Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 22:21:21 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"IE_Json" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:DWsih.27079$E02.11087@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"zolota" <zolota3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:f3rih.504382$1T2.354608@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tp8gl2plnlhad3hbt6uadau6fomhs7ljqc@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 12 Nov 2006 10:51:33 +0100, "Peter Alaca" <p.alaca@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:

Eric Stevens eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx
news:2dodl2lechoerf8mrj1mggos608njcgcrn@xxxxxxx wrote:
"Tom McDonald"wrote:
Inger E.(Norah) wrote:

http://www.geocities.com/netnoaide/ballastst.html
From the site, with my comments interleaved:

"A ballast stone found by me in 1997 in the Bellevue Barachois near
the bottom of Trinity Bay, appears to be cut to shape to fit into a
Viking ship-a knarr. It is clearly not naturally shaped, and it
matches exactly the predicted measurements, app. 100x30x20 cm."

Who predicted these measurements? Where can I find them?

I suggest you read the book. $99 on Amazon.

Do you believe Inger read it? I don't.

It may be in a library.


"The stone is basalt, which makes Greenland a likely place of
origin-but does not rule out Newfoundland."

Was any testing done to determine the origin of the stone? If so,
what did the testing show?

See above.

"We intend to go on searching in 1998. There may be more ballast
stones in the same place-ships never spread their ballast over a
large area-"

How do we know that ships concentrated their ballast when they
discarded it? Do we know they *did* off-load ballast on land?

Come on now! Ships are known for their sailing far and wide, strewing
their ballast all over the bay!

Actually, they are much better known for dumping it over the side
where they were anchored.

Yes, but how about them turning up in excavations?

[...]

Well, many old houses in Devonport, Auckland

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/australia/new_zealand/taupo.html
were built of the British bricks dumped as unwanted ballast along the
fore shore.

Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. If they were unwanted, why
the
added expense of bricks when cheaper ordinary rocks would provide the
same
wieght? Why dump them at all if they are needed for the return trip?

Then as now there was a marginal profit to be made by using bricks as
ballast that could then be sold for a profit in the colonies, hence they
were never "unwanted". So old houses in New Zealand were brick, so what?
There are houses in Victoria and New Westminster, Canada, made of bricks
from, guess where, England, that came around the horn as ballast and at
the
same time. Unless a ship was carrying iron bars or the equivalent it
carried
bricks. The goods carried to the colony were generally of lower density,
clothing, furniture, foodstuffs, etc. and ballast was needed. Depending
on
the load to be hauled back "home" the new ballast might have been
decorative
stone, mineral concentrates, or any other dense material that would have
an
added value back in Britain.

This practice continues to the present day. Decorative stone, concrete
forms, etc. are hauled as ballast from continent to continent where it is
offloaded as a saleable product and replaced with something that is
desired
at the next destination. Even ordinary gravel has a value in many ports.

Z

zolota,
bricks used for ballast stones might never have been dumped in your area
or
known to be dumped.
That is a vague argument against bricks being used for ballast stones and
dumped in other parts of the world.

No it is not. Bricks cost more than the cheapest stones. No one would spend
extra money just to throw them away at the other end. Suppose that bricks
were used for their another reason, their compaction on storage which gives
the lowest centre of gravity and leaves the most useful volume. If so, why
would the bricks not include some that are triangular to fill in the edges?
More importantly, the 18th and 19th century sailing ships required ballast
whether full or empty. No one would dump bricks in a colony only to reload
with local rocks for the return journey.

They wouldn't dump all their ballast but only that required to make
way for the cargo.

There is another possibility to consider. Supose that a ship is traveling
without a cargo or with a light one. The master may elect to add a low value
load like coal or bricks that will sit low in the ship. Economics may force
him to dump the bricks as unsaleable, then proceed to load the wool, canned
fish, or whatever that is the return trip.

That is likely what happened in the case of the Devonport bricks.

One thing that might seem odd to you is that ballast stones were exchanged
between ships as well as dumped when arriving to harbor where the ship
needed the space and weight to be replaced by cargo. The ships used by
Scandinavians in Viking Age and early Medieval Age couldn't just take
'any'
stone due to sailing high in sea they needed the stones to fit in and not
stones that some way or an other could change the stability. But the usage
to throw ballast stones over board made problems or helped. The later case
was the situation outside today's Lervik Shetland Island where ballast
stones thrown over board when dried fish was loaded came to help building
the harbor that is today.

Exchanging ballast makes perfect sense if one ship need less and the other
more. As for just throwing them overboard in a harbour I'm sceptical.
Eventually the harbour would be hazardous. If the stones are dropped in some
sort of plan to, say extend a breakwater, they are no longer being dumped
but are being used as construction materials which is a different story.

http://www.feelinggreat.co.nz/walking/distance-markers/8845-queens-wharf-to-freyberg-beach.php
"Relax on this man-made beach, originally created from ballast from
ships (sand in the bottom of ships used to stabilize them in rough
seas)."


On the other hand there were areas in harbors where the habit of throwing
ballast stones over board, bricks or round stones of special sizes, made
the
so called up-grounding in harbor area to a hugh problem. We know of this
due
to a decret written c.1400. Queen Margaretha and King Erik (of Pommern as
we
call him) wrote: ""Ijtem varthe the swo ath nogher skipper forderfwer
vorth
diup eller haffn med sin barlasth tha gar det på hans liff "
So the skipper could loose his life if he throw ballast stones over board
in
Scandinavian harbors.
Those of you who can read Swedish can read about it at
http://www.abc.se/~pa/mas/961falst.htm

In 1400's the ballast could be 3 ton ballast stones:
"Styra: Bjärtå; Avafjärdsvraket, handelsskepp 1415. L: 14 m, B: 3,7 m, Dj:
0,7 m. Depl: 8 ton. Ballast 3 ton. "
http://www.abc.se/~pa/publ/attsegla.htm

But if you go back to the Viking Age there was a very high need for
dressed
ballast stones to fit in close to the 'bottom'. If ballast stones were
used
that is. For larger oceangoing ship they were, for smaller they weren't.

Limestone and some other rocks are found in layers. Placed in a ship they
are unlikely to move. Please give a reference for a shape of a rock that
must be use in an oceangoing ship in the 800-1400 AD time range or can you
describe it words, I'm really curious.

I will send you a photograph of one of the claimed ballast stones.



Eric Stevens
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... There may be more ballast ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ... bricks used for ballast stones might never have been dumped in your area ... load like coal or bricks that will sit low in the ship. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... Was any testing done to determine the origin of the stone? ... There may be more ballast ... How do we know that ships concentrated their ballast when they ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... There may be more ballast ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ... bricks used for ballast stones might never have been dumped in your area or ... stone due to sailing high in sea they needed the stones to fit in and not ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... There may be more ballast ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ... bricks used for ballast stones might never have been dumped in your area ... Scandinavians in Viking Age and early Medieval Age couldn't just take ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... There may be more ballast ... How do we know that ships concentrated their ballast when they ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ... That is a vague argument against bricks being used for ballast stones and ...
    (sci.archaeology)