“Ancient” = “Obsolete”?
The canoes of the pacific islands were developed without input from Western design. This has both obvious and sublime ramifications; the very concept of multihulls is Pacific islander-centric yet we “modern” westerners immediately see and apply the advantages. Multi-hulled canoes were the fastest cargo-capable sailing vessels on the planet 500, even a thousand years ago—and they remain so today.
So it seems odd to me that, in nearly every drawing, photo and model of an “indigenous” multihull, the designers include medium to long overhangs, extremely narrow hulls (L/B often above 20:1, even 25:1) and prows; always prows. These latter two are relatively expensive, by any metric. Two 12:1 dugout canoes can be gotten out of a single 24:1 log and yet except for the poorest, barest boats the ancients always went with narrow, always narrow. Always overhangs. Always prows. See for example:
http://www.cherini.eu/etnografia/Oceania/index.html
And yet, virtually every “modern” multihull is short, fat, plumb bowed or nearly so and with little or no prow at all. (There are several highly remarkable exceptions, see below)
Search Google, for instance for “catamaran”
Why on earth do we copy the fundamental multihull form with such fervor, yet shrug off all nuance as decoration or ignorance? We know precisely how to shape and what to expect from a “western” monohull boat, from centuries-long familiarity and history of successes and failures. We have deep and first-hand experience with monohull sailing boats, from flat-bottomed skiffs and lugs’ls to IACC thoroughbreds from pre-2010 AC racing. We have, personally, sailed aboard monohull designs 50, 100, even 300 years old, they inform us at a very basic “lizard brain” level, and they infest our design thinking to an amazing degree. (How many of our “multihull” shapes are truly no more and no less than lengthened versions of monohulls we already “know?”)
How many readers of this forum have sailed, really sailed, an “ancient” multihull type, say of greater than 20:1 L/B? A multi with any significant overhang ( call it LOA >= to 1.5 X LWL)? How about a boat with a prow— any sort of prow at all? And let’s be honest, posing for photos on the gunwale of an Hawaiian 30’er doesn’t count!
Not to rant, but who are we to make these crucial design decisions, completely uninformed by any historical model, practice or personal experience of any alternative?
I know that I am painting with a very broad brush and making far too many “always/never” statements. There are many counter-examples in the field (Cheers, just for instance. Ndruas as an entire class of boat. There are many others). My point is that to ignore history is to invite repeat. Is there an outside chance that the ancients knew more than just that multihulls are “better”?
Dave
We western people seem afraid of length. Always trying to ram down a huge apartment into an as short hull as possible.
I have built scale-models of proas with long overhangs and close to 20:1 L/B vaka, and even though they sail really well, they get disputed.
I have been trying to find somewhere to moor a 80 x 40 foot proa within a 200 km radius from where I live but i cant find anything affordable. Not even close to affordable…...
Cheers,
Johannes
Interesting questions worth discussing.
Designs are not just defined by their purpose, that are also framed by the materials and methods available at the time, competitive products available at the time and (surprising to engineering types like me) fashion at the time.
Fashion is the most underestimated design influence there is. Even hard core “form follows function” proponents like me are plagued (blessed?) with an unconscious but loud internal voice that labels things “ugly”, “unsellable” and “weird”. Much as many people like to think they are unique, rebellious and intellectually honest, humans are social creatures and it seriously matters to us what others think about our ideas, products and solutions.
I’ve developed products that efficiently solve specific problems with laser-like focus - and they have failed to gain market traction. People just don’t share the same frame of reference when evaluating anything - and one man’s elegant design is someone else’s chainsaw massacre. The iPod was not the first micro MP3 player to hit the market, it just was the one that combined superior presentation and simple user interface with commonplace function.
Progress in materials and methods makes a huge difference as well. Less than watertight leaky hulls held together by natural fibre cordage certainly benefit from sharply increasing buoyancy from large overhangs at the ends of a boat. Today’s cork-like airtight hulls have less worry about stuffing their bow into the back side of a wave while surfing.
Materials, build methods and the evolutionary progress of technology (sails, aerodynamics etc.) move the bar upwards in term of baseline expectations, but fashion and cultural groupthink are the major drivers of design longevity.
I don’t think ancient == obsolete, I think ancient often equals cultural acceptance and familiarity. Cultural acceptance doesn’t often cross cultural borders, and this is why proas are weird to westerners and why a canting keel sled would seem preposterous to an Pacific islander.
—
Bill in Ottawa
This is a wide ranging subject that deserves some attention. There is a tendency in Western multihulls to seek the avant-garde and discard the old. Rebels are attracted to the type. This was certainly not the kind of people responsible for developing the original canoes of Oceania. Veneration of elders, respect for their arcane wisdom and traditions, that is how it was done. Little by little, carefully, carefully.
As a metaphor, the great canoes of the Pacific were probably closer to the cathedrals of Europe than simply a westerner’s private transportation. In that they represented the collective island kingdom, and that the finest artisans and craftsmen were employed. So, the reason some of them had high ornamental prows might be the same reason that churches had high ornamental bell towers. Artistic and symbolic reasons, in other words, that only the culture that made them would truly understand.
An alien engineer looking at a cathedral would appreciate the flying buttresses but the symbolic ornamentation would escape him, and he would be considered foolish if he attempted to find a sound engineering reason for it.
The ancients didn’t have racing rules that drive fashion. Racing rules penalise features that improve performance, as is their purpose. Racing yachts therefore maximise only those features which are essential. Other less essential features are sacrificed if it gains more waterline length, stability or sail area. The style of racing yachts drives fashion and this filters down to the cruising yachts, even though functionally the style may be inappropriate. Over the last 50 or so years we have seen overhangs and graceful curved sheerlines gradually disappear to be replaced by plumb ends and low freeboard fore and aft. Now it has been discovered that more weight and windage can be saved by having reverse raked bows along with dubious claims of the theoretical hydrodynamic advantage of “wave piercing”. So now we are seeing reverse raked bows appearing on cruising vessels, and very sporty they look too, until they fail to recover from a plunge down the back of a wave.
Mal.
Today’s cork-like airtight hulls have less worry about stuffing their bow into the back side of a wave while surfing.
So now we are seeing reverse raked bows appearing on cruising vessels, and very sporty they look too, until they fail to recover from a plunge down the back of a wave.
It’s not fashionable in the anthropological world to say this - because it’s basically an argument that is made in the style of evolutionary psych - but it’s worth pointing out that if you fail to recover from a plunge down the back of a wave, and you’re an Oceanic pre-contact voyager in the middle of the Pacific, then your design is not going to be re-used because you died with it.
If by chance you manage to make it back to land, and somehow you get another chance to make a voyaging canoe, chances are that you’ll avoid the reversed rake bow in your design. You’ll probably tell your children, and anyone else who will listen, in exhaustive detail, exactly why it’s a flawed design when the spec is “Let’s Not Drown, Okay?”
It’s popular to discuss the historical weight of inertia in “traditional” cultures but it’s not borne out by the archaeological record. Nor in this case is it supported by the drawings we do have of Oceanic vessels, from Admiral Paris on. Sure, there seem to be some stylistic decisions regarding exactly what you do put on your prow that seem to be wholly decorative (viz. the contemporary collector’s market in Trobriand prow-boards). But it doesn’t matter if shunting diffused to Polynesia from Micronesia, or if it was developed independently, because it was certainly adopted wholesale in the ndrua, which Dave has already mentioned - and then copied widely. What little we do know for certain regarding cultural diffusion of canoe designs in Oceania indicates that the “ancients” in their “traditional” societies were far more willing than the yachties of the Anglosphere to adopt strange new technologies.
You want to talk about cultural inertia? Get thee to a yacht club. We’re in for a century or two of catamarans, from the look of things.
(Assuming Western Civ doesn’t collapse entirely, of course.)
This is a wide ranging subject that deserves some attention. There is a tendency in Western multihulls to seek the avant-garde and discard the old. Rebels are attracted to the type. This was certainly not the kind of people responsible for developing the original canoes of Oceania. Veneration of elders, respect for their arcane wisdom and traditions, that is how it was done. Little by little, carefully, carefully.
In this you are in apparent opposition to most of the other posters on this thread. However, I think you are nearer the mark, myself. When we look at all the different polynesian boats and their evolution, we sometimes forget that we’re looking at 1000 years of history. Akin to directly comparing Viking longboats to super tankers. Evolution of boating craft is, historically, very very slow. Differences over a human lifetime may have amounted to a few inches more or less overhang or a slightly altered mortise and tenon joint. In this regard, the modern pace of development is miles and miles faster—over a 40 year career I’ve seen even the staidest monohulls go to separate keel/rudders and even fully-battened mains. Both were anathema 50 years ago—except in multihulls of course!
As a metaphor, the great canoes of the Pacific were probably closer to the cathedrals of Europe than simply a westerner’s private transportation. In that they represented the collective island kingdom, and that the finest artisans and craftsmen were employed. So, the reason some of them had high ornamental prows might be the same reason that churches had high ornamental bell towers. Artistic and symbolic reasons, in other words, that only the culture that made them would truly understand.
I love that you bring religion into it! This is the giant outlier—the thing even starving civilizations will do on a grand, horrendously expensive scale. cf Easter Island, Medieval Europe. Also Rome
While it’s true that cathedrals were built to artificial and cultural-specific “norms,” still they are an excellent example of cutting-edge science and engineering—the grand cathedrals informed and advanced the science of architecture long long before modern societal pressures created the “need” for large buildings. the concept of flying buttresses, groin ceilings and various arches are still applicable, a thousand years after the first great cathedrals perfected them.
The desire to “please the gods” is equally as likely to have resulted in bigger, stronger, ultimately safer vessels—if not the grandest ceremonial ones, then the tiers and tiers of more modest sized, costed and abled ones throughout the civilizations involved.
An alien engineer looking at a cathedral would appreciate the flying buttresses but the symbolic ornamentation would escape him, and he would be considered foolish if he attempted to find a sound engineering reason for it.
And yet we have promulgated sound engineering reasons for overhangs, for prows and for extremely narrow hulls. 150 years ago these would have been dismissed as simple fashion, yet they aren’t.
Dave
I have been trying to find somewhere to moor a 80 x 40 foot proa within a 200 km radius from where I live but i cant find anything affordable. Not even close to affordable…...
I think that if you could afford the boat, the moorage would seem more reasonable. 😉
Fashion is the most underestimated design influence there is. Even hard core “form follows function” proponents like me are plagued (blessed?) with an unconscious but loud internal voice that labels things “ugly”, “unsellable” and “weird”. Much as many people like to think they are unique, rebellious and intellectually honest, humans are social creatures and it seriously matters to us what others think about our ideas, products and solutions.
So totally true. I am an outlaw. I show my uniqueness by smoking Marlboros and drinking Coca Cola—and wearing Nike. The tiniest bit of alteration to this norm during my adult life, has been Kickstarter, of all things. The unchallenged king of “If I like it I’ll buy it,” successful Kickstarter projects so often hew to that oddly fruitful combination of an actually better product that’s also “cool.” (OK, if you’re a sycophant like me, you might claim that Steve Jobs invented the category. 😉
Progress in materials and methods makes a huge difference as well. Less than watertight leaky hulls held together by natural fibre cordage certainly benefit from sharply increasing buoyancy from large overhangs at the ends of a boat. Today’s cork-like airtight hulls have less worry about stuffing their bow into the back side of a wave while surfing.
I’m not as sure of this as you seem to be. Carvel-built wood hulls are many centuries old, predating even metal fasteners, yet yield astonishingly strong structures, light and watertight. The Maori “wash through” boats have sorta rocked my world in this regard as well. Easy enough to conceive a hugely strong and light framework, then fill it with floatation bladders. Knowing the concept exists immediately leads to some far-ranging ramifications.
Materials, build methods and the evolutionary progress of technology (sails, aerodynamics etc.) move the bar upwards in term of baseline expectations, but fashion and cultural groupthink are the major drivers of design longevity.
This is also true, but a tiny bit cliche, I think. In some fields (aeronautics), new materials and manufacturing are quickly accepted while in others (shipbuilding) it takes literally ages. Easy enough to say aeronautics is a whole new category, but hey, so is surfing, and that sport is amazingly resistant to change (cf absence of footstraps, also continued existence of longboards)
... this is why proas are weird to westerners and why a canting keel sled would seem preposterous to an Pacific islander.
I must be channelling some ancient Pacific Islander then. I would have bet cash money if I had any that canters would never have gotten into mainstream racing—even in OZ. 😉
Dave
The Maori “wash through” boats have sorta rocked my world in this regard as well.
A minor point, but the boat’s a Moriori artifact. They were a different people, with a different culture, to the Maori.
In this you are in apparent opposition to most of the other posters on this thread.
It’s the proverbial elephant observed by various blind men - all points of view are valid, I think.
The ancients didn’t have racing rules that drive fashion.
This is so true and I think we all understand that around here, which is why we are attracted to a form that is technically banned from racing! Hasn’t been corrupted too much. However, they had priests and kings, who drove the fashion. The sailing canoe was the highest and most refined artifact of the Pacific Islands, an invention of obvious worth and utility of which the culture took great pride, these kinds of things tend to get symbolized or fetishized, to the point of the ridiculous - see tail fins and bullet tits on American autos of the ‘50’s for the classic example.
We can see this in the ceremonial canoes of Tahiti, for example, but for canoes that were meant to actually work and go somewhere, this is thankfully not so apparent. The thing that drives me crazy is the crab claw sail of the tepukei of the Santa Cruz Islands. It’s so extreme, the sail area to weight ratio is very poor, and unless there is literal magic going on with the planform, it wouldn’t take much experimenting to shorten the spars and fill in the empty circle with sail area. The obvious answer it that the islanders wanted it that way, and I strongly suspect the reason was based more on religious or cultural tradition than utility. “The cult of the crab god” held great power in the islands…” [starting novel]
The deep cut-out on the traditional crab claw sail is to automatically flatten the sail in gusts. Woven leaves and coconut fibers stretch much more than dyneema and carbon fiber, soo they had to use more cut-out instead.
Cheers,
Johannes
The Maori “wash through” boats have sorta rocked my world in this regard as well.
A minor point, but the boat’s a Moriori artifact. They were a different people, with a different culture, to the Maori.
Point taken. That makes a difference. Are you aware of anything similar, anywhere else?
Dave
Are you aware of anything similar, anywhere else?
No. As it was, the Moriori was such a small population, centered on a small locale, that it’s unlikely that variations to that particular canoe design would have been developed.
No. As it was, the Moriori was such a small population, centered on a small locale, that it’s unlikely that variations to that particular canoe design would have been developed.
I wasn’t thinking of variations on the Moriori boat per se, but rather other instances of “wash through” boats—leaky-but-structural frameworks/hulls, buoyed by inflated modules. I know of at least one modern example; there was a big catamaran built of 2 liter soft drink bottles in SF and crossed the Pacific several years ago. I did not see it up close, but it was essentially a wooden strongback/framework, filled with soda bottles.
Dave
Plastiki