Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags

Årgang

Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1964, Side 64

Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags - 01.01.1964, Side 64
66 ÁRBÓK FORNLEIFAFÉLAGSINS century, but boats of the Breiðafjörður type were everywhere regarded as the toughest and most practical ones. Was this Breiðafjörður boat, so highly spoken of in the 18th century, already fully developed in the time of Eirik the Red and the Age of the Sturlungs? To the present author nothing contradicts such a supposition. In the 19th century tenoarings and twelve-oarings of the Breiðafjörður type (figs. 4—8) were built from driftwood collected on the shores where Skallagrim Kveldúlfsson and Eirik the Red had in their time got material for their own boats. The carrying capacity of these boats was 8—10 tons. Cne of these 19th century boats, Ófeigur, a tenoaring for eight rowers, is still in existence (figs. 9—10). It was used in equal measure as a fishing boat and a cargo boat. If compared with t.he sunnmorsottringen (fig. 11), which is considered the stoutest of Norwegian boats, capable of sailing some 45 nautical miles out to sea, Ófeigur’s construction shows a great advantage in seaworthiness over that of the Norwegian boat. This makes itself particularly clear in the jointing of the sides and in the number of strakes and spants. We do not know when it first became usual in Iceland to build boats with considerably narrower strakes and many times tighter spants than were used in Norway, and with plank ends joining each other at wide intervals along the side of the boat; but it is not unlikely that all this was already in full practice when Eirik left for Greenland. All the main features of the Breiðafjörður boat helped to make it particularly resistant to rough seas, well able to bear its load yet relatively light for the oarsmen, and excellent as a sailing boat, both in sidewind and when running before the wind. When shark fishing increased early in the 19th century the Icelanders went fishing from such boats 45 miles off-shore (fig. 12) in the middle of the winter and remained at the fishing grounds 4—6 days at a time. It should be mentioned in comparison with this that it tooic the ships of the Saga period four days to sail from Snæ- fellsnes to Hvarf in Greenland, according to Landnáma (the Book of Settle- ments). Eirik the Red and his followers from Breiðafjörður were no doubt keen observers of weather and sea. Nevertheless it is not certain that they could foresee the weather on their voyage to Greenland. If, after two days’ sailing, the wind fell, what could the fleet of the colonizers do but drift before the current till the wind came up again? The answer to this question depends on the kind of craft they had. If some of their boats were tenoarings and twelve-oarings (fishing boats and cargo boats) there were two alternatives: to try to row back in the direction of Iceland or force their way onwards, also by rowing. Doubtless Eirik had told his followers everything that might be of use to them during the voyage. If he told them that when they had behind them two thirds of the distance between the two countries a southsetting current would make itself felt and become all the stronger the closer they came to the coast of Greenland, it must be considered likely that at least some of the men would choose to move on as best they could, with oars, to the land of promise. Surely the natives of Breiðafjörður knew what it meant to row towards the current, „aS róa undir straum“ as they call it. On the other hand those who chose to turn back could only do so if the boats were of such a kind that they could be rowed. Supposing that the opposite of all this happened and violent storms and rough sea met the voyagers, it may then be asked which did the better, the cargo boat or the knörr, especially after the fleet had reached the icefilled coastal waters of Greenland. Even in that predicament the cargo boat had an obvious advantage over the knörr in that it could be rowed away from the ice or through it if the ice was not altogether compact. The knörr, on the other hand, could not
Side 1
Side 2
Side 3
Side 4
Side 5
Side 6
Side 7
Side 8
Side 9
Side 10
Side 11
Side 12
Side 13
Side 14
Side 15
Side 16
Side 17
Side 18
Side 19
Side 20
Side 21
Side 22
Side 23
Side 24
Side 25
Side 26
Side 27
Side 28
Side 29
Side 30
Side 31
Side 32
Side 33
Side 34
Side 35
Side 36
Side 37
Side 38
Side 39
Side 40
Side 41
Side 42
Side 43
Side 44
Side 45
Side 46
Side 47
Side 48
Side 49
Side 50
Side 51
Side 52
Side 53
Side 54
Side 55
Side 56
Side 57
Side 58
Side 59
Side 60
Side 61
Side 62
Side 63
Side 64
Side 65
Side 66
Side 67
Side 68
Side 69
Side 70
Side 71
Side 72
Side 73
Side 74
Side 75
Side 76
Side 77
Side 78
Side 79
Side 80
Side 81
Side 82
Side 83
Side 84
Side 85
Side 86
Side 87
Side 88
Side 89
Side 90
Side 91
Side 92
Side 93
Side 94
Side 95
Side 96
Side 97
Side 98
Side 99
Side 100
Side 101
Side 102
Side 103
Side 104
Side 105
Side 106
Side 107
Side 108
Side 109
Side 110
Side 111
Side 112
Side 113
Side 114
Side 115
Side 116
Side 117
Side 118
Side 119
Side 120
Side 121
Side 122
Side 123
Side 124
Side 125
Side 126
Side 127
Side 128
Side 129
Side 130
Side 131
Side 132
Side 133
Side 134
Side 135
Side 136
Side 137
Side 138
Side 139
Side 140
Side 141
Side 142
Side 143
Side 144
Side 145
Side 146
Side 147
Side 148
Side 149
Side 150

x

Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags

Direkte link

Hvis du vil linke til denne avis/magasin, skal du bruge disse links:

Link til denne avis/magasin: Árbók Hins íslenzka fornleifafélags
https://timarit.is/publication/97

Link til dette eksemplar:

Link til denne side:

Link til denne artikel:

Venligst ikke link direkte til billeder eller PDfs på Timarit.is, da sådanne webadresser kan ændres uden advarsel. Brug venligst de angivne webadresser for at linke til sitet.