Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland


"zolota" <zolota3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YL6jh.519399$R63.81056@xxxxxxxxxxxx

"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:cvqlo2580v1m9a6rsetims57phbo7aqdi7@xxxxxxxxxx
On Thu, 21 Dec 2006 07:52:43 GMT, "zolota" <zolota3@xxxxxxx> wrote:


"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?

All good points but the fact remains that the bricks **were** dumped
on the foreshore. Maybe there was a glut of bricks on the market when
the ship arrived. I just don't know. The bricks weren't needed for the
return trip as the intention was that the ship would return loaded
with cargo.


To the best of my knowledge bricks were never dumped anywhere in this
colony.

May I ask which authority you use for such a statement?

Inger E
They were brough in as a commercial product and unloaded for
delivery to merchants who in turn sold them to builders. It's easy to see
that a local building downturn could result in a temporary inventory
surplus
but dumping them on the beach would be a desperate move.

So if they were dumped on occasion, what changes? You stated that the
amount
dumped was enough to build many houses there. I countered that most houses
here were built with bricks that were not dumped but were part of a smooth
flow of commercial goods. Whether the percentage of bricks from Britain
that
got dumped on the shores of the colonies was close to zero or as high as
25%
(any higher and the frequency of financial loss would have discouraged the
use of bricks as paying ballast in the first place, their being dumped in
New Zealand at that frequence has little to do with Viking ballast for
their
boats.

Z


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




Eric Stevens




.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... Was any testing done to determine the origin of the stone? ... There may be more ballast ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ... the ship arrived. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
    ... There may be more ballast ... Well, many old houses in Devonport, Auckland ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ... the ship arrived. ...
    (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 ... Bricks were never dumped as unwanted ballast. ...
    (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 ... load like coal or bricks that will sit low in the ship. ...
    (sci.archaeology)