
Real Viking Ship Completes North Atlantic Crossing - protomyth
https://gcaptain.com/ship-photos-of-the-day-real-viking-ship-completes-north-atlantic-crossing/
======
fbonetti
This is really cool. That voyage must be pretty brutal compared to modern
sailing vessels - if you look at this video [1], the galley is basically a
sink with a tarp over it :). I wonder if the ship has an inboard engine or a
GPS for safety reasons. I imagine that turning this thing around in a crew
overboard scenario would be pretty much impossible with a square-rigged sail
and no engine.

[1] [http://www.drakenexpeditionamerica.com/2016/06/07/cooking-
on...](http://www.drakenexpeditionamerica.com/2016/06/07/cooking-onboard-a-
viking-ship/)

~~~
tvmalsv
It does look like it has some modern equipment, probably for the reasons you
mention. In this picture you can see a wheel, some throttle controls, and some
screens which I'm guessing are for GPS and/or sonar. It's still an amazing
feat, much respect.

[https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3888/14916240637_e3f3afb9c7_b....](https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3888/14916240637_e3f3afb9c7_b.jpg)

~~~
jsight
It would be interesting to see how much of the structure is modern as well. It
isn't unusual to see fiberglass and other modern materials on replica ships
like this.

~~~
adamlett
None of it, according to TFA.

------
the_rosentotter
Fun fact: The ship's name _Harald Hårfager_ is the name of a great Viking
king, whose name literally means "Fabulous Hair Harald".
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Fairhair](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harald_Fairhair)

------
Aelinsaar
Look, I love the pictures, and the spirit of the endeavor. I don't so much
love this:

> _Draken Harald Hårfagre is actually not a replica, rather a real-life Viking
> ship built based ancient Norwegian boat building techniques dug up from the
> history books and archaeological findings_

So... a replica. A very faithful replica, made with care to historical
accuracy.

~~~
ChuckMcM
There is a fairly detailed set of rules about restoration vs replica vs
original. Things built with the same materials using the same tools and
techniques are "originals". I did a bit of research on this when trying to buy
an original Scottish Claymore sword. I had a great discussion with a curator
at the British Museum (which has an excellent arms and armor exhibit) about my
conundrum and he suggested having one forged, in the same way and with the
same materials, was in fact getting an original. The difference being that it
didn't have a "past" or sets of stories to go with it, but as I was looking
for something that would have its own stories that wasn't the important bit.
He referred me to a craftsman that I commissioned to make one, it took about 9
months from start to finish.

Then there are "restorations" which are original parts with non-original
parts. The Hiller Air museum had a docent who was working on restoring a WWII
P-40 which had the original number plate, firewall and seat frames, but the
rest was fabricated using more modern means. The plane would still be a P40
but as a restoration it would be a mix of older and newer parts some of which
had been manufactured using techniques or materials that were unavailable
during the war, so not "original".

~~~
jessriedel
Strange choice of language. What word do they use for things that are
"original" in the ordinary sense of the word? Surely there's something less
awkward than "original with a past"?

~~~
ChuckMcM
There are "historically significant" artifacts which are things that are both
original and something about them was also historically important or
interesting. And of course artifacts that are historically insignificant but
original and so sometimes good examples of items from the time. The Steamboat
Arabia museum has a lot of stuff you would find in the 1850's version of
WalMart, none of it is historically significant but the items are great
examples of what the stuff people were talking about when they wrote letters
and books probably looked and felt like.

The key is separating the item (which can be an original, a re-creation[1], a
restored original, or a replica) and the context (the item's history)

[1] I believe, but am not sure, that this was the term for something made with
the original materials but using different techniques. Some things like
Samurai swords have a gap where it was lost _how_ they were made, and so all
you get are recreations of swords of that type rather than new original
swords. And yes, I know, its all semantics really, but archivists are nothing
if not sticklers about details.

~~~
jessriedel
That's not the distinction I'm talking about. I'm talking about the
distinction between an object that actually was created at the relevant time
period, and one that was created later to mimic one (perhaps indistinguishably
so).

~~~
ChuckMcM
That is the thing though, there is no distinction. Try the following thought
experiment, "Hagar the shipwright makes a boat for Eric the Red, then trips
and falls into a frozen lake where he is frozen for 1500 years, when he is
discovered he is thawed out, whereupon he goes to the same forest he always
goes to, cuts down the same kinds of trees he always cuts down, and builds
another boat." Both boats are original, one is "old" and one is "new", but
their time of creation has no impact on their originality.

You are perhaps seeking a distinction that does not exist.

~~~
jessriedel
No. We have a continuum of examples connecting almost all distinction we draw.
The existence of continuums is not evidence against the supreme usefulness of
identifying extremely bimodal distributions. Ring species do not negate the
meaningfulness of species. "Number of parts replaced" interpolates between
restorations and original, but it doesn't invalidate the distinction.
Hypothetical time-traveling vikings does not invalidate the distinction
between "original", as the word is commonly understood, and "original", as
you've insisted it should be used.

------
andrewgleave
There was a crossing from Trondheim, Norway to the Isle of Man in 1979 and the
ship is now housed at the House of Manannin. It's hard to imagine what being
on one of these things would be like for any length of time.

There's a very old BBC article on the voyage here:
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/isleofman/content/articles/2009/07/02/o...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/isleofman/content/articles/2009/07/02/odinsraven_feature.shtml)

------
colomon
Really looking forward to seeing this when it reaches Bay City, Michigan in
two weeks.

(And, leaving an ad in a very unlikely place, my band is part of the
International Maritime Music portion of the Bay City Tall Ship Celebration.)

------
venomsnake
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Severin#The_Brendan_Voyage...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Severin#The_Brendan_Voyage_.281976.E2.80.931977.29)

That is also a great book and similar adventure.

------
ch
Why do they say "approximately 32 crew members"? One would think an accurate
head count could be achieved for this ship.

~~~
lb1lf
Qualified guess: As the support ship presumably had some creature comforts
missing on the replica viking ship, they probably rotated the crew - say, four
days on the replica, a day for a shower and some proper sleep on the support
ship, another four days on the replica...

Doesn't lessen the accomplishment in any way in my book if my guess turns out
to be correct.

------
ZanyProgrammer
And yet try only evidence that the Norse ever made it beyond Newfoundland is
pseudo science (or as Samuel Eliot Morrison said, 'scandiknavery'). Even if
they did, it had zero impact on the future of the continent.

~~~
lb1lf
-If nothing else, it may suggest that you claimed independence from the wrong colonial power.

We'll come over to incorporate you in Greater Norway any day, now.

    
    
      ;-)

~~~
dbcurtis
I'm thinking you already have a beachhead in Minnesota. But at the time,
wasn't Norway a colony of Sweden? Or was it Denmark then? I'm fuzzy on when
the switch happened.

In any case, if you do take over, at least then we'll be able to get decent
lefse in California.

~~~
lb1lf
First of all - there is no such thing as decent lefse.

Back in Viking times, the nation state as we know it today didn't exist - but
Norway was under Denmark between 1387 (methinks) and 1814, when we declared
independence only to find ourselves handed over to the Swedes as war booty.
Then in 1905 we told the Swedes where they could stuff their union. They
promptly did.

~~~
e12e
I'm a little shocked that no one's pointed out that Harald Hårfarge is the
name of the king that's credited with making Norway one nation (some bitter
people claim this isn't true just because it was made up in the 1300s, some
300 years after Harald died).

Fitting that it is the name of the ship that's sent to re-capture Vinland.

