Posted on 02/15/2010 11:05:23 AM PST by SunkenCiv
|
|
|||
Gods |
Again with the "short coastal journeys". But regardless, this is a BIG one, folks. |
||
|
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · |
|||
My recollection is that the UK was an ancient source of tin, not an importer.
cool!
That’s correct, most of it from Cornwall (which is right next to Devon). This stuff must have been on its way out.
I thought so, too.
One of my favorite Jacques Cousteau books documented in detail his exploration and excavation of a wreck a lot like this one. Start of my fascination with the sea. ‘Course, he later went enviro-wack, but hey...
Colonel, USAFR
Tin was mined in western Britain, and you’re right it has long been suspected that the mines supplied tin for the Mediterranean bronze industry, via Phoenician and later Greek middlemen.
Ditto
The Phoenicians blockaded the Straits at Gilbrater to prevent other nations from obtaining tin from the UK.
I believe an overland route was eventually established across either France or Spain that bypassed the Phoenician blocade.
The article notes that; but apparently Germany or the Iberian peninsula were producers as well.
Luckily, it's generally possible to determine the source of these metals based on the relative isotope ratios and such. You've got to figure they'll be checking on that, as the results would have significant implications.
THX.
I always thought ancient Britain was a source of Bronze Age tin...?
LOL, I am late to this party! Must...read...first...
I was curios about how they came to the conclusion that the boat, “able to carry a huge cargo” was 40” X 6’ with 15 crewmen, since they didn’t find any of the wooden strakes or keel or anything.
That is a very narrow configuration for a bulk cargo transport and would be relatively unstable in seas of any size.
Yeah, that 40” is supposed to be 40 feet I think. :’) Otherwise, this thing was just a glorified canoe, and not very glorified. :’) A cubic yard of water is about 1600 pounds, which won’t help us without the third D. 240 square feet is less than 30 sq yds, it’s not unlikely that a laden ship of this type and size had at least four feet below the waterline, and give or take not being square ended, the vessel thus displaced about 28 tons (+/- a ton).
Run of the mill Roman vessels displaced about 100 tons, which is comparable to colonial clipper ships (without looking it up, this is what I recall from Lionel Casson), although the Romans built some vessels which were much, much larger (moving 300 ton obelisks and whatnot from Egypt required bigger ships). Grain haulers were probably 100+. This particular ship wasn’t mass-produced I’m sure, but ships of this size were probably common.
The ancients would sail the length of a sea using vessels we wouldn’t use to crap over the side, much less take a voyage in. That was the case right up until iron started to be used, making much larger vessels possible.
Thanks!
Thanks!
My pleasure.
But Oz never did give nothing to the tin man that he didn't, didn't already have.
So it was kind of small by our standards but it was pretty good by the standards of the time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
