The Dover Boat—a Reconstruction Case‐Study

Abstract

The Bronze‐Age Dover boat, reconstructed and published by Owain Roberts in 2004, is discussed in regard to the general considerations of reconstructing ancient boat structures in the previous paper. The archaeological evidence shows that the boat had a bottom shape different from that shown in the 2004 reconstruction, and various other aspects, such as the general shape and strength of the hull and the calculation of potential speed when paddled, are questioned, partly drawing on the author's experience with the reconstruction of the Hjortspring boat. A re‐assessment of the evidence is called for before any attempts to build a full‐scale version of the Dover boat for sea‐trials.

© 2006 The Author

Key words:

• Dover boat
• Bronze‐Age boatbuilding
• Hjortspring boat
• double‐boats
• reconstruction
• experimental boat archaeology

Notes

1 The author is grateful to Peter Clark, Peter Marsden and Seán McGrail for a constructive dialogue on the Dover boat reconstruction.

2 In the Dover boat monograph, the two curved elements between the bottom and the sides are called iles or ‘chine girders’ whereas other scholars prefer the terms ‘chine strakes’ or ‘transition strake’. Since the terms girder and strake are usually applied to beams and planks respectively, the term ile is preferred for these carved‐out transitional elements between bottom and side in the Dover boat and in other vessels with similar elements.

3 Sediments found at the bottom of a shipwreck may represent traces of ballast or cargo carried on board in addition to local sediments deposited after the wrecking. In medieval times and later ballast may have been reloaded several times in ports, so that it may have come from another area than that of the loading of the ship (McGrail, 2004: 51–2). For the Dover boat, however, the evidence of sediments that are ‘foreign’ to the Dover area, but found further down the coast at Folkestone and beyond, must be taken as proof of the use of this vessel in coastal traffic since there would be no need for ballast if the boat had been used locally in the river only.

4 The transverse timbers in the bottom of the boat were damaged and deformed by the weight of the sediments above, like the other elements of the boat. There is no clear indication that these timbers tapered in thickness towards one end as suggested by Darrah (cf. Marsden, 2004a, fig. 5.57, and Darrah, 2004c, fig. 9.28). One of the transverse timbers (341) is slightly broader at one end, but this may be the result of deformation since it is described as so badly damaged that detailed accurate measurements are not possible. Consequently, it is likely that these timbers were not inserted during an early phase in the construction of the boat as suggested in the monograph, but in the process of assembling the two parts of the double‐boat—a subject for further study at the model building phase.