the roof timbers (medieval I think) the wood was unseasoned. As it seasoned it became as solid as a rock.
Nothing would have shifted it (bar fire of course).
Originally posted by Jenni: Lesley - I think it was the angle of the boat which gave them their "evidence" - the bottom was at such an angle to the river bottom that it would have been unlikely to sink in that position (sort of more on its side than on its bottom).
Thanks for the info. I use the quotes, as I agree it seems to be more of an idea rather than actual evidence!
WazzaRSA - in a word, no! Some used to, but we haven't seen any actual TT members around here for quite some time.
I can remember a programme hosted by Prince Edward on the restoration of Windsor and when they installed the roof timbers (medieval I think) the wood was unseasoned. As it seasoned it became as solid as a rock.
Nothing would have shifted it (bar fire of course).
F W B Charles with Mary Charles ; Conservation of Timber Buildings
“Use of unseasoned oak
Oak was used green though preferably not directly after felling, as even a slight degree of drying out makes for stability. Felling was best done in the autumn or winter when the leaves had been shed and there was no rising sap………………
…………..Unseasoned timber is the best to work. It will cleave, saw, hew and cut with ease, and even bend in the final structure to take up irregular loading or movement through drying. But this movement is extremely slight as each component is firmly secured within a complete;y interlocking frame – the best way to season timber…….”
Originally posted by WazzaRSA: Watching the programme with increased interest as I realised that the shape of the barge, the size of it, to be used as a "river barge" transporting goods seemed to be a waste of a prefect method for dispatching troops and a foriegn shore, wether it be a beach or a river bank.
Going back to the size, could this not carry a full "Cohort" 60 armed men, if so that means that a number of these could despatch a large body of troops ashore at once!
I think we Time Team has found a Roman form of "Landing Craft".
Do not under estimate the Roman know how, what they bult we are atill using today!
All the best, this is just another possible use of such an incredible craft.
I have had a few sleepless nights with the brain working overtime to determine the possible use of these craft. I sat and drew one out to the measurements from the dig site.
Two things sprang to mind, one I have already mentioned, and to add further, from the construction of the craft, it could easily have been built on site, transported over land from someshere else, use to make a crossing, OR as mentioned by one the others members of this forum, part of a temp. Bridge - remeber the old bailey type, use of boats, then laying a surface over the top,flat surface that is, and walla, we have the makings of a bridge, with stable supports whish can later be use to make a fixed bridge.
Just to add to the above idea, and what others have already side. Any comments... please let me know what the thoughts are.
re- boatmen at South Shields TT programme didnt come up with possible nationality of the crew of the ship - although IIRC they did mention potention military use-- but without a definate fort nearby I would have thought it a bit unlikely to find any evidence for units (and that would prove that they were boats operators) the boatmen at South Shields are evidenced from Notitia Dignitatum which is somewhat later than the date of the utrecht boat
re- roman units-- cohort would have a nominal strength of 480-600 men, a century about 80.
re- boats use-- given similarity in shape to the other utrecht boat, you would expect a similar use and a sail would seem unnecessary for a 'bailey bridge'?? of course when/if its fully excavated then maybe they will find that there wasnt a sail -- but then I would have thought a ferry would be better than a bridge since you would need a fort (of some size) to defend a bridge crossing--it being just as easy for the 'bad guys' to use the same bridge
re- chainsaw-- would it be becase they need the tree's section showing growth rings which I assume you can get from 'apple coring' a beam, but rather more difficult to get from a ship mostly consisting of planks?
I imagine there was a very good reason they took a chainsaw to the timber and not a corer. I didn't see the programme, I'll be honest but its possibly related to the grain of the wood and the way it was built into the ship, not to mention the logistical problems of getting a manual or piston corer into the timber in confined spaces/odd angles! A minimum of 30 rings are need for a date and acquisition of suitable can be problematic at the best of times.
Anyway, I seem to remember that the foundations of the theatre had already been driven through the Newport ship before it was actually 'found' by the archaeologists. It hasn't had a detrimental effect the importance of the find, its subsequent recovery and the programme of preservation. Its quite right saying the date is perhaps more important than a single piece of timber. After all a without a date, archaeology is meaningless.
)
