Andy Flat bottomed is a poor choice of words, I must be honest but many years ago at school, I was told they were called flat bottomed and the term has stuck in my mind ever since unfortunately . Think 'Viking' style boats, not quite the same but very similar. There is some debate over whether the Saxon boats had masts or not, logic dictates that they did but I think there isn't much evidence (though there isn't much evidence for their boats anyway). As to harbours, I agree that natural harbours would have been used. As to beaching, well, it was quite common in the 'medieval' period to beach boats during the winter storms. Even 'large' Early Saxon ships weren't that large, the biggest I know of was found in a peat bog in South Jutland in the 1860s and was 75 feet long (sorry, I'm doing the dates and measurements from memory-the exact details are in Anne Savage's edition of "Anglo-Saxon Chronicles") As to giving credit for ports to the Saxons, well, again its a matter of meaning. The Romans did build impressive ports and the post-Conquest Normans did, however prior to 1066 the Dukes of Normandy (unlike the Kings of England) did not maintain any form of navy so if they are to be created with ports, where did they get the idea from. The English are obvious candidates, if nothing else as an island, the idea of ports of some form must have occurred to them. Of course, 'port' is a loaded word, a better description for this time (and much of the medieval period) would be 'coastal settlement where merchants come to trade and people build/repair boats". Later, when ship sizes increased and it was not longer practical to beach vessels or build them on a river bank or beach, ports as we think of them today appeared. As to reconstructions, well the re-enactment society I belong to has several replica vessels, built in the 'traditional'way. they tend to be of a smaller size, suitable for river journeys but also used for open sea journeys. Infact I did relate a story about one of our boats sailing from the Isle of Mann on here a couple of months ago and whilst we often move them around by road (on the back of trucks before any jokers ask silly In addition to the Nydam Ship (24 metres long) we ought to consider the following as Saxon ships: The Sutton Ship (27 metres) and the Graveney Boat. Clinker-built, they were scarcely flat-bottomed, rather rounded. The debate is whether the primitive keel plank had evolved into some form of beam keel as in the latter Viking ships such as Oseberg or Gokstad. There is, I believe, that this ship type was know to the Anglo-Saxons as 'keels' (Old English ceol) A useful general reference, among others, might be Christensen, A.E., 1996, 'Proto-Viking, Viking and Norse Craft' in The Earliest Ships, Conway Maritime Press. For ancient harbours, see McGrail, S., 1987, Ancient Boats in N.W. Europe, pages 267-74. Gerald Grainge [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Universal Inkjet Refill Kit $29.95 Refill any ink cartridge for less! Includes black and color ink. http://us.click.yahoo.com/ltH6zA/MkNDAA/ySSFAA/x3XolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> visit http://www.sussexpast.co.uk for the latest on Sussex's Past - to unsubscribe from this list send an empty/no message/no signature email to sussexpast-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ----------------------- Internet Header -------------------------------- Sender: sentto-125772-1792-1005579244-bmlss=compuserve.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from n31.groups.yahoo.com (n31.groups.yahoo.com [216.115.96.81]) by siaag1ac.compuserve.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/SUN-1.12) with SMTP id KAA06303 for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:34:13 -0500 (EST) X-eGroups-Return: sentto-125772-1792-1005579244-bmlss=compuserve.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from [10.1.4.52] by n31.groups.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 12 Nov 2001 15:34:05 -0000 X-Sender: GGrainge@aol.com X-Apparently-To: sussexpast@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 12 Nov 2001 15:34:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 39526 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2001 15:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m8.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Nov 2001 15:34:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Nov 2001 15:34:03 -0000 Received: from GGrainge@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.143.47bfd13 (3870) for ; Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:53 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <143.47bfd13.292145e0@aol.com> To: sussexpast@yahoogroups.com X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows UK sub 10505 From: GGrainge@aol.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list sussexpast@yahoogroups.com; contact sussexpast-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list sussexpast@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:33:52 EST Reply-To: sussexpast@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [sussexpast] Saxon Scips Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit questions), there have bee occasions when they have sailed from Bristol to Largs, Scotland...in September. As to illustrations/pictures, I am sure there are some on the society website, I can't remember the address at present, I'll stick it on here tomorrow if that is ok. Jason -----Original Message----- From: Andy Horton [Mailto:Glaucus@hotmail.com] Sent: 12 November 2001 13:04 To: INTERNET:sussexpast@yahoogroups.com Subject: [sussexpast] Saxon Scips Message text written by INTERNET:sussexpast@yahoogroups.com >I think someone was asking about Saxon boats, these were largely flat bottom. Sometimes its difficult to remember that the concept of a 'harbour' in Saxon times would have been very different to today. Any decent beach which was not too exposed would be suitable to pull the boats up onto, and there are a lot of those round here! Harbours (I think) came about where there was such a beach near to a settlement, usually high status, working on a theory that most harbours are for trade and the rich are the best people to sell your goods to. < Hello Jason, Have you got a location where I can find illustrations of Saxon boats? Most of them would have rotted away. But the sea has not changed and I cannot understand what is exactly meant by flat bottom boats. To me, it would seem: 1) that the Saxon boats would probably have some form of rudimentary keel, for stability and speed in average seas as much as anything. Unfortunately, television programs are particuarly unclear on this one. It showed some working river boats, but they looked only good for calm seas (I would not even fancy them in even calm seas.) 2) that it would sensible for the Saxons to use natural ports like Chichester and banks of shingle that even in those days probably gave some shelter at Portslade (the Romans seemed to think so.) I do not think pulling large boats of any kind up shingle beaches is a particularly good idea. Not if you have got a choice of sailing up a river and finding a bit of protection. Wooden boats like being in seawater. They rot rapidly in freshwater, e.g. rain, so even the Saxons would have worked this one out. Cymenes ora could have just been a bank of shingle that acts as protection for Saxon ships from storms, e.g, near Pagham. This is a bit of the Devil's Advocate stuff. Have the Saxon reconstructed boats been tested in rough seas or average seas? Cheers Andy Horton. PS: I think we can give credit to harbours to the Normans, ports for the Romans, ?????? for Saxons. visit http://www.sussexpast.co.uk for the latest on Sussex's Past - to unsubscribe from this list send an empty/no message/no signature email to sussexpast-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ visit http://www.sussexpast.co.uk for the latest on Sussex's Past - to unsubscribe from this list send an empty/no message/no signature email to sussexpast-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ----------------------- Internet Header -------------------------------- Sender: sentto-125772-1791-1005575873-bmlss=compuserve.com@returns.groups.yahoo.com Received: from n6.gro Typical, I go away for a couple for weeks and a really interesting (to me) discussion gets underway. Hope you dont minda general summary of views. I am a bit loath to take anything the ASC says at that early a date as anything other than myth. The 477 entry concerning Aelle seems to be more an attempt to explain away a placename-interestingly somewhere named for his son (Cymen) rather than the man himself. IF Aelle is real and IF he did settle round here then fine, it may have been at Cymenesore but I'd rather argue for a general Saxon settlement rather than trying to find a certain individuals home. The whole issue of where the Saxons (and what do we mean by 'Saxon'?) first settled and when is a difficult one, given the minimal evidence we have though this has changed a bit recently. Simon is right, two sunken huts do not make a fifth century Saxon settlement but given that so little evidence of settlement has survived from then, its a very good indication of a settlement-and what do we mean by settlement? A farm is a settlement and those huts are a typical early Saxon feature so we can deduce that there may have been a Saxon settlement in the area. As to the arrival date, well you can argue that there may have been Saxons already here as merecaneries of the Imperial Army prior to 410, based largely on buckles, pottery, etc found in burials. There may have SAxons in the area shortly after 410, but I dont think this means that the Romnas leave and the Saxons immediately attack and conquer the sub-Roman Britons. The current archaeological evidence seems to indicate continuity after 410, not sudden change. Ok, there most probably some sites where the change is abrupt and early but this could be due to merecaneries arriving or old ones left over from imperial days and moving to a new site and maintaining their own lifestyle. Also, we must not ignore the idea that the Saxon 'conquest' may have largely involved the replacing of a sub-Roman British elite by a Saxon one with the old lower classes carrying on as usual, if a bit reduced in status and slowly adopting their new masters ways. I'm not saying it was peaceful-yes there would have been battles and some population movement but not straightaway after 410 and not 'ethnic cleansing'. Also remember thta there is evidence of a sub-Roman fightback-fifith scentruy SAxon settlements shrinking in the early sixth century linked to a growth in such settlements in Europe and the appearance of 'English Saxon' style goods in European graveyards. I think someone was asking about Saxon boats, these were largely flat bottom. Sometimes its difficult to remember that the concept of a 'harbour' in Saxon times would have been very different to today. Any decent beach which was not too exposed would be suitable to pull the boats up onto, and there are a lot of those round here! Harbours (I think) came about where there was such a beach near to a settlement, usually high status, working on a theory that most harbours are for trade and the rich are the best people to sell your goods to. I reckon, however, that 5th Century Saxons in England, even round here, weren't a major threat-ok they had Kent and a few coastal settlements but it was the sub-Roman Kingdoms in the West that were the powers. Its not until the mid6th Century (or later) that the balance swung in favour of the Germanic peoples. Jason Horsham Museums -----Original Message----- From: Andy Horton [Mailto:Glaucus@hotmail.com] Sent: 08 November 2001 22:18 To: INTERNET:sussexpast@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [sussexpast] Cymens(h)ore Message text written by INTERNET:sussexpast@yahoogroups.com >My objections to a landing on the Chichester coastal plain arise through the evidence uncovered at Alfriston, Bishopstone and Highdown, allied to some conjecture on where Aelle might have chosen to settle, certainly not in an area that might be in danger of encroachment by the sea, but also with access to it.< [Extract] Hello, Thanks for the message Simon. Early Saxons in Sussex Because fo the lack of evidence about the Saxon invasions there is always room for speculation. My interpretation from the evidence that I know about archaeological and place names leads me to think of 5th settlement of Germanic tribes in Sussex simultaneously in two main locations, 1) between the Adur and Arun where the place names end in -ing. Highdown, Patching area (this is my favourite area of major occupation) 2) between the Ouse and the Cuckmere. I would also think that there would be Celtic-Roman British inhabitants still living together between the Adur and the Ouse, Portslade, Thundersbarrow, Southwick. The precise landing place of Ælle mentioned in the AS Chronicle I do not regard as necessarily exactly factual as the landing place may have been guessed at later. i.e. Cymenes ora was probably near Pagham, but not necessarily the place where Ælle landed. What is almost a complete guess is that the Saxon tribes agreed a frontier boundary at one of the rivers. What I tend to think is that the Saxons grew their arable crops on the downs. The proximity of the early settlements lead me to think this and not because the land is less naturally fertile and already occupied than the alluvial flood plains, but because of the absence of flooding and because the land would be easier to work. Cheers Andy Horton. glaucus@hotmail.com History of Shoreham History.htm PS: The Sussex Past can be searched for "ora" for the origin of the second component of Bognor, although I think there are two opinions for this. visit http://www.sussexpast.co.uk for the latest on Sussex's Past - to unsubscribe from this list send an empty/no message/no signature email to sussexpast-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/