--- In gothic-l@y..., Tore Gannholm <tore.gannholm@s...> wrote:
> I did not comment on the runestone as I have no argument. There are
> so many interpretations that I have no opinion.
> On the other hand about early Baltic Sea relations I know quite a
> and learn more every day.
> That we have not found any physical sailing ship wrecks from the
> century is no argument that they did not sail in the Baltic in the
> 6th century.
There is a lack of wrecks from the Nydam boat to the
first "vikingships" but this does not mean that there is no evidence.
Quite a lot of ship parts have been found from this period, but there
is no trace of a mast. This could be explained because a mast is
valuable and it would be one of the the first parts that if possible
would be salvaged from a wrecked ship.
But a mast and a rig from a fully developed sailing ship leaves many
traces. You would expect to find traces of a keel; none is found and
allthough keels were likely to have been salvaged too you might find
evidence in the hull shapes indicated - but no.
You would expect to find structural support for the mast when up or
down; none is found.
You would expect to find traces of standing and running rig in the
none is found. But there are plenty of evidence for oarpropulsion in
> If we have fully developed sailing ships on our picture stones from
> the 7th century there must have been a development over some time.
Which pictures of fully developed sailing ships from the 7th c are you
thinking of? Even the late pictures show ships that would be
extremely poor to sail if they were rebuild with the rig and
proportions shown. It might be due to the iconography
used but it is the case as seen with the replica 'Krampmacken'
The early stones show ships that are interpreted as transitional
between oarpropulsion and sails, _but where oarpower still had 1.
priority_. These ships seem to have no keel but instead an
attached 'bard'/'beard' at the stem and stern to prevent
drifting when under sail.