Re: The Trinity Bay ballast stone, Newfoundland
- From: "zolota" <zolota3@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:13:31 GMT
"IE_Json" <inger_e.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Jawjh.27345$E02.11258@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"zolota" <zolota3@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:YL6jh.519399$R63.81056@xxxxxxxxxxxx
strewing
"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,
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/australia/new_zealand/taupo.htmltheir 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
samewere 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
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?
The Royal British Columbia Museum has a fine description of the trade in
bricks but it is hard to put on the internet. It says that most ships
carried brick or stone that had some value then returned with less ballast
if possible. For example, canned salmon could be loaded in the ship in place
of ballast, forming a heavy and stable cargo.
http://legionmagazine.ca/features/militarymatters/01-01.asp
http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1249.htm
The idea was to add value to the voyage by carrying useful ballast. Here is
an item about rock intended for a lighthouse.
http://www.em.gov.bc.ca/DL/GSBPubs/InfoCirc/Ic94-15/BookmarkN.pdf
Chinese bricks were also used.
http://www.footprintguides.com/Vancouver/Gastown-East-Side-and-Chinatown.php
SNIP
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Impact ancient civilisation on landscape Mongolia
- Next by Date: WE WON!
- Previous by thread: Any archaeology of football bowls?
- Next by thread: WE WON!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
