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

Due to Covid-19 the ELB ended up being stored for one year after its production before its actual use. In May 2020, it was painted with tar inside and on the hull for the first time. It was painted a second and third time on the hull in June and August 2021, some weeks before departure. The ELB weighed c. 40 kg at the beginning and 46 kg after 50 days in water, approximately 10 h a day.

The expedition began on August 6, 2021 in Staraja Ladoga by the old natural harbor used in the Viking Age. It ended on September 25 in Astrakhan by the Caspian Sea.

The ELB was not fitted with rowlocks as mentioned in DAI, and it was rowed by only one man If the actual ELB were to be fitted as indicated in DAI with rowlocks, sail and rudder, it would be possible to obtain more knowledge about this boat type and there-by the travels to the East in the Viking Age..

For a period of 50 days (see Table 1), the boat was rowed nearly 2000 km, in high winds up to 13 m/s, waves up to 1 m and, for shorter distances against a current up to 3.5 kn. It was dragged against the current, when the current was higher than 3.5 knots. This was the case for the first part of the route. Therefore, more time was needed for this part (see Table 1).

During the night, the boat was carefully dragged on land. Besides the weight of an approximately 80 kg man, the equipment, including water up to 20 L, was around 40 kg. Under optimal conditions, it could manage a distance up to 75 km during 10 h of constant rowing. The ELB was painted with tar two times on the hull during the expedition.

The ELB performed very well in the different types of water on this route. It is a very light and stable boat, which sits well on waves and is easy to navigate and steer. The traditional tar coating preserved the boat well though it had to be painted a third time on the hull after 20 days on the water. The hull was able to withstand rocks and stones. During the expedition, evidence of similar boats were found along the ancient route to the Caspian Sea, more precisely in Somina, Gorodets, Nizhny Novgorod, Kazan and Bolgar.

Nautical insights to religious exchange and transition

The field study supports and elaborates the analysis of DAI. Thereby, the value of DAI as an accurate historical text with first-hand witnesses is emphasized This qualifies the other historical information in DAI about this period. The historical value of DAI is underlined.. Most importantly, the field study together with the analysis of DAI, presents new insights concerning the production of the ELB, the use of the ELB and information about the exposure to Christianity within this period.

The performance of the ELB in the unfitted version

The test (Table 1) of the ELB confirmed that these boats, as argued in DAI, could travel long distances to Constantinople. These boats could be dragged through difficult waters with boulders, bending riverbeds and strong currents. They could be carried on shoulders if necessary. Thereby, not only are DAI's claims about the fitted ELB proved, but more knowledge about their performance has been acquired. This shared technology made large-scale expeditions possible against the current on the Volkov and Lo - vat and the passing of the barrages on Dnepr all the way to Constantinople.

The production of the ELB and its consequences

Concerning the production of the ELB, we must imagine a boatbuilding process somewhat similar to that of the field study. This was the situation in many places in Old Rus during the Viking Age, as mentioned in DAI. Scandinavians at some point found out that they could use this technology Westerdahl [Westerdahl, 2014, p. 85] proposes with reference to DAI that Rus dur-ing winter took part in the production and maybe even controlled it. This seems likely.. This set the scene for the exchange of skills and cooperation. It was, as discussed in the analysis of DAI, most likely conducive to the development of the Rus as a mixed Slavic-Scandinavian group. Rus, as a group, were especially bound together by nautical skills and sailing as their means of transport, namely nautical skills from the sea and long-distance travels (Scandinavians) on the one side, and abundant Slavic boatbuilding skills of the ELB used on shorter distances and local knowledge of the geography on the other side. While the Scandinavian expeditions to the west were characterized by the fact that they could use their own vessels and technology all the way, Scandinavians in the east were forced to cooperate with native boatbuilders. In the early Viking Age, Scandinavians arriving in England were seen as a threat [Timofeeva, 2016]. In the east, the story turned out differently It is the subject for another study, to compare the Scandinavian appearance in the West as described by Timofeeva with the appearance in the east during the Viking Age.. Scandinavians needed assistance and could not be indiscriminately aggressive toward the local population.

The question of production-numbers

The study of the building process gives a profound understanding of how the vessels of DAI were actually constructed. In addition, it indicates how many ELBs could be produced at a time. PVL state that a great number of vessels were used by Rus in 860 (200), 907 (2,000) and 941 (10,000). The exact numbers for the year 860 are supported by another Byzantine source See: [Anecdota Bruxellensia, 1984, p. 33]. It is likely that this source were known to the writers of PVL.. However, in the Byzantine chronicle of Georgius Monachus the numbers of vessels are not mentioned. Instead, the chronicle as an indication of their numbers, state that the Rus surrounded Constantinople in their vessels. They spread great fear until the emperor took action and the Rus by divine intervention were defeated. The many vessels of the Rus sank [Georgius Monachus, Tomos 4, p. 161-167] It is widely acknowledged that PVL used The Chronicle of Georgius Monachus [PVL, 1953, p. 23-24]. In the text of PVL, it twice refers to this chronicle.. The magnitude of the attacking fleet in 860 is also indicated in the homilies of Photius [The homilies of Photius, 2018, p. 82-110]. The numbers for 907 are not known from other sources. Luidprand of Cremona writes concerning the attack in 941 «These people [Rus] had a king named Igor, who got together a fleet of a thousand ships or more, and sailed to Constantinople» [The works of Luidprand of Cremona, 1930, p. 185]. The chronicle of Georgius Monachus supports this. Here it is mentioned that the Rus came in thousands of vessels: «lowly Ss pqvl ta' rnTsnXevoav oi 'Pwq ката KwvoTavTivovnoXswq pern nXoirn

XthaSec,»/ «In the month of June the Russians came sailing down to Constantinople in thousands of vessels.» [Georgius Monachus, Tomos 4, p. 1001] Ibid.. In DAI, there is no mention of how many boats were made. There are, however, indications that it was a large number, somewhat comparable to the numbers mentioned in PVL and the other sources.

The field study, to some extent, supports PVL and these sources. The fact that the boatbuilder with his neighbor in Aristovo made three boats in one winter, allows us to argue that 100 boatbuilders in the Viking Age could make approximately 150 boats within a season, provided there was enough wood available This author in 2022 found unverified evidence that an Estonian boat builder made 30 ELBs in one season. It was supposedly his record.. Moreover, according to DAI, all the Slavic tribes in Old Rus, five of which are named in DAI [DAI, 1985, p. 57, 62], built the ELB for Rus. In PVL [PVL, 1953, p. 37], eight Slavic tribes are listed. If each of them had allocated 100 boatbuilders and had 150 logs at their disposal, it is possible that 1,000 ELB's could be produced. Moreover, if taken literally, the numbers 2,000 and 10,000 (PVL) must be seen in light of the fact that not only new vessels were used. The ELB could last more than one season. The boatbuilder Mikhail Sergeevich Napylov tells that if taken care of, the ELB could last up to 50 years. The number of vessels mentioned in PVL is additionally supported by the verification of the boat type (ELB) in the analysis and the field study. They were comparatively small boats. Therefore, many of these vessels, likely more than 1,000, were needed to transport the military campaign strategically necessary to attack Constantinople. Moreover, in DAI we are told that the M (ELB) came from five places and gathered in Kiev. These places were populated centers in Old Rus. They were clan centers with their own leadership and DAI as well as Luidprand of Cremona [The works of Luidprand of Cremona, 1930, p. 185] suggest that all these clans gathered forces in order to attack Constantinople. In comparison, The Chronicle of Novgorod, as mentioned above (Chapter 2), tells that 4,000 men (3,000 Slavs and 1,000 Varangians) in 1016 went from one of these five places (Novgorod) to Kiev.

Taken together, it is plausible that a great number, more than 1,000, of new and old ELBs sailed to Constantinople. It supports the claim in PVL that a considerable number of Scandinavians and Slavs reached Constantinople in 860, 907 and 941.

The magnitude of the exposure to the Eastern Roman Empire

That great numbers of Rus reached Constantinople implies and verifies the information that many Rus were exposed to Christianity in Constantinople. One source tells that Rus, after their defeat in 860, asked the Patriarch Photius to send a bishop See: [Theophanes Continuatus, 1838, p. 196]. This is corroborated by Photius himself, who writes that he sent a bishop [Photii Patriarchae Constantinopolitani Epistulae et Amphilochia, 1983, p. 50]., which he did and a few years later, supposedly, an archbishop was sent with many gifts and performed a miracle with the use of fire that convinced the Rus See: [Theophanes Continuatus, 1838, pp. 342-343]..

The actual influence of this early Christianisation of the Rus and Old Rus territory caused by the Rus' arrival in Constantinople has been debated and questioned, by several scholars [Shepard, 2009]. However, the proof of the magnitude of these expeditions leaves no doubt that a massive exposure of Rus to Eastern Roman Christianity was the case since 860. From that time on, a period of religious and ideological transition began, until the final adoption of Christianity in both Scandinavia and Old Rus.

Since the late 9^th century, a Byzantine sea (an appointed bishop) existed in Old Rus. Moreover, after the Rus' attack on Constantinople in 907 the peace treaty of year 912 mentions Rus in the service of the emperor [PVL, 1953, p. 43], which is corroborated by Byzantine sources telling that no less than 700 Rus in 911 were part of the Byzantine ma - rine Luidprand of Cremona mentions a similar use of Rus c. 960 [The works of Lu- idprand of Cremona, 1930, p. 252].. This implied loyalty to the Christian emperor, though it is questionable if that included baptism for all of them. As opposed to service at the imperial palace according to DCB, there is no proof that this military service entailed baptism.

From the beginning of the 10^th century, Rus' exposure to Eastern Roman Christianity had intensified. In 945, PVL tells that many Christian Varangians resided in Kiev and that there was a church there [PVL, 1953, p. 55]. The peace treaty from the same year mentions many Christian Rus' [PVL, 1953, pp. 50-51]. According to the names in this treaty, some of them were of Scandinavian descent. Furthermore, as mentioned above, DCB tells that baptized Rus served at the Imperial Palace in Constantinople [DCB, 2014, p. 579]. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that a considerable number of the Rus were baptized in Constantinople as a consequence of this massive exposure.

The first major elite Scandinavian conversion

It is likely that a Scandinavian Christian community of practice came into existence in Old Rus and Constantinople This is to some extent, supported by the Danish scholar John Lind who has advocated for a Varangian Christianity [Lind, 2017]., and this suggests that the first major conversion of the Scandinavian elite took place abroad in Constantinople How this new religion manifested itself among the Scandinavians is outside the main scope of this paper. It is however likely, that elements of old Scandinavian cus-toms and rituals remained.. This hypothesis of a Scandinavian Christian community abroad is supported by an anecdote in Gesta Danorum by Saxo Grammaticus. The Danish king Erik Ejegod in Constantinople c. 1100 met a military unit of Danes in the service of the emperor (as Varangians). He conversed with them, in his mother tongue and praised them for their service over the generations. He told them that, if they returned home, they would be rewarded well [Gesta Danorum, XII, 7.2].

Christianisation of Scandinavians in the east was part of the Christianisation of Rus and Old Rus

For Scandinavians the exposure to Christianity in Constantinople was intertwined with the similar exposure of Old Rus' elite society. Before the first Scandinavian king adopted Christianity, this resulted in the baptism of Princess Olga in 955 [DCB, 2014, p. 594-598]. She was baptized in Constantinople most likely together with her retinue of Rus' elite, and the emperor himself, Constantine VII, was her godfather. This indicates that the Byzantines and the Eastern Roman emperor considered Olga the head of the Old Russian State. It is likely that a rather large number in her retinue was baptized. This was the case more than a century before in 826 when the Danish king Harald Klak was baptized in Ingelheim in the presence of the West Roman Emperor Luis the Pious.

A few years after her baptism in 960 the Rus and most likely Olga requested a bishop from the Western Roman Emperor Otto I [Annal - es Hildesheimenses, p. 60]. In the period of religious transition when Christianity was adopted in Scandinavia, it is important to take into consideration the possible influence of this eastern exposure to Christianity. Moreover, this influence was part of the Christianisation process of Old Rus and the Rus (as groups of different ethnicities).

The ability to combine Scandinavian nautical technology with Slavic technology gave access to the Christian World in the east. The existence of compatible Slavic technology was a precondition for the eastern exploits, and it set the scene for exchange.

The Slavic boat ботникis the actual basis of the fitted boat of the Rus mentioned in DAI as the ^ovo^vXoq and most likely in PVL as the скедия. This ELB, which is uniquely preserved in a living boat-building tradition in Russia, made it possible for the Scandinavians and the Slavs, to move further and further south along the rivers in great numbers in spite of the fact that the routes from the north at Staraja Ladoga did not allow big ships.

To move along the rivers in the east, Scandinavians needed skilled boatbuilders among them and it opened up a transfer of skills and a close relation with the Slavs. It was only a question of time before Rus, as a term for the people arriving by sea in the early Viking Age, was used as a name for the numerous Slavs living along the rivers, making the ELBs and taking part in the expeditions. At some point, the tables turned and the Slav Rus' were the ones to invite Scandinavians to join. By virtue of their nautical technology Slavs became Rus.

Even though adventurous Scandinavians might have instigated the travels to the east, these expeditions to the east in the Viking Age were, by their nature, voyages of exchange and were likely to result in friendships being formed between the ethnicities instead of animosity. A bilingual community of practice appeared. For Scandinavians, the territory of Old Rus was not only a place with conflict. Over time, it also became a place of assimilation and integration somewhat different from their western destinations.

The shared technology made it possible for Scandinavians in large numbers to meet the Eastern Christian Empire in Constantinople during the Viking Age. This confrontation was nothing short of a massive exposure to a new religion dressed up in imperial ideology, architecture and grandeur. Years before their kings, adopted Christianity, this exposure of the Scandinavian travellers, as an ethnic group was part of the larger mixed group, the Rus. During the campaigns of 860, 907 and 941 several thousand Rus reached Constantinople by sea. In Old Rus, the consequences of that culminated in year 988 when Grand Prince Vladimir adopted Christianity. However, decades before and earlier than the baptism of Princess Olga in 955, elite Rus, and thus elite Scandinavians, became Christians in the East.

While some Scandinavians stayed in Constantinople and others settled in Old Rus, some returned to their homeland, made rich by their exploits and as now baptized with gifts from the emperor. In narratives about their exploits abroad they took home with them the impressive idea of a powerful Christian empire, Byzantian style. It is difficult not to imagine that these highly respected returnees facilitated the religious transition in Scandinavia, which in Denmark culminated in 965.

This particular eastern influence of Scandinavia was part of a larger transition in Old Rus, and Scandinavian kings, like Constantine and Charlemagne centuries before them, understood that the new religion they met abroad was a powerful tool in their hands. It was in their interest, and a great honor as appointed by their new triune god, to adopt Christianity.

The analysis and field study presented in this paper have provided several new insights. However, the matter need to be further explored by new field studies within the framework envisioned by the Russian scholar Gleb Lebedev that «the time has come to examine the ancient water-route with pre-sailing boats powered exclusively by oars» [Lebedev, 2005b, p. 384]. The unique evidence of the Viking Age boat omfiSiov and present-day Russian ботникraises new questions. Just as it tells the story of how Scandinavians together with Slavs met the Christian culture abroad in great numbers, it might tell a far older but somewhat similar story of how culture moved north from the east before Christianity appeared as a new religion One question is whether the ELB was brought from present-day Russia to the North where it became part of the development of the Viking ship in the late Iron age as suggested by Crumlin-Pedersen [Rieck, Crumlin-Pedersen, 1988, p. 92] and Von de Moortel [Von de Moortel, 2009]. Did Scandinavians, when they more than 2000 years later returned to Russia in the Viking Age, find this technology preserved in the old form, with which they were somehow familiar? This author wishes to use the ELB of the field study to explorer that hypothesis in 2022..

References

1. Crumlin-Pedersen O. Skin or wood? A study of the origin of the Scandinavian plank-boat. Ships and shipyards, sailors and fishermen, ed. O. Hasslof, H. Hen - ningsen, A.E. Christensen. Copenhagen, 1972. P. 208-234.

2. Crumlin-Pedersen O. Badgrave og gravbade pa Slusegard. Slusegardgravplad - sen III, 1978. P. 97-241.

3. Crumlin-Pedersen O. Marinark^ologisk Forskingscenter i Roskilde - en aktuel orientering. Fortid ogNutid, marts 1994. S. 24-52.

4. Crumlin-Pedersen O., Jensen H. Udspxndte bade fra vikingetid og jernalder. Ros - kilde: Vikingeskibsmuseet i Roskilde, 2018. 99 s.

5. Edberg R. En Vikingafard Genom Ryssland og Ukraina: Ett arkeologiskt eventyr. Sigtuna: Vikingabatsforeningen Aifur och Sigtuna Museer, 1998. 96 s.

6. Edberg R. Vikingar i osterled: Gamla batar och moderna fardexperiment. Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet, 2017. 63 s.

7. Fabricius L.P. Danmarks kirkehistorie. Kobenhavn: Lohse, 1934. 1096 s.

8. Filippov J.V. Nizhny Novgorod one-tree boat - kerzhensky botnik. 2020. Available at: http://cr-journal.ru/rus/journals/513.html&j_id=44 (accessed:

9. 22.10.2021). (In Russian)

10. Foote P., Wilson D.M. The Viking Achievement. London: Book Club Associates, 1974. 473 p.

11. Frank T. Min vej til vikingernes Byzans. Kobenhavn: Kristeligt Dagblads Forlag, 2018. 364 s.

12. Frank T. Rediscovering Russian-Scandinavian relations: The role of medieval Russian waterways. Scandinavian Philology, 18 (2), 2020. P. 409-427.

13. Franklin S., Shepard J. The emergence of Rus: 750-1200. London: Longman, 1996. 450 p.

14. Harri L. On the diffusion of the bark canoes, skin boats and expanded log boats in the Eurasian North. A Circumpolar Reappraisal: The Legacy of Gutorm Gjess - ing (1906-1979), ed. C. Westerdahl. Trondheim, 2010. P. 189-217.

15. Hvass S. Jelling-Monumenterne - deres historie og bevaring. Kulturarvsstyrelsen, 2011. 91 s.

16. Jackson T.N. Eastern Europe in Icelandic Sagas. Leeds: Arc Humanities Press, 2019. 216 p.

17. Jesch J. Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse. Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2001. 330 p.

18. Kainof C.J. The Gniezdov archaeological complex. Materials and research. Iss. 1. Moscow: Proceedings of the State Historical Museum, 2018. 552 p. (In Russian)

19. Kainof C.J. The Gniezdov archaeological complex. Materials and research. Iss. 2. Moscow: Proceedings of the State Historical Museum, 2021. 472 p. (In Russian)

20. Keerdo J. Haabjaehituse teoreetilised pohimotted ja praktilised lahendused. 2011. Available at: https://haabjas.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/2011-jaan-keerdo - magistritc3b6c3b6 (accessed: 02.01.2022).

21. Koch H., Kornerup B. Den danske kirkes historie I. Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 1950. 419 s.

22. Koch H. Danmarks kirkegennem tiden. Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 1967. 247 s.

23. Kochkurkina S.I. The 10^th - early 11^th century artifacts in Karelia and in the South-Eastern Ladoga Region: Ethnocultural aspect. Archeology, 171 (2), 2018. P. 7-15. (In Russian)

24. Kochkurkina S.I. Monuments of the South-Eastern Ladoga and Prionezhie. Petrozavodsk: Karelia, 1989. 348 p. (In Russian)

25. Lausten M.S. Danmarks kirkehistorie. Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 1989. 352 s.

26. Lebedev G.S., Zhvitashvili I.B. Dragon Nebo: on the Way from the Varangians to the Greeks. Archaeological and navigational research of ancient water communications between the Baltic and the Mediterranean. St Petersburg: Nordmed Publ., 1999. 196 p. (In Russian)

27. Lebedev G.S. From the Varangians to the Greeks under sail and oars. 1996. Available at: https://norroen.info/articles/lebedev/nevo.html (accessed: 23.08.2020) (In Russian)

28. Lebedev G.S. Reassessment of the Normanist Question. Russian History, 32. 2005a. P. 371-385.

29. Lebedev G.S. The era of the Vikings in Northern Europe and Russia. St Petersburg, 2005b. 640 p. (In Russian)

30. Lind J.H. Varangian Christianity' and the Veneration of Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian Saints in Early Rus. Identity Formation and Diversity in the Early Medieval Baltic and Beyond: Communicators and Communication, ed. J. Callmer, I. Gustin and M. Roslund. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2017. P. 107-135.

31. Makarov N.A. Die Rus' im 9. - 10 - Jahrhundert: Ein arch.ologisches Panorama. Mainz: Wachholtz Murmann Publishers, 2017. 541 s.

32. McGuire B.P. Da himmelen kom nxrmere: Fortellinger om Danmarks Kristning 700-1300. Frederiksberg: Alfa, 2009. 262 s.

33. Melnikova E. The `Varangian Problem': Science in the Grip of Ideology and Politics. Russia's Identity in International Relations: Images, Perceptions, Misperceptions, ed. R. Taras. Abingdon: Routledge, 2012, pp. 42-52.

34. Moravcsik G. Critical Introduction. Constantine Porphyrogenitos, De Administ - rando Imperio, vol. 1, ed. by R.G.H. Jenkins, G. Moravcsik. Washington, 1967. P. 15-39.

35. Murasheva V., Malysheva N. Finds of Wooden Ship Parts at Gnezdovo, Interak - tion ohne Grenzen: Beispiele archaologischer Forschungen am Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts, ed. by B.V. Eriksen, A. Abegg-Wigg, R. Bleile, U. Ickerodt. Schleswig: Archaologisches Landesamt Schleswig-Holstein, 2017. P. 671-682.

36. Nyberg T. Danmarks kristning - fra Ansgar til Erik Ejegod. Kristningen af Nor - den - et 1000-ars jubil.um., ed. by L. Bisgaard, R.S. Christensen. Odense: Syddansk Universitet, 2002. S. 37-57.

37. Nylen E. The Krampmacken Project. Sailing into the past, ed. by O. Crumlin-Pe - dersen, M. Vinner. Roskilde: Vikingeskibsmuseet i Roskilde, 1986. P. 104-113.

38. Okorokova A.B. Traditional shipbuilding as part of the cultural heritage of the peoples of Russia. Moscow: Institut Naslediia Publ., 2021. 558 p. (In Russian)

39. Parts P.-K. A brief manual for building an Estonian dugout canoe. Studying Estonian heritage craft technologies: best of Studia Vernacula 2013-2019, 11, 2019. P. 190-199.

40. Ravn M. Viking-age War Fleets: Shipbuilding, resource, management and maritime warfare in 11th-century Denmark, Viking Ship Museum Roskilde, 2016.

41. 161 p.

42. Rieck F., Crumlin-Pedersen O. Bade fra Danmarks Oldtid. Roskilde: Vikingeskibsmuseet i Roskilde, 1988. 180 s.

43. Roesdahl E. Vikingernes verden. Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 1993. 335 s.

44. Rydzevskaya E.A. Information about Old Ladoga in Old Norse Literature. KSIIMK, 11, 1945. P. 51-65. (In Russian)

45. Sawyer P. Da Danmark blev Danmark: 700-1050. Gyldendal og Politikens Dan - markshistorie, vol. 3. Ed. O. Olsen. Kobenhavn: Gyldendal, 1988. 376 s.

46. Shchavelev A.S. Treatise De Administrando Imperio by Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus: Date of the Paris. GR. 2009 Copy, Years of Compiling of the Original Codex, and a Hypothesis about the number of Authors. Studia Gera - nea, 9, 2019. P. 681-704.

47. Sevcenko I. Re-reading Constantine Porphyrogenitus. Byzantine Diplomacy, ed. by J. Shepard, S. Franklin. London, 1992. P. 167-195.

48. Shepard J. The coming of Christianity to Rus: Authorized and unauthorized versions. Conversion to Christianity from Late Antiquity to Modern Age: Considering the Proces in Europe, Asia, and the Americas, ed. by C.B. Kendall, O. Nicholson, W.D. Phillips, Jr., M. Ragnow. Minnesota: University of Minnesota, 2009. P. 185-222.

49. Sorokin P. Waterway from Varangians to the Greeks: Some results of experimental study on Medieval navigation. Between continents: Proceedings of the twelfth symposium on boat and ship archeology, ed. by N. Gunsenin. Istanbul: Offprint, 2012. P. 279-286.

50. Sorokin P. Waterways and Shipbuilding in North-western Russia in the Middle Ages, 2002. Available at: https://dengelen.com/~m10354/mar/rus-ship.htm (accessed: 27.08.2020).

51. Sorokin P. Viking boats in Medieval Russia from written and archeological evidence. Archaeonautica, 21, 2021. P. 371-375.

52. Sorokin P. The boats from graves on the Territory of Old Russia. Stratum plus, 5, 2018. P. 235-250.

53. Stalsberg A. Scandinavian Viking age boat graves in Old Rus. Russian History, 28 (1), 2001. P. 359-401.

54. Svane G.O. Nestors kronike. Aarhus: Vormianum, 1983. 325 s.

55. Timofeeva O. The Viking outgroup in early medieval English chronicles. Journal of Historical Sociolinguistics, 2 (1), 2016. P. 83-121.

56. Van de Moortel A. The Utrecht ship type. Between the seas: transfer and exchange of the eleventh international symposium on boat and ship archeology. Mainz, 2009. P. 329-336.

57. Van de Moortel A. Medieval boats and ships of Germany, the Low Countries, and northeast France - archeological evidence for shipbuilding traditions, shipbuilding resources, trade, and communication. Siedlungs - und Ktistenforsc - hung im stidlichen Nordseegebiet (SKN), 34, Rahden; Westf, 2011. P. 67-104.

58. Voronin H.H., Kapger M.K., Tikhanova M.A. Istoriia kultury Drevnei Rusi. Vol. 1. 1951. 501 p. (In Russian)

59. Westerdahl C. Boats, Portages and Texts. Comments on society and water transport in inland Rusia during the Viking Age. Norsk Maritimt Museum. Arsbok, 2014. P. 71-109.

60. Widerberg L. Med Fornkare genom Ryssland 2013. SigtunaDei, 2014. S. 82-87.

Размещено на Allbest.ru