An ancient ship was brought into port by the ship’s pilot, or a harbor pilot who
came aboard to sail the ship into port
During the Age of Sail, the pilot was a navigational expert for the port of call, especially later on after ports became known and earlier sailed to and from where either captains or crew members acquired that knowledge and experience. The work functions of the pilot go back to ancient Greece and Roman times, when locally experienced harbor captains, mainly local fishermen, were employed by incoming ships' captains to bring their trading vessels into port safely. Eventually, because the act of pilotage needed to be regulated and to ensure that pilots had adequate insurance, the harbors licensed pilots. As an example, the California Board of Pilot Commissioners was the first government agency created by California's legislature, in 1850.
However, before harbor boards were established, pilots known as “hobblers” or “hoveller” (hobilers), would compete with one another. The first to reach an incoming ship would navigate it to the docks and receive payment—sometimes they worked alongside and in competition with the licensed pilots, often blamed by them as being “wreckers.”
Pilots were licensed by the harbor to operate within their jurisdiction, and they were generally self-employed, and so had to have quick transport to get from the port to the incoming ships. As pilots were often still dual-employed, they used their own fishing boats to reach the incoming vessels. But fishing boats were heavy working boats, and filled with fishing equipment, hence a new type of boat was required which single-masted boats were developed called a “pilot cutter.”
For many, the roots of modern pilotage can be traced back to 1513 when a guild of mariners, troubled by the inexperience and poor conduct of unregulated pilots on the Thames endangering life and cargo, petitioned the king for license to set up a fraternity enabled to regulate pilotage on the capital’s river. The following year King Henry VIII granted and issued a Royal Charter to the Corporation of Trinity House in England, and licensed them to regulate pilotage services for maritime safety and navigation on the River Thames.
In 1566 Queen Elizabeth I’s Seamarks Act enabled Trinity House a specific role in: “at their wills and pleasures, and at their costs, [to] make, erect, and set up such, and so many beacons, marks, and signs for the sea… whereby the dangers may be avoided and escaped, and ships the better come into their ports without peril.” And as stated by Trinity Clerk John Whormby in 1746 who wrote of the Master and Warden’s duties: “to improve the art and science of mariners; to examine into the qualifications, and regulate the conduct of those who take upon them the charge of conducting ships; to preserve good order, and (when desired) to compose differences in marine affairs, and, in general, to consult the conservation, good estate, wholesome government, maintenance and increase of navigation and sea-faring men; and to relieve decayed seamen and their relatives.”
Trinity held this license until the late 1980s when the responsibility was passed to individual Competent Harbor Authorities.
The point is, while there became a distinct separation in Captain and pilot, there was never a distinction between pilot and navigator, he being one of the same until modern external harbor pilots emerged. Thus, the comment: “Nephi was not a navigator, he was a pilot,” is inaccurate since he would have been one of the same. And though Lehi would have been in overall charge, most likely Nephi was the Captain of the ship as well.
All of this should show, even to the most skeptical, that piloting, navigating or steering a ship took a great deal of experience, requiring most known pilots to have a ton of knowledge stored in their heads since little to nothing was ever written down about steering in ports. Even the most experienced sailors that theorist claim existed in Khor Rori would not have hasd the knowledge to lead Lehi in the direction they were to sail to the Land of Promise, and only the information of the Lord disclosed on the Liahona made it possible for novices like Nephi and his brothers to man a ship across the deep ocean. Nor should any theorists, understanding this, claim the ship “island-hopped” across the ocean, for the knowledge it took to enter ports along the way. It would not be like stopping offshore and wading in to the beach—far more was involved.
Comment: “Jerusalem is the same latitude as Georgia.”
Response: Jerusalem is located along latitude of 31.76º North. In the U.S. state of George, from Rossville (34.98º N) and Fry (34.98º N) to Faceville (30.75º N) and Moniac (30.51º N) is found five different temperature levels, from -5 to 20º annual minimum temperature. In fact, there are four critical factors in successful plant growth: temperature, precipitation, soil type, and water.
Map of Georgia,
showing the temperature zones (one of the four critical factors in planting and
successful crop growth) and the variance of other matters all within a
compatible climate zone of Köppen Cfb temperature,
precipitation, soil type, and water
Top: Showing the
differences in the Köppen Climate Types in the U.S.; Bottom: Plant Hardiness
Map, showing that plants in Georgia along the 31-32º latitudinal lines have a
different hardiness in growth than almost all other parts of the country
In addition, plant hardiness zones is the standard by which gardeners and growers can determine which plants are most likely to thrive at a location. Critically important for plant growth and survival, is temperature, humidity, light and soil moisture content, all important factors on a plant’s hardiness, growth and survival
Response: Savannah, Georgia, on this latitudinal line, is 90º day, 74º night; heavy rain (51” year); extremely high humidity; and tropical storms six months of the year. It has a humid subtropical climate (Köppen Cfa), with long, hot and steamy summers, with muggy atmosphere making temperatures feel even more stifling.
(See the next post, “What Was Nephi’s Role on His Ship? – Part III,” for the completion of this response, and the further comments of the critique and our responses)
No comments:
Post a Comment