Hacker News Reader

Comment by YouWhy | Hacker News Reader

Experimental archeology is amazing! However the clash of this article as it is, is not very profound.

Going over the article, it mentions three constraints pertinent to obtaining timber, and it seems that their intersection is empty.

The constraints for obtaining timber are:

1. A UK source is preferred (due to national pride?)

2. Price needs to be very cheap given the archeologists' non-profit budget

3. Veteran trees are necessary for a reconstruction, but specifically these are a scarce and precious resource.

It seems likely that either they relax (1) or get funding/sponsorship to relax (2). (3) does not admit relaxation

View on HN

The could call Sweden and see if the can have some! In 1831 the Swedish crown started an oak plantation to supply the navy.

My translation from Wikipedia[0]: In 1975 the agency in charge of the forest notified the head of the Navy that the timber was ready for harvest. The navy declined the offer since they had transitioned to new materials

0: https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekplanteringarna_p%C3%A5_Visin...

The French started their main managed oak forest for their Navy in the 1660s. The Forest of Bercé (among many others) recently supplied the restoration of Notre Dame including some trees that were 300+ years old.

It’s pretty common in European coastal nations and since the transition to metal coincided with increased environmental awareness, many of them still survive. This project just wanted to use British wood but can’t afford commercial rates.

The US Navy also had strategic woodlots, and as they keep a wooden ship around for ceremonial duties, currently maintain at least one woodlot to provide wood for it.

https://ussconstitutionmuseum.org/2015/05/11/the-wooden-wall...

"It requires long clear runs of oak from trunks 6 metres in length and up to 1.2 metres diameter for planking and other longitudinal timbers. They need to be straight-grained and clear of knots."

That's serious hardwood lumber. Not something you get at Home Depot.

Really, ask the French. The Notre Dame rebuilt is finished, and that involved finding big pieces of hardwood. So there are people with recent expertise at this.

But why all this effort to re-create a burial ship?

> But why all this effort to re-create a burial ship?

Burial ships are generally how we have found out details of such old ships, as otherwise they'd have rotted away, or been chopped up, at the end of their lives. Similar to Viking ships.

It's not like they're trying to recreate the burial. They want to sail it and see how it works, giving us information on life back in the Saxon days.

The 1.2 x 6 is the diameter of the trunk, not the board. That's a pretty reasonable size.

They're basically asking for the sort of "been growing here for 100yr since the sheep left and the pasture grew over" trees that every industrial nation has all over the edges of its suburban property lines.

Much of the oak on sale in Britain is French as it happens.

The French? For Lord Nelson's flagship? Really?

Several of Lord Nelsons other ships were built in France, of course.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Spartiate_(1798)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Belleisle_(1795)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tonnant

I think it's misleading to inject those into the conversation without the disclaimer that they were captured prizes. It's not like the British ordered them from France or even ordered the material.

I didn't think it was misleading. I thought it was fun to pique someones interest enough that they click the link and go on a journey of discovery. I see your comment as a spoiler!

You're off by more than a thousand years..

HMS Victory is getting a major overhaul at the moment, but that's a different project, and much better funded.

This isn't an article. It's a classified ad asking for timber donations.

ARH! I know they are seeking attention but I never thought of it as classified ad which is true.

Yeah they buried the lede on that one.

> For example, it requires long clear runs of oak from trunks 6 metres in length and up to 1.2 metres diameter (at chest height) for planking and other longitudinal timbers. They need to be straight-grained and clear of knots.

No wonder they can’t afford it. Commercial oak is generally harvested when it’s 20-25 in at chest height. A 1.2 m tree is probably going to be at least 150-200 years old. No one is cutting those down without a serious payday.

Some of the trees used to restore Notre Dame were centuries old. One 20 meter tall tree they used was about 300 years old.

The cost is almost irrelevant - the vast majority of British trees meeting those specifications will be legally protected, so most of the challenge is simply finding a suitable tree that can be legally felled.

https://www.trees.org.uk/Help-Advice/Public/A-brief-guide-to...

Not according to TFA. It’s not that they can’t find trees to fell, it’s that they can’t afford commercial rates and they don’t want to use cheaper trees from continental Europe so they have to resort to soliciting donations.

Only a small fraction of ancient and veteran trees are protected (oak is veteran at 150+ years), not the vast majority:

> Despite their functions as carbon sinks and wildlife havens, there is no protection for ancient or veteran woodland unless it has been found to harbour other rare wildlife, or if it is subject to a tree protection order or is sited in a legally protected wildlife area. An estimated 20% of ancient and veteran trees are in such areas, so most have no legal protection. [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jun/30/study-su...

They cut the tree down for the rebuild? That seems kinda sad.

A lot of the older ones came from the Forest of Bercé which has been managed since the 17th century. It was originally a royal forest meant to grow long timber for ships, so it’s not like they’re cutting down virgin forest. They only used about a thousand oaks and Bercé alone is thousands of hectares (I think they sourced from over 100 other public and privately managed forests too).

Makes sense... Still kinda sad that something so old has to meet an untimely demise.

It is somewhat strange the way how things worked in UK.

I guess in the US I would expect wealthy to find some interest, donate some money, start ( funding ) planting Oak trees and get this moving.

In the UK I dont see much of these happening.

> I guess in the US I would expect wealthy to find some interest, donate some money, start ( funding ) planting Oak trees and get this moving.

Commercial oak trees take decades for furniture grade wood and most are harvested after 50-80 years. The ones this project needs are at least 150-200 years old, which are very expensive in the UK. Anyone who plants them today is doing so for their great-great-great-great-… grandkids.

France has tons of them in forests specifically started centuries ago for the French navy but this project is insisting on UK wood for… reasons.

Actually they did.

About 200 years ago they realised that the UK needed trees to build warships of the future, and so a number of were planted to supply the navy.

It’s just that things moved on in the meantime, and metal replaced wood.

But you can see it in the countryside there being 300 year old oaks in hedgerows, but no 100, or 50 year old oaks coming up to replace them, admittedly that’s what I’ve observed around here.

An item about the Royal Navy’s voracious appetite for wood:

https://legionmagazine.com/the-royal-navys-war-on-trees/

Not only the Royal Navy! Before they started planting trees for future shipbuilding, the French also stripped their countryside of trees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont_Ventoux#Flora_and_fauna). And Iceland also used to be forested before the Vikings came along (https://www.geographyrealm.com/icelands-long-road-to-refores...)

Well, yeah, I mean, archaeologists should be accustomed to long term thinking, right? So better plant some trees now, and then their successors can complete the project in 200 years...

> A UK source is preferred (due to national pride?)

(As a Brit and pre-Norman history enthusiast) I find this really pathetic, if it really is the reason.

Why the hell should we prefer a British source of wood? The Anglo Saxons wouldn't have given a shit about this. They weren't British, we aren't Anglo Saxon.

Trying to tie premodern history to modern national identity is the kinda childish shit that I normally associate with tourism boards and strongman dictators. Why do people want to "own" history like that?

(Well, I know why. But I think it's dumb).

Beyond the probably limited archeological insights to be drawn from rebuilding the ship, the symbolic, "nationalist" motivations are the reason the rebuild is happening at all. It's essentially a bunch of enthusiasts who want to build a ship from the same materials sourced from the same place as the original.

> Trying to tie premodern history to modern national identity is the kinda childish shit that I normally associate with tourism boards and strongman dictators

And the millions upon millions of ordinary English people who consider their nation's history and identity important to their personal identity. For them, the ship is interesting because it's part of England's early history. You may think they're dumb and childish, but it would be unwise of the project to say that if they want anyone to donate.

Even free wood if this spec will cost an enormous sum to deliver from overseas.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com