Wednesday, February 12, 2020

Corfu's Reed Raft, the Papyrella


Corfiot papyrella, a reed raft
The papyrella built for the Exeter Maritime Museum, now held by the National Maritime Museum of Poland, photographed in Suffolk, England by Bob Holtzman (click any image to enlarge).
Rafts made of reeds are among the oldest types of watercraft, and remained in use in many areas through the end of the previous millennium “wherever there is a good supply of reeds” (McGrail, 2001:21, 104). Papyrus, among the most common reeds used for raft building, may have been among the earliest as well. Papyrus rafts are known from Egyptian tomb carvings, paintings, and funerary models as early as the Fifth Dynasty (2492-2345 BCE) (Hornell, 1970:47-48; McGrail, 2001:22), and these appear quite finely modeled and highly developed, so that much earlier use can be safely assumed (Hornell, 1970:48-49).
Reed raft under construction in an Egyptian 5th Dynasty tomb relief
Papyrus reed raft under construction in an Egyptian 5th Dynasty tomb relief (McGrail 2001:21).
Modern examples of papyrus rafts are known from Lake Tsana (i.e., Tana) in Ethiopia; among the Buduma and Kuri people on Lake Chad; in Palestine; and elsewhere (Hornell, 1970:53-56). Among the last European reed rafts was the papyrella of Corfu, whose use apparently petered out only in the 1970s. Although the Corfiot name papyrella is clearly etymologically related to papyrus, the reeds from which they were built is disputed. They have been identified as giant fennel, Ferula Communs L. (Tzamtis, 1990:329), although a later observer states that they were Scirpus lacustris L. ssp lacustris, of the same Cyperacea family as Egyptian Cyperus papyrus (Tzalas, 1995:456).

The basic papyrus raft can be built with no tool other than a stone blade for cutting reeds, and with no specialized techniques other than rope-making (McGrail, 2001:21-22), and this goes a long way to explain the papyrus raft’s early appearance in history. The papyrella, however, is a unique hybrid design incorporating some wooden components and requiring a few additional tools and techniques.

Construction began with six to eight light cypress saplings about 3m long. These were tied together at their narrow ends – the end that would be the bow – and splayed to a width of 1.1-1.3m at the stern. Three broad planks were laid beneath this framework, one at the stern, one about a meter back from the bow end, and one halfway between. Papyrus reeds were gathered into bundles with their butt ends all aligned and tied with cordage, so that the bundles were roughly 20cm in diameter at the butt end, narrower at the other end. These bundles were laid over the frame, perhaps six or seven bundles across, in two layers. Three more planks were then placed on top of the bundles, directly above the lower planks. The two layers of planks were then lashed with heavy rope passing through two holes in both ends of each plank, sandwiching the reed bundles and holding them in place. More reeds were bundled and tied into a horseshoe shape on top of the raft to serve as a coaming or gunwale. Finally, the saplings at the bow were bent upward and back and tied in place to form a prow (Tzamtis, 1990:330).

Papyrus is delicate and easily crushed and abraded, and when damaged, it absorbs water readily and loses its buoyancy. To protect the reeds on the bottom of the bundles when the boat was grounded, “common reeds” of a more durable type than papyrus were sometimes placed between the cypress bottom poles. A second set of cypress poles, tied like the first set, was sometimes placed on top of the reed bundles and beneath the top set of planks (Tzamtis, 1990:330). This might have been done to stiffen the structure, although it is unclear if rafts without this feature were subject to excessive flexing. Since the poles run mostly parallel with the bundles, it does not appear to be useful for containing them. A third modification sometimes present was the substitution of short cypress poles for the transverse boards (Tzamtis, 1990:330).

Papyrella raft stern view
Stern of the papyrella (photo: Bob Holtzman)
Descriptions of a few aspects of construction are ambiguous. Tzamtis states that the bottom cross-planks were placed beneath the cypress longitudinals (1990:330), which would hold the saplings in place sandwich-wise. In the example shown, however, the planks are on top of the longitudinals, so the saplings had to have been tied to the boards to remain in place. As one of the final steps, “two cypresses were placed on the stern, and bound there from the bottom to around the top, thus completing the caging in of the papyri bundles” (Tzamtis, 1990:330). This feature did not appear on the example I examined, and the disposition of these two poles on the stern is unclear. Also, the cypress base poles which extended beyond the reed bundles at the bow, were bent up and back and tied in place to bring the tips out of the water and create somewhat of a prow shape. Tzamtis (1990:330) indicates that this was done as the very last step in construction, but Tzalas (1995:444) states they were bent into this shape when green and held under pressure until the wood dried, after which they held the shape on their own. It is unclear if the square stern was the natural result of aligning the bottoms of the bundles, or if the aft ends of the bundles were all sheared even and square after being bound together. There is an account of papyrellas with a rounded stern (Tzamtis, 1990:330), which surely would have been cut to shape after the bundles were bound together.

The entire building process took two to three days. Finished rafts were 2.5-3m LOA, with their greatest beam of 1.1-1.3m at the stern and maximum thickness of 45-50cm, also at the stern (Tzamtis, 1990:330; Tzalas, 1995:443-445).

Papyrella were used for fishing in sheltered waters, “confined to lakes and bogs, rarely faring out to sea and far from the coast” (Tzamtis, 1990:330). Reports refer to their use for lobster fishing, but it would be surprising if other forms of fishing did not occur. There are reports that double-length papyrellas of 5-6m LOA were built by joining two single boats stern-to-stern, and that these larger boats would venture offshore for lobster fishing, but no such boats have been properly documented. Long poles were used to hold the two boats together, but it is unclear if the poles were forced through the bundles of both boats or lashed to their exterior surfaces or frameworks (Tzamtis, 1990:330-331).

Papyrella raft in Corfu with standing paddler using a double-bladed paddle
Papyrella under way in Corfu by a standing paddler using a double-bladed paddle (Tzalas 1995:466)
The standard “single” papyrella was a one-man craft, propelled from a standing position with a double-bladed paddle 2.3-2.5m long, including the two 50cm blades (Tzamtis, 1990:330; Tzalas, 1995:449). With the paddler standing, the gunwales would have done nothing to protect him from waves, so their purpose must have been to protect his gear and his catch.

Fisherman standing a papyrella on end to dry
Fisherman standing a papyrella on end to dry (Tzalas 1995:465)
The more tightly the bundles are tied, the better a reed raft will resist waterlogging and decay (McGrail, 2001:22, 104). The bundles in the example examined were still tightly bound some 50 years after the raft was built. Another key to longevity was to dry the bundles after every use by pulling the raft out of the water and standing it on its stern end. Treated this way, the bundles might last two to three years, while the framework could be used over and over (Tzalas, 1995:443).

Regular use of the papyrella continued into the late 1970s or early 1980s, at which time a single user remained in Palaiokastritsa, in northwest Corfu (Tzalas, 1995:443). During the 1970s, three had been built for museums – one in Corfu, one in Piraeus, and one in Exeter, England (Tzalas, 1995:443), the original home of the papyrella I examined. The Exeter collection was subsequently transferred to the World of Boats collection in Eyemouth, England, and when that museum closed abruptly in 2017, the papyrella and a few other craft were purchased at auction by Valerie Fenwick, a renowned British maritime archaeologist who kept them secure in a barn in Suffolk until a proper caretaker organization could be found. This is where I photographed it and documented its basic features in concert with the fellow student who appears in the photos. The papyrella, along with the rest of the small collection, was recently transferred to the National Maritime Museum in Gdansk, Poland, where, one hopes, it will be stabilized and displayed (Fenwick and Pink, 2020).

For a 50-some-odd-year-old reed raft, it remains in quite good condition. The reeds are beginning to disintegrate, however, and lightweight monofilament fishnet has been fastened over them in an attempt to hold them together. It is unclear if the bundles at the bow were originally larger than in the photos or if they extended further forward. Some of the ropework is sloppy and haphazard, the result, I suspect, of attempted repairs by an individual unskilled in knots.

Harry Tzalas's raft Papyrella
Harry Tzalas's double-ended papyrella, named Papyrella (Sampson, 2018:23)
Certainly the most famous individual papyrella was one named Papyrella and used in an experimental voyage from the Greek island of Melos to the mainland in 1988 (Tzalas, 1995). Seafaring by Mesolithic people has been indirectly but firmly established by the presence on the Peloponnesian mainland of obsidian from Melos, and Harry Tzalas (following Tzamtis’s lead) hypothesized that this was mostly likely accomplished by means of a reed raft. Tzalas had a double-length, double-ended papyrella built which he and five crew paddled from the mainland to Melos over the course of 16 days (Tzalas, 1995). Tzalas claimed that this voyage supported his hypothesis, but I and some others (Cherry and Leppard, 2015:745) find the experiment to be fraught with errors of theory, logic, and methodology and view its results as dubious.

map: route of reed raft Papyrella from Melos to Greek mainland
The route of Papyrella from Melos to the Greek mainland (Cherry and Leppard, 2015:746)

Bibliography

Cherry, J. F. and Leppard, T. P. (2015) ‘Experimental archaeology and the earliest seagoing: the limitations of inference’, World Archaeology. Routledge, 47(5), pp. 740–755. doi: 10.1080/00438243.2015.1078739.

Fenwick, V. and Pink, J. (2020) ‘The Fate of the ISCA Collection: The World’s Largest Collection of Traditional and Vernacular Boats’, Nautical Archaeology Society. Available at: https://www.nauticalarchaeologysociety.org/the-fate-of-the-isca-collection (Accessed: 12 February 2020).

Hornell, J. (1970) Water transport: origins & early evolution. Newton Abbot: David & Charles.

McGrail, S. (2001) Boats of the World: from the Stone Age to Medieval times. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sampson, A. (2018) ‘The Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Southeastern Mediterranean and Their Contribution in the Neolithisation of the Aegean’, Archaeology and Culture, 1(1), pp. 11–36. doi: 10.22158/ac.v1n1p11.

Tzalas, H. E. (1995) ‘On the Obsidian Trail with a papyrus raft in the Cyclades’, in Tzalas, H. E. (ed.) Tropis III: 3rd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity. Athens: Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition, pp. 441–470.

Tzamtis, A. I. (1990) ‘Papyrella: remote descendant of a middle stone age craft?’, in Tzalas, H. E. (ed.) Tropis II: 2nd International Symposium on Ship Construction in Antiquity Proceedings (1987). Delphi: Hellenic Institute for the Preservation of Nautical Tradition, pp. 329–332.

Friday, December 6, 2019

Why Oak?: Material Choice in British and Irish Logboats

(This post is slightly revised from a paper submitted for a class in Materials, Technology and Social Life at University of Southampton, 2018.)


Referring to wooden tubs, buckets, flasks, and cups recovered at Sutton Hoo, Comey (2013:109) wrote, “A fundamental aspect of any wooden object is the species of tree or woody shrub from which it originates. Identification of species is an important consideration for understanding these wooden vessels and this is true of all archaeological wood….”

The consideration is important because material choices reflect cultural decisions and practices (Conneller, 2011). The act of producing any wooden object is mediated through and by the material. Obtaining the wood, producing and selecting appropriate tools, and the techniques or methods employed to work it – all steps in the châine opératoire – are cultural acts influenced by the material (Hurcombe, 2014). The finished object thus reflects culture independently of the use to which it is put. As described by Conneller, “materials are meaningful and these meanings are reciprocally generated in the varied processes of people’s engagement with them. Tracing these connections reveals past worlds” (2011:9).

Logboats are the largest and most technologically sophisticated portable objects recovered from pre-Bronze Age Britain and Ireland (Figure 1). Introduced in the Mesolithic or Neolithic, they remained in use in the Atlantic Archipelago until the second half of the second millennium AD (Gregory, 1997:23-24; Lanting, 1997), fulfilling important economic and social functions in a range of applications, including transportation, fishing, and warfare. With wood types and dates known for hundreds of archaeologically-recorded logboats (Lanting, 1997-1998), an analysis of the choice of wood used in their construction might prove revealing of “lost worlds.”

Figure 1
Discovery of the Brigg logboat.
Discovery of the Brigg logboat. At 14.78 metres long and an estimated 2,809 kg (McGrail, 1978a:171), it was the largest logboat in the archaeology of Britain and Ireland. (image: Illustrated London News, 1886. Click any image to enlarge.)
Although dozens – perhaps hundreds – of additional European finds have been made in the more than two decades since Lanting’s summary and analysis of logboat dates (1997), I have not updated his list, believing that the patterns he identified are unlikely to change significantly by the addition of the new data. Likewise, patterns present in the summary works of McGrail (1978a, 1978b, for England and Wales), Mowat (1996, for Scotland), Gregory (1997, for Ireland and Scotland), and Fry (2000, for Northern Ireland) are assumed to remain substantially unchanged and no attempt has been made to gather new data specific to Britain and Ireland, other than by reference to Lanting (1997-1998).

A Preponderance of Oak

Wood types identified in archaeological logboats in Britain and Ireland are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1
Archaeological Logboats by Wood Genus, Britain and Ireland

England and Wales1
Scotland2
Ireland
Total

#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Oak
76
96
58
92
1683
98
302
96.5
Pine
1
1.3
5
8


6
1.9
Elm
1
1.3




1
0.3
Ash
1
1.3




1
0.3
Alder




24
1.1
2
0.6
Poplar




14
0.6
1
0.3
1 McGrail, 1978a:309
2 Gregory, 1997:162
3 Gregory, 1997:162
4 Lanting, 1997-1998-1998:628/table 1

Non-oak boats that have been reliably dated are shown in Table 2. Where a range of dates was available, the mean is shown.

Table 2
Dated Archaeological British and Irish Logboats by Wood Genus (non-oak only)
Location
Date BP
Wood type
Ireland


Carrigdirty, Co. Limerick
5820±40
poplar
Derrybrusk 1
2876±34
alder
Derrybrusk 2
2912±38
alder
Britain


Giggleswick Tarn
650±30
ash
Warrington 11
950±90
elm
(Lanting, 1997-1998-1998)

The preponderance of oak in the record is striking and calls for investigation. Was oak simply the best choice, everywhere and always?

According to McGrail (1978a:117), the “ideal tree” for the construction of a basic logboat has the following characteristics:
  • “Long straight bole of substantial girth and little taper, with straight grain and no recent branches low down.”
  • durable, resistant to rot, easy to work, strong, lightweight
  • located where it can be easily and safely felled and readily moved to a water-course
McGrail goes on to state, “Of the species of timber available during the past 6000 years in north-west Europe, forest-grown oak (Quercus sp) appears to be the nearest to the ideal for logboat hulls” (1978a:117). This statement is subject to amendment, as will be seen below. For the moment, it is sufficient to observe that it would be remarkable if the “ideal tree” for more than 90 percent of logboat builders throughout Britain and Ireland had been of a single genus, readily available over the course of nearly 6,000 years and always growing in a convenient location for felling and easy transfer to the desired watercourse.

Five possible explanations might account for the preponderance of oak:
  1. With few exceptions, oak was the only suitable timber available for logboat building.
  2. Oak is represented disproportionately because other woods decay more rapidly out of the archaeological record.
  3. Oak is represented disproportionately for reasons other than decay resistance – for example, because of the fortuitous nature of many logboat discoveries.
  4. Oak is functionally superior to other timbers to such a degree that it was the only logical choice.
  5. Oak was preferred for reasons other than functional ones – i.e., wood choice was influenced by ideological considerations.

Timber Availability

In the “fully developed wildwood” of 5500-3100 BC, six different forest communities were present in British Isles:

1.      Pinewoods: central Scottish Highlands, localized in Lake District and Fens, certain mountains in Ireland
2.      Birchwoods: Scottish Highlands, other Irish mountains, locally in southern Scotland, Lake District, Wales, southwest England
3.      Hazel and elm woods: most of Ireland, locally in Wales and southwest England
4.      Oak and hazel woods: western Ireland “and the rest of the Highland Zone of Great Britain.” A variant of this community in northern England included ash.
5.      Lime: predominant across lowland England and north to Lancashire. The second-most common tree in limewoods was variously oak, hazel, or ash.
6.      Alder: Throughout Britain but rare in Scottish Highlands, western Ireland and southwest England (Rackham, 1980:99, 1995:28-32).


Beginning in the Neolithic, forests throughout Britain and Ireland were cleared for agriculture and swine forage (Rackham, 1995:33-34). Forestry practices to ensure a consistent supply of “wood” (i.e., small stuff suitable for building hurdles and making charcoal, for example, as opposed to “timber” for heavy construction) – were “widespread and ancient by the time of the Domesday Book (1086)” in England (Rackham, 1980:3), although this practice of “woodmanship” did not become common in Scotland until perhaps the 16th century (Rackham, 1980:6).

After 1251, oak was “(b)y far the commonest timber tree in nearly all kinds of woodland” (Rackham, 1980:145). It is important to note the qualifier “timber” in this statement. Starting in the Neolithic, many trees that were not valued as timber were coppiced to produce a steady supply of “wood” and constituted major components of many woodlands (Rackham, 1995:38, passim). Had they been valued for construction purposes, trees such as alder and poplar could have been allowed to grow to timber.

Little oak grew in the Scottish Highlands, but Scots pine was among the major forest communities there (Rackham, 1980; Mowat, 1996:6, 114-115, 129). Gregory states that oak was the only readily available, suitable tree for logboats in Ireland (1997:168-170), but this ignores alder and poplar, both of which are native (Tree Council of Ireland, no date a, no date b). As in the case of Britain, alder, poplar, and perhaps other genera might have been used, had they been managed for timber.

In summary, other tree types suitable for the construction of logboats were available across much of Britain and Ireland throughout the logboat era. Logboat builders’ material choice was not limited to oak by lack of alternatives.

Differential Preservation

Differential preservation was mooted as an explanation for the preponderance of oak in the archaeological record in the first modern, comprehensive study of logboats in the region. Writing of England and Wales, McGrail stated, “allowance must be made for possible bias in the survey, due to oak’s greater durability” (1978a:309. See also Rackham 1980:18; Rogers, 2011:196).

Others have noted that several of the earliest boats in the records of Europe and the British Isles are of non-oak genera, concluding that these other woods would probably appear more frequently in later finds had they been used (Gregory, 1997:168, 171; Lanting, 1997:631; Rogers, 2011). Instead, the record shows not differential preservation, but an evolution in wood choice. “The oldest logboats, from Pesse (NL), Nandy l and 2 (Fr) and Noyen-sur-Seine (Fr) are made of pine. This is certainly not a coincidence. Before 8000 BP, in northwestern Europe pine was the only tree of sufficient length and diameter available for this purpose. During the Later Mesolithic a clear preference existed for soft and easily workable wood such as lime, alder and poplar/aspen” (Lanting, 1997-1998:645). Oak becomes common in the record only with the arrival of the Neolithic.

In summary: if the record is skewed toward oak by its superior resistance to rot, any such effect is likely to be small. Given the size of Lanting’s survey (considering more than 600 dated logboats), the possibility that the record is skewed substantially by random factors of discovery is also small.

Functional Considerations

Oak is an excellent boatbuilding wood. It is hard, strong, durable, and it does not absorb water readily (Boulton and Jay, 1944:54; McGrail, 1998:26). Forest-grown trees tend to be tall and straight and without low branches so that, given sufficient time to build girth, they produce boles highly suitable to logboat construction (McGrail, 1998:26). According to Rogers, “In comparison with other species, oak has an ideal combination of size, grain, strength, workability and durability for building logboats” (2011:196).

This overstates the case. Workability varies considerably from tree to tree (Boulton and Jay, 1944:55), and oak logboats can be carved with hand tools only while the wood is green, as seasoned oak is too tough (Gregory, 1997:60-61). Fresh oak will not burn (Gregory, 1997:65, 71; but see Arnold, 2006, cited by Rogers, 2011:196, for possible exceptions), precluding the use of fire as a transformative tool.

Oak’s reputation for workability is, in fact, so dependent upon the availability of metal tools that it was formerly believed that oak logboats could not be built with stone tools (Rogers, 2011:196. See also Godwin and Deacon, 1974:60-61). Only late in the 20th century were oak logboats dating to the Neolithic discovered (Rogers, 2011:196), strongly suggesting that the polished stone axe is the minimum technology needed for their production. Even so, the number of oak logboat finds in Britain and Ireland increases dramatically with the Bronze Age (Lanting, 1997-1998), suggesting that processing with even the best stone tools remained difficult.

The shift toward oak in the Neolithic was “probably connected with a preference for longlasting wood” (Lanting, 1997-1998:645). Oak is extremely durable and rot-resistant (Boulton and Jay, 1944:54), but so, too, are some other woods. Alder is notably rot-resistant in wet environments, and Scots pine is also moderately durable (Boulton and Jay, 1944: 37-38, 90).

While durability is a desirable quality, it may come at an associated cost. Less durable timber may be more economical overall if it costs less to purchase and can be worked more quickly into a finished boat. Using published case histories (Goodburn and Redknap, 1988:19-20; Gilmore, et al, 2002:20-25), the author has compared the time required to build logboats in oak and a softer species. The unpublished results indicate that softer woods can be converted into finished logboats with less labour – a conclusion supported by common sense.

The importance of oak’s proverbial strength is also questionable. A logboat is a monocoque structure with a great deal of inherent strength, and it is not clear that small logboats built of woods of lesser strength would be more prone to breakage in use. Splitting, not shear failure, appears to be the most common form of breakage, as many archaeological oak logboats exhibit repairs made to splits that occurred while the boats remained in use (McGrail, 1978a, 1978b; Mowat, 1996; Gregory, 1997; Fry, 2000) (Figure 2). Oak is “very prone to split and check” (Boulton and Jay, 1944:55). Alder, lime, poplar, and Scots pine are all less prone to splitting (Boulton and Jay, 1944:37, 52, 59, and 89). Neither alder nor lime are strong woods; but poplar is “fairly strong for its weight,” and Scots pine, while variable, can be notably strong (Boulton and Jay, 1944:37, 52, 59, 89).

Figure 2
The logboat from Ballinphort, Ireland
The logboat from Ballinphort, Ireland, had repaired cracks in the bottom and port side. (image: Gregory, 1997:280/fig.4)

Oak’s weight is another liability. A boat of lime, a less dense and therefore more buoyant wood (~35 lb./cu.ft. vs. ~45 lb./cu.ft., Boulton and Jay, 1944:52, 54), would have higher freeboard and greater loading capacity than an equivalent one of oak. With identical loads, the lime boat would be lighter and thus easier to maneuver (Gregory, 1997:166) both on and off the water.

Location

The final functional consideration in the selection of logboat timber is its location (McGrail, 1978a:117). Obviously, this is related to the previous discussion of availability within the surrounding environment. Here, however, I will discuss location in terms of its implications for the builder.

By the late Bronze Age, Britain had undergone significant deforestation (Hooke, 2010:113-121). This, combined with oak’s natural rarity in some regions, must have made it even more difficult of access and costly. The smaller average size of Scottish than English logboats (Mowat, 1996:125) and the occasional use of washstrakes to increase their freeboard (Mowat, 1996:123) (a feature present on but a single English example (McGrail, 1978a:313)) may reflect a shortage of timber of adequate size.

In most situations of this nature, woodworkers choose alternative timber. “Trees are more interchangeable than is often supposed, and people adapt their carpentry to the trees at their disposal rather than vice versa,” writes Rackham (1980:7). “Most of the work traditionally done by oak, ash, elm, hazel, and beech in England is done in the Alps by larch, spruce, and two species of pine and in north Norway by birch alone.”

Rackham was writing of wood use in general, but the principle applies to logboats in particular. In the absence of oak, other hardwoods and softwoods were used to build logboats in Scandinavia (Eskerod, 1956, cited in Gregory, 1997:19; McGrail, 1978a:28-29). When their preferred tree species became locally unavailable late in the 20th century, the Maijuna people in the Peruvian Amazon adapted by using at least seven alternative species and going so far as to change construction methods and boat design to make best use of the new woods (Gilmore et al, 2002:13-18).

In contrast, where oak was rare or absent in the England, it was imported from other parts of the island (Rackham, 1980:164). “Man uses all sorts and sizes of timber available, and will import them if they are not available locally” (Quelch, 2005:104). It is unclear oak was ever moved long distances within Britain specifically for logboat construction, but this would appear so at least in the case of the Scottish Highlands, where oak did not grow. It is possible, however, that finished oak logboats, not oak timbers, were imported to the Highlands.

It is a surely coincidence that the percentage of timber comprised by oak in ancient English buildings – 97% (Rackham, 1980:145) – aligns so closely with the percentage of oak in the logboat record of Britain and Ireland – 96.5% (see Table 1) – but the overwhelming dominance of oak in both contexts is probably related. That builders of buildings and logboats in many parts of Britain were apparently willing to incur the additional expense of imported oak when other functionally suitable genera were available locally, and that such a practice persisted for so long, suggests motivation of an ideological nature.

Oak’s Ideological Implications

An abundance of tree- and wood-related symbolism, folklore, and religious practices attest to the material’s widespread ideological significance throughout European pre/history. Sacred groves and trees – entire species as well as individual trees – appear in ancient Greek, Roman, Germanic, and Celtic history and myth, and particularly in those of Britain and Ireland (Dowsett, 1942:101; Hooke, 2010:10-11).

Oak was only one of the trees held sacred in Britain and Ireland, along with ash, elder, whitethorn, hawthorn, hazel, and yew (Hooke, 2010:13-14, 98, 103-104, 244-245; Mac Coitr, 2010:8-11). Oak was associated with qualities such as life, strength, long or eternal life, kingship, and “the sacred,” but so were others (Mac Coitr, 2010:61-68). Of five great legendary trees in Irish mythology, one was oak, one was yew, and three were ash (Hooke, 2010:13).

But in many respects, oak has played the starring role in the sylvan culture of Britain, if somewhat less so in Ireland (Hooke, 2010:193-195). It was used symbolically in much ritual architecture, including timber circles (Hooke 2010:7-8), cathedrals (Hadfield, 1974:127), and in mortuary contexts (e.g., Evans and Hodder, 2006:192). Oak is prominent in folklore, myth, lore, and legend throughout British culture, examples including:
  • Celebrations featuring symbolic use of oak, including Beltane and Samhain (Dowsett, 1942:99-100) and the Yule log (Miles, 2013:82-83)
  • Gospel oaks (Miles, 2013:83-84)
  • a wide range of “sayings and beliefs,” for example, “Great oaks from little acorns grow.” (Miles, 2013:90-91, 110)
  • thousands of place-names incorporating variants of the word “oak” (Hadfield, 1974:174; Nelson and Walsh, 1993, cited in Mac Coitr, 2010:21; Hooke, 2010:167, passim)
  • the tale of Charles II hiding in an oak after the Battle of Worcester, and the roughly 600 pubs named “Royal Oak” in commemoration of the event, plus Royal Navy ships of that name, and Royal Oak Day (Miles, 2013:85-87, 108-109) (Figure 3)
  • depictions of oak leaves on coins and on various military medals and insignia (Miles, 2013:109)
  • dozens of named trees, famous for their size, longevity, or role in history or legend (Miles, 2013)
  • “Hearts of Oak” – the official quick-march of the Royal Navy and a symbol of its sailors – and the patriotic symbolism represented by the “wooden walls” of England’s largely oak-built sailing navy. 

Figure 3
"Royal Oak" signboards from pubs
Hundreds of “Royal Oak” establishments attest to the tree’s special role in Britain’s culture and collective psyche. (image: Miles, 2013:108).
Miles, cited above, is no scholar, but the very existence of books like his and others’ about British oaks for a popular reading audience is yet more evidence of the reverence in which the oak is held.

On the other hand, oak was also used widely throughout pre/history for the most mundane affordances, including causeways, livestock enclosures, charcoal, tools, tanning, pig feed, barrel staves, and fish-smoking (Miles, 2013:14, 23). On a superficial view, these mostly destructive or temporary applications hardly appear to reflect reverence for the material.

One must be cautious, though, of imposing a contemporary worldview on the past. “Modern, Western perceptions of trees and timber will differ from those (of the past)” (Bintley and Shapland, 2013:5). The nature of the sacred residing in the archaeological mundane is eloquently expressed by Mac Coitr:

“Taking an example unrelated to trees, the Plain (sic) Indians of North America regard the buffalo as sacred, since it provides them with food from its meat, clothing and shelter from its hide, and various implements from its bones. It is seen as a gift from the Creator, imbued with supernatural powers, sacred because of its many important practical uses, not despite them. In the same way the oak was regarded as particularly favoured by the gods due to its many valuable attributes. The distinction between the sacred and the practical, therefore, is a very modern approach and it is inappropriate to project the distinction onto people who would not have understood it” (2010:5).

Among oaks’ several symbolic meanings are strength, steadfastness, longevity, courage, dignity, abundance, and nobility (Hooke, 2010:104; Mac Coitr, 2010:16-17; Miles, 2013:14). In various contexts, it has been associated with Christianity, unredeemed paganism, fertility, and nature in general (Hooke, 2010:99-100). Most of these associations are positive, but they are also diverse.

“Problems are encountered … when wood species are attributed so many powers, symbolic meanings, and uses as status indicators that it would seem impossible to unravel which precise or multiple motive induced the use of a certain wood. This applies especially to the most common species of wood …” such as oak (Therkorn et al., 1984:362).

Given their likely priorities of strength and durability in logboats (separate from the question of whether softer woods might be suitable in these regards), it seems probable that logboat builders and owners were influenced by oak’s symbolic strength and steadfastness. Beyond that, reliable conclusions about the “meaning” of oak in logboats are probably not possible.

Historical Implications

Influenced by its symbolism, British and Irish logboat builders might have attributed to oak greater functional superiority over other wood types than was warranted. This might have caused them to overlook the affordances of other genera and may help explain the disappearance of the logboat from the islands.

Logboats disappeared from Scotland and Ireland sometime after the middle of the eighteenth century – about the same time that Ireland became almost entirely deforested and Scotland was denuded of deciduous trees, including oak (Gregory, 1997:56). While this would inevitably have killed off the craft in Ireland, the Scots might have, but did not, avail themselves of the remaining alternative of Scots pine. Was this due to the belief that oak was the only suitable timber for logboats?

The situation south of Scotland is less clear. The latest scientifically dated English logboat dates to 410 +60 BP (Lanting, 1997-1998:629/table 2) – i.e., a century or two earlier than the latest evidence for Ireland and Scotland. Although large areas of England were deforested by this time, huge amounts of oak, much of it imported, continued to be used in buildings and ship construction well into the 19th century (see, for example, Oster, 2015:3‑4 for Royal Navy timber consumption and imports). The end of logboat use in England therefore appears to be unrelated to availability, although increased cost may have been an issue.

Throughout Britain and Ireland, the near-exclusive use of oak may have constrained not only logboat size, but also boat designs and construction techniques. Softer timbers, including poplar and some pines, can be used to build expanded logboats. Wider than an unexpanded boat built from the same log, an expanded logboat is more stable, and thus better suited to certain uses (McGrail, 1998:66-70). Although expansion results in lower freeboard, this can be overcome by the addition of washstrakes (Figure 4). A simple “dugout” can thus become the basis for a larger and more capable boat, and expanded-extended logboats are known from many cultures (Johnstone, 1980:47-51). The British commitment to oak, which is generally thought not to be expandable, foreclosed this line of development. (See, however, Black, ND.) Likewise, because green oak does not burn, British logboat builders never had the luxury of using fire as a tool to make hollowing the log easier (Gregory, 1997:258). Whether these affordances of other woods would have been explored in Britain in the absence of a near-exclusive commitment to oak is, of course, unknowable.

Figure 4


Top: carved but unexpanded. Center: expansion in process. Bottom: washstrakes being added
Stages in construction of an expanded-extended logboat. Top: carved but unexpanded. Center: expansion in process to increase beam. Bottom: washstrakes being added to raise freeboard. (images: Johnstone, 1980:49-50/figures 5.5, 5.6, 5.7)

Summary and Conclusions

This paper noted the predominance of oak in the logboat record of Britain and Ireland and posited a variety of possible explanations. Lack of available timber options, preferential preservation in the archaeological record, and oak’s superior engineering characteristics were considered. These explanations were found to be false or inadequate, leaving ideologically-based preference as the remaining explanation.

Trees in general were shown to have profound spiritual implications throughout pre/history and cross-culturally, and some of the symbolic qualities associated with oak were discussed. It was suggested that the symbolic association between oak and the qualities of strength and durability was a likely factor influencing its preferred status in logboats.

Finally, the implications for logboat design and construction were discussed, and it was suggested that the near-exclusive commitment to oak in Britain and Ireland might have limited the technological development of the logboat type and associated construction methods.

# # #

References cited

Arnold, B. (2006) ‘Archéologie expérimentale: la pirogue néolithique expansée Paris-Bercy 6 et les arts du feu’, Archéologie neuchâteloise, 34, pp. 65–77.
Bintley, M. D. and Shapland, M. G. (2013) ‘An Introduction to Trees and Timber in the Anglo-Saxon World’, in Bintley, M. D. and Shapland, M. G. (eds) Trees and Timber in the Anglo-Saxon World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.
Black, L. W. (ND) 'Fieldwork Report: An Experimental Study on oak as a viable material for the manufacture of expanded log boats', Available at: https://www.academia.edu/31030854/An_Experimental_Study_on_oak_as_a_viable_material_for_the_manufacture_of_expanded_log_boats
Boulton, E. H. B. and Jay, B. A. (1944) British Timbers: Their Properties, Uses and Identification. London: Adam and Charles Black.
Mac Coitr, N. (2010) Irish Trees: Myths, Legends & Folklore. Cork: The Collins Press. Available from: ProQuest Ebook Central. [4 December 2018]. Available at: https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/soton-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1620188.
Comey, M. G. (2013) ‘The Wooden Drinking Vessels in the Sutton Hoo Assemblage: Materials, Morphology, and Usage’, in Bintley, M. D. and Shapland, M. G. (eds) Trees and Timber in the Anglo-Saxon World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 107–121.
Conneller, C. (2011) ‘Introduction: Making Materials Matter’, in An archaeology of materials: substantial transformations in early prehistoric Europe. London: Routledge, pp. 1–23. doi: 10.1364/OE.26.027058.
Dowsett, J. M. (1942) The Romance of England’s Forests. London: The Scientific Book Club.
Eskerod, A. (1956) ‘Early Nordic Arctic Boats’, Artica, pp. 57–87.
Evans, C. and Hodder, I. (2006) A Woodland Archaeology: Neolithic sites at Haddenham. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Fry, M. (2000) Coití: Logboats from Northern Ireland. Antrim: Greystone Press.
Gilmore, M. P., Eshbaugh, W. H. and Greenberg, A. M. (2002) ‘The use, construction, and importance of canoes among the Maijuna of the Peruvian Amazon’, Economic Botany. Springer-Verlag, 56(1), pp. 10–26. doi: 10.1663/0013-0001(2002)056[0010:catuca]2.0.co;2.
Godwin, H. and Deacon, J. (1974) ‘Flandrian History of Oak in the British Isles’, in Morris, M. G. and Perring, F. H. (eds) The British Oak: Its History and Natural History (B.S.B.I. Conference Reports 14). Faringdon, Berkshire, UK: E. W. Classey, Ltd. for The Botanical Society of the British Isles, pp. 51–61.
Goodburn, D. and Redknap, M. (1988) ‘Replicas and wrecks from the Thames area.’, The London archaeologist, 6(11), pp. 7-10,19-22.
Gregory, N. (1997) A Comparative Study of Irish and Scottish Logboats. University of Edinburgh.
Hadfield, M. (1974) ‘The Oak and its Legends’, in Morris, M. G. and Perring, F. H. (eds) The British Oak: Its History and Natural History (B.S.B.I. Conference Reports 14). Faringdon, Berkshire, UK: E. W. Classey, Ltd. for The Botanical Society of the British Isles, pp. 123–129.
Hooke, D. (2010) Trees in Anglo-Saxon England: Literature, Lore and Landscape. Woodbridge, Suffolk: The Boydell Press.
Hurcombe, L. M. (2014) Perishable Material Culture in Prehistory: Investigating the Missing Majority. London and New York: Routledge.
Illustrated London News (1886) ‘Discovery of logboat in Brigg in 1886’. Available at: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Discovery_of_logboat_in_Brigg_in_1886.jpg.
Johnstone, P. (1980) The Sea-Craft of Prehistory. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Lanting, J. N. (1997) ‘Dates for origin and diffusion of the european logboat’, Palaeohistoria, 39/40, pp. 627–650. Available at: https://ugp.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25107/22563.
McGrail, S. (1978a) Logboats of England and Wales with comparative material from European and other countries, Vol. 1. Greenwich: BAR British Series 51(i), National Maritime Museum.
McGrail, S. (1978b) Logboats of England and Wales with comparative material from European and other countries, Vol. 2. Greenwich: BAR British Series 51(ii), National Maritime Museum.
McGrail, S. (1998) Ancient Boats in North-West Europe: the archaology of water transport to AD 1500. Harlow: Addison Wesley Longman.
Miles, A. (2013) The British Oak. London: Constable & Robinson.
Mowat, R. J. C. (1996) The Logboats of Scotland. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Nelson, C. and Walsh, W. (1993) Trees of Ireland. Dublin: Lilliput Press.
Oster, R. (2015) Great Britain in the Age of Sail: Scarce Resources, Ruthless Actions and Consequences. Air University. Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1012795.pdf.
Quelch, P. R. (2005) ‘Structure and utilisation of the early oakwoods’, Botanical Journal of Scotland, 57(1–2), pp. 99–105. doi: 10.1080/03746600508685087.
Rackham, O. (1980) Ancient Woodland: its history, vegetation and uses in England. London: Edward Arnold.
Rackham, O. (1995) Trees and Woodland in the British Landscape. Revised Ed. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Rogers, J. S. (2011) ‘Czech Logboats : Early inland watercraft from Bohemia and Moravia’, in Sborník prací Filozofické fakulty brněnské university, řada archaeologická. (Proceedings of the Masaryk University Faculty of Arts, Archaeology series). Brno, Czech Republic, pp. 171–202.
Therkorn, L. L. et al. (1984) ‘An Early Iron Age Farmstead: Site Q of the Assendelver Polders Project’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, 50, pp. 351–373.
Tree Council of Ireland (no date a) Alder - Fearnóg (Alnus glutinosa). Available at: https://treecouncil.ie/project/alder/ (Accessed: 8 January 2019).
Tree Council of Ireland (no date b) Aspen - Crann creathach (Populus tremula). Available at: https://treecouncil.ie/project/aspen/ (Accessed: 8 January 2019).