Category (en-gb)

The Queen and Tilia visit Augustenborg On 26 August, Augustenborg celebrated its 350th anniversary.As there was a wedding in the Norwegian royal family at the time, the queen and prince could not come on the day itself, so instead they visited Augustenborg on 25 July.We had been invited to attend the event in Augustenborg, where we were supposed to follow the Queen's chalup the last part of the journey to Augustenborg.Prior to the day, there were many preparations. Knud Skov Rasmussen was in telephone contact with the first mate of the Dannebrog several times to agree on how it would take place. During the period when the visit was to take place, the Queen and the Prince were on summer holiday at Gråsten Castle, so Dannebrog was docked in Sønderborg. It was therefore agreed that the Dannebrog crew would visit Danfoss, the Danfoss Museum and the Linde shipyard. These visits took place on 23 and 24 July. Tilia in tow. The visit started so early in the day that it was necessary to transport Tilia to Augustenborg the evening before, where we met at Lindeværftet at 16.30. We started with a small briefing meeting after which we towed Tilia to Dyvig and launched her. Tilia had to be towed behind a motorboat to Augustenborg, so 6 members boarded and paddled out to the motorboat, where after a little trouble they got a hawser attached to the motorboat.We had made an agreement with the people around Sebbe Als (a Viking ship in Augustenborg) that we could moor Tilia at the jetty by their boathouse in Augustenborg Fjord. We were also allowed to use their boathouse so that some members could stay overnight and look after Tilia. So Tilia was towed to Augustenborg and moored at the boathouse. In the evening, some of our members gathered at the boathouse with a number of wine bottles and had a cosy evening. Evening atmosphere with the Augustenborg 'skyline' in the background. The next day we met at the boathouse at 8.30am to practice paddling in rhythm and greet the paddlers nicely. We tried the concept decided after the trip to Hardeshøj of having the captain (Knud Skov Rasmussen) standing in the centre of the boat and a helmsman in the stern and Magda in the bow (this time equipped with a real drum and a turkey bone as a drumstick). The weather was fine with some mist and clouds, which looked like they would disappear during the day. The plan was for Dannebrog to sail from Sønderborg and as close to Augustenborg as possible. From there, Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik would sail with the chalup to Augustenborg. We were to meet them and accompany them to Augustenborg. We had been told that we probably couldn't keep up because the chalup could sail up to 10 knots and we had to be good to get Tilia over 5 knots. However, Knud Skov Rasmussen had agreed with the mate on Dannebrog that they should start a little earlier with the chalup, so they could sail a little slower on the last stretch. At the agreed time we were ready, but there was no chalup in sight. A lot of boats from Augustenborg sailed out to Dannebrog to follow the trawler in - among them was Sebbe Als. We were sailing around the agreed buoy and finally we could see that the chalup was coming in followed by a whole fleet of boats.As the trawler approached, we accelerated towards Augustenborg so we could at least keep up for a while. In fact, it was exactly at this point that the last clouds disappeared and it became sunny. When the chalup came up alongside us, we greeted the queen and the prince with the paddles and they waved back to us. We didn't even have to wonder if we could keep up with the chalup, because they slowed down so much that we could easily follow their pace. The Queen and Prince looked at us with great interest - but Tilia is also a beautiful sight. The Chalup and Tilia on their way into Augustenborg harbour. The chalup docks in Augustenborg. We arrived in Augustenborg with the chalup, where we moored in the harbour while the chalup docked at the landing stage built for the occasion. Unfortunately, we didn't get to see much of the event on land because there was a huge hulk of a motorboat (several storeys high), which had to lie right next to the chalup, so no one on the smaller boats in the harbour had a chance to see anything. Sebbe Als on Augustenborg Fjord. Photo: A. Weile After the queen and prince were driven away in a horse-drawn carriage, we sailed around the harbour in honour of the many spectators. Then we headed back to the boathouse where we had lunch with Sebbe Als' crew. We grilled some sausages and enjoyed ourselves.After lunch, there was time to try each other's vessels. It was exciting to be on a Viking ship, which we were allowed to row a bit out of the fjord. When the captain thought we had worked hard enough on the oars, we were towed a little further out, where we turned and set sail to sail back to the boathouse. It was hard work to hoist the sail up the mast, but once it was done it was relaxing the rest of the way in. At 14.30, Prince Henrik was due to inaugurate an extension at Augustenborg Rowing Club. The rowing club is just opposite the boathouse on the other side of the fjord, so we sailed with Sebbe Als over to the rowing club. Here Sebbe Als moored at their jetty because a couple of their members were going to participate in the event. We were supposed to just lie out on the water, but instead we put the bow to their jetty, but stayed in the boat. Prince Henrik arrived and did the inauguration. After the inauguration, he came out on the jetty to look at Sebbe Als and Tilia. He first went to Sebbe Als and got an explanation from their skipper. As always, he was followed by a swarm of journalists and photographers who looked a little bored. When the prince had seen Sebbe Als, he came over to greet us. He said it had been a great sight to see us in the morning on the trip to Augustenborg. The prince had a little chat with Magda and was allowed to try her drum. After a little chat, he asked if it was possible to have a little tour of Tilia. Of course we said yes, and then he asked if there was room in the programme for a 5-minute tour. There was, so he dropped his cane (which he had brought due to gout in one foot) and got on board. We were all slightly shocked, but we dropped the mooring and started paddling out backwards. By now all the photographers had woken up and a lot of pictures were taken. We turned the boat round and sailed a little round with the prince, who seemed to enjoy the trip. I don't know if the trip was 5 minutes or 10 minutes, but we sailed round and then docked at the jetty again. The prince got off the boat again and said thank you very much for the trip, and I think everyone on board was proud of the fine visit. We could also detect a hint of envy in the voice of Sebbe Als's skipper afterwards. Prince Henrik as a passenger on Tilia. Photo: A. Weile When the Prince had left the rowing club, we sailed back to the boathouse, where it was time to tow Tilia back to Dyvig again. 6-7 men travelled in the boat, while the rest of us drove home. We met a couple of hours later in Dyvig to carry Tilia ashore and drive her back to the Linde shipyard.There was a lot of talk about our experience with Prince Henrik, and there probably will be for some time to come.All in all, it was a wonderful trip with great weather, cosy company and great experiences.By Leif Stig Andersen Tilia, Sebbe Als for sail and Ottar Als. If you have any comments on this article, please send an email to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Language The text in this article has been translated from Danish to English using the free DeepL translation programme. 

Details

Created: 29 January 2025

Last Updated: 31 January 2025

Introduction The Hjortspring boat has many peculiar characteristics that almost inevitably bring to mind its predecessors, who must have fostered them. Those of us who have the Hjortspring boat in our blood have therefore occasionally let our imaginations run wild in an attempt to recreate the predecessors of the Hjortspring boat.The Hjortspring Boat dates from just after the Late Bronze Age, from a time when the last petroglyphs depicting boats were carved into rock faces in Bohus County in Sweden. Its profile depicts these youngest petroglyph boats. But how were boats in the Early Bronze Age built, at a time when tools did not have the superior cutting power of iron? Unfortunately, there are no archaeological finds of Bronze Age ocean-going boats to rely on. In an attempt to describe these, we must use methods other than archaeological methods to answer the question of Bronze Age boat construction. Here we will use the petroglyphs' statements together with a form of “backwards product development” from the construction of the Hjortspring boat.What the hand shapes is the trace of the spirit, we can thus rewrite the statement: ‘What the hand shaped was the trace of the spirit’. Our predecessors in 350 BC must have inherited some constructions and designs that formed the basis for their solutions. We have already seen that petroglyph boats back then, in the Early Bronze Age, had straight keel and railing lines, an impossibility to achieve in ocean-going wooden boats without unrealistically large logs. If we emphasise that Bronze Age societies were largely based on cattle breeding, we can hardly avoid wondering about the use of ox hide in tanned form, i.e. leather, for making ships.If we assume that trade in the Bronze Age in Scandinavia relied more on sea transport than land transport with ox-drawn carts, the production of boats and ships must have been an important activity, just as the car industry is today. This leads us to the conclusion that the cost of production, i.e. the time it took to make a boat, was important.The main construction of the Hjortspring boat can be characterised as a longitudinal, stretched beam, a boat shell that is in principle self-supporting. The frame systems are of course used to maintain the shape of the shell, especially to counteract ‘pea pod’ movements. The webs themselves are far too weak to support the boat shell, but they transfer the external loads between the different parts of the shell with the help of the other elements of the frame systems, i.e. roofs, deck beams and columns. In addition, the frame elements transfer forces from the weight of the crew and cargo to the shell in balance with the buoyancy of the water.The frame systems do little to counteract torsional moments from wave movements.The Hjortspring boat is very elastic when it comes to torsion. This is typical of Scandinavian boat designs from the Iron Age to the Viking Age to the early Middle Ages. A skin boat hypothesis We have come to the conclusion that the boats or ships that transported large amounts of goods across the Scandinavian seas and along the coasts could have been made of leather-covered rafters.Not that this is an innovation among hypotheses. Throughout the twentieth century, marine archaeological scientists have debated ‘wood or skin’ in the Bronze Age. However, we think that in addition to the straight railing and keel lines, the Hjortspring boat's frame systems have a construction that may point in the direction of a raft construction. The horns may also contain reminiscences of a raft boat where they were useful. A cross-section showing the basic structure of a leather boat. Drawing: K.V. Valbjørn. To test this hypothesis, we constructed a leather/raft boat the size of the Hjortspring boat.The longitudinal elements were chosen to be five debarked rafters, i.e. two railing rafters, two side or stringer rafters and one keel rafter.The diameter of the rafters amidships (100 mm) was chosen on the basis that the torsional resistance of a boat cross-section corresponds to the corresponding resistance of the Hjortspring boat. A very simplified mathematical model has been used here, but it provides guidelines. It is expected that the raft diameter decreases by 5% per metre from the centre of the boat towards the ends of the boat.The two rake rafters run together fore and aft and are lashed together over two metres, forming the rake horn. The function of this long lashing is to prevent longitudinal slipping and twisting between the two rafters, thereby preventing the boat from twisting. The same effect can be achieved by lashing the two stringer rafters together fore and aft, where they lash together with the keel rafter to form the keel horn.A triangular construction at both ends of the boat forms the bows. Stævnen med de sammensurrede rafter, der danner hornene. Tegning: K.V. Valbjørn. The frame systems mimic those of the Hjortspring boat, although they are somewhat less elegant and less weight-optimised to illustrate the inferior cutting tools that existed in the Bronze Age. A cross section in the centre of the ship with the truss system drawn in. Drawing: K.V. Valbjørn. The skin of the boat itself is tanned cowhide with a thickness of 3-5 mm. It is essential that this leather membrane, when subjected to water pressure, does not bulge inwards so much that it touches the hull or frame parts. Calculations have been carried out on the bulging as a function of rafter spacing and water pressure based on permissible tensions of cowhide belts used as drive belts. These calculations show that the design is possible. Physical model Based on the design, a physical model was made in 1:5 scale. Apart from the thickness of the hide, the model laws are linear, meaning that a 100 mm raft must have a diameter of one fifth, or 20 mm. The rafts were made from debarked hazel branches.The skin was tanned water buffalo hide with a thickness of 1.5 mm. A series of cuts were made in plywood with notches in which the rafters were placed. By using fresh hazel branches that were forced into the notches after debarking and secured, the rafters retained their forced shape after they had completely dried out. The rafters during assembly. Photo: K.V. Valbjørn. Each raft consisted of two trees lashed together amidships over a length of 20 cm (1 m).At the centre, the rafters had a diameter of 20 mm. This diameter was reduced towards the ends, so that the rafters at the horns were only 14 mm in diameter.When the fixed rafters were completely dry, the plywood profiles were replaced with wraps of 8 mm hazel branches, which had also been fixed in their arch from fresh to dry before installation. The wraps were lashed to the rafters after the ceiling had been installed on the frames. Then the stems were made and mounted. Finally, the ends of the rafters were lashed together to form the horns. A skew in the boat's skeleton caused by twisting of the beam on which the profiles had been mounted could be partially eliminated by shifting the rafters longitudinally in relation to each other before lashing. However, the boat was not completely straight. Rib-frames during installation. Photo: K.V. Valbjørn. A mounted stem. Photo: K.V. Valbjørn. Next, the deck beams and columns were lashed to the rafters and webs, and finally the deck was lashed to the deck beams. For these lashings, 1 mm synthetic cord was used. The lashings that secured the sails to the rafters should probably have been embedded in the rafters to get a smooth surface of the leather where it passed through the lashings. A stretch rope had been placed between the two bows. The finished boat skeleton. Photo: K.V. Valbjørn. The leather skin was fitted from the stern forwards.The seams were made with a double seam. Once the skin was roughly shaped, it was soaked in water, fixed aft and stretched along the boat. Next, it was fixed at the front in a very tight position. Finally, the leather skin, still soaked, was stretched crosswise over the railing, to which it was lashed. The finished boat, the ‘hjortspring boat’ in raft/leather technology. Photo: K.V. Valbjørn. The finished model weighed 5 kg, which means that a similar full-size boat would weigh 625 kg, or almost 25% more than Tilia. With the right thickness of leather skin, it is estimated that a ‘Hjortspring boat’ in leather/rafte technology would weigh the same as Tilia.Dividing the production of a boat into the three elements: machining, moulding and assembly, we can compare the two technologies. There is a dramatic difference between the wooden boat and the leather boat.Machining accounted for 85% of the work on the wooden boat compared to 10% for the skin boat, moulding accounted for 1% compared to 50% for the skin boat, while assembly for the wooden boat accounted for 14% of the work compared to 40% for the skin boat. In other words, a skin boat requires almost no machining. The tanning of the hides is not included here.The production of the model did not provide any information on the relationship between the production time of a wooden boat and a skin boat.No tests were carried out on the scale model. However, it seemed robust, even when twisted. Conclusion The completed construction of a ‘Hjortspring boat’ in raft/leather technology proves nothing. You could say that it concretises the hypotheses that postulate that such boats could have been used in the Early Bronze Age. A next step could be to build and sail such a boat, a step that, if successful, would give a higher degree of probability to the hypothesis. Webmasters note "5,000 years ago, a Scandinavian Stone Age people travelled in skin boats similar to those used by the Inuit further north. ..."The above is a quote from an article in Videnskab.dk:New study sparks old debate: Which boats did the first Scandinavians use?This shows that K.V. Valbjørn is not alone in this thought, there are, at least some, researchers who agree. Sources Hvad Haanden former er Aandens Spor.Videnskab.dk Language The text in this article has been translated from Danish to English using the free DeepL translation programme. 

Details

Created: 26 January 2025

Last Updated: 27 January 2025

In the articles on the construction of Tilia, we have covered many different aspects of the reconstruction of the Hjortspring boat. The conclusions of the results of the work partly cross-cut the division here. Organisation Group division Dividing the work into groups that dealt with different topics proved to favour the work and its quality in many ways. First and foremost, it helped attract people with specific interests that they could nurture and develop in an interesting context. A sense of belonging was formed between group members, which developed into a comradely community. As most active members were members of several groups, a network of contacts was formed across the guild. This was important not only for group work, but also for solving major tasks that went beyond the scope of individual groups. The main governing unit was the monthly meetings, where each group was expected to report to all those who attended.The purpose of the monthly meetings was to give all members present an impression of the project as a whole, an impression that could influence the choice of solutions in each group. An atmosphere was created where everyone talked about everything, commented on the reports and felt at home among equals, no matter how different we were.The somewhat formal organisational chart was put on the overhead projector at each meeting, which kept the integrity of the project intact.The group division, the monthly meetings and the continuous use of the organisation chart contributed significantly to the quality of the work. Documentation The choice of ongoing documentation in the form of photos, videos and reports for the member folder has proven to be the right one. It wasn't just a boat we were building, it was a body of knowledge we were generating in the form of the boat. The member folder came to contain all the final conclusions and choices, often in sketch form.The contact with museums and educational institutions that had been established was favourable. Our method of sending each member of our ‘scientific network’ a membership folder and then regularly sending them our reports made it more legitimate to disturb individual museum employees when we were in doubt about solutions. Economy The financial management of the project and guild is working satisfactorily. The accounts and budget are divided into two: The building accounts and the guild accounts. The latter is financed by the membership fee, which has remained unchanged for all years. (100 kr./year). The money in the guild fund is used to send out reports and for administration. No funds are sought for this. A spirit has developed whereby small amounts, mileage, tractor loans, etc. are paid by the member involved in the matter. Our overheads have been very modest.The construction accounts include everything related to the building of the boat and projects related to the interior design of the Linde Shipyard. It was financed primarily by foundations and secondarily by own income. The division into a guild and a building account meant that we could in good conscience inform foundations and visitors that their contributions went entirely to the purpose (and not to club activities). Conclusion It can be concluded that the organisational method worked well and was conducive to the purpose. It worked even though the guild members are very diverse in terms of background, personality and interest. Very few have left because they were offended by the working method or the prevailing ‘good-natured cordiality’. Construction of the boat New interpretations The boat building was primarily based on Rosenberg's description of the find, Johannessen's drawings and the findings from the National Museum's latest installation of the boat. However, during the course of the work, deviations or additions were made that, after much scrutiny, were deemed to be more accurate.One significant deviation from Johannessen's interpretation is the increased sheer we had to give the boat in order for our logs to contain the railing planks. It is also unlikely that in the Iron Age there were linden tree trunks with a diameter as large as 1.35 metres at a height of 10 metres, let alone curved trunks.Another anomaly was the use of the tension rope. We haven't proven that it was necessary, but intuitively we feel that it strengthens the boat considerably and prevents keel cracking.Landing the side and railing planks outside the stem pieces instead of inside, as Johannessen had suggested, worked well and without problems. The use of ‘rigging screws’ to hold the topsides down was a necessary measure.Choosing bast as a lashing material instead of birch roots is not necessarily the right choice. All we can say is that the bast cords have been strong enough. Not one has broken or become loose in the binding during the four years of sailing.The sealing material, wool cords saturated with cowhide and linseed oil, has worked reasonably well. We think that resin would have provided a more slip-resistant joint. Rating The Hjortspring boat is highly refined in all its details. For example, the optimisation of the strength-to-weight ratio shows that the boat must have been one in a series of increasingly elegant designs, with knowledge passed down from man to man. It must have been built in a shipyard by professional boat builders. This is not a ‘do-it-yourself’ boat.No practical use has been found for the horns, so it must be concluded that these are to be regarded as decorations that perhaps carry the designs of the past. The spires of Roskilde Cathedral do not have any real function either. Over longer distances and in moderate seas, the boat can sail at a speed of 4.5 knots, its range in calm weather would have been up to 40-50 nautical miles per day. Over a short distance, the boat can reach a speed of 8 knots.The Hjortspring boat has a high load capacity. With its own weight of 500 kg, it can carry a load of 1,000 kg in addition to the crew, a total load that is five times its own weight. It is described as a war canoe, but it could just as well be called an armoured coastal boat that, with a powerful engine (20 paddlers), could transport one tonne of cargo over long distances at an acceptable speed.The boat is highly manoeuvrable. A turning diameter at speed of 30-40 metres is excellent for such a long boat. The braking distance in heavy shunting is less than a boat length.Directional stability is poor, so a steering stretcher is necessary.Stability is poor. It is especially felt when the boat is boarding. During sailing, the instability is not felt, so ballast has hardly been used.There is no indication that the boat carried a mast and sail. The general opinion among archaeologists is that sails first arrived in the Nordic countries in the 5-600s AD.With the wind on the windward side, you might want to put a cape between a pair of spear poles. Only a few rock carvings have hints of masts. Here we show a pair from Horsahallen in Möckleryd near Torhamn, the south-eastern corner of Blekinge.The curved keel and railing lines show that the carving is from the Late Bronze Age or Early Iron Age. Petroglyph from the south-eastern corner of Blekinge. Photo: Nils Sandberg, Mölletorp, Lyckeby, Sweden Petroglyph from the south-eastern corner of Blekinge. Photo: Nils Sandberg, Mölletorp, Lyckeby, Sweden Boat building Tools and equipment Linden wood is an easy material to work with, a wood carving material that is used for altarpieces, among other things. After trials, the cutting angle of the axes and steels was chosen to be as low as 15 degrees.Broad axes were used very little, as the cutting direction was mainly across the grain. Here, the ‘Mästermyr’ cross-cut axes worked excellently, even when cutting curved planks. However, the so-called ‘Hjortspring iron’ became the preferred tool. It was shanked as a chisel instead of a crosscut axe. The choice of chiselling as a chisel rather than a cross-axe certainly had to do with our limited skills. There is little doubt that if we had mastered the chopping technique, the production of the planks would have been faster.The demand for tools fuelled the blacksmith group, which quickly attracted several interested members.Beating the lime bast cords followed ‘modern’ methods. Bast cords were now also made entirely by hand. The result of this production was neither worse nor better than with the ‘machine’ method.When sewing the plank joints, or rather when tightening them, we initially used a copy of the S-shaped wooden tool that was part of the find. It worked very well and can therefore be considered a tool that belonged to the boat's equipment. Training It took two years from the time we had secured a place to build the boat until the big logs arrived. This was fortunate in a way, as we were almost forced to do some preparatory work. We learnt how to handle Iron Age tools, we got the properties of linden wood into our blood, and we studied and chose the design of the construction details.At the same time, the construction crew was imperceptibly divided according to skills and interests into different tasks such as rough chopping, finishing, tool sharpening and cleaning up. The latter was especially important, as a tidy, organised workshop immediately resulted in higher quality and greater personal safety. After having three axe blows to the legs, we wrote a safety guide and since then we have largely avoided accidents.Making replicas of the find's wooden parts, such as shields and turned canisters as practice pieces gave a boost to the group that handled the historical part of the project.The production of the two test pieces convinced ourselves and those around us that we had a realistic project on our hands, while the construction group resolved several unresolved questions regarding the assembly. The boat building itself Even though we had got a good grasp of the boat's many details during the exercises, several new problems emerged during the actual boat building. One major difficulty lay in the quality of the logs. The loose cores in the logs and subsequent gluing was a lot of extra work. Stretching the bottom plank using fire was a likely method in ancient times. We just didn't dare.The clamping of the keel and then the stem and planks was a particularly important task that was successfully completed. The boat lay perfectly straight in the water.Our logbook shows that we spent 10,000 man-hours building the boat. 2,000 of these hours were spent on coffee breaks, where the topic of discussion was often small detail problems. A lot of time was also spent talking about the design during the actual work. We estimate that a total of 3,000 hours were spent because we had never built a boat like this before, unlike our predecessors.The gluing, or rather especially the preparation of it, swallowed another 1,000 hours.Another time-consuming factor was that we had to build an exact replica of the found boat. Our predecessors probably adapted their boats to some extent to the trees they had available.If we had built a new boat right after launching Tilia from sufficiently large and healthy trees, it would probably have taken around 5,000 man-hours.We estimate that our predecessors, who, as we claim, worked in a shipyard, would have spent 3-4,000 man-hours. That's the equivalent of ten men for a couple of months. The biggest problem must have been transporting the logs to the shipyard.The boat was convincingly elegantly built. Every detail had been taken care of. They were professionals, the boat builders of the time. What happened? The history group aimed to answer the questions: Where did they come from?Who were they?Why did they come?Who did they meet?What happened to them? It was an ambitious goal, and the questions were not convincingly answered. The interpretation of the various artefacts and the boat's sailing characteristics point in very different directions.The boat could have come from far away. It is Scandinavian in its construction. The swords are of East Germanic design. The turned wooden boxes and chain mail point to Celtic culture. The shape of the spearheads points to the Swedish east coast. The jar points to the Jasdorf culture near Hanover. The shields have a Celtic shape, but may also be a widespread fashion in Scandinavia.The many directions that the parts of the find point to could well emphasise that there was widespread trade and exchange of goods and gifts in the Northern European region. If this statement is correct, only a few characteristic parts of the find can be used as a ‘Leitmotif’, namely the boat, the turned cans and the chain mail. The iron weapons may have come from the Celtic area or from the German/Polish Baltic coast. It was realised that the crucial prerequisite for a credible answer to the question: ‘What happened?’ is knowledge of the population density on Als in the Celtic (Pre-Roman) Iron Age.Assuming that several thousand people lived on Als at the time and that there was a societal structure with a chieftain and a hird, we can support the hypothesis that there was an actual battle between the established Alsatian society and an army that invaded Als in several boats. (Kaul, Fl., Randsborg, K., Rieck, Fl.).Whether we assume that there were 3-4,000 or only 3-400 people living on Als at the time, another hypothesis is also possible:A group of merchants or emissaries from the Celtic area in southern Germany travelled in their riverboat down the Oder to the coast of the Baltic Sea. Here they chartered a coastal boat of Nordic origin with crew. The purpose was to head north along the east coast of Jutland to introduce the latest weapons technology, sell these weapons or use them as gifts to establish a sense of belonging. The turned bowls and cans have been samples.Along the way, they have had to dock at the Alsatian coast for the night or due to bad weather. The boat may have had a leak. The natives, the Alsatians, discovered their campfire on the beach, attacked them with their longbows and killed them. Naturally, the Alsatians did not want their neighbours in Jutland to rearm.According to tradition, weapons and equipment had to be given to the gods by immersion in the holy lake.Perhaps a Hjortspring boat with other Celtic goods, such as the Gundestrup vessel, successfully crossed Alssund and Alsfjord at another time.The Dejgbjerg wagons could also have been cargo on board a Hjortspring boat when disassembled.Sailing was once the easiest method of transport.Imagination has no limits, other than those derived from concrete knowledge. Sources Hvad Haanden former er Aandens Spor. Language The text in this article has been translated from Danish to English using the free DeepL translation programme. 

Details

Created: 25 January 2025

Last Updated: 29 January 2025

The find contained parts for what were interpreted as steering oars. Parts for two were found, one at each end of the boat. There was no indication of how these steering oars had been attached to the boat. Two steering oars were made with ample length shafts. Their use and possible attachment to the boat had to await the sailing test. The steering oars found: The top one is from the front of the boat. The lower part is from its stern. Photo: National Museum of Denmark, Rosenberg, Hjortspringfundet. Parts of 15 paddle oars were found in the bog. The fact that they were paddles and not oars could be deduced from their relatively short length and the fact that no oar nails were found.A young rock carving boat (Brandskogskeppet) from Sweden also shows that this ship was propelled by paddling.The paddle oars found were all of different shapes, but what they had in common was a very narrow blade, completely different from the paddle oars from the Tybrind find, which contained a Stone Age dugout canoe. These paddle oar blades were very short and wide, almost heart-shaped.However, a narrow, long-leaved paddle vein has been found from both Spodsbjerg and Øgårde in Åmosen. Both of these paddle veins, which were from the Neolithic period, are very similar to the paddles found at Hjortspring.We chose to standardise the paddle oar production to a single type.A total of 22 paddle oars were carved. In our standardisation zeal, we overlooked the fact that the paddle oars should have different lengths, partly because of the different heights of the crew and partly because we had increased the sheer of the boat, which resulted in the front and back paddlers having difficulty reaching the water with the standardised paddle oars. There were 15 paddles found, all different. We chose one design as standard. Drawing: K.V. Valbjørn. Finalisation During the construction of the boat, we had coated the outer parts of the boat and the joints with wood tar (identified in the discovery). After the final assembly, the boat was re-coated with tar on the outside, while the interior was saturated with linseed oil.The boat was ready for launch in May 1999 after five years and 10,000 man-hours of labour. Sources Hvad Haanden former er Aandens Spor. Language The text in this article has been translated from Danish to English using the free DeepL translation programme. 

Details

Created: 25 January 2025

Last Updated: 25 January 2025