Cleaving White Oak (Quercus Petraea & Q.Robur) for shipboards used in viking-ship reconstruction in Scandinavia.

The Norse built their hulls from oak boards hewn from cleaved or ‘rived’ logs. We know this through artworks and texts as well as archaeological finds describing the ships as well as their construction from the latter half of the early-medieval period. However, we know summarily little when it comes to the pre-production of hewn boards. I ask, - How could the Norse have possibly cleaved? - Which properties in white oak affect cleaving? - Which simple truths can be found of cleaving. Which direction of cleaving is best for oak? This is done by showcasing the differences in cleaving from the top, side, and bottom of a series of white oak logs. Namely why cleaving from each direction fails. To summarize the results. Cleaving from the top shines in cases where there is a large difference in the diameter at the top and bottom of the log. Cleaving from the side can act as a mitigator in the case of knots or to pierce directly through a knot or burl. Cleaving from the top or bottom falls more naturally in the cases where the pith is off-centre. With a log bent like an arch, cleaving from the side fell more naturally. The direction of the cleave ought to be thought of less as an immutable truth and more of as another tool to extract as many boards from a log as possible. We found that no direction of cleaving was inherently better in all scenarios. It is a case of risk-mitigation, which benefits from taking a thorough look at the log and making an informed choice. In cases where the angle of the twisting fibres of a log is significant, all cleaving directions struggle and fail, in cases where there are few natural faults, cleaving from all sides succeed.