Uniquely preserved Slavic nautical technology behind religious exchange and transition in Old Rus and Scandinavia

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Uniquely preserved Slavic nautical technology behind religious exchange and transition in Old Rus and Scandinavia

Thomas Frank

Abstract

In order to understand how world religions such as Christianity spread, we need to investigate routes of religious exchange. This paper examines Scandinavian exposure to Christianity in the Viking Age from a maritime and theological perspective. It does so by combining literary, graphic, and material evidence with a field study of ancient boatbuilding, which is uniquely preserved in Russia. It investigates how Scandinavians in large numbers reached the Christian metropolis Constantinople by adapting their boatbuilding skills to Slavic nautical technology. An analysis of De Administrando Imperio proves that Scandinavians used and outfitted the Slavic expanded logboat in the text named OKayiSiov («skafidion») along Put' iz varjag v Greki from the Novgorod Region. It argues that this particular Slavic technology was the precondition for naval expeditions to Constantinople, and it offers a new explanation as to why Slavs over time used the term Rus as a signifier to identify themselves. The paper shows that this is cooperated and elaborated by the field study of the Russian expanded logboat `ботник' (botnik). The paper argues that this study substantiates the claim in The Russian Primary Chronicle also known as Povest' vremennykh let, that several thousand Scandinavians and Slavs reached Constantinople during their naval expeditions in year 860, 907, and 941, and the information that some of them were baptized in Constantinople, during these years. It is argued that the first major conversion of the Scandinavian elite took place abroad. Because of ботник, Scandinavians together with Slavs were exposed to the idea and reality of a Christian empire long before their kings and grand prince took on and adopted Christianity.

Keywords: De Administrando Imperio, Povest' vremennykh let, Viking Age vessels, Rus, Varangian, botnik, religious transition, Christianity, boat graves, Staraja Ladoga, Constantinople, King Harald Bluetooth, Grand Prince Vladimir, Scandinavia, Viking Age, Put' iz varjag v Greki, monoxylos, skeiS.

Аннотация

Уникальная сохранившаяся славянская морская технология как фактор религиозного обмена и перехода в Старой Руси и Скандинавии

Томас Франк

Для того чтобы понять, как распространялись мировые религии, такие как христианство, необходимо исследовать пути религиозного обмена. В данной работе рассматривается воздействие христианства на скандинавов в эпоху викингов в контексте морских путешествий и теологии. В настоящем исследовании используются литературные, изобразительные и материальные свидетельства, а также полевые исследования древнего судостроения, которое уникальным образом сохранилось в России. Приводятся свидетельства того, что множество скандинавов достигли христианской метрополии Константинополя, адаптировав свои навыки строительства лодок к славянским морским технологиям. Анализ текста DeAdministrandoImperioпозволяет доказать, что скандинавы использовали и оснащали славянскую расширенную бревенчатую лодку, названную в тексте акафібю-v («скафидион») по пути «из варяг в греки» из Новгородской области. В статье утверждается, что именно эта славянская технология была предпосылкой для морских экспедиций в Константинополь и что она предлагает новое объяснение того, почему славяне со временем использовали термин «Русь» в качестве обозначения для самоидентификации. В статье показано, что этому способствует полевое исследование русского расширенного бревенчатого судна - ботника. Это исследование обосновывает утверждение в русской летописи «Повесть временных лет» о том, что несколько тысяч скандинавов и славян достигли Константинополя во время морских экспедиций в 860, 907 и 941 гг., а также информацию о том, что некоторые из них были крещены в Константинополе в эти годы. Утверждается, что первое крупное обращение скандинавской элиты произошло за границей. Благодаря ботнику скандинавы вместе со славянами познакомились с идеей и реальностью христианской империи задолго до того, как их короли и великий князь приняли христианство.

Ключевые слова: DeAdministrandoImperio, Повесть временных лет, суда эпохи викингов, Русь, варяги, ботник, религиозный переход, христианство, лодейные могилы, Старая Ладога, Константинополь, король Харальд Синезубый, великий князь Владимир, Скандинавия, эпоха викингов, путь из варяг в греки, моноксилос, скир.

Main part

During the Viking Age (c. 800-1050), Scandinavian kings adopted Christianity. Denmark was the first place this happened, c. 965, during the rule of Harald Bluetooth (936-985). Since the early Middle Ages, Christianity had spread north through central Europe, and in the 8th century, it was an element in the expansion of Charlemagne's Empire as far as the fortified border to Denmark at Danevirke. Two centuries later Otto I (912-973) had the same strategy and, supposedly, Harald gave in to his pressure [Fabricius, 1934; Koch, 1950; Koch, 1967; Sawyer, 1988; Lausten, 1989; Nyberg, 2002; McGuire, 2009]. However, already in the 8^th century, Scandinavians encountered Christianity on their naval expeditions far from their homeland, and some adopted Christianity on these journeys.

Naval activities abroad defined the Scandinavian period of religious transition. For elite Viking Age society, these activities were an integral part of their identity and belief system. By virtue of their seamanship, the sea surrounding their lands became the route to faraway places and riches. Their ships were the vessels that allowed them to travel far beyond the horizon and even from this life to the next as seen in the many boat graves [Franklin, Shepard, 1996, p. 127] and several Scandinavian monumental burials [Hvass, 2011, p. 32]. Therefore, to understand why Scandinavian rulers ended up adopting Christianity, we must challenge the predominant idea of Christianisation as the result of mission together with foreign political pressure. We must consider it as influenced by religious import by sea. More exactly, we must examine and explore the influence of exposure to Christianity abroad. Part of this question is how Scandinavians managed to reach the Christian metropolis Constantinople in the Orient or Austrhalfa We know the word Austrhalfa from Old Nordic sources. It is a geographical term and somewhat similar to the word Orient. According to [Jackson, 2019], Austrhalfa includes Byzantium i. e. also Constantinople. The word consists of the Old Nordic word for the East Austr and halfa meaning half or part. by sea and in which numbers.

Their journeys east via the Baltic Sea to Constantinople are of special interest. In The Russian Primary Chronicle here referred to as Povest' vremennykh let (PVL) from the 12^th century, De Administrando Imperio (DAI) and De Cerimoniis Aulae Byzantinae (DCB) from the 10^th century, there are indications that members of the Scandinavian elite, together with the Old Rus Old Rus is here used as a geographical term for an area within Eastern Europe, more precisely part of present- day western Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine. In Old Nor-dic sources, this area is also named Gardarike [Jackson, 2019, p. 65]. elite, were baptized there before 965 and served at the Byzantine court. Furthermore, the influence of the exposure to Christianity on these eastern travels is rarely taken into consideration and examined [Frank, 2018; Frank, 2020].

This paper investigates literary, graphic, and material evidence that Scandinavians during the Viking Age reached the Eastern Roman Empire in large numbers by applying their boat building skills to Slavic nautical technology It is a technology which Scandinavians found in the Middle Ages among the Slavic peoples and tribes of Old Rus. This technology is however known beyond Old Rus and the areas of the Slavic tribes [Crumlin-Pedersen, 1978; Harri, 2010]. The ge-neral question of the origin of this technology is not within the scope of this article.. Analysis of DAI provides evidence that it was the Slavic produced expanded logboat (ELB) in DAI omfiSiov («skafidion») that was the basis of their boats. They outfitted these ELBs en route for rowing on rivers and sailing on the sea, as mentioned in DAI. Thus, the ELB was the precondition for the nautical expeditions to Constantinople. This evidence is supported by a field study in 2021 of a Russian ELB, today built by local Russians and called ботник («botnik»). Uniquely, the building of this ELB has been handed down through the generations in Russia Experimental archaeology of Viking Age vessels normally has to rely on recon-structions [Crumlin-Pedersen, Jensen, 2018]. In this case and without precedence, the vessel and the craft behind it can be studied as a living boatbuilding tradition.. The paper argues that the field study of this Russian ELB on the one hand corroborates the literary sources, illustrations, material finds and the analysis of DAI, and on the other hand, it gives new insights. It elaborates the knowledge provided by the analysis that the exchange of nautical technology influenced the religious exchange and transition.

First, the paper discusses Viking Age travel to the east. Then, it investigates literary sources, medieval illustrations, and material finds referring to the boat types used by Scandinavians. Following that, it analyses DAI. Then, it presents the results of the field study. Thereafter, the paper outlines new insights regarding the religious transition in Scandinavia and Old Rus, and the exchange between Scandinavians and Slavs during the Viking Age.

Viking age travel from Scandinavia to Austrhalfa

Since the early Viking Age, Scandinavians journeying by sea to the east appear in the sources under the name Rus For an elaborate account of the origin of the name Rus, see [PVL, 1953, pp. 35-50]. The term Rus must be used with some caution because it is a signifier used differ-ently in the sources. In this regard, Shepard and Franklin state: “However responsible one may try to be, no account of Rus is definitive” [Franklin, Shepard, 1996, p. xxi]., by which they also identified themselves as early as 839 according to The Annals of St. Bertin The Annals of St. Bertin (839) and Chacanus of the Rhos, 2006. S. 7-11.. It has been proposed that the word Rus originally was related to the Old Nordic word ro^smenn, which means «men that rows.» However, Rus both signified a social role (identity) and ethnicity [Franklin, Shepard, 1996, p. 29], and the term Rus was not for long purely referring to Scandinavians. The word Rus according to 10^th century Arabic sources included different ethnicities, among them Slavic.

The Russians consist of several different nations and distinct hordes [El-Mas'udis, 1841, p. 416].

Die Russen sind in drei Stamme getheilt; der eine wohnt in der Nahe der Bul - garer; ihr Konig wohnt in der Stadt Kuthaba, welche grosser ist als Bulgar. Der zweite Stamm heist Slaven, und der dritte Uthanie, ihr Konig wohnt in Arba [Das Buch der Lander, 1845, p. 106].

In 960, Rus appeared as a name for the people of Old Rus (Rusciae Gentis) Annales Hildesheimenses, p. 60. and over time it became the name for the Slavic people in Old Rus according to PVL. In the same period, Scandinavians as an ethnic group in Old Rus and in Constantinople also appeared under the Byzantian term Varangian The term Varangian appeared after 950 as the name for Scandinavians. It origi-nated in Byzantium and was later used in Old Rus: see [PVL, 1953, pp. 35-50]. This

change of signifiers seemed to have taken place during two centuries, after the Scandi-navians appeared at Staraja Ladoga.. Importantly, in the first half of the 10^th century the Scandinavian part of Rus is documented in the peace treaties of 912 and 945 in [PVL, 1953, p. 40-50]. Among the many names listed in the treaties, as Rus' elite and merchants several are Scandinavian. In addition, Byzantine sources specifically connected the word Rus with Scandinavians.

In DAI, the many names of waterfalls and barrages are in both Old Norse and Slavic. This is strong proof of the Rus developing into a mixed group of Scandinavians and Slavs. These peoples established close ties and travelled together in large units to Constantinople. In The Chronicle of Novgorod, we are told that such a mixed group of 4,000 (3,000 Slavs and 1,000 Varangians) on a military campaign in 1016 went from Novgorod to Kiev The Chronicle of Novgorod, 1914, p. 1.. In PVL [PVL, 1953, p. 72-73], there are other examples of large mixed units in 907 and 941.

Non-literary sources reveal that the Scandinavians at the very beginning of the Viking Age appeared in the east and travelled faraway inland by multiple rivers. Material evidence from Russia [Kainof, 2018; Kainof, 2021] informs that when Scandinavians attacked the convent on the island Lindisfarne near the English coast in 793 [Roesdahl, 1993, p. 14; Franklin, Shepard, 1996, p. 53], they had already reached Gnez - dovo near present day Smolensk at the river Dnepr. Here, as in other places of present-day Russia there are numerous boat graves. These are an important testimony to their travels and presence in the east [Koch - kurkina, 1989; Kochkurkina, 2018; Stalsberg, 2001; Sorokin, 2002; Sorokin, 2012; Sorokin, 2018]. Moreover, as early as 860, several sources tell about a Rus fleet attacking Constantinople The homilies of Photius, 2018, pp. 74-110; Anecdota Bruxellensia, 1894, p. 33. and from Ibn Khur - dadhbih we know that the Rus arriving in Bagdad via the Caspian Sea around 850 presented themselves as Christians The book of routes and provinces, 1865, p. 514..

Still, mystery surrounds the eastern travels and the effect of these journeys. So far, the question of how they managed to travel this far in their ships has remained unanswered [Stalsberg, 2001; Frank, 2020]. Westerdahl [Westerdahl, 2014, p. 78-79] has discussed problems with the notion of all-through portage of ship-size vessels. The results of several important experiments [Nylen, 1986; Edberg, 1998; Lebedev, 1996; Lebedev, Zhvitashvili, 1999; Widerberg, 2014; Edberg, 2017] did not provide convincing evidence of a massive influx. Instead, the experiments more importantly [Frank, 2018; Frank, 2020] pointed at problems even by the use of small, reconstructed ships known from Viking Age Scandinavia. During this period, some Rus travelled east via the White Sea to rivers leading south The Saga of Hacon, 1894, ch. 371. along the Volga. Others, according to most frequent scriptural evidence, went via the many rivers discharging into the Baltic Sea. By great effort, hardship, and many days of travelling, they reached the remote eastern trade centers at Dnepr and Volga, and even further at the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.

Numerous material discoveries and several literary sources in Greek, Arabic, Slavic, and Latin [Frank, 2020, p. 413] speak about these eastern journeys. Some of these sources (PVL, DAI) describe the itineraries and provide important clues about routes from the Baltic Sea. In Fig. 1, Viking Age place names and routes are shown in Old Rus. The most famous of these routes is that following the river Volkov, Lake Ilmen, and the River Lovat to Dnepr and the Black Sea, as described in PVL PVL, 1953, p. 53-54.. PVL calls the route «The Route from the Varangians to the Greeks» (in Russian: Put' iz Varjag v Greki [PIVG]). This route went via the easternmost part of the Baltic Sea, passing Staraja Ladoga, Novgorod, Gnezdovo, Kiev and Berezan to Constantinople. Other routes from the Baltic Sea to the Greeks (the Eastern Roman Empire) were closer to the trading centers in the West, such as Haithabu, Wolin and Truso. These routes went via the rivers Daugava Kristni Saga tells us that Scandinavians passed Polotsk by Dvina on their way to Kiev, which is proof of the route along Dvina. and Wisla. Different routes led from the Baltic Sea via smaller rivers and the Volga to the Arab and Persian world. Furthermore, rivers such as the Oka, Desna, and Don, together with several towing places (In Russian: волок «volok») interconnected these routes into a complex infrastructural system.

As today, moving on the rivers was very different from sailing on the sea. The dangers did not disappear, but they were of a different kind, against which the travellers needed the protection of their gods, special skills, and assistance. Sailing inland close to the riverbanks, they were vulnerable to attacks, and they needed new nautical skills together with knowledge of the many rivers. The routes from the Baltic Sea presented a maj or navigational challenge for the Scandinavians. This problem could not besolved by building bigger ships; quite the contrary was true. The rivers discharging into the Baltic Sea were on the one hand fascinating gateways to possible riches to be made by trade, pillaging or serving famous warlords or even the Byzantine emperor. On the other hand, they were not suited for the traditional Viking ships such as Skuldelev 1, 2 and 3, Gokstadskibet, Tuneskibet, and Hedeby 1 The finds of Viking ships in Scandinavia [Crumlin-Pedersen, 1994].. From the river deltas the travellers had to row several hundred nautical miles against strong currents. Moreover, they met shallow water, narrow and turning riverbeds, sand banks, boulders and barrages. At some places, they were forced to move the boats over land [PVL, 1953, p. 53-54] and through barrages and past waterfalls [DAI, 1985, p. 56-60].

Fig. 1. Routes in the Viking Age. Map elaborated by Thomas Frankbased on https://mapswire.com/europe/physical-maps/

christianity scandinavian slavic

The oldest known Scandinavian settlement in Old Rus and in present - day Russia is Staraja Ladoga. It is situated on the river Volkov by a natural harbor. In the Viking Age, it had the Nordic name Aldeigjuborg Jackson, 2019, p. 85.. It was close to the Baltic Sea and situated near a barrier of barrages some kilometres south upstream. From this place on, smaller boats were far more suited for the journey, as knowledge about the rivers among local people were required, during the early expeditions. In 1941, the Russian scholar Elena Rydzevskaya [Rydzevskaya, 1945] argued for the need of different vessels from this point on and the existence of a shipyard at the location Jackson [Jackson, 2019] discusses the question of vessels and Russian research and archeological excavations in Staraja Ladoga following Rydzevskaya's claim [Ryd-zevskaya, 1945]. She notes that excavations in 1958 and the 1970s showed the existence of boat rivet production around 870. Moreover, Sorokin [Sorokin, 2021] argues that smaller vessels of 6-9 m were used from here. He mentions the Gokstad ships 1-3 as examples of these boats. In Staraja Ladoga, finds of parts from ships with around 20 pairs of oars have been found [Sorokin, 2002; Sorokin, 2021].. DAI corroborates this. It tells how Rus' logboats, povo&Xoc; «monoxylos,» sailing to Constantinople among other places came down from Novgorod, about 200 km south of Staraja Ladoga. At the time when DAI was written we know with some certainty that Staraja Ladoga belonged to the prince of Novgorod One of the indications of that is that Ingegerd of Sweden married Jaroslav of Novgorod, who gave Staraja Ladoga to her as a wedding gift. We know that people of Scandinavian descent coming from Staraja Ladoga settled Novgorod during the Viking Age at Gorodishe. and was considered within the realm of Novgorod. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that DAI actually includes Staraja Ladoga as the place from where the smaller logboats came.

Staraja Ladoga was a unique natural place of transit. Here, returning from their long-distance eastern exploits via the rivers, the Scandinavians would change to their larger seagoing vessels and set sail for their homelands as written in the Saga of Harald Hardrada and in Eiriksdrapa:

In spring he adventured on a journey from Holmgaard and vent to Aldeig - juborg, there he acquired ships and sailed west in the summer [Haralds saga Sigurdarsonar, 2015, ch. 17].

At the onset of spring the vanquisher of the Wends prepared noble ships [to travel] from the east out of Russia; at the beginning of summer the leader of the unit launched the bows onto the curving billow. The brother of Knutr protected the broad plank-wood with a washboard in the turbulent weather; the destroyer of treacherous people, skilled in eloquence, then put to shore in Denmark [Eiriksdrapa, 2012, 4].

From Staraja Ladoga, there is evidence of the boat types used by Scandinavians on their travels in Old Rus and all the way to Constantinople. Literary sources, illustrations and material finds provide details and information. In order to examine in which numbers and how the Scandinavians managed to reach the Christian metropolis Constantinople by the water route, we must study and discuss these three types of evidence.

Literary sources

In several medieval texts, we find references to ships and boats, and sometimes we can read about their type and size. This is also the case concerning the vessels used on eastern routes all the way to Constantinople. As already mentioned, here the sources talk about smaller vessels and as in DAI use the Greek word ^ovo^vXoq «monoxylos» (M). The word M literally means a logboat or one-tree boat. Within the literary corpus, the term M primarily is used in two meanings: the literal meaning as a logboat and as the name for a vessel based on a logboat. The second meaning is not to be mistaken with the meaning as pars pro toto, even though this use appears in the sources regarding other nautical terms, as discussed below. In DAI the term M in its literal meaning is used for one entry, ornfiStov «skafidion» which is a Greek diminutive of ожщ «skafe» the ancient Greek word for a small boat. This paper argues and proves by analysis of DAI and field study that the word M in its literal meaning (ornfiSiov) refers to the ELB and the vessel still made in Russia named ботник.

The following Medieval texts mentions the M and/or vessels used by Rus on Russian rivers and the Black Sea:

— Chronicon Pascale, c. 630;

— The Chronicle of Georgious Monachus, c. 860;

— The homilies of Photius, c. 860;

— The life of St George of Amastris, c. 900;

— Tactica of Leo VI, c. 900;

— De administrando imperio, c. 950;

— De cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae, c. 950;

— The works of Luidprand of Cremona, c. 960;

— A synopsis of Byzantine history, c. 1050;

— Strategikon of Kekaumenos, c. 1078;

— Povest' vremennykh let, c. 1100;

— Russkaya Pravda, c. 1100;

— The Alexiad, c. 1148;

— Anecdota Bruxellensia, c. 1200.

The earliest entry of the word M is in Chronicon Pascale. It mentions the use of a large number of the Ms on the Bosphorus by Avar and Slavic invaders in 626. In Tactica of Leo VI from around year 900, we read a further explanation about the boats used by Scandinavians arriving by Eastern Rivers and the Black Sea to Constantinople in 860:

They [the Rus] use small, light and fast boats. Because of the rivers running

into to Black Sea, they cannot use big ships [Leonis Imperatoris Tactica, 1917, p. 1011].

Luidprand of Cremona writes in Antapodosis c. 950:

The Rus' ships by reason of their small size can move in very shallow water, where the Greek galleys because of their greater draught cannot pass [The works of Luidprand of Cremona, 1930, p. 186].

In PVL, vessels are mentioned in the descriptions of Rus' naval expeditions in 860, 907 and 941. Regarding the two first expeditions the original Church Slavonic edition of PVL The oldest original manuscript of PVL is written in Church-Slavonic., uses the word корабль «ko - rabl.» Here the word корабльby the chronicler is most likely used as a generic term From the context in PVL, корабльis difficult to determine in terms of type, though concerning the year 860 as quoted above, we have indications from Tactica of Leo IV, that these vessels must have been small, light and fast boats..

In the account of the last expedition (941), the Slavic word скедия («skedija») is used in the original Church Slavonic edition of PVL For some reason, the Russian translation of the original manuscript uses the word корабль.. Svane [Svane, 1983, p. 260] mentions that this is the Greek word oxeSia «skedia,» which is the ancient Greek name for a hastily made wooden vessel, known by Thucydides and Homer, among others It is a term for a smaller wooden vessel, known from sources since antiquity, Homer (V, 35) and Thucydides (VI, 2).. We also find oxeSia in the Old Nordic word skeid «skeid.» Like the term Varangian it is likely that it entered the Slavic and Old Nordic vocabulary from Greek as a loan word. During the Viking Age, the word skeid came to be used in Scandinavia as the term for a large clinker-built warship. It is the most frequent used word for a vessel in the skaldic corpus [Jesch, 2001, p. 123-126], which is the oldest part of the Old Nordic literary corpus. Jesch mentions that Foote and Wilson suggest that the word skeid means either «that which cuts through the water» or «a piece of wood long and sword-shaped» [Foote, Wilson, 1974, p. 236-237]. This resembles the meaning of the word M and the shape of the ELB. It is possible that both skeid in Old Nordic and скедияin Slavic at some point in time were understood as the equivalent of the M mentioned in DAI in its derived meaning as a logboat outfitted for rowing and possibly sailing. Moreover, skeid is in Eiriksdrapa, which as a narrative is related to Eastern travels, referred to as being great in number and of varying lengths: «skeid helt mprg і modu / many warships of various lengths» [Eiriksdrapa, 2012, р. 12] Eiriksdrapa mentions king Erik's exploits in Old Rus and his relations with the emperor in Constantinople. The text from c. 1040 could in fact be talking about the vessels used in Rus, just as it talks about big ships used when leaving Old Rus like the saga of Harald Hardrada.. In other words, even in the 12^th century, skeid is not only used to signify at large naval vessel.

The account in Eiriksdrapa that many of these vessels were used together in a fleet is also a characteristic in PVL and DAI. With the figure 10,000 скедияmentioned in PVL arriving at Constantinople in 941, and the information in DAI we can assume that PVL is in fact referring to the boat which DAI, written about 10 years after 941 calls the M (meaning a vessel based on a logboat). Furthermore, we can be boldly argue, that it was in fact, a small skeid that Scandinavians had in mind when they fitted their vessels based on the Slavic logboat, which they bought in Old Rus.

In Russkaya Pravda from the middle of the 11^th century Russkaya Pravda, § 79., several boat types are mentioned by ascribing its particular function (seagoing, cargo or river) to the Slavic word ладья «ladja,» which is somewhat similar to the Russian word for boat лодка «lodka.» However, the logboat is specifically mentioned in Russkaya Pravda with the Slavic word челн «tzeln,» which means a dugout logboat.

In The Chronicle of Novgorod («Новгородскаяперваялетопись») covering the period from 1016-1471, there are several entries for vessels. The most common is the word лодь «lod» seemingly another version of лодка «lodka,» but also an Old Nordic loan word шнекь «snek» from snekkja appears in an entry about 60 vessels arriving from Sweden.

From Old Norse Sources we know several words apart from skeid for larger vessels [Jesch, 2001]: skip, snekkja, dreki and knorr. Jesch has brought our attention to the fact that the keel, the central part of the hull, «kjqlr» in Old Nordic, is sometimes used as a name for the entire vessel: «As a basic part of a ship, the word was almost bound to be used by poets to stand for the whole» [Jesch, 2001, p. 139]. One of these instances we find in Knutsdrapa from around 1040.

And the dragon-ships of the land-ruler [Knutr] carried dark sails against the yard in the favoring wind; the sovereign's journey was glorious. And the keels which arrived there from the west travelled the surf of Limfjorden on their way [Knutsdrapa, 2012, 8].

This could apparently denote that the same logic, is at play in the use of the word M in DAI and in other Byzantine sources regarding the Rus' vessel, meaning that these seemingly small vessels made of one log were actually ships with this log as a basic part, like the keel. Still, as is discussed in depth and shown below, the vessels used by the Rus could not have been large ships. Instead, the logic concerning the word $йд «sud» brought to our attention by Jesch, could explain the two meanings of the term M and suggests how vessels were given a name. In the Viking Age, in simple logboats boards were added (wooden planks on the side). This process was called вйдin Old Nordic, which means sewing. This technique was originally used to tie the bords onto the keel. It was later replaced with the use of rivets even though the techniques remained in use, side by side. The word вйдcould be used for the entire vessel, denoting the difference between a simple canoe and larger clinker-built boat with planks on the sides. Therefore, it is reasonable to understand the double use of the word M as vessel with boards and rowlocks as well as a logboat because a central element in its construction was the log, just as sewing was on the вйд. It tells us that one way to name and signify boats in the Viking Age likely was to name them by a central aspect of their production.

In Old Norse literature not only words for large vessels appear. The words for smaller vessels are bati or batr. These words are somewhat similar to the present-day local name for the ELB in the field study ботник «botnik.» This could be a reminiscence of the Old Nordic bati or batr, whereby ботникmust be understood as a small boat, similar to the word arnfiSiov. Ботникis a Russian diminutive. If that is correct, the word ботникis the Russian equivalent of the Greek aкaf^Sюv used in DAI.

In all the texts listed and discussed above, we see that there is no talk of Scandinavians south of Staraja Ladoga using big seagoing ships. However, the remaining questions are which type of vessel they used and if the sources are correct when they state that as many as 10,000 vessels were used.

By far, the most precise and important account of the vessels used by Scandinavians as part of Rus, is given in DAI. Before the analysis of DAI is presented, the graphic and material evidence is discussed.

Medieval illustrations

The predominant reference to smaller vessels in the literary sources is supported by several illustrations related to the period.

Fig. 2. A synopsis of Byzantine history. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/File: Greekfire-madridskylitzes1.jpg (accessed: 24.05.2022)

Fig. 3. Drawing of Utrecht 1 by A. Van de Moortel. Source: https://www. researchgate.net/publication/344379149 (accessed: 24.05.2022)

In the illustration from the Madrid Skylitzes' 12^th century manuscript of the text «A synopsis of Byzantine history» (see Fig. 2), we seethe Rus boat on the right with no sail. It is depicted as a small vessel with only three men as opposed to six men in the byzantine boat. The form of the hull resembles an actual find of an ELB in Utrecht (see Fig. 3).

Similar illustrations of boats with no sail are found in a 15^th century manuscript of the Radzivill Chronicle from the 13 ^th century (see Fig. 4). The scene is Rus' raid of Constantinople in 860.

Fig. 4. A boat from Radzivill Chronicle. Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Category: Radzivill_Chronicle#/media/File:10_1_List_of_Radzivill_Chron. jpg

Apart from these illustrations, a younger illustration from the 16^th century depicts a boat in Russia without a sail. It is carried on the shoulders of five armed men.

Material finds

Throughout Scandinavia, there are finds of larger and smaller Viking Age vessels [Rieck, Crumlin-Pedersen, 1988; Crumlin-Pedersen, 1994]. This is so far not the case in the central parts of present-day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Along the PIVG This is, of course not final proof of the types of vessels used. Today major parts of the PIVG have been destroyed by higher water level due to the construction of power stations. In addition, there are unexamined places that in the future could un-veil Viking Age vessels., most finds are of logboats. In other words, the actual finds of vessels supports the textual and graphic evidence that ships, such as the snekkja, dreki and knorr normally were not used south of Staraja Ladoga.

Different types of vessels from the Middle Ages have been found in present-day Russia [Kochkurkina, 1989; Kochkurkina 2018; Stalsberg, 2001; Sorokin, 2018; Sorokin, 2021]. Nevertheless, evidence of big ships along the rivers is very vague. Regarding local shipbuilding, Sorokin states: «No reliable evidence of building clinker vessels with iron rivets in Russian towns has been found so far, although there are potential signs of this on the sites: iron and woodworking industries with industries with all the necessary tools and resources.» Stalsberg [Stalsberg, 2001] states that no rivets of the Scandinavian type have been found in Russia including in boat graves; instead, Slavic types have been found. This indicates, that vessels used by Scandinavians in Old Rus normally were made en route to Constantinople, and it supports the literary sources that Scandinavians did not use their Viking ships from Staraja Ladoga.

At two of the production-sites of the M mentioned in DAI and along the PIVG there are finds of the ELBs. In Velikiy Novgorod, three vessels made of aspen have been found. One of these finds is 6.75 m long. In Gnezdovo, parts of the ELB have been found together with rowlocks of a size indicating that they were placed on a smaller boat [Murasheva, Malysheva, 2017].

Stalsberg [Stalsberg, 2001] has analysed the boat graves in Gnez - dovo. In general, there are signs of smaller vessels. Sorokin states that these finds shows that the boats in boat graves were about 6-10 m long [Sorokin, 2018].

So far, only finds from Staraja Ladoga are of ships known from Viking Age Scandinavia [Sorokin, 2018; Murasheva, Malysheva, 2017; Kainof, 2021]. Viking Age finds inland in Old Rus and along the PIVG are more precisely dominated by finds of logboats [Stalsberg, 2001; Sorokin, 2018; Okorokova, 2021] also known from Scandinavia [Crum - lin-Pedersen, 1972; Crumlin-Pedersen, 1978; Rieck, Crumlin-Pedersen 1988; Van de Moortel, 2009; Crumlin-Pedersen, Jensen, 2018]. There are two types of logboat finds in Old Rus [Okorokova, 2021]. The traditional or simple logboat (LB), which was a dugout tree-trunk canoe and the ELB. The ELB (exhaustively described in the field study below) was a dugout tree trunk that has its sides bent out with the aid of water and fire. The sides of this boat were cut very thin with an axe, down to around 2 cm. This was accomplished by the use of wood gauges inserted into holes drilled in the tree trunk [Van de Moortel, 2011, p. 93]. The thin hull made the ELB a very light vessel compared to the LB. Moreover, with the sides bent, it sat well on the water and could carry much more weight than the LB.

As mentioned, these two types of logboats have been found in several places in Old Rus as parts only or preserved almost intact [Okorokova, 2021]. Some of the known finds are listed below. The boat finds vary in length, width and height.

Finds of LB

Kaliningrad Region (length 8.73 m, width 57 cm, height 95 cm), Bretskoi Region (length c. 3.75, width circa 65 cm), Grodenskaja Region (length 4.6 m. width 70 cm, height 10 cm), Grodenskaja Region (length 8.32, width 97 cm, height 80 cm), Voroneskaja Region (length 7.55 m, width 60 cm, height 90 cm).

Finds of ELB

Velikiy Novgorod (length c. 7 m), Bryansk Region (length 12 m, width 125 cm), Orgev 1 (length 13 m, width c. 260 cm, height circa 80 cm), Orgev 2 (length circa 11 m, width c. 90 cm, height c. 50 cm), Gnezdovo (parts only).

The predominance of logboats, their size and form registered by material finds supports the literary and graphic evidence. Sorokin [Sorokin, 2012] refers to known finds of LB and ELB in Old Rus. He registers additional finds of ELBs along the rivers Msta and Dvina, near Pskov Near Pskov in Estonia, the craft of making ELBs is preserved. and north of Gnezdovo in the portage-area between the rivers Dvina and Dnepr.

The general knowledge within texts, illustrations and material finds is that smaller vessels without sails were used on the rivers in Old Rus and even the Black Sea. This does not prove the exact type of vessel and more importantly that Scandinavians together with Slavs arrived in great numbers in the years 860, 907 and 941. However, by analysing DAI we are able to determine The Swedish scientist Westerdahl [Westerdahl, 2014] presumes with no proof that the boat type M in DAI was the ELB. Probably as the first the Russian scientist, Voronin presented this idea [Voronin et al., 1951]. the boat type that was used in large numbers without excluding the existence of other types of vessels and even fleets of different types of ships as it has been argued by Ravn was used on sea expeditions [Ravn, 2016].

The text with the most precise description of the vessels used along the PIVG is DAI. This description is part of an eloquent narrative of Rus coming to Constantinople. It is found in the first part of DAI in chapter 9 (ПЈp^ rtiv and `Pшo^aq tpxpptvw Ptiq цехаxtiv povo&Xw tv Kwaтavт^vovndЛЈ^. `Of the coming of the Russians in `monoxyla' from Russia to Constantinople'). Rather precisely, this chapter describes the building of the Rus vessel, its use, and the Rus itinerary.

DAI, which uses the word M for the vessels of Rus, is together with DCB a text of unique historical value [Moravcsik, 1967; Sevcenko, 1992; Shchavelev, 2019]. It represents the actual and detailed information acquired by emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus about the people surrounding his empire. The information about the Rus vessels and the vessel M is most likely the result of first-hand knowledge. In other words, Constantine VII must have gained this information personally from Rus, which is probable. We know, as mentioned above, from the text DCB that baptized Rus served at the court during his reign: «oi ваптіор&уоі 'P&c, рета (рХароьХит, ваота&утгя axovmpia, fopovvrtq каї та savrwv оnад^а. `Baptized Rus with flamens, carrying shields and spears'» [DCB, 2014, p. 579-580]. Constantine VII was the Godfather of the representative of Rus' elite, Princess Olga, in 955 [DCB, 2014, p. 594-598]. This also implies close relations with Rus. Furthermore, we know from the peace treaty of 945 between Igor, Romanus and Constantine VII, which is reproduced in PVL, that baptized Rus resided in Constantinople [DAI, 1985, p. 50-52]. Maybe one of these baptized Rus serving at the court personally described the coming of Rus in their Ms to Constantinople. Chapter 9 is a great narrative about the Rus. The story of this informant must have captured the emperor as it does today. According to Shchavelev [Shchavelev, 2019, p. 697], Constantine VII himself wrote the chapter about the Rus.

From DAI's description in chapter 9, it is possible to formulate 22 criteria for the Rus vessel used from Staraja Ladoga to the Black Sea and on other rivers of Old Rus as well. These criteria are the following:

Criteria of the M in De Administrando Imperio (Chapter 9)

1. The M was a logboat.

2. The word M is used with two meanings: a logboat and a fitted logboat.

3. The M was used in large numbers as part of the Rus' fleet of this boat type.

4. The M came from Novgorod, Smolensk, Teliutza, Chernigov and Vyshe - grad.

5. The M was transported from the place of production via the river Dnepr to Kiev.

6. The M was made to the Rus by tributary Slavic tribes and the rest of the Slavic regions (five tributary Slavic tribes are mentioned by name in DAI).

7. The logs of the M was chosen and cut down in winter on the hills of the Slavic tribes.

8. The logs of the M were formed and prepared Westerdahl [Westerdahl, 2014] seems to translate катартфи`kartitso' wrongly as “fasten together” and interpret that as if rafts were made of the M. That rafts were made cannot be excluded. However, the word катартфи,as Jenkins translates it, means “to prepare” or “make ready”. from the time of cutting until spring.

9. In spring, when the ice melted, the log was brought to nearby lakes connected to the river Dnepr.

10. Along Dnepr, the M was transported to be finished and sold in Kiev.

11. The M was sold to Rus in Kiev as a little tree-trunk boat (oKaftSiov) In Jenkins' translation of the Greek text, he translates the word OKafiSiov as “bottom”. The sentence 01 Si. `Ptiiq OKaflSia Kal pova ravra ayopaZovreq he translates as: “The Russians buy these bottoms only” This is imprecise. The word OKaflSia is a diminutive of окафц,which literally means “something dug out” deriving from the Greek verb OK&nrw meaning “to dig”. Zкaf^Sla is used as the name for a small dugout boat denoting a traditional canoe made from a dugout tree trunk. The correct transla-tion of OKaf'iSia is therefore: “little dog out tree-trunk boat” and it functions in the Greek text as a synonym for the word M. It explains the literal meaning of M, which as discussed, in the text can both be used for the entire fitted vessel and this carved-out tree-trunk boat..

12. Rus fitted this little tree trunk boat with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old logboat(s) Westerdahl [Westerdahl, 2014, pp. 86-88] suggests that the Greek word OKappoc, (“skarmos”) which means “rowlock” is actually the Old Nordic word “skarm” and a term for a washboard. Though not unlikely, this seams an unnecessary notion. Row-locks could very well imply washboards. The argument for the use of a Nordic loan word here is not convincing. In fact, like suggested with the word o^eSia, it might be a Greek loan word..

13. The M was a hybrid of Slavic and Scandinavian technology.

14. Rus had used the M before they acquired them (their new ones) in Kiev.

15. When fitted by the Rus the M was still light enough to be carried on the shoulders by more than one man.

16. At the Dnepr barrages, the M was sometimes dragged through the water without people and only goods inside.

17. Three men were enough to drag and navigate the boat past the barrages along the riverbank.

18. The M should and could pass the seven named barrages south of Kiev (in both Slavic and Old Nordic languages).

19. The M carried goods and people including slaves.

20. Upon arrival at the Black Sea, the M was fitted with a sail, mast and rudder.

21. The sail, mast and rudders were transported in M to the Black Sea.

22. The M was durable for long-distance travel (at least Kiev to Constantinople).

These 22 criteria tell that we should be looking for a vessel known in Old Rus in the Viking age, suitable to fit with rowlocks, based on a vessel dugout from one tree, capable of being carried by a few men, to be dragged through barrages by three men but still with room for goods, slaves and men. These criteria indicate that the M is a logboat, a LB or an ELB. As shown above the technology for both were present in areas (Novgorod and Gnezdovo) mentioned in DAI chapter 9. The ELB is known from Velikiy Novgorod with three finds from the 11^th century and near the route from Kiev close to the river Pripyat with three finds from the 13^th century.

Applying the criteria on these two types, what we know about the present production of logboats and the knowledge of the finds, the ELB must be the boat mentioned in DAI. Especially criteria 7, 8, 12 and 15 shows this.

Criterion 7 (Chapter 9, verses 10-11):

Ot бв ХкМрої, ot пактіштаї аітшу ot Крфграіг^ої Xeyopevoi, кш ot Леу (отг|Уоі каї at Xomat | ХкЛаРг^аі еі; та брг| airav коптоиот та povo^uXa Bv тш тоі xeipwvo; каїрш.

«Their Slav tributaries, the so-called Krivichians and the Lenzanenes and the rest of the Slavonic regions, cut the `monoxyla' on their mountains in time of winter.»

Here, we are told the tree was cut down in winter, which is also the time, when the tree for the ELB was cut down.

Criterion 8 (Chapter 9, verses 11-13):

<…>каї катаpт^ааvте; аіта, тоі каїроі avoiyopcvou, r|v «a біаЛи0г| опауето;, еі; та; n\r|uDv оиоа; Ai|iva; е^adyouотv аіта.

«<…>and when they have prepared them, as spring approaches, and the ice melts, they bring them on to the neighbouring lakes.»

Here, we are told that it takes several months from winter to spring to finish the boats. This is not necessary for a simple LB; however, it is exactly the time of production for an ELB today.

Criterion 12 (Chapter 9, verses 16-19):

Ot бв `Рш; окафнбіа See note 28. каї pova таіта ауораі^те;, та паХаїа airav povo^uXa кaтaЛiovте;, в^ airav pdWoumv пвЛЛа; ^ акарроі; еф аіта каї Лота; xpе^a; віфлЛДоиагу аіта.

«The Russians buy these simple and little dog out tree trunk boats, furnishing them with oars and rowlocks and other tackle from their old `monoxyla, which they dismantle; and so they fit them out.»

According to criterion 12, they fitted the boats with oars and rowlocks. Today this is only known from finds of ELB. The expanded log - boat fitted with rowlocks we know from finds in Scandinavia, England, The Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Estonia, Belarus and Russia [Crumlin-Pedersen, Jensen, 2018, p. 12-15]. Moreover, because of the width needed a simple dugout canoe would need an enormous log to be suitable for rowlocks.

Criterion 15 (Chapter 9, verses 53-57):

ЕТ0 ouxwq ot psv oupovxeq, ot бёкшeR xouq wpouq PaaxdZovxe^ xa airxwv povoi; uAa eR xo xou фрауроиSKet'0ev pspoq 6iaPipdZoumv ^ ouxwq pmxovxei; aUxd eiq xov noxapov ^ xa nexbpsvxa auxwv sppXr|aK6pevoi, eiaspyovxai, Kat au0iq svanonAioumv.

«Then, partly dragging their `monoxyla, partly portaging them on their shoulders, they convey them to the far side of the barrage; and then, putting them on the river and loading up their baggage, they embark themselves, and again sail off in them.»

According to criterion 15, the M could be carried on the shoulders in the fitted versions. This excludes traditional Nordic ships. They weighed far more than would allow them to be carried on the shoulders. It must also be taken into consideration that a LB is heavier than an ELB, which also Crumlin-Pedersen remarks [Crumlin-Pedersen, 1972].

All criteria, including 7, 8, 12 and 15, present strong evidence that the M referred to in DAI was an ELB, which is also given the name omfiSiov (little tree-trunk boat). Nothing in the literary evidence, the finds, and illustrations challenges this argument Concerning the question of how many individuals could be in the Ms including the slaves (that Rus' according to DAI took with them), it is important to underline that DAI does not see this as a problem. The boats which could be carried on the shoulders could also transport slaves. That slaves were transported at the same time is an indication that many boats were used, just as mentioned in DAI and PVL.. Therefore, we must consider this particular Slavic technology as the precondition for Rus' major nautical expeditions to Constantinople. This shared technology is the reason why Scandinavians were able to reach the Christian Metropolis.

This evidence with its importance of Slavic boatbuilders and Slavic tribes for Rus' (Scandinavian) ambition to reach Constantinople offers an explanation why Slavs rather early became significant and numerous members of Rus As discussed above, in Chapter 2 and according to sources, there is little doubt that Rus was a mixed ethnic group in 907 and 941.. By virtue of their nautical technology Slavs became Rus. PVL claims that the Slavic people took the name Rus from Scandinavians. The proof of the Slav nautical importance for the Rus allows us to suggest that Slavs, as boatbuilding communities living in settlements along the rivers, identified with the Scandinavian seafarers and vice versa. Scandinavians appreciated their (the Slavic tribes) craft and invited them to take part in their expeditions. Over time, the Slavs as the vast majority in Old Rus not only adopted and embraced the maritime Rus' identity and the name Rus. They shaped it. Figuratively spoken, it can be argued that the Slavs during 10 ^th century formed the core of Rus' identity just as they shaped the basic element of Rus' boats. This identity came to unite the many different Slavic tribes. It is likely that a new Slavic Rus' identity developed. It subdued the former Scandinavian, which was forgotten and no longer used by the Scandinavians themselves The focus of identity might keep the latent controversy of Normanism versus Anti-Normanism discussed by many [Lebedev, 2005a; Melnikova, 2012] at bay..

In 2019, this author discovered the production of the ELB in Russia. Uniquely, 2,000 years after the oldest finds of an ELB in Scandinavia Rieck, Crumlin-Pedersen, 1988, pp. 79-90., this boat type is still made around 60 km from the Volga's confluence with the river Oka in the village of Aristovo (see Fig. 1). As mentioned above, local people call this ELB ботник. Normally experimental studies of vessels rely on reconstructions. This unique find without precedence made it possible to study the living boatbuilding tradition of the ELB This field study was made possible with the help from Mikhail Sergievich Napy- lov, Vladimir Prokhorov, Jury Nemtsov and Nikolai Fjordovich..