Submitted by Paul Townson
I would like to preface this text by saying that I am an English teacher and am in no way a qualified historian or archaeologist, however I do have an interest in history, specifically the Ribble Valley in Lancashire around 900AD when the Vikings were up to their shenanigans travelling along the Ribble Valley between Dublin and York. However, for the purposes of this article we must go back even further, to the Bronze age.
While doing my Viking research, I came across a curious description of two Bronze age logboats that were found in gravel in the River Ribble, when excavating Preston docks, Lancashire, in 1887. The Bronze age is not really my area of focus but I decided to read on, as it was about the Ribble, and I came across an interesting puzzle. Here is the text:
Transactions of the Manchester Geological Society, Volume 20, 1890
“Both the canoes are like the Barton specimen: single-piece canoes hollowed out of a tree trunk and were found lying widely separated in beds of gravel 13ft to 14ft below the present surface level. Both canoes are much shorter than the Barton one, by about 5ft and 6ft respectively, and both are of the flat-bottomed type. The first one found and described by the Rev. Mr. Shortt has another noticeable feature: the stern, for which the root end of the tree has been used, is an open one and is closed by a stern board which fitted into a groove hollowed in the bottom and sides. This groove is placed 7in from the extreme end of the trunk, thus leaving the exterior part of the tree projecting, apparently uselessly, behind unless it served the purpose of steadying the boat. The motive for making these canoes with an open stern and then closing it with a moveable stern board, at some little distance from the extreme end, is not at all clear, nor the advantage to be gained thereby very intelligible, as the stern board must have been calked, probably by moss, bark, or other material, in order to make the boat watertight, and the fashioning of the grooves must have added largely to the labour, considering the implements that were probably used in the process.”
Why was a “movable stern board” (also known as a Transom) incorporated into the design of some logboats, when ‘scooping’ out the rear part of a logboat, similar to the front, would have been much simpler? This complicated design choice puzzled the Victorians, and its purpose remains undefined even today. Sean Mcgrail in his 1998 book: Ancient Boats in North-West Europe, casts doubt on the reason for logboat sternboards “These different forms may reflect different degrees of heart rot in the parent log: on the other hand, they may be individual styles of boatbuilding. There is insufficient evidence to resolve this point at present.”
Several explanations have been proposed: “it increases the boat’s load capacity,” “it enhances its rigidity,” “it improves stability,” “stern boards are repairs,” and maybe the most unlikely “ the stern is closed by a separate stern board, making construction easier since slices of wood could be adzed out vigorously towards the stern.”
Robert Van de Noort (2011) suggests that sternboards may have had a ritualistic element:
“The question is raised as to whether the removal of the Dover boat transom piece—probably its stem but possibly its stern— was meant to indicate the removal of the fragment that symbolized the power of the boat, or of its master or crew.”
The sternboard likely wasn’t designed to be detached while the logboat was afloat, as removing it would cause the boat to fill with water. So, its purpose must be linked to its removal on dry land.
I think this suggests the sternboard served as a sort of key: without it, the logboat couldn’t be used. This design would deter unauthorised use or theft, as any potential thief would need a stern board matching the unique shape of the logboat. Like quick-release seats on bicycles, they render the transport difficult to use without that key component.
I would imagine the lifespan of a logboat to be considerable as there are no joints or moving parts, except for the stern board. Over years the U-shaped groove and the stern board would become worn and need replacing and this is where the projecting part at the stern could be used.
(from the 1890 text) “This groove is placed 7in from the extreme end of the trunk,” “… thus leaving the exterior part of the tree projecting, apparently uselessly, behind unless it served the purpose of steadying the boat.”
A new U-shaped groove could be cut and a new stern board fitted into this projecting part as the old groove and board become worn and more difficult to caulk; in fact, 7 inches of the projection could be enough to cut a new groove for a sternboard a couple of times, indeed the Carpow logboat, 1260-910 BC does have two sternboard grooves.
Logboats featuring a sternboard set in a groove were used for over 5,500 years. We know this from a Neolithic logboat sternboard found in Stralsund-Mischwasserspeicher, dating to approximately 3574 ± 44 B.C. Interestingly, the logboat was carbon dated to be between 3858 BC ± 63, making the sternboard roughly 250 years younger than the logboat.
This finding predates the Early Bronze Age logboat from Degersee, Southern Germany, dated to 1925-1880 BC, and the British Carpow logboat, both of which had sternboards. Incredibly, the tradition of using logboats with sternboards persisted in Scotland for navigating around the Crannogs (artificial islands) into the 17th century.
Manchester Geological Society, Volume 20, 1890
“Similar remarks would apply to the Scotch crannoges, a few of which were in occupation so late as the early part of the 17th century, and some of the canoes found in connection with them, had the peculiar feature, previously described of the stern, closed by a vertical board sliding into grooves cut out of the solid wood.”
Interestingly, the Degersee logboat (1925 – 1880 BC) was found with the sternboard in situ and with its caulking! “When the transom board – which was only partly preserved – was removed from its slot it became clear that originally the whole interspace had been filled with moss and other plant remains. All plant material had been rammed into place and resembled flat cakes.”
Dickson J.H. et al. (2013) Mosses used for Caulking the Early Bronze Age Logboat from Degersee, Southern Germany
I have not read of any instances where tar, resin, wax, or ‘glue’ was used in the groove that holds the sternboard. One might expect to find the remains of such materials if the sternboard were intended to be a permanent part of the boat, especially considering that Birch tar, etc. were used during the Bronze Age. Caulking coated in birch tar would probably be more effective at keeping out water, but not very convenient if you had to do it every day.
Logboats that have a sternboard and had caulking in the sternboard groove:
Degersee (moss caulking) – 5.31, Alder, 1925 BC
Carpow (moss caulking) – 9.25m, Oak, 1000 BC
Brigg (moss caulking) – 14.75m, Oak, 1260–790 BC
Clifton 2 (moss caulking) – 9.25m, Oak, 405 BC
Hasholme (moss caulking) – 12.78m, Oak, 322 BC
Poole (hide/leather caulking) – 10.08 m, Oak, 295 BC
Preston 1 (bark caulking) – Unknown date
Cahore 1 (moss caulking) – 6.7m, Oak, Unknown date
None have evidence of tar, resin, wax, or ‘glue’ being used with the caulking.
Imagine dedicating hundreds of hours crafting a logboat using only the simple tools available during the Bronze Age … “Millet and McGrail offered an approximation of 70–80 man days to produce the 12.78m Hasholme boat, while Goodburn (2010, 113) suggested that a team of 10 would have completed the main stages of forming the c. 11m Carpow boat in around 3 weeks, with a smaller team then doing the fine finishing.” (Crevinish Logboat by Brian G. Scott)
Given the immense investment of time and labour, it naturally follows that one would want to have a safeguard for this valuable asset. I think this desire for security likely motivated the invention of the removable sternboard, a simple but effective anti-theft mechanism to protect the owner’s property.
If sternboards were a security device, how often would they be removed? At the end of every day would the fisherman/trader/ferryman pull the stern up on the river bank and remove the sternboard, take it home, and then the next day put it back, caulk it and carry on their trade? Or maybe they were just removed in winter when the boats were laid up for longer periods of time, or when visiting other more distant locations where the security situation was uncertain?
The prevalence of logboat theft during the Bronze Age may have been a more global concern than previously thought. Peter Bellwood, in his book “Ancient Boats, Boat Timbers, and Locked Mortise-and-Tenon Joints from Bronze/Iron-Age Northern Vietnam,” discusses and includes photographs of a Bronze Age Vietnamese logboat, the Viet Khe logboat from 810-390 BC, discovered in the Red River alluvial plain that has a sternboard remarkably similar to those found in Europe around the same time. This striking resemblance in design prompts a fascinating question: did separate cultures independently arrive at the same solution to protect against the theft of logboats, or could there have been a transfer of this specific knowledge between regions as distant as Ireland and Vietnam during the Bronze Age?
If this idea is correct, it raises all sorts of questions about Bronze age society. Whilst a lot of Bronze age logboats have stern boards, not all of them do. Did only logboats for a specific purpose have sternboards? Or does it mean that some areas of Britain and the rest of the world were ‘rougher’ than others?
Feature image credit: Tom Parnell
