Oseberg 1/32nd from Pavel Nikitin - With hopefully also many added details.

[RussF]

I love what you're doing John! Since you're going to that much trouble to replicate the original, don't forget how much Pavel's mast partner differs from Oseberg's.

 

[oldflyer]

Russ,

Thanks so much for your nice comments, as well as your very helpful images and inputs.

Your work Oseberg log has also been a real pleasure to follow. Went back through your log to again - read your notes about where to locate the mast and the Unimus image reference….., for moving the mast step one frame forward - that was a LOT of work on your part.….Need to consider that as well..

Yes, the partner needs to be shape adjusted - still on my list. That said, I’m not sure - either way - if the deck planking also did continue slightly under the partner on each side of the mast?

Though most early 1900s images, from the dig site, don’t seem to support that conclusion…Nor do current images of the ship. Need to read more…TBD

Regarding the mast, I intend on leaving it square shaped at it fits into the keelson - then round it just before it fits through the partner.

The other issue is the size of Pavel’s provided keelson - seems too big. I will do some slight reshaping there as well. Lots of learning (for me) about a ship from 2000 years ago. Enjoying the is new learning adventure.

As I learn more, I have also been so astonished about Viking ship building; So excellent

 

[RussF]

That said, I’m not sure - either way - if the deck planking also did continue slightly under the partner on each side of the mast?

That's really hard to say, John. What we would call thwarts (the uppermost crossmember at each frame) are called biti. If you examine the cross section I sent you, the deck ledge on the aft biti is just below the mast partner, and it is conceivable that the decking could have slid under the partner. The forward ledge, however, is arranged differently, and there doesn't appear to be room for a deck plank under it. Unfortunately, the mast biti was not drawn with the deck ledges, so your guess is as good as mine. I plan on not making the curve on the bottom of the partner arc so high and just butting the planks up against the side of it. If I were doing what you are, I would probably approach it differently, as well as make the mast step more authentic.

My reasoning for not, however, is that all evidence points to all the deck planks being nailed down with the exception of the rooms adjacent to the mast and (if I remember correctly) a room or two at the stems. If I were to leave a room open as you are, it would be one of those, but given, as you say, the incorrect keel as well as the incorrect frames, I decided to leave it as is and fasten the deck down.

Having the decks fastened down is somewhat unusual for a longboat, which is why archaeologists believe the Oseberg was not a typical ocean-going raiding vessel, but rather a ceremonial boat or inland private transport for the apparent high-ranking women who were found buried with her. There would be no need for much storage space below decks and without cargo and supplies, there would need to be more ballast. Dr. Bischoff talks in her book about trimming the reproduction boat by shifting ballast - sometimes this might need to be done at sea. Again, given the role they assume the Oseberg played, there would not really be a need for that, hence no need to access the bilge.