Question... can birchbark containers hold fluid??
I am to portray a neolithic man working with an axe, and want to show him pausing and drinking from... well, anything else than a earthenware or wood container!
Something in the style of the leather bucket I believe found in a LBK-well in Germany is also on my mind...
Danke,
Kelvin Wilson
Birkenrinde Gefäße
Moderatoren: Hans T., Nils B., Turms Kreutzfeldt, Chris
When built like the one Ötzi carried with him, it won´t, because it wasn´t sealed, f.e. with wax or tar or resin. The water will move out of the stitches and through between the seams.
The buckets from the LBK-wells were made from lime tree bark
http://www.archaeoforum.de/viewtopic.ph ... indeneimer
but they also weren´t really tight, you can´t carry fluid in it over a long time. Maybe these buckets were sealed in a way, but this is not certain.
Perhaps you may give the man a hose made from an animals stomach, skin or gut.
The buckets from the LBK-wells were made from lime tree bark
http://www.archaeoforum.de/viewtopic.ph ... indeneimer
but they also weren´t really tight, you can´t carry fluid in it over a long time. Maybe these buckets were sealed in a way, but this is not certain.
Perhaps you may give the man a hose made from an animals stomach, skin or gut.
"Wenn Sie stolz sein wollen auf Ihr Volk, dann empfehle ich Ihnen den Beruf des Imkers".
Hubertus Meyer-Burckhardt
oe
is
Hubertus Meyer-Burckhardt
oe
is
-
Thomas Trauner
In Friesack, a mesolithic site in Brandenburg, germany, a type of birch bark container was found, which is absolutely waterproof. See the contruction manual below:
As i know similar containers were also used by the natives of north america (mainly northeast-region) and scandinavia. Why not used by neolithic people?
Thomas
As i know similar containers were also used by the natives of north america (mainly northeast-region) and scandinavia. Why not used by neolithic people?
Thomas
-
Merha
Yes, Ulfr is right. When sealing the bark container it would be possible but the container would not hold up for very long and you can’t transport lots of water in it.
Lassie is right too. But the problem would be how to get the container to the place you need it without spilling the water?
A good idea perhaps would be the skin of a case skinned animal, deer or goat for instance. You can transport lots of water in it over a long distance. Even better would be to bark tan this skin and seal it with a mixture of pine resin and fat. There might be no trace of such a procedure in Neolithic history but I wouldn’t hesitate to consider it being absolutely possible. That’s one of my projects for the coming winter.
If you only have a bark tanned skin (no hose) than you could seal the inside as mentioned above and simply form a kind of bag that you tightly wrap on the top with a leather string. Depending on its size you could thus transport several litres over a long distance and it would at least to my thinking look very authentic.
Lassie is right too. But the problem would be how to get the container to the place you need it without spilling the water?
A good idea perhaps would be the skin of a case skinned animal, deer or goat for instance. You can transport lots of water in it over a long distance. Even better would be to bark tan this skin and seal it with a mixture of pine resin and fat. There might be no trace of such a procedure in Neolithic history but I wouldn’t hesitate to consider it being absolutely possible. That’s one of my projects for the coming winter.
If you only have a bark tanned skin (no hose) than you could seal the inside as mentioned above and simply form a kind of bag that you tightly wrap on the top with a leather string. Depending on its size you could thus transport several litres over a long distance and it would at least to my thinking look very authentic.
-
FlintSource
- Beiträge: 808
- Registriert: 16.08.2009 16:17
- Wohnort: Dresden
- Kontaktdaten:
Re: Birkenrinde Gefäße
Time to revive this thread, starting with an official announcement. No finds of leather are known from the Early Neolithic wells, all containers found in them have been made from thinned bark or bast. Due to the alkaline conditions in the fills, no animal fibre has survived, neither leather, nor horn, hooves, hair or wool.
The birch-bark container from Friesack is indeed a scoop in a water-hole and there are similar finds from northern Russia, referred to in the original publication on the container from Friesack (B. Gramsch, Ein mesolithischer Birkenrindenbehälter von Friesack, Veröffentlichungen des brandenburgischen Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 27, 1993, 7-15).
Much less known and only published as a small photo is a very similar container from the LBK well in Brodau near Leipzig (H. Stäuble & M. Fröhlich, Zwei Ferkel im bandkeramischen Brunnen, Archæo 3, 2006, 16-21, birch-bark container in fig. 8). It comes from the construction pit and not from the fill of the well, and therefore doesn’t belong to the active phase of the well as a source of water.
As I was sitting behind my keyboard over most of the weekend to write a contribution on the finds from the Early Neolithic wells for a catalogue, I had to take a closer look at some photos of the container. It really is of the same general type a what is often called a “trail kettle”, best known from northern New England, as Lassie rightly pointed out above, but with a slight difference. The American containers follow the scheme in the drawing above with simple sides.
In Friesack apparently the narrow sides were folded over before the container itself was folded together. In the original description from Gramsch 1993, 10: „Der durch Erddruck deformierte Birkenrindenbehälter hatte ursprünglich eine Länge von 16 cm und eine Breite von 6 cm; die Höhe läßt sich wegen Beschädigung der Ränder nicht so genau bestimmen, dürfte aber nur wenig über 6 cm betragen haben. Er ist aus einem rechteckigen, ca. 32 X 18 cm messenden Birkenrindenstück gefaltet worden, wobei die größere Ausdehnung - nach den typischen Merkmalen der Birkenrindenoberfläche - auf den Umfang des Stammes entfiel. Zunächst sind an den Schmalseiten jeweils etwa 2 cm umgelegt worden, wohl um die Kanten der Schmalseiten zu verstärken. Zur Auffaltung des Behälters wurden die Schmalseiten bis zur vorgesehenen Höhe des Behälters hochgebogen. Dann wurden die Ecken der Schmalseiten diagonal geknifft und übereinandergelegt, wodurch sich zugleich die Längsseiten des Rindenstücks hochzogen.“
With the vessel from Brodau it’s just the other way around: here the long edges were folded over before the further folding was done. How the resulting triangular flaps were fastened is not completely clear, I have to take a look in our conservation department to try and find any further information on that, as well as the exact dimensions. The way it is depicted here http://www.nativetech.org/brchbark/barkseam.html seems illogical, as you would be puncturing your container. Also the holes shown in the folding instruction are not consistent with the sketch of where and how the handle is attached. My best guess is that the flaps were just pinned together, and that might be the reason why the sides were doubled.
No need to say that, after finishing the first draft of the article late at night, I tried to reconstruct the container by folding a few different sizes of paper with very acceptable results. Next day I took some sheets of birch bark I still had lying around and gave it a try. For a first prototype it’s not too bad, but clearly needs more practice. And yes, the are perfectly watertight, up to the very rim.
I’ll post a few pictures in the next days.
Greetings,
Rengert
The birch-bark container from Friesack is indeed a scoop in a water-hole and there are similar finds from northern Russia, referred to in the original publication on the container from Friesack (B. Gramsch, Ein mesolithischer Birkenrindenbehälter von Friesack, Veröffentlichungen des brandenburgischen Museum für Ur- und Frühgeschichte 27, 1993, 7-15).
Much less known and only published as a small photo is a very similar container from the LBK well in Brodau near Leipzig (H. Stäuble & M. Fröhlich, Zwei Ferkel im bandkeramischen Brunnen, Archæo 3, 2006, 16-21, birch-bark container in fig. 8). It comes from the construction pit and not from the fill of the well, and therefore doesn’t belong to the active phase of the well as a source of water.
As I was sitting behind my keyboard over most of the weekend to write a contribution on the finds from the Early Neolithic wells for a catalogue, I had to take a closer look at some photos of the container. It really is of the same general type a what is often called a “trail kettle”, best known from northern New England, as Lassie rightly pointed out above, but with a slight difference. The American containers follow the scheme in the drawing above with simple sides.
In Friesack apparently the narrow sides were folded over before the container itself was folded together. In the original description from Gramsch 1993, 10: „Der durch Erddruck deformierte Birkenrindenbehälter hatte ursprünglich eine Länge von 16 cm und eine Breite von 6 cm; die Höhe läßt sich wegen Beschädigung der Ränder nicht so genau bestimmen, dürfte aber nur wenig über 6 cm betragen haben. Er ist aus einem rechteckigen, ca. 32 X 18 cm messenden Birkenrindenstück gefaltet worden, wobei die größere Ausdehnung - nach den typischen Merkmalen der Birkenrindenoberfläche - auf den Umfang des Stammes entfiel. Zunächst sind an den Schmalseiten jeweils etwa 2 cm umgelegt worden, wohl um die Kanten der Schmalseiten zu verstärken. Zur Auffaltung des Behälters wurden die Schmalseiten bis zur vorgesehenen Höhe des Behälters hochgebogen. Dann wurden die Ecken der Schmalseiten diagonal geknifft und übereinandergelegt, wodurch sich zugleich die Längsseiten des Rindenstücks hochzogen.“
With the vessel from Brodau it’s just the other way around: here the long edges were folded over before the further folding was done. How the resulting triangular flaps were fastened is not completely clear, I have to take a look in our conservation department to try and find any further information on that, as well as the exact dimensions. The way it is depicted here http://www.nativetech.org/brchbark/barkseam.html seems illogical, as you would be puncturing your container. Also the holes shown in the folding instruction are not consistent with the sketch of where and how the handle is attached. My best guess is that the flaps were just pinned together, and that might be the reason why the sides were doubled.
No need to say that, after finishing the first draft of the article late at night, I tried to reconstruct the container by folding a few different sizes of paper with very acceptable results. Next day I took some sheets of birch bark I still had lying around and gave it a try. For a first prototype it’s not too bad, but clearly needs more practice. And yes, the are perfectly watertight, up to the very rim.
I’ll post a few pictures in the next days.
Greetings,
Rengert
Je größer der Dachschaden, desto schöner der Aufblick zum Himmel.
Karlheinz Deschner
Karlheinz Deschner
-
FlintSource
- Beiträge: 808
- Registriert: 16.08.2009 16:17
- Wohnort: Dresden
- Kontaktdaten:
Re: Birkenrinde Gefäße
As promised, here are some photos. The first one is a small prototype following the instructions for a 'trail kettle'. My mistake here was to make the sides about half of the width. As a result of this the flaps on the narrow side don't overlap and are difficult to fasten. I made a few holes with a bone awl, but as the were too near the edge, the bark on the inside with the vertical structure ruptured. Lesson one: height should be more than half width, and never try to puncture the inner upstanding part.
post image wordpress
Take two, along the lines of Brodau with the doubled rim on the long sides. Works well and looks OK, but same problem again: the sides are too low. I should have known better, but sitting behind a computer day and night dissolves the brain. I didn't try to make any holes to connect the flaps and make a real container as the bark was basically too thick. As can been seen from the scale, the width is approx. 12 cm, the height a bit under 6 cm.
free image hosting
A frontal view of Brodau Mk II, version 0. In the narrow side of the container from Brodau is a series of holes in the turned-over rim visible in the photos. These were pricked alternating from the inside and outside, making a kind of stitching very probable. Alas, the vessel is still in the conservation and not available for inspection. I just have a series of photos in which I can identify five holes, but there is one 'out' hole which is not really visible. Sorry for not being able to bring a photo of the original, but it isn't my find and basically unpublished.
image uploading
And this is how it should look like: a turning, about two cm wide on the long sides, height approx. 2/3 of width, in this case, which should be very near the dimensions for the original, 11 cm wide and the sides 7 cm high. The flaps are stuck into each other to give the whole thing a bit more cohesion, without any adhesives or binding. I think in the original they were just lying on top of each other and were then fastened either with three 'toothpicks' or three stitches of twine. I couldn't reconstruct the length of the container from the photos, so I have taken the 16 cm from Friesack and the proportions look alright.
post image wordpress
And this is how the paper container looks after unfolding. The longitudinal strips are 2-7-11-7-2 cm wide, across 7-16-7. So for an oblong vessel you'll need a nearly square 29 x 30 cm sheet of birch-bark, and do not try to fold against the grain, as the doubled edges will probably split very soon.
Happy Meso-Neo-Origami,
Rengert
post image wordpress
Take two, along the lines of Brodau with the doubled rim on the long sides. Works well and looks OK, but same problem again: the sides are too low. I should have known better, but sitting behind a computer day and night dissolves the brain. I didn't try to make any holes to connect the flaps and make a real container as the bark was basically too thick. As can been seen from the scale, the width is approx. 12 cm, the height a bit under 6 cm.
free image hosting
A frontal view of Brodau Mk II, version 0. In the narrow side of the container from Brodau is a series of holes in the turned-over rim visible in the photos. These were pricked alternating from the inside and outside, making a kind of stitching very probable. Alas, the vessel is still in the conservation and not available for inspection. I just have a series of photos in which I can identify five holes, but there is one 'out' hole which is not really visible. Sorry for not being able to bring a photo of the original, but it isn't my find and basically unpublished.
image uploading
And this is how it should look like: a turning, about two cm wide on the long sides, height approx. 2/3 of width, in this case, which should be very near the dimensions for the original, 11 cm wide and the sides 7 cm high. The flaps are stuck into each other to give the whole thing a bit more cohesion, without any adhesives or binding. I think in the original they were just lying on top of each other and were then fastened either with three 'toothpicks' or three stitches of twine. I couldn't reconstruct the length of the container from the photos, so I have taken the 16 cm from Friesack and the proportions look alright.
post image wordpress
And this is how the paper container looks after unfolding. The longitudinal strips are 2-7-11-7-2 cm wide, across 7-16-7. So for an oblong vessel you'll need a nearly square 29 x 30 cm sheet of birch-bark, and do not try to fold against the grain, as the doubled edges will probably split very soon.
Happy Meso-Neo-Origami,
Rengert
Je größer der Dachschaden, desto schöner der Aufblick zum Himmel.
Karlheinz Deschner
Karlheinz Deschner