Unlocking the past, ancient logboat technology

 

​

​

​

​​

​​

​

Part 1.

Summary

It is often assumed that mankind's first modes of transportation involved riding horses or using wheeled carts, but in fact, logboats are the oldest known form of transport. The Pesse logboat, discovered in the Netherlands, dates from between 8040 BC and 7510 BC, making it approximately 10,000 years old, making logboats about 5,000 years older than the first wheel. As a timeline reference Stonehenge was built in phases between 3100 BC and 1600 BC, about 4,400 to 5,000 years after the Pesse logboat was made.

 

​This article explores the particular and curious design choice of incorporating complicated sternboards (transoms) in a significant number of logboats spanning 5,500 years, from 3574 BC to the 17th century—a feature that has puzzled historians and archaeologists alike.

Through comparing logboats like the Brigg (1260–790 BC) and Lubanowo (400–350 BC), and comparing sternboard design, this discussion challenges the idea that sternboards were structural necessities due to tree defects or adaptations for increased performance. Instead, it proposes they served a surprising, practical early form of anti-theft technology.  The article also considers the possibility of cultural diffusion of this technology across regions from Vietnam to Ireland and its implications for understanding the social and economic practices of prehistoric communities.

 

Preface                                            

I would like to preface this article by saying that I am an English teacher, not an academic historian or archaeologist. As you'll see throughout the article, the writing style is quite casual, which I believe suits the nature of this fascinating topic and makes it more accessible to a wider audience beyond academic circles.

My interest in history is focussed on the Ribble Valley in Lancashire around 900 AD, when the Vikings were up to their shenanigans, traveling between Dublin and York. However, for the purposes of this article, we must go back even further—to the Bronze Age.

 

A prehistoric design mystery

While doing my Viking research, I came across a curious description of two Bronze Age logboats that were found in gravel in the River Ribble, when excavating Preston docks, Lancashire, in 1887.  The Bronze Age is not really my area of focus but I decided to read on, as it was about the Ribble, and I came across an interesting puzzle.  Here is the text:

 

Transactions of the Manchester Geological Society, Volume 20, 1890

"Both canoes are much shorter than the Barton one, by about 5ft and 6ft respectively, and both are of the flat-bottomed type. The first one found and described by the Rev. Mr. Shortt has another noticeable feature: the stern, for which the root end of the tree has been used, is an open one and is closed by a stern board which fitted into a groove hollowed in the bottom and sides. This groove is placed 7in from the extreme end of the trunk, thus leaving the exterior part of the tree projecting, apparently uselessly, behind unless it served the purpose of steadying the boat. The motive for making these canoes with an open stern and then closing it with a moveable stern board, at some little distance from the extreme end, is not at all clear, nor the advantage to be gained thereby very intelligible, as the stern board must have been calked, probably by moss, bark, or other material, in order to make the boat watertight, and the fashioning of the grooves must have added largely to the labour, considering the implements that were probably used in the process."

​​​

                               ​

 

​

​

 

 

 

​

 

​

​

​​​

​

​

​​​​​​​

 

This complicated design choice puzzled the Victorians, and its purpose remains undefined even today. Sean Mcgrail in his 1998 book: Ancient Boats in North-West Europe, casts doubt on the reason for logboat sternboards "These different forms may reflect different degrees of heart rot in the parent log: on the other hand, they may be individual styles of boatbuilding. There is insufficient evidence to resolve this point at present."

 Several explanations have been proposed: “it increases the boat's load capacity,”  “it enhances its rigidity,” “it improves stability,” “stern boards are repairs,” and maybe the most unlikely "the stern is closed by a separate stern board, making construction easier since slices of wood could be adzed out vigorously towards the stern." 

Robert Van de Noort (2011) suggests that sternboards may have had a ritualistic element:

"The question is raised as to whether the removal of the Dover boat transom piece—probably its stem but possibly its stern— was meant to indicate the removal of the fragment that symbolized the power of the boat, or of its master or crew."

 

A rotten argument

One of the most common arguments for the presence of sternboards in logboats is that the parent tree suffered from heart rot—a fungal disease that decays the heartwood, typically entering through injuries like deep bark cuts or branch removals. However, ancient boatbuilders, who were likely skilled at identifying signs of heart rot—often indicated by fungi or conks on the tree's exterior—would surely have selected only healthy trees for logboat construction. Given that heart rot is often visible before a tree is felled, and the availability of suitable trees was much greater in the past, it seems unlikely that sternboards were designed to mitigate heart rot.

 

Also, in ancient times, expansive forests would have provided boatbuilders with a much greater selection of suitable trees than we see today. This is evidenced by an observation from 1836: “Many trees equally large as the one employed in making it (the North Stoke Logboat) were, till of late, seen throughout the weald of Sussex, of which that forest covered a considerable part; and some even now remain. But the consumption of wood, formerly employed in the numerous ironworks in the county, the extent of cultivation at present obtained in it, the increased value of timber, and the excellence of the roads now made for transporting it, have rendered them rare."

​

By 1836, the Industrial Revolution was in full swing sadly consuming the grand old trees of England.

​

Similarly, in Scotland in 1886, an eminent shipbuilder on the Clyde lamented the scarcity of large oak trees, saying, "there is hardly now growing in Scotland an oak tree of sufficient size to produce a boat of these dimensions (The Knaven logboat). With the exception of the thriving young plantations near the house of Nethermuir, nothing but oat plant or the turnip is now to be seen in this quarter."

 

Even poetry was written lamenting the loss of the massive oaks that had been hewn into logboats for the past ten thousand years but were now fuelling the iron works of the industrial revolution:

 

"Ay, the days of the oaks are over,—

Of England’s broad, green, monarch oaks!

And the ground that nourished these

Has chimneys now where then were trees;

And beneath them, where the rover

Found repose on moss and clover,

Now is nought but coals and cokes."

 

Thomas Henry Sealy, The Little Old Man of the Wood, or The Tale of a Comical Stick. The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction, 1839.

 

Size doesn’t matter

The Iron Age Lubanowo logboat (400-350 BC) made of beech wood, discovered in Lake Lubanowo in 2020, Poland, is significant because it only measures 3.20 meters in length, and has a stern width of just 55cm.  It was found to have a sternboard groove with the sternboard being found nearby.  The small size is important because it is often argued that logboats have sternboards because the parent tree must have suffered from heart rot because of its great age and size, for example the Bronze Age Brigg logboat (1260–790 BC) made of oak at a huge 14.75 meters, also with the sternboard design. The Lubanowo logboat, being just over 3 meters long and made of beech, suggests that the inclusion of a sternboard had little to do with structural necessity.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​​​

 

 

The 3.2-meter long Lubanowo logboat, with its narrow 55 cm stern, was the 'speedboat' of the Iron Age. Small, with a very shallow draft (I calculate probably less than 15 cm), and made from light beech wood (compared to oak), it would have sat higher in the water, reducing drag. The Lubanowo logboat was optimized for cutting through water, and with its relatively light beech hull and streamlined design, was clearly built for speed and efficiency. In contrast, the massive 3 tonne Brigg logboat, made of heavy oak, featured a rounded bow, 'as if intended for a ram,' likely designed for carrying heavy loads and withstanding impacts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

​

​

The massive sternboard built Brigg Logboat, weighing about 3 tonnes, was made of oak and dated to 1260-790 BC. It was discovered in April 1886 at Brigg Gas Works, Lincolnshire. At 14.75 meters long, it was one of the largest logboats ever found. Described at the time as an 'Ancient British War Canoe,' the vessel was capable of carrying about twenty-eight people. Sadly, it was destroyed by German incendiary bombs on June 23, 1943, when Hull's Municipal Museum was bombed. It's ironic that this 'Ancient British War Canoe' ultimately met its fate in an act of war.

​

So, despite being geographically separated by approximately 1,100 kilometres, being made from different wood, having vastly different hull dimensions and roles on the waterways, and an age gap of 500 to 650 years, both logboats share a key design feature: a sternboard. In fact, apart from both being logboats, the sternboard design is the only feature they have in common. 

 

Time is money

Crafting a logboat using only the simple tools available during the Bronze Age required a considerable investment in time … "Millet and McGrail offered an approximation of 70–80-man days to produce the 12.78m Hasholme boat, while Goodburn (2010, 113) suggested that a team of 10 would have completed the main stages of forming the c. 11m Carpow boat in around 3 weeks, with a smaller team then doing the fine finishing."  (Crevinish Logboat by Brian G. Scott)

 

Given this investment of time and labour, it naturally follows that the owner would want to protect this valuable asset from theft.  Nowadays ‘time is money,’ and the investment of between 560 hours and 1,200 hours in crafting a logboat could possibly be seen as having an equivalent value to a new entry-level car today, costing between £8,500 and £17,500.

 

Sternboards are the key

As described in the 1890 text, many ancient logboats had a “moveable stern board”,  which was not permanently fixed in position and could be taken out at at a moment's notice but was likely not intended to be taken out while the logboat was on the water, as doing so would cause the boat to flood. So, its purpose was probably associated with removal while the boat was on dry land, but why would you want to remove the sternboard on dry land?

 

I suggest that the removable sternboard acted as a sort of key for the logboat: without it, the logboat couldn't be used. This design would deter unauthorized use or theft, as any potential thief would need a sternboard matching the unique shape, or profile, of the logboat, just like each car key is unique.  A simple but effective anti-theft mechanism to protect the owner's property, whether it be the 'cargo ship' of the Bronze Age or the 'speedboat' of the Iron Age.

​

Handling boards

Three sternboards have been identified that incorporate small handles carved directly into the wooden face of the boards with the apparent function of lifting the sternboard vertically from an interference fit in its groove using the fingertips. At Stralsund-Mischwasserspeicher (ca. 3574 BC), the alder sternboard features an oval handle, while the sternboard from Flag Fen has an X-shaped handle.  The Hasholme sternboard, dating to around 322 BC, incorporates a U-shaped handle. A fourth handled sternboard, Aston 2, is harder to investigate due to limited data.

These handles were almost certainly not decoration or magical symbols (as has been suggested), nor were they designed for manoeuvring the heavy logboats, which could weigh up to 3 tonnes. Instead, they were likely used for precisely inserting and removing the sternboards vertically from their snug fit.

 

 

                                                                                                                                       

     

 

​

 

 

 

 

 

​

 

​

​​

​

​​​​

​

In the Hasholme sternboard, the two holes positioned above the U-shaped handle—forming what looks like an amusing 'smiley face’ (the first ever?) — could have served a very practical purpose. I can imagine they would be very useful for carrying the removable sternboard to and from the logboat much like a satchel, with a leather strap or rope threaded through the holes and slung over the shoulder.

 

There is an enigmatic sentence recorded in the Ordinary Meeting of the Manchester Geological Society on the 4th of June, 1889:

'He believed the loose stern board in the Preston boat served a very important function.'

This short sentence is interesting for two reasons. Firstly, the sternboard is described as being 'loose,' indicating that the Victorians didn’t consider the sternboard a fixed, permanent part of the logboat. Secondly, the text emphasizes that the sternboard 'served a very important function. Frustratingly, however, the text doesn't make clear what this important function might have been, indicating that the removable sternboard design was recognized as important, but its use was unknown.

 

Getting into the grooves

The lifespan of a logboat must have been considerable, with no joints or moving parts aside from the removable sternboard. Over time, the U-shaped groove and sternboard would wear down from repeated use, eventually needing replacement—this is where the stern projection could come into play.

 

As described in the 1890 text, “This groove is placed 7 inches from the extreme end of the trunk, leaving the exterior part of the tree projecting, apparently uselessly, behind unless it served the purpose of steadying the boat.” Another suggestion from an 1897 report, where the groove was set even further back at 10 inches, speculated that “the projection may have been otherwise useful in stepping on board after pushing off from the shore, a contrivance for such a purpose not existing, so far as I know, in any modern boat.” (Me neither.)

 

Regardless of these theories, the projection probably served a vital function—allowing for new grooves to be cut as the old ones wore out. These projections of up to 10 inches provided ample space for such secondary grooves, indeed the Carpow, Eskragh 2, and Crevinish 1 logboats, all have 2 grooves and the La Marmotta 2 logboat, (5384 BC) found in Lake Bracciano near Rome has no less than 3 grooves.

 

“Good design is long-lasting." (Dieter Rams, Chief Design Officer at Braun, Ten Principles of Good Design).

 

                                                                                                                          

 

 

​

​

​

 

 

 

 

​

 

 

 

​

 

 

​​​​

​

 

The multiple design features of removable sternboards and removable sluice gates are strikingly similar, as both are designed to do exactly the same thing: remain watertight until removed.

 
Logboats featuring a removable sternboard set in a groove were used for over 5,500 years. This is illustrated by the Neolithic logboat sternboard found in Stralsund-Mischwasserspeicher, dating to approximately 3574 ± 44 BC. Interestingly, the logboat was carbon dated to be between 3858 BC ± 63, making the sternboard roughly 250 years younger than the logboat.

Incredibly, the tradition of using logboats with removable sternboards persisted in Scotland for navigating around the Crannogs (artificial islands) into the 17th century.

 

Manchester Geological Society, Volume 20, 1890

“Similar remarks would apply to the Scotch crannoges, a few of which were in occupation so late as the early part of the 17th century, and some of the canoes found in connection with them, had the peculiar feature, previously described of the stern, closed by a vertical board sliding into grooves cut out of the solid wood.”

 

Interestingly, the Degersee logboat (1925 – 1880 BC) was found with the sternboard in situ and with its caulking!  “When the transom board - which was only partly preserved - was removed from its slot it became clear that originally the whole interspace had been filled with moss and other plant remains. All plant material had been rammed into place and resembled flat cakes.” 

Dickson J.H. et al. (2013) Mosses used for Caulking the Early Bronze Age Logboat from Degersee, Southern Germany

 

A sticky issue

I have not read of any instances where sealants such as tar, resin, or wax were used in the groove that holds the sternboard. One might expect to find the remains of sealants if the sternboard were intended to be a permanent part of the boat, especially considering that sealants like birch tar, etc. were used during the Bronze Age. Moss caulking soaked in a sealant would be more effective at keeping out water, but not very convenient if you had to do it every day.  It seems that ease of removal and replacement, rather than permanence, might have been an important consideration in the design of sternboards.

 

Logboats that have a sternboard and had caulking found in the sternboard groove:

Degersee (moss caulking) – 5.31m, Alder, 1925 BC

Carpow (moss caulking) - 9.25m, Oak, 1000 BC

Brigg (moss caulking) - 14.75m, Oak, 1260–790 BC

Clifton 2 (moss caulking) - 9.25m, Oak, 405 BC

Hasholme (moss caulking) - 12.78m, Oak, 322 BC

Poole (hide/leather caulking) - 10.08 m, Oak, 295 BC

Preston 1 (bark caulking) - Unknown date

Cahore 1 (bark caulking) - 6.7m, Oak, Unknown date

 

None of these logboats have evidence of sealants being used with the caulking in the sternboard groove.  Interestingly, while the Carpow logboat reveals no less than eight places where resin was used to repair  the hull, no trace of resin was found in the groove and moss securing the sternboard, which were discovered in situ.  In addition to Carpow, the Brigg logboat report from 1886 says "The groove at the stern was partly filled with dried moss, apparently used for caulking." This also strongly suggests that the caulking used in the sternboard groove was dry, meaning it contained no sealants, again, prioritizing easy removal/replacement over watertight sealing.

 

Sealing the mystery

In the YouTube video "Carpow Logboat: Making the Reconstruction - Official Video" posted by “PerthandKinross HeritageTrust,” despite the video text at 2 minutes 33 seconds stating that they used “dry moss, as in the Carpow boat." at 2 minutes 55 seconds you can see the moss caulking being layered over what appears to be melted wax (the person holding the metal container with the melted wax even appears to be wearing a glove to protect from the heat) and then hammering in the sternboard with considerable force to crush the sternboard into the moss, wax and groove, and wedge it (apparently permanently) in place.

 

This video seems to highlight a key difference. In the Bronze Age, moss was probably first placed in the groove, then the sternboard was inserted and pressed down from above, creating an interference fit and seal without the need for additional sealant, allowing for easy removal. In contrast, the modern reconstruction involved violently hammering the sternboard to wedge it into place and using melted wax in the moss.  The desire to make the seal between the sternboard and the logboat as watertight as possible is a natural one, but by making the sternboard an inseparable part of the boat, the reconstruction inadvertently removes the very feature that might have protected the boat from theft.

 

In a similar experiment, two logboats were launched in July 2024 at Stanwick Lakes in Northamptonshire, and again, it appears the sternboard is sealed in position, but here with clay or putty, echoing the modern interpretation of making the sternboard permanently sealed. Notice the first photograph in the online BBC article “Sink or Swim: Bronze Age-style Boats to be Launched,” where the process of sealing the sternboard with clay/putty can be seen.

​

Guided by the board

In the Degersee logboat, mentioned previously, the remains of the moss caulking found in the sternboard groove resembled small compressed “flat cakes,” suggesting the moss was originally shaped into small balls and inserted carefully along the length of the narrow groove (sounds like it was a job for little fingers) and then the sternboard inserted. The absence of any sealant in the caulking of the sternboard grooves, along with the presence of wooden handles on some sternboards, the Y-shaped sternboard groove tops, carrying holes in the Hasholme sternboard and the occurrence of multiple sternboard grooves in some logboats, strongly suggest that sternboards were designed to be easily removed and replaced.

In fact, it seems that our Victorian ancestors told us that these sternboards were 'moveable' and 'loose,' but they couldn't understand their purpose.

 

If sternboards were a security device, how often would they be removed?  At the end of every day would the fisherman/trader/ferryman pull the stern up on the river bank and remove the sternboard, take it home (with the paddle/punting pole) for security, and then the next day, caulk it and carry on their business?  Or maybe they were just removed in winter when the boats were laid up for longer periods of time, or when visiting locations where the security situation was uncertain?

 

Must Farm

In 2004 at Must Farm, near Peterborough, a Bronze Age settlement was discovered consisting of five burnt down roundhouses on stilts in an old watercourse.  Eight sternboard-built logboats (six oak, one alder and one lime), but without their sternboards were discovered nearby during excavations in 2011—some dating to 1300–1250 BC.  “Researchers working on the project suspect the boats were all sunk intentionally because the transoms (sternboards) had been removed and were not found at the site.”  If sternboards were a removable security ‘key,’ it doesn’t necessarily mean the boats were sunk intentionally, it just means the boats were not being used at the time of loss, they were laid up for the night (or longer) and the sternboards had been kept somewhere else. 

 

There is also tantalising evidence at Must Farm to suggest that logboat equipment was indeed kept separate from the boats.  "During the excavation of the site itself, it felt as though the boats were just beyond the frame of the excavated area. A probable punting pole, with a carved handle, was found just outside the palisade"

It will be interesting to see if any sternboards (or fragments) are identified in the artefacts recovered in or near the remains of the round houses in the future, as this would support the theory that they were removed on a regular basis and kept safe.

​

This idea gains further support when considering the sudden and catastrophic destruction of the settlement.

"The settlement was destroyed in a catastrophic fire which would, almost certainly, have ravaged the entire site within minutes. The occupants of Must Farm were forced to depart hurriedly, leaving behind most, if not all, of their belongings—half-eaten food was left in pots, dogs and fattening lambs were abandoned, little (if any) attempt was made to rescue the clutter of daily lives from the buildings." 
Mark Knight et al., Must Farm Pile-Dwelling Settlement: Volume 1. Landscape, Architecture and Occupation (Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, 2024)

​

If the sternboards had indeed been kept within the palisade for safekeeping, then their loss in the fire would explain why the logboats were left stranded, unable to be used for escape—nor stolen by the attackers.

​

 “the presence of weapons, such as swords and spears, and shields during the Late Bronze Age suggests that conflict was an aspect of society at this time. Swords and spears were found at Must Farm, the settlement was built in a defensible location over water with a palisade of sharpened stakes surrounding it.”  mustfarm.com​

​

Just as it would be unwise today to leave oars in an unattended rowing boat, it might have been equally prudent in the past to keep punting poles, paddles, and especially the sternboard close to the owner rather than leaving them with the logboat. After all, when we leave a car unattended, we don’t leave the key in the ignition—we remove it and take it with us, because unfortunately, some human instincts haven't evolved much over the last five and a half thousand years.

 

From Ireland to Vietnam: Necessity, the mother of invention?

The prevalence of logboat theft during the Bronze Age may have been a more global concern than previously thought. In his book Ancient Boats, Boat Timbers, and Locked Mortise-and-Tenon Joints from Bronze/Iron-Age Northern Vietnam, Peter Bellwood discusses and includes photographs of a Bronze Age Vietnamese logboat coffin, the Viet Khe logboat from 810-390 BC, which has a sternboard remarkably similar to those found in Europe around the same time (it even seems to have a slot in the top edge for a small handle). This striking resemblance in design prompts a fascinating question: did separate cultures independently arrive at the same solution to protect against the theft of logboats, or could there have been a transfer of this specific knowledge between regions as distant as Ireland and Vietnam during the Bronze Age?

 

Echoes of today: Trust in the Bronze Age

If removable sternboards were an anti-theft device, it raises all sorts of questions about ancient society.  Whilst a lot of logboats have removable sternboards, not all of them do. Did only logboats for a specific purpose have this removable sternboard design? Or does it mean that some areas of Britain and the rest of the world were 'rougher' than others?  If this statement from 1889 is correct "The boats found at Glasgow were generally of the type with moveable stern boards."  Why could that be?

 

Paul Townson

paultownson@gmail.com

 

Part 2.

Since my original research into removable sternboards (above), I have come across several additional details about ancient logboats that offer new insights into their construction, usage, and historical context.

 

Why might you want to scuttle your own boat?

In my original article (above), I suggested that the removable sternboards found in some ancient logboats were a portable security feature, designed to deter theft by making the boat unusable without the correct sternboard. This theory proposed that the sternboard would be removed when the boat was on dry land, preventing unauthorized use, as it doesn’t seem logical to remove the sternboard while the logboat is in use, as this would cause it to sink. Since then, I have continued my research, uncovering some evidence that there could in fact be situations where deliberately sinking your own logboat might have been a strategic choice:

 

The Iroquois were a confederation of six Native American tribes from the Northeastern U.S. and Canada, influential from the 16th to 18th centuries.

“The Iroquois improved on their warfare as they continued to attack even farther from their home. War parties often travelled by canoes at night. They would sink their canoes and fill them with rocks to hold them on the river bottom. After going through the woods to a target, at the appointed time, they would quickly burst from the wood to cause the greatest panic among their enemy. After the attack, the Iroquois could return quickly to their boats and leave before any significant resistance could be put together.”

 

The Shilluks are an ethnic group from South Sudan, primarily living along the White Nile. Their kingdom remained influential until the 19th century, when it encountered colonization pressures.

"Soon after sunrise, the raïs (skipper of a boat) observed some Shillooks in the distance, who were sinking their canoes in the river, after which they hastily retreated into the woods. We ran along beside the embowering shores until we reached the place. The canoes were carefully concealed, with some pieces of driftwood thrown over the spot, as if left there by the river. The raïs climbed to the masthead and called to the people, assuring them that there was no danger. However, though we peered sharply into the thickets, we could find no signs of any human beings."

 

These anecdotes show that there are situations when temporarily sinking your own boat for offensive (Iroquois) or defensive reasons (Shilluks) could be an effective strategy when dealing with enemies or potential enemies. So, whether acting as a security device, or in an offensive role or defensive role, easily removable sternboards could have acted as a deliberate control mechanism for the usability of the logboat.

​

​​

Could a Linguistic Misunderstanding Change the History of Logboats?

 

In Victorian reports of ancient logboats being discovered, they often refer to the ‘moveable stern board.’ While this word ‘moveable’ has often been interpreted as having the same meaning as ‘removable’ today, it appears that this is not the case.

 

The late 19th century, particularly around 1870, saw a big change in technology with the rise of industrialisation, complex machines and tools that had removable and replaceable parts, ranging from sewing machines to bicycles, industrial machinery, and guns. This era was characterized by a growing focus on parts that could be detached and replaced when necessary, and it appears that this led to a change in the language used relating to objects that were moveable and removable.

 

The historical confusion about sternboards seems to come from this shift in meaning. To the Victorians, "moveable" had a different meaning from today when it is rarely used. According to Dr. Samuel Johnson's 1755 dictionary, "moveable" was defined as "capable of being moved; not fixed; portable." The key word here is "portable," suggesting that something described as "moveable" was completely loose and easily picked up and carried away.

 

This indicates that the Victorians knew that sternboards were entirely loose. In one report, it explicitly mentions its looseness: “The strangest part of its construction seems the loose stern-board, fitting into a groove.” For the Victorians, the function of the sternboard wasn’t the mystery (to keep water out of the logboat); the mystery was, why make it ‘portable’?

 

In contrast, the modern understanding of "removable" suggests a different concept. The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary defines "removable" as something "able to be removed," as in "This jacket has removable sleeves/a removable collar," indicating that some kind of effort is required to detach it. 

This seems to be the reason scholars today consider sternboards to being designed as a permanent, semi-permanent part of the logboat. As shown by YouTube videos and BBC articles. "Carpow Logboat: Making the Reconstruction - Official Video" and the BBC article “Sink or Swim: Bronze Age-style Boats to be Launched,” where the sternboards are fixed or sealed in place with wax or some other sealant.  

 

Other indications supporting the portability of sternboards are found in a description from the Manchester Geological Society, Volume 20, 1890, describing one of the Preston logboats:

“… the stern, closed by a vertical board sliding into grooves cut out of the solid wood.”

The use of the word "sliding" here I think is significant. It suggests that the sternboard could regularly slide in and out of the grooves, not just be slid in once during construction.

 

Similarly, in another report when describing the Brigg logboat (Bygone Lincolnshire. Vol. 1. London: A. Brown & Sons; Simpkin, Marshall, Hamilton, Kent & Company, 1891)

 

“This is a stern-board which has fitted closely into a groove cut in the inner face of the vessel”

 

(Referring to the Brigg sternboard) “It  is  oak  planking  in two  separately-made  pieces,  and  the  sides and  bottom  of  the  complete  board  are shaped  to  suit  the  grooving,  in  which  it  will  slide, fitting  fairly  well.”

 

The expression "fitted closely" I believe is referring to the modern term interference fit where the parts are made to ensure tight contact, relying on friction to hold them in place rather than using nails, glue or some other method. The description suggests that the board wasn’t merely inserted once during construction but was designed to slide in and out as needed, at a moments notice if necessary, all while maintaining a secure, precise fit.  Again, the word slide is used …. 'which it will slide, fitting fairly well,' meaning that the sternboard was intended to be regularly detached, sliding in and out of its groove maintaining a secure, interference fit.

 

Also, from the Transactions of the Manchester Geological Society, 1890 (Vol. 20). Published by the Society.

Logboats..."They are not all of the same type, some being of the trough like form, while others are pointed at either one or both ends, while others have the moveable stern piece let into a groove, as in the Preston canoe."

To my mind “Let into a groove" means carefully inserted, slotted, or fitted into a pre-cut channel or recess, so that the piece sits securely within it, in other words an interference fit,  but not fixed permanently—designed instead to be taken in and out at a moment’s notice.

 

Of course, the reasons why sternboards were designed to be loosely fitted and only caulked with dry moss (dry, in the sense of no sealant), is not completely understood, that’s the mystery! My own opinion is that it seems to be an anti-theft device. (see my other article on this “Unlocking the past, Prehistoric anti-theft technology.”)

 

Moveable v Removable

Based on the Google Ngram Viewer, the shift happened around 1870. Before this, moveable (blue line) was the dominant term. Around 1870, the frequency of removable (red line) began to rise sharply, overtaking moveable by the late 19th century and remaining the preferred term into the 20th century. However, this was not just a matter of popularity—removable took on a distinct meaning that moveable had never quite carried. While moveable originally implied something was fully portable, removable evolved to describe objects that were attached but designed to be taken off with effort. This linguistic shift likely emerged in response to industrial advancements, as the era of machines and interchangeable parts required more precise terminology to distinguish between what was simply mobile and what could be detached and replaced.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​​​

​

​

​

Interestingly, while the word "detach" appears in Samuel Johnson’s 1755 dictionary, defined as "to separate; to unfix; to disengage," the word "detachable" is absent. Notably, detachable only began to be used around 1870, mirroring the rise of "removable"—a linguistic shift that probably coincided with industrial advancements and the growing need to describe interchangeable parts.

 

 

 

 

​

​

 

 

 

​

​

​

                       

To illustrate this evolution of language, let’s move forward in time. In Samuel Johnson's 1755 Dictionary, the term "record" is defined as "To register; to enrol; to write or enter in a book; to commemorate." However, the adjective "recordable" is absent from his dictionary. The term "recordable" only began to emerge later, gaining prevalence in the mid-20th century, likely due to technological advancements in audio and video recording. As new media required a way to distinguish between fixed and rewritable formats, "recordable" became necessary. For example, in 1967, pre-recorded videos for home replay became available, and Philips introduced the Mini-Cassette, widely used in dictation machines.

​

​

​​

​​

​

​

​

​​

​

​​

​

​​​​

​

​

Language evolves alongside technology, changing how we describe—and later interpret—historical objects. Just as the industrial revolution in the late 19th century introduced 'removable' to describe machine parts that could be detached, the rise of audio and video recording in the mid-20th century introduced 'recordable' to distinguish media that could store information. Before this, 'record' alone was sufficient, just as 'moveable' was once used to describe objects that were fully portable. However, as 'removable' gained prominence, its meaning also shifted—whereas 'moveable' had implied something completely loose and transportable, 'removable' came to mean something attached but designed to be taken off with effort. This linguistic shift may have led to modern misinterpretations of historical descriptions.

---------------------------------------

​

Notes:

Documentary Evidence for Removable Sternboards in Logboats

​

1. Descriptions of Sternboards "Fitted Into a Groove"

Many historical accounts describe logboats with sternboards that were not permanently fixed but instead slotted into grooves cut into the sides of the boat.

• "At the stern there is a slight groove into which a board or piece of wood had probably been inserted and held in its place by similar grooves in the sides."

• — Natural History Society of Glasgow, Proceedings and Transactions of the Natural History Society of Glasgow, Vol. 2, The Society, 1869.

• "One of the ends is rounded and is slightly raised: the other is cut across at right angles, and closed with a piece let in and fitted into grooves which were caulked with bark."
  — Figuier, Louis, and Tylor, Edward Burnett. Primitive Man. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1876.

• "while others have the moveable stern piece let into a groove as in the Preston canoe."
  — Transactions of the Manchester Geological Society, 1890 (Vol. 20), Published by the Society.

• "The prow was the root end of the tree and tapered to a point, but the stern, which was squarely cut, was closed by a flat stern-piece fitting into a groove."
  — Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Vol. IV (1881–1882), Edinburgh: Neill and Company, 1882, p. 77.

• "One found, measuring 40 feet, was round in the bow, but square in the stern, which was formed of a separate piece let into a groove within a few inches of the extremity."
  — Wakeman, William F. Pagan Ireland: An Archaeological Sketch: A Handbook of Irish Pre-Christian Antiquities. Dublin: Hodges, Figgis, & Co., 1892, p. 253.

• "The stern was moveable and slipped into a groove like the sliding lid of a box. This could be made water tight when necessary by a wadding of grass and clay or it could be removed on the river's bank and the accumulated water emptied out."
  — Hume, Abraham. Illustrations of British Antiquities Derived from Objects Found in South America. Liverpool: T. Brakell, Printer, 1869.

​

Pattern & Significance

The repeated use of "let into a groove," "fitted into a groove," "slipped into a groove" suggests that this was a deliberate and widespread design choice rather than a regional or isolated feature. The use of grooves for securing sternboards appears in multiple locations and time periods.

​

2. Caulking & Water-Tightness of the Sternboard

The removable sternboard had to be sealed when in use, and historical sources describe a range of caulking methods.

• "The inside of the boat is dug out of the solid wood, and a flat sternboard has been fitted into a groove made for the purpose of receiving it. The only mode used for fastening the sternboard was a lashing, which passed through holes in the gunwale, just abaft the board. The joint was made watertight by being caulked with moss."

• "One of the ends is rounded and is slightly raised: the other is cut across at right angles, and closed with a piece let in and fitted into grooves which were caulked with bark."
  — Primitive Man (1876)

• "The stern was moveable and slipped into a groove like the sliding lid of a box. This could be made water tight when necessary by a wadding of grass and clay or it could be removed on the river's bank and the accumulated water emptied out."
  — Hume, Illustrations of British Antiquities (1869)

​

Pattern & Significance

These descriptions confirm that removable sternboards were deliberately waterproofed using moss, bark, grass, or clay. The fact that moss was used (instead of permanent adhesives like tar or resin) suggests that the sternboard was designed to be removable and re-sealed as needed rather than permanently fixed.

​

3. Scientific Evidence: The Chlorophyll Moss Examination from the Brigg Logboat

In 1888, botanist Chas P. Hobkirk analyzed moss from the Brigg logboat under a microscope, discovering that it still contained visible chlorophyll, meaning it had been used fresh.

• "I at length came upon a much more promising scrap, which, on examination, proved to be the tip, about 1 in long, of a stem of Plagiothecium undulatum. This scrap was a perfect marvel—the undulations of the leaf, the two short nerves, the fine serratures at the apex of the leaf were as perfect as if the specimen had been gathered yesterday, but blackish-brown with age. Not a single cell wall was damaged, and, curiously enough, many traces of chlorophyll grains could be distinctly seen."

​

Pattern & Significance

• The presence of chlorophyll suggests that the moss was packed into the groove while fresh and green, rather than dried or treated.

• This implies regular replacement of the moss, reinforcing the idea that the sternboard was designed for routine removal and reinsertion.

​

4. Confusion & Uncertainty Among Victorian Scholars

Interestingly, many 19th-century scholars recognized that the sternboards were removable but could not understand why.

• "I cannot tell the object of this board. I thought at first that the end of the boat had been accidentally broken out, and the board fixed in to stop up the end, but the form of the stern and the grooves do not admit of this explanation."
  — Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian Society, Vol. IV (1886), p. 344.

• "The motive for making these canoes with an open stern and then closing it with a moveable stern board, at some little distance from the extreme end, is not at all clear, nor the advantage to be gained thereby very intelligible, as the stern board must have been calked, probably by moss, bark, or other material, in order to make the boat watertight, and the fashioning of the grooves must have added largely to the labour, considering the implements that were probably used in the process."

​

Pattern & Significance

• Victorian researchers noticed that sternboards were removable but failed to grasp the reasoning behind it.

• This historical misunderstanding may explain why modern reconstructions have ignored the feature.

​

5. The Structural Question: Why Not a Stronger Stern?

One 19th-century author wondered why the curved bow design wasn’t mirrored in the stern, noting that the groove would have been the weakest part of the boat.

• "If strength were aimed at, it might have been expected that the principle of the curved bow of the boat would have been carried out in its after end. This, however, is not so; for while the entry is spoon-shaped, the stern, such as it is, represents a section of a boat cut in two amidships. But we are not left in the dark as to the peculiarity of the stern, for a hollow groove at the very end passes from one side to the other, into which the stern board fitted. This, unless they had some peculiar method of securing and caulking, must have been the weakest part of the boat."
  — Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy, Vol. 4, Dublin: Hodges, Figgis & Co., 1880.

​​

​

​

Thoughts on Must Farm

"The four largest structures were sub-circular, located side by side, in a roughly east–west alignment (structure 3, 1, 2 and then 5). The boundaries of structures 3 and 1 abutted, as did the boundaries of structures 2 and 5; the 1.75m-wide interval between structures 1 and 2 was sufficiently large enough to allow room for a raised horizontal hurdle (or wattle-work) gangway. This feature led to the settlement’s smallest building, structure 4, which was also the only building to encroach on the enclosing palisade and walkway."

 

​

​​​​​​​​​

​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

​

​​

​

​

If the sternboards were stored away from the logboats for security, the most logical place would be inside the palisade, where they would be protected from theft. Within the palisade, Structure 4 is the most likely storage location, as it appears to have been a communal space and possibly functioned as the entrance to the settlement, which presumably could be closed for security.

It would not have made sense to store the sternboards inside someone's roundhouse, as this would have been inconvenient/impractical. Storing them in Structure 4 meant they were secure yet easily accessible when required.

However, if the fire originated in Structure 1—the largest roundhouse—its immediate proximity to Structure 4 meant that the flames would have spread almost instantly, engulfing the storage area within minutes. Given how suddenly the fire took hold, the inhabitants clearly had no time to even untie the dog or release the lambs, indicating a chaotic, desperate evacuation.

​

They likely only had time to grab their children, a sword, and flee—helping grandma on the way out. Even then, two swords were left behind, suggesting there was so little time that even weapons, which would have been essential for defence, were abandoned.

In such a frantic escape, retrieving the sternboards would have been the last priority, leaving them to be consumed by the fire.

​

If the sternboards were stored in a communal area like Structure 4, this would only reinforce their neglect during the evacuation—people would have instinctively focused on saving their immediate family and personal possessions first in their own home, and they didn’t even have time to do that properly.

 

The presence of modern wind turbines surrounding Must Farm today suggests that the area’s windy conditions have persisted for thousands of years. This wind may have supercharged the blaze, acting like a bellows. If the fire started in Structure 1, the prevailing south-west wind would have carried it straight into Structure 4, and from there to Structures 2 and 5 — effectively funnelling the inferno through the entire site. This devastating combination of flammable materials, compact layout, and natural wind corridor helps explain why the settlement was destroyed so completely and so quickly. As archaeologist Karl Harrison put it: “It was rapid, smoke-filled, and incredibly destructive. You’d have a couple of minutes to scrabble around.”

​​

Spears at Must Farm​

The 3m-long spear shafts found at Must Farm seem impractically long for hunting. However, their length would be highly effective for repelling attackers from an elevated position, such as on the walkway behind the sharpened palisade. A long spear would allow defenders to strike downwards at enemies attempting to breach the settlement while remaining at a safer distance. Combined with the presence of a fortified palisade, stored weapons, and signs of combat damage on swords, this strongly suggests that the settlement was not only prepared for conflict but designed to withstand an attack. However, from an attackers point of view, it would appear he would only have to lob a burning torch about 5 meters for it to land on the thatched roof and start the inferno.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​