8. Maritime contacts across the Baltic Sea during the Roman and Migration Periods (1st— 7th centuries AD) in the light of archaeological sources from the central-European perspective Bartosz Kontny This issue has been discussed several times by scholars, but usually without taking into consideration the means of transport.' Moreover some new finds, particularly weapons, and their interpretation, may shed a new light on the matter, So far too a northerly oriented perspective has generally been presented, so itis my intention to make this view more complex. ‘The cultural situation In the Early Roman Period (first-mid second centuries AD) the southem Baltic littoral was occupied by the Wielbark Culture (identified with, amongst others, the Goths and Gepids). Its origins are linked with the local, Oksywie-culture people and the Scandinavians who Settled there from the north across the sea and occupied the limited and previously unsettled lands in Central Pomerania, This changed the cultural profile entirely: cremation graves with weapons were superseded by both inhumation and eremation burials. richly equipped in the case of female interment weapons are lacking (Cieslinski 2016, with refs.: Koniny 2019a, 69-113). To the east were the Balts, with the West Balt circle as their archacological counterpart (Bitner-Wroblewska and Rzeszotarska- Nowakiewicz 2016, with refs.) Their cultural position separates them from the main trends of central- and northem-European Barbaricum but such impact may still be traced. In the Younger and Late Roman Periods (late second-fourth centuries) the situation changed because of the putative Gothic migration to the south- east resulting in a change of the Wielbark Culture area (Andrzejowski 2019, with refs.) and the appearance of the Gothic cultural units such as the Santana de Mures and Chemnyakhov Cultures in the newly colonized areas (Kokowski 2010, with further reading) At the tum of the Roman and Migration Periods and at the beginning of the Early Migration Period (late fourth century and early Sth century) one may obseve the gradual “Baltization’ of the Wielbark-culture areas in northern Poland. This may be explained by the movements of groups searching for new contacts with the population that had not abandoned the area and living in settlement clusters, especially promising amongst which were those with good prospects for tradingcentres, inter alia natural harbours. That military ‘men formed an essential core of the migrant groups is apparently implied by their possible participation in raids aimed at distant areas, even using boats (see the Balt finds from Scandinavian military votive sites but also the weapon graves from the earliest stage of the Balt migration along the shores of the Vistula Bay Kontny 2020). The process resulted in the formation of anew cultural unit: the Elblag group. Balts were not its ‘only members. The survival of earlier groups of people of Germanic character (originating from the Wielbark Culture) is confirmed by the finds of Byzantine solidi and hoards such as that from Frombork which included items meeting the wants of both the Balts and Germanic folk. Cultural elements characteristic of both identities were found in the early cemeteries 103Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Fig. 1 Expanded logboats: 1 ‘grave no 10724) before and: Pedersen 1991) and the long-lasting lack of weapons graves persisted through to the final stage (the legacy of the Wielbark- culture population). It may therefore be concluded that a society of mixed Balto-Germanic ethnic character emerged there, resembling the Fidivarii mentioned by Jordanes (Getica V, 36; XVII. 96). The reappearance of deposits of weaponry at the turn of the sixth century ‘may possibly be linked with a second wave of settlers from the Sambian Peninsula. Apart from the Balts and -6 end forms from Slusegird boats; 7 perspective reconstruction of Slusegdrd hoat size 1 (based on grave no 1131) before and aftr expansion: 8 perspective reconstruction of Slusegird boat size 2 (based on after expansion (all after Crumlin. the residual post-Wielbark-culture population, one can posit that other, smaller groups, coming from the west also participated in the creation of the Elblag group The premises for such an assumption may be found in the early forms of westem-type brooches (Kontny 2020, 676-83), and this would imply that the cultural cocktail of the Vidivarif additionally included unknown Germanic folk from the west or south-west. The Scandinavian imports from the second half of the sixth 104to early seventh centuries document not Scandinavian settlement but quite intensive cultural contacts with Scandinavia and toa lesser extent with the Merovingian circle too, conceiveably linked with the emergence o! central place at proto-Truso (Kontny 2020). Further territories of the former Wielbark Culture and also Przeworsk-culture areas to the south were depopulated before the mid-fifth century but not entirely. We are now aware that settlement survived ‘on a much reduced scale in some regions nonetheless, probably until the coming of the Slavs: for instance in Kuyavia (Kontny and Rudnicki 2020; Rudnicki and Rudnicki 2020) but probably also in the other of contemporary Poland (see Bursche, Hines Zapolska eds. 2020). Means of transportation — logboats Boats and their fragments are among the rarest finds in the archaeological record. Theoretically one cannot exclude the possible use of the bark and skin boats {which survive badly in archaeological contexts) even uring the Roman Period (see Indruszewski 2005, 12) although there are no firm bases for such a hypothesis, However, evidence of wooden vessels has survived in sufficient quantity to reconstruct their development, at least in part The best known examples include expanded logboats excavated mostly in northem European cemeteries, swith the most impressive series of 43 vessels or large fragments thereof from Slusegérd on Bornholm (Fig. 1), dated from the first to the fourth century AD (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991; 2010, 150-3), There are various ideas concerning the meaning of boat burial, but the most probable explanation is that they reflected she priesthood of a fertility cult, maybe related to the Njorar/Freyr cult known from later sources (@ cult of the daily and annual circle of nature, including uman life and death, worshipped by both sexes, sich and poor, via pagan priests — godar); i.e. they scem to represent Freyr’s “best-of-ships’ Skidbladnir (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 220-2, 258-9; 2010, 153-7). The wood had rotted away but traces of it survived in the form of discoloration or remains of caulking? There are more such boat-graves on Bornholm and Sjelland, in Skine and in northern Jutland (for the fall list see Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, Appendix Il, supplemented by Natuniewicz-Sekula and Rein- Seehusen 2010, 308-10, fig. 4). They have been 105 Maritime Contacts across the Baltic identified also in the southern Baltic littoral, namely, in the Wielbark Culture (Fig. 2:1, 2), with 13 examples from the most prominent cemetery at Weklice, Elblag district (Natuniewicz-Sekula and Rein-Seehusen 2010, 298-308, fig. 6); among other Polish finds fone may mention Ulkowy, Gdatisk district, grave 41 (Tuszyfiska 2005, 22, pl. XIX:41), and Linowo, pow. Grudziadz, grave 159 (Kurzyfiska 2015, 51, pl. XLVI, XLVIIE3), although the interpretation of these as boat-graves can raise doubts; further ‘boat-coffins” are rather a product of wishful thinking (see Natuniewiez~ Sekula and Rein-Seehusen 2010, 306-8, fig. 4). The ifficulties of interpretation are due to the fact that these features were explored without the use of special techniques that would allow the reconstruction of the craft (Ossowski 2003, 180). All in all it is obvious that expanded logboats were in use on both sides of the Baltic Sea. Repairs and surface treatment documented in specific cases (for Slusegard, see Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 177, 253, figs. 26-8) prove that we are dealing with full-featured vessels which were sometimes used ‘over quite a long period. Expanded dugouts had to be strengthened with wooden ribs secured by pegs as, due to ‘tissue-memory’, there was a tendency towards the folding of boat sides. Customarily such frames are absent in graves as they had been dismantled before placing the bodies inside the hull, to make space both for the deceased and for grave goods (Ossowski 2003, 180), except for grave 846 at Slusegard (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 182, 254, fig. 47). But one may be sure that these ribs were used, since the cross-sections of the boat graves frequently show incurved gunwales (Fig. 1:7, 8), which was noticed both at Slusegird (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 254, figs. 95-7) and Weklice (Ossowski 2003, 178-9, fig. 27.3: 2010, 29-30, fig. 14), However, there are also artificially expanded logboats of the Roman Period found in other, watery contexts (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, Appendix II, e.g. the Vaale bog, Kr. Steinburg (Fig. 3), with radiocarbon dating of cal AD 120-250 (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 241, fig. 118; 2003, 222, fig, 6.17, tab. 6.2); Leck, Ldkr. Friesland (Fig. 4), 1790444 BPical AD 220-330 (Hirte 1989; Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 241, fig. 119); Egernsund, Haderslev kommune, cal AD 20-210 AD and cal AD 35-130 AD (Crumlin- Pedersen 1991, 241), where frames survived in their original positions. In the case of the craft from Vaale, single strakes were additionally fixed with wooden (Bockius 2013, 226, fig. 5)Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea | aehival finds 1 uncertain fs 2 Fig. 2. Expanded logboats: 1 distribution in the Baltic Sea (after Natuniewice-Sekula and Rein-Seehusen 2010) 2 Wellice, grave 481/484 (photo B. Kontny); 3 Hedegind, grave A3725 (afer Madsen 1999). 106The original sizes of known Roman-period logboats differ. At Slusegard, two sizes were recognized (Fig 1:7, & 5:1): a short, tubby boat 3 m long, and longer slender ones about 5 m in length (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 173-4, 183-8, 252, tabs. 1-2, 4), The same holds for the craft from Weklice (Ossowski 2003, 180). However, the boats from Vale, Leck and Egemsund are much longer, measuring c. 12 m, and similar forms survived also at Slusegard (type 3) but only partly so that one has to deduce their size from their significant ‘width, reaching 1 m (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 175, 259, table 3). The expanded logboats had a variety of prow and stern forms. The ends (Fig. 1:1-6) were generally undercut with or without a beak or ‘skeg’ Coeard’) (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 170, 252-3, fig 91) itis assumed that logboats were propelled with single for double paddles or short oars (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 192-196, 255) but there are no rowlocks on any of the boats so the latter option seems less probable. There are ethnographic data showing double paddles used with expanded boats, for instance in Finland, but so far none of these have been dated to the Roman Period (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 255, fig. 191), which makes paddling the most plausible option (Fig, 5). The estimated crew comprised 1-2 men with a corresponding burden of goods and gear in the case of 3-m boats. The 5-m ones could carry 2-3 persons with ‘scar (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 193-196, 255, figs 103 105) and the 10-m craft, some more (for Vallermoor the estimated crew equals 10 paddlers, see Crumlin- Pedersen 2003a, tab. 6.3). Careful production might suggest that that expanded Jogboats of different lengths were made for special purposes. They were wider and more stable than formal dugouts, however, they were definitely not able to endure rough sea and bad weather conditions snd were intended rather for inland waters, silent bays astland waters. It must be noted that there are able rivers on Bomholm so the Slusegird boats must have been used to a short distance from he shore (Crumlin-Pedersen 2003a, 221-2, 255) while their lightness and end-shapes made them suitable for landing in the shallow waters, The beak served as a convenient hold and the skeg was good Sor stabilization with a stern load. The vessels from ‘Weklice most probably sailed on the quiet waters of ‘ee Vistula Lagoon (German, Frisches Haff) which seached much farther than today, close to the cemetery Maritime Contacts across the Batic itself (see Kasprzycka 1999), They may have been used for fishing, or could have been ships’ dinghies; the boats from Slusegird sizes 1 and 2, and watercraft of size 3 may have served for travelling along the coast (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 196-198, 255). The utility of | a size 2 boat was proved by J-Ph, Mayerat, the Swiss boatbuilder, who made a copy of Slusegird-type boat (Fig. 5:2) which, under the name Mo (maiden), sailed on the waters of Lake Geneva (Crumlin-Pedersen 2001), ‘The frames strengthening the construction of expanded logboats make such vessels the most probable predecessors of plank boats (Crumlin-Pedersen 2010, 65 fig. 2.60). There are further basis for this hypothesis: the construction of the boats from Valderoy, Nordmore (Cl4: c. AD 245) and Halsnoy, Hordaland (C14: ¢. ‘AD 335) in Norway. They had single strakes lashed to the sides while in the former case pegs were used too (Crumlin-Pedersen 2003a, 223, tab. 6.2, with refS.). Another craft combines an expanded linden logboat with stitched pine strakes fixed on and_grown frames of spruce lashed to the cleats inside the hull (lashed-lug technique); thisis from Bjorke, Hille parish (Fig. 7:3) in ‘central Sweden (cal AD 340-530). It was quite a small slender vessel (c. 7.2 m in length) with a probable crew of four paddlers (Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, 228, 243, fig. 123; 2003a, 223, fig. 6.18, tab. 6.3). Although an additional strake raises the freeboard, which makes sea travel safer, we are dealing with quite a small vessel, most probably unable to cross the Baltic Sea, not least because of the huge effort and resulting fatigue for its four paddlers. Nonetheless it was probably useful in the coastal waters of Denmark (Crumlin-Pedersen 2003a, 225). ‘The Hjortspring boat The earliest Baltic Sea plank boat was double-beaked with lashed planks. It was found in a votive deposit at Hjortspring on the island of Als (Fig. 6:1) and itis dated by radiocarbon to the fourth century BC (Rosenberg 1937; Crumlin-Pedersen 2003), It measures c. 19 m in length including the construction beams (the internal length was only 13 m). Made in lashed-lug technique, it had pairs of stitched single-piece planks lashed to the ribs on both sides. There were also thwarts serving as benches for the paddlers and even several paddles (Haupt 2003) (Figs. 6:4-5; 7:2). Technically the horns were an anachronism, most probably a living-fossil element derived from Bronze-age hide boats.* but 107Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Fie a6 Fig. 3. The Valle exeavation in 18 joa: 1. sketches ofthe logboat during afer Crumlin-Pedersen 1991), reconstruction ofthe side (afer Backius 2013). debate over the structure of the Bronze-age prototypes of the Hjortspring boat has been long and is still vigorous.” Tthad a crew of c. 22 men, including 20 paddlers. Its seaworthiness was confirmed by, amongst others, the Danish Olympic rowing team on a replica called Tilia Alsie (Fig. 6:2; Vinner 2003, 103-18). At a cruising speed of up to 4.7 knots and 7.6 knots in sprint the craft was faster than the Viking warship when the latter was dependent on rowing alone. Its seaworthiness, speed, manoeuvrability, cargo-carrying qualities (but on a limited scale) and a large radius of daily action (24.5 nautical miles covered in the course of 6 hours, which permits one to assume 40 nautical miles per day in summer) made the craft a substantial military threat But even this vessel was vulnerable on the high sea Fig 4 The logboat from Leck (afer Crumlin-Pedersen 1991). With the course set close to the wind the speed dropped to 2 knots when the waves were around a metre high: the spray was coming into the boat (Viner 2003, 112 13, fig. 3.106). But a I-m wave is no real wave — in the Baltic Sea waves typically reach 5 m! This su, that Hjortspring boat's seaworthiness was insufficient to travel out of sight of the land. The Hjortspring boat was surely not alone. The use of similar watercraft is evidenced by the find of a pine thwart from Hampniis, Omskéldsviks komun, Norrland in Sweden (C14: ¢. 220 BC) analogous to those from Hjortspring (Fig. 7:1; Crumlin-Pedersen 2003a, 221, fig. 615, tab. 6.2). However, that piece had notches at the ends for a suitably large frame opposite to bend the hazel ribs forming parts of the frames from the Hjortspring find. It is the oldest evidence 108Maritime Contacts across the Baltic — — — nd a Ria oo cen Peskin’ Bem | | | | 1 | Fig. 5. Slusegird boats: I. Freeboard and tim under different loading conditions for the 3-m boat (size 1, lft) ‘an for the -m bot (size 2, right) 2. the replica Mo afer launching on Lake Geneva in January 2001 (photo A Genoud,afier Crumlin-Pedersen 2001) 109Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Fig. 6. Pre-Roman Iron Age boats: I. Hjortspring boat (after Rosenberg 1937) 2. test races with Tila Asie fier Finner 2003); 3. rock carving from Orroklipp Station (after Kaul 2003); 4. paddle (after Haupt and Fenger 2003), ‘5. comparison between plank boar (lef) and skin boat (righ) of Hijorspring type (afer Bockius 2013). noMaritime Contacts across the Baltic LES Fig. 7.1. thwart fram Hampnis (afer Bockius 2013): 2 thwart from Hjorsspring (afer Bockius 2013); 3. excavation plan of the Bjorke boat (after Crunlin-Pedersen 1991). uMnd Relationships over Land and Sea Fig. 8. Nydam boats: I. Nydam A (after E Engelhardt 1865 hands 1865); 2. Nvdam C (after Rivek 2013): 3. Nylam B (aferMaritime Comacts across the Baltic 5 Fig. 9. Boat equipment from Nyelam: 1-2. ladder (afer Micke and Rau 2013): 3. male-head decorations ‘and their reconstructed postion (afer Gotsche 2013); 4. bailing scoop (afer Rieck 2013): 8. bottom boards (after Rieck 2013). 3‘Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Fig. 10, Boat roofs and their consiruetional elements: 1 stick with openings at the ends (Augenkole) from Noda (after Rieck 2013): 2. paited mats from Nyda (after Rieck 2013): 3. picture stone from Bro (afer Gossche 2013) 4 pletre stone from Sanda (afer Gorsche 2013) 4aof such innovation, and thus documents progress in boatbuilding. Another example comes from Haugvik, Somna, Nordland in Norway. It embraces fragments of boat timbers of pine with cleats, dated back to around the 2nd or last century BC (Sylvester 2009). Hjortspring-type boats were probably the highest- quality vessels of the Pre-Roman Iron Age. One can only guess how the techniques developed in detail. It was surely not a simple process. One may assume that older types survived for a long time (note the aforementioned Roman-period stitched boats). One may try to link this with the gradual transfer of elaborate technical achievements to the world of the commoners. In the protohistorical period, such development had to take much more time than in our modern period of constantly accelerating technical revolution. Nydam boats A great technical change took place in the late second century AD. It is documented by the boats from the famous weapon offering fom Nydam, Sonderborg Kommune. The earliest of them, ie, the oakwood boat Nydam A (Fig. 8:1) was built in c, AD 190 and deposited probably c. AD 220-230 (Rieck 2013, 10. 16). Unfortunately it was destroyed before deposition so one may only estimate its size but it seems that it svas the longest of the three, measuring more than 23 m. The strakes overlapped but the riveting is not entirely certain here because of the state of preservation One important trait is clear, however: the vessel was equipped with oarlocks but had no beaks. In this way 2 new line of technical development was established, which lasted until the later Medieval Period. More efficient propulsion had been known even earlier, as the oldest representation of long oars secured to the gunwale (probably in rowlocks) is dated to shortly after the mid-late Pre-Roman Iron Age, although an even earlier date, c. 200 BC, is also possible (Fig. U1:1)S The rock carving is from Dalbo I, Barum Kommune, Norway, and it still shows beaks (Ostmo 1992; Kaul 2003, 195, fig. 5.19). Moreover rowing evidence indicates a boat frame from Grunnfames on Senja Island (98-402 cal. BC), and oar of unknown provenance (536-392 cal. BC), as well as two oars from the Late Pre-Roman Period: found on Hersoy Island (360-156 cal. BC) and in Hofsay on Senja Island (232-54 cal. BC), all from Arctic Norway (Wickler 2019, 196-9, fig. 8, 11). All of the Nydam boats had tholepins (Rieck 2013, 11, 24-30, 97-103, figs. 5, 14, Maritime Contacts across the Baltic 15, 18, 19, 77, 79-85; Macke and Rau 2013, 309-11, fig. 5) and long oars (Rieck 2013, 104-12, figs. 86-89; Micke and Rau 2013, 307-9, figs, 3-4) and there are further examples — see the fragments from the war- gear deposit at Ejsbol, Haderslev kommune (Orsnes 1988, 98, pl. 191:11-12; 201:5; Norgard Jorgensen and Andersen 2014a, 183-184, fig. 113), dated to c. 300 AD (Norgard Jorgensen 201 4a, 194-206); Kvalsund II, ‘Sunmore, Norway (Fig. 12:3); the famous Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, boat grave in mound 1 (Fig. 12:4) dated AD 625-630 (see Carver 2005, 177-200); the rowlock from Stonglandseidet on Senja Island (cal. AD 396- 542: Wiekler 2019, 199-200, fig. 13); the oar from Alsodde (Fig. 11:4), Mariagerfjord kommune (C14 ¢. AD 635); and the representations on the Gotlandic picture stones (imprecisely dated to AD 400-600) from Bro, Sanda and Stenkyrka, and the Higgeby stone (Figs. 10:3, 4; 11:3; Gethche 2013, 187-90, figs. 30-2). Obviously the paddles were not totally rejected — they were still used with the smallest craft: none of the logboats (including the expanded ones) was equipped with oarlocks and many paddles have been excavated in Roman and Migration-period contexts such as Vimose, Odense kommune, Funen (Fig. 13:3 4; Engelhardt 1869, pl. 17:4-5) and in the sanctuaries at Oberdorla, Kr. Unstrut-Hainich, Thiringen,” One may also mention one of the miniatures embellishing the golden chain from hoard I in Szilégysomlyé, Transylvania, Romania (first half of the fifth century) presenting a man (Charon?) holidng the paddle and sitting in an expanded logboat (Gschwantler 1999, 69, 76, fig. 15). The most famous and best preserved oakwood boat, Nydam B (Fig. 8:3), measuring almost 23 m, is dendrochronologically dated to AD 310-320 and had probably been used for some time before its deposition Built in the shell-first technique, with clinker sides and riveted strakes, it additionally possessed @ pair of male-head wooden decorations (Fig. 9:3) and a wide steering oar on starboard (Rieck 2013, 17-62) Ronald Bockius assumed that it combined local and Mediterranean boatbuilding traditions (Bockius 2013. 294-9).* The craft was much more spacious than the Hjortspring boat, allowing for convenient oaring but still having no hold for cargo. The thwarts and bottom boards (Fig. 9:5) were built in for comfort but one ‘must note another feature —a roofing made of plaited ‘mats situated on a skeleton of wooden staves stabilized by horizontal sticks with openings at the ends (German Augenholz) and ropes (Fig. 10:1-2). Similar covers usTransitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Fig. I. Rowing inthe Baltic Sea basin: 1. rock carving from Dalby I (afer Kaul 2003): 2. rowing the Nydam B boat (ater Bockius 2013); 3. the Haiggeby stone (after Brogger and Shetelig 1983); 4 oar from Alsodde (afer Gotsche 2013) 116Maritime Contacts across the Baltic Fig, 12.1 ibs from Puck Bay (after Ossowski 2010); 2. Gredstebro boat (afer Gotsche 2013); 43. Kvalbund I! boat (after Shetelig anc Johannessen 1929); 4 Suton Hoo boat (after Bruce-Misford 1973) "7Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Fig. 13. Baats and sailing equipment from Vimose: 1 anchor: 2. iran rivet: 3-4. paddles; 56, logboats (after afer Engethartt 1869), usMaritime Contacts across the Baltic Fig. 14, Boathouse at Avaldsnes, Norway: 1. reconstruction after Bauer 2018); 2. the ste (afer Kristofersen and Hausen 2018) 9Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea are visible on boats on the aforementioned Gotlandic picture stones (Fig. 10:3-4; Rieck 2013, 116-23, figs. 99-105; see Gothehe 2013, fig. 30). Such installations placed amidships provided cover during long journeys without preventing the rowing (see images on the Gotlandic stones). A similar gable roof construction was found over the Sutton Hoo boat grave, naturally made entirely of wood (Carver 2005, fig. 89). That seems to be indirect evidence for long open-sea journeys. Also the fact that Nydam B was much heavier and more durable than its Nordic predecessors supports that idea. It was much higher too (five strakes per side), which resulted in elevating the freeboard (its depth is calculated from 1.04 to 1.34 m; Figure 11:2 ~ see Rieck 2013, table 1; Bockius 2013, table 2 ~ whereas the Hjortspring boat was only 0.705 m high amidships — see Crumlin-Pedersen 2003b, 36; Hocker 2003, fig. 3.77, table 3.2)? Tt was so high that a ladder was required to enter the board from the water (a 77.4 cm long fragment of a wooden ladder was found; Figure 9:1, 2—see Mlicke and Rau 2013, 314-316, figs 7. 8) Long travelling distances and times may be suggested by the fishing net (Rieck 2013, 128, figs 108, 109) and the anchor discovered at the site (Rieck 2013, 135 137, figs 118-122). One may also mention numerous bailing scoops (Fig. 9:4) found atthe site. Another boat from the site, Nydam C (Rieck 2013, 63— 103), was made mostly of pine (Fig. 8:2). It is dated to c. AD 300 (one of the shields that originally lay in the hull has a built-in board of oak dated to 296 AD). It was also shell-first/lashed-lug made and supplemented with side rowlocks, a rudder and probably roofing (see the distribution of Augenhdlzern: Rieck 2013, figs 67, 100) plus an omamental back support for the hheimsman. At 18.8 m in length, Nydam C was smaller than the other Nydam watereraft with a probable crew of 22 rowers (Akerlund 1963, 94-102). Its strakes were overlapping but — strangely — they were fixed both with rivets (the lower part ofthe hull) and lashing (the upper strakes, including the decorated gunwale). This shows the maintenance of traditional boatbuilding methods, Further plank boats A significant change in boatbuilding and. sailing, based on the use of iron rivets to join strakes, occurred by the late second century and was probably quite widespread. One may pinpoint further finds of similar character to those from Nydam. In a votive offering at Ejsbol 2 dated to c. AD 300 (Norgard Jorgenseay 2014a, 194-206) remains of sacrificially burnt boot were found (iron rivets covered with fire patina i four clusters). Clearly we are seeing the remnants of clinker boats which were oared (wooden tholepins survived there — see Orsnes 1988, 98, pl. 191:1I- 12; 201:5; Norgird Jorgensen and Andersen 20148 183-4, fig. 113). Based on the numbers of rivets one: may assume that we are probably dealing with craft of different sizes, one of which was possibly the same = Nydam C (Orsnes 1988, 95-8, pl. 191:1-10; 192, 193. Norgird Jorgensen and Andersen 2014a, 175-89, figs 10, 113-19, pls. 63-79, Norgird Jorgensen 2014 245-6). In Vimose a deposit of 87 boat rivets was alse excavated (Engelhardt 1869, 26, pl. 15:33), but details allowing hull size reconstruction are lacking (Fig) 13:2). Finally, ribs of analogous boats have also bees: confirmed in Poland — two frames were found in Puck Bay (Fig. 12:1) and radiocarbon dates place them i= the Late Roman and Migration Period (Ossowski 2016 169, fig. 158)."' They were lashed to cleats in planks this technique was in use until c. AD 800. Therefore ‘we may consider double ended, shell-first made boats, with clinker planking fastened by rivets, equipped wit a side paddle steer beam. There are few finds connected with Migration period boats in the Baltic Sea littoral. Apart from the aforementioned images on Gotlandic stone slabs (Lindquist 1942, pl. 5.11; Crumlin-Pedersen 2016 fig. 6.3; Rieck 2013, figs. 99-105), one may mention the stone from Haggeby, Uppland, in Sweden dates toc. AD 600 (Fig. 11:3; Brogger and Shetelig 1953, 52; Crumlin-Pedersen 2010, fig. 4.4) and the Vendel period boat graves from Valsgiirde, Gamla Uppsal parish (Varenius 1995). One may additionally consider the world famous Sutton Hoo boat grave in Eas Anglia from the early seventh century (Bruce-Mitfors 1975), not improbably of Scandinavian origin (c= McGrail 2001, 210-11; Crumlin-Pedersen 2010, 96 7). Measuring 27.1 m long and 1.5 m deep it was the longest proto-historical watercraft we know of from northern Europe (Fig. 12:4), It was a shell-first, clinker built boat with nine strakes per side clenched by iros rivets. Its keel was probably a flat beam of the Nydar= type (Green 1988, 58-61, 72). The frames could have been treenailed to the strakes (Evans and Bruce: Mitford 1975, 371; Cameron. 1982). Unfortunately no traces of thwarts were found but the number of the rowers is estimated to be 40 basing on the position and number of the rowlocks attached to the gunwale by 120son spikes (in comparison, for Hjortspring there were ‘20 paddlers; for Nydam B 30 oarsmen and for Nydam € 22 oarsmen: ie. roughly the same as in case of the boats! shown on the Gotlandie Stones).'* No rowlocks ‘were found amidships, which was interpreted as an ‘adicator of the use of a sail, but they could have been semoved when building the burial chamber. A half- scale replica constructed with a mast and sail speaks fr its practicality Gifford 1995) but it eannot be ‘seated as a convincing argument, in particular as it Jacks a projecting keel aimed at preventing drifting ‘see Westerdahl 1995; Christensen 1996, 79-86; McGrail 2001, 211-12; Crumlin-Pedersen 19976, 188-90; 2010, 97-8). There is quite a good analogy to its construction ‘creenails used to fasten strakes) in the fragments of a ship (keel and frame) from Gredstebro (c. AD 700) on Se west coast of Jutland (Fig. 12:2; Crumlin-Pedersen 1997a, 289-92), The latter was originally ¢. 20 m long snd it had a more pronounced keel in cross-section ‘an the Nydam boats, placing it between them and ‘Se Viking ships of ¢. AD 800. Dendrochronological studies suggest that the wood for its production was cat down c. AD 630 whereas calibrated radiocarbon Sting points to AD 650 (Ejstrud and Maarleveld 2008, S-9) “There was an important disadvantagein the construction ‘ofthe above-mentioned plank vessels — certain strakes ‘were unipartite, which suggests that boatbuilders were szable to join and seal boards end-to-end effectively. The first boat which firmly documents real change f this respect comes from a bog site Kvalsund I in Nonvay (Fig. 12:4)."* Its radiocarbon dating situates = c. AD 700 (Christensen 1996, 81). Admittedly ‘shopped into pieces before deposition (Shetelig and Johannessen 1929), it can be recognized as made from composite strakes and also, which makes it different Som the earlier north-European plank boats, having ‘an effective keel, T-shaped in cross section, preventing “Gif, instead of slightly profiled beams. The bow and seem were curved. Still it did not possess a mast and sail. There is no firm evidence that a sail was in use bere before AD 800 (in contrast to the British and Irish ‘xchipelago from the sixth century: see McGrail 2001, 206-7), although some scholars infer that the sail speared in the seventh century, based on the disputable Gating of certain picture stones from Gotland, and an imprecisely dated (seventh-century?) image of a Maritime Contacts across the Batic ship engraved on a pebble from Karlby, Norddjurs kommune, Denmark (Crumlin-Pedersen 2010, fig, 4.7). The first mast steps are definitely present on the ninth-century Viking ships buried in barrows from Oseberg and Gokstad in Vestfold, Norway (Crumlin- Pedersen 2010, 97-9, with refi.) ‘Marine infrastructure Scandinavian boathouses (von _Camap-Bornheim 1997; Myhre 1997; Grimm 2001; 2002; Stylegar and Grimm 2005; Bauer 2018) also document a well- organized system of handling boats (Fig. 14). They served for the repairing and storing of boats (e.g. in winter) and their distribution suggests the existence of a naval military organization. Many of them are dated to the Roman and Migration Periods and their sizes correspond to the dimensions of the Nydam boats. Such boats may have sailed into harbours, probably situated in the vicinity of so-called central places. Lundeborg may be a good example here, but such sites may have also existed in the southern Baltic littoral e.g. a harbour in Puck Bay, discovered by underwater archaeologists. This is dated to the Polish Middle Ages (from c. AD 800 to the fourteenth century), however it is probable that it was preceded by a landing place for boats strikingly similar to those from Nydam, as suggested by the fragments of the Late Roman and Migration-period boats mentioned above, linked with the Wielbark-culture era and its fade-out, Moreover a Biigelknopffibel from the second half of the fourth or early fifth centuries was found under water in the harbour area (Szulta 1993, 166, fig. 3:5; Kontny and Szymanski 2015, 340, fig. 4) and there are probably more such finds under the water, but they are elusive. This is because of the vast degradation process of the harbour. As a result an accumulation of sand and turf has covered the bottom with a layer 1-2 m thick Human economic activity started here ¢. AD $00, which is clearly related to climatic warming (Pomian et al 2016, 237, fig. 3). There is also a brooch terminating with a crossbar (Schlusskrewzfibel) from the nearby town of Puck that evidences the movement of the Balts in the late fifth or early sixth centuries, ic. Phase EI in post-Wielbark Culture territory (Kontny and Szymanski 2015, 333-4, fig. 1). A similar Migration- period trade centre that may have attracted foreigners from the north may have been found in the lagoon lakes area of Middle Pomerania in the Late MigrationTransitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Period. The lakes, e.g. Lebsko and Gardno, could have been bays suitable for landing, and it is not surprising that cemeteries with Scandinavian material cluster here (Machajewski 1992, 78-79, fig. 8; Machajewski 2008, 148-149; cf. Kontny and Szymatiski 2015, 341; Schuster 2015, 30-31, fig. 9) while the surrounding lands were generally unoccupied. Written sources Although one can find some references to Germanic watercraft (see Bockius 2013, 286-8) there are almost no written data concerning sailing in the Baltic Sea in Antiquity. Apart from a legendary and imprecise mention of the Goths’ arrival from Skandza_ to Gothiskandza on three boats under Berig’s leadership (ordanes, Gerica IV, 25) and the information conceming Roman vessels entering the region in $ A.D. — Augustus’ fleet appeared here on a spying ision (see: Augustus, Res Gestae Divi Augusti 26, 4; Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia Ml, 167; Strabo VII, 2. 1) — there is only Tacitus’ description of the Suioni (Germania 44). They were situated somewhere in Scandinavia; some scholars locate their seat in Sweden or the southem part of the Scandinavian peninsula (Grane 2003, 137-8, with refs.). The Roman historian claimed that the power of the Suioni was founded on their men, weapons and a fleet. Their boats were double-ended, characterized by the same shape of each ends, i. the stern and bow were symmetrical ‘These vessels had no sails or oars fastened to the sides but simple paddles instead. According to the current state of knowledge of boatbuilding in the Baltic Sea region, one may exclude the possibility that they were logboats, as they were too unstable and theit hulls to0 shallow to bear the high sea or could possibly have had military purposes and carry military equipment instead of the crew (Kontny 2019b, 169-71, with further arguments and refs.)."" Even expanded dugouts — though wider and more stable — were intended rather for inland waters, quiet bays and coastland waters. It seems clear that the boats of the Suioni were double~ ended and probably lashed-lug, clinker-built plank boats, ie, characterized by overlapping of the edges of two adjacent strakes, although itis hard to say whether their planks were sewn or fixed with iron rivets (chronological data are not precise enough to situate the change from the sewn Hjortspring boat of the fourth century BC to the riveted Nydam A built ¢. AD 190) — the more so as both techniques overlapped. Taking into account the date of the evidence given bi Tacitus, ie. the first century AD, the former seems slightly more likely as stitching is documented unt the fourth century (occasionally along the rivets) and rivets alone are documented for the first time no earlier than the late second century (Nydam A, probably sunk in the mid-third century — and riveted plank fastening is not entirely certain here as the boat was destroyed before deposition). Nevertheless, the technique was clearly used from the early fourth century (Nydam C \where lashing and riveting were applied altogether: see Crumlin-Pedersen 2003a, 223, tab. 6.2). Probably the Suion ssed no horns, as those spectacle technics very strange from the Roman perspective, ought to have been noticed by Tacitus: informant but were not. Horns were technologically ‘out-of-date in the Roman Period and none of them i later than the Hjortspring boat. In the boats of the Suioni, the crew probably paddles in a sitting position, as in the case of the boat from Hjortspring. In conclusion, Tacitus suggests that although seaworthy, such boats were not aimed to load and carry heavy burdens, ie. they were definitely net trading vessels but military transport boats. cary vessels Long clinker boats were surely used for militar reasons, however. We may deduce this from the fact that they appear mostly in martial contexts, i.e. i= post-battle sacrificial offerings, together with military equipment. Warriors apparently formed quite a skilfat and effective crew of oarsmen. Ole Crumlin-Pederses had an idea that there were Germanic warriors serving in the Roman war fleet on the Danube and Rhine wie brought certain innovations back to their homeland after the end of their military service, which resulted in the appearance of Nydam-type boats (Crumlin= Pedersen 2010, 68). The similarity between the reconstructed crew and sizes of military units i striking. The Hjortspring basic units, counted on the basis of the finds from the site, embraced a platoos of about ten men, i. nine warriors and a leader. ‘matches the crew size of ther Hjortspring boat — © two platoons per one boat (including two non-paddling leaders: see Kaul 2003, 178-9), The best parallel te the Nydam-type boats can be found in deposit A from Hlerup. Although it is difficult to assess the full sizes of the invading armies it is possible to calculate the sizes of certain units/retinues (see Kontny 2003). I= 122Ulerup there were 5-7 high-ranking warriors plus 30 sriddle- and c. 300 lower-rank ones (likjser 1994, tab. 1; 1997, 56-61), giving a ratio of 1:5:50 and so ©. 56 ‘men in a particular unit. Comparing this count with the Nydam A and B crews, it seems that a “platoon” should be divided between two vessels. Ejsbol North offers a better parallel to Nydam C as rivets from a vessel of such a size were found there. Thus there were 12-14 Aiigh- plus 60 middle- plus a hundred-something lower- rank warriors (Orsnes 1988, 25) which makes the ratio of ¢. 1:5:13-15 so 19-21 men altogether, which ‘matches a Nydam C-size crew almost perfectly. Al all, the smallest military units are good equivalents of ‘he clinker-boats crew (22-30 oarsmen), Long-distance joumeys in the pre-sail epoch demanded trained and ‘well-knit teams of rowers/paddlers and so they were — the retinue members! Thus the Baltic Sea served as a route used for military purposes (von Camap-Bornheim 1997). This. is proved by particular wetland weapon deposits in which both fragments of craft and archacological ‘material analyses prove that the invaders came from abroad by boat. Frequently they aimed at the Danish Straits which allowed the control of trading routes."” The items discussed are considerably better proof for she participation of the Przeworsk and Balt warriors, indicating the ethnically diverse composition of ‘warrior groups. Artefacts of Przeworsk character may be found at northern European sites such as Thorsberg in Schleswig: deposits from phases B2b-Cla (kjaet ig. 152; Blankenfeldt 2013, 32, fig. 4), 4s well as at Vimose 1 on Funen, from the carly stage of Phase B2, and Vimose 2a, from late Phase B2 (Pauli Jensen 2011, 47, figs. 6-7). In the case ofthe latter, Balt elements can also be pointed (Kontny 2017, 35-40, figs. 14-16), and this direction of connections is also visible in deposits significantly later in date. Thus Balsmyr on Bornholm yielded five pole weapon heads typical of the West Balt circle; all of them, however, originated from the late deposit from a former lake which is ated to the tum of the Late Roman Period and Early Germanic Period, i.e. c. AD 400 (Norgird Jorgensen 2008, 110, fig. 67). One can also connect the heads sesembling two-edged swords in their dimensions and shapes with the environment of the West Balts (type Hil according to V. Kazakaviéis), theoretically dated from the later part of the fifth century to the seventh century (Kazakvitts 1988, 41, 42, fig. 15, map VID, although finds with firm dates can be assigned only to the earlier phases of this time span. They developed Maritime Contacts across the Baltic ‘most probably among the Balt peoples (the East Lithuanian Barrows culture), where they are found as a component of grave goods, although prototypes have been documented in the nomadic environment too (see Czamnecka 2010). They are additionally known from northern European sacrificial sites — in lakes as well as on land (this new kind of sacrificial sites emerged in the Migration Period), where they had been offered as trophy weapons, thus probably captured from Balt intruders. The Balts were also very active in the Baltic littoral in the Early Migration Period, as is shown by the expansion of multiple forms of brooches (Kontny 2020, map 20.3-5, 7-8), Wielbark-culture warriors may also have participated in these multiple military enterprises. This is supported by the fact that probably neither the Balts nor the Przeworsk warriorshad the meansrequired formaritime transport, ie. the large oared boats known from Scandinavia (c.g. Nydam: Rau 2013) but evidenced also in the area associated with the Wielbark culture (cf. Koniny 20196, 174-5, footnote 13, with refs.) witness the frames from Puck Bay. The peoples of the latter cultural unit seem the most obvious candidates to lead the assault on the Baltic islands, due to their semi- coastal location. Unfortunately, very little is known about the weapons they used while additionally they probably copied Przeworsk and then Scandinavian patterns (Kontny 2019a, 89-91). It would therefore be difficult to identify them among the materials from the sacrificial sites, ‘Trading vessels The boats discussed probably had two purposes: warfare and trade. This seems to be proved by the fact that warriors were at the same time trained rowing crews of vessels lange enough to carry some cargo. Moreover they were also able to defend the boat; a numerous crew gives the impression of power and efficiency, which must have been important for militarily-oriented societies (McGrail 2001, 212; Crumlin-Pedersen 2010, 97-8). Naturally, we do not know the exact routes of the Roman and Migration Periods although some areas had a special standing due to location. Apart from the areas important from the geostrategical point of view, location on an island was an advantage, as in the case of Sorte Muld on Bomhoim (Adamsen et al. 2009), Funen with Lundeborg (Thomsen 1991) and, to some 123Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea extent, also Gotland (Carlsson 1991). A peninsular position must have been promising too: e.g. Uppakra in Skane (e.g., Helgesson 2002; Hardh 2002). In later times things are clearer, as ports-of-trade which appeared in particular places changed the pattem of trade routes, which began to link these harbours (central places). This is proved by a considerable number of medieval descriptions, e.g. of Ohthere (Ottar) (Bately and Englert 2007) and Wulfstan (Englert and Trakadas 2009; Hines, 2022) recorded at the court of Alfred the Great in the late ninth century. ‘Although large amounts of goods came into the Baltic Sea littoral zone in the Roman Period, a truly great influx began later, in the Younger Roman Period, together with the so-called Danish wave (Wolagiewicz 1970, 223-4, 233-5, fig. 1; see Lund Hansen 1987, 220-4, fig. 143). The marine trade routes which linked the Roman Empire (Lund Hansen 1987, 248-52) with cultural centres on Sjelland, ie. Himlingoje (Lund Hansen 1995), and later on Funen, ie. Gudme- Lundeborg (Grimm and Pesch 2011), in the Younger and Late Roman Period were of great importance (sce also Crumlin-Pedersen 1991; Nisman 1991). Among the Roman products one may note the swords found in Danish sacrificial lake offerings, sometimes (namely in phase Clb) so uniform in theit morphology and chronology that they seem to have been mass produced (See Godiowski 1985, 346-7; Lund Hansen 1987, 225; Kaczanowski 1994, 220; Biborski_ and Ikjaer 2006, 390); made to an order placed for high-quality weapons by north-European military leaders. They required proper means of transport, which excludes the of Barbarian clinker boats, even the biggest of them (low capacity, lack of compartments to hold the cargo safely); the more so as particular luxuries (glass vessels) were very fragile. It seems possible, therefore, that, apart from the Barbarian craft, Roman vessels entered the region, not only in the Augustan peirod, in AD 5, but later, specifically in the third century. It seems probable as a result that the moderate depths of the Baltic Sea are likely to be hiding the wrecks of “Mediterranean ships from the Imperial Period Acknowledgements ‘This paper was prepared with the financial support of the National Science Centre (Maestro project: Migration Period between the Odra and the Vistula, led by Professor Aleksander Bursche from the Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw; no. DEC-2011/02/A/HS3/00389. 124 Endnotes Among the watercraft-oriented studies see, ©) ‘Crumlin-Pedersen 1987; Weski 1998; Indruszewsi 2003; Bockius 2013, ‘They were made by heating the log using fire, so that it could be manipulated into another shape, must wider and more stable than simple logboat. Apart from caulking, iron clamps were occasionally used to repair boats, both expanded logboats — see the Early Roman-period find from Hedegard, [kas Brande Kommune, grave A3727 (Fig. 2:3; Madses 1999, 88, fig. 33) and plank boats — e.g. the votive offering from Ejsbol, Haderslev kommune, cluster 593 with clamps nos, x747 and x1388 (Norgisg Jorgensen and Andersen 2014a, 464-88, pl. 71:7 73:x1388), See also Bockius 2013, 288-9, fig. 50, ‘Sue skeuomomphism was present in other cultures.o® the aneient world: see, e.g. the shape of the Khu boat, resembling in many aspects the papyti boss (eg. goblet-shaped ends ofstem and stern, resembling those of reed beams in boats and reef’), although a this ease it was of Lebanese cedar wood (Lipke 1988 17, 19, 107, 139, fig. $2; McGrail 2001: 26-8, fig 29). Fleming Kaul wrote that the Hjortspring boat shoul be treated as a product of a long-lasting evolution s boatbuilding so he assumed that horned plank bosts must have been known in the Bronze Age (Kaul 2005, fi. 38), Ole Crumlin Pedersen acknowledged hors symbolic or ceremonial elements which echoed the shapes of Bronze-age lurs or helmet horns (Crumlis= Pedersen 20032, 228-30). One should note that the smaller scale reconstruction of the Hjortspring bose executed in skin serves as proof of concept, althougs the hide equivalent would be ¢. 20% heavier (Valbjors 2003, 137-40). Personally I consider skin boats to be the archetype of the vessel in question as there are ‘numerous Nordic rock carvings from the Bronze Age and Early Iron Age representing homed boats witt vertical ribs marked on their hulls (Fig. 6:3; see Kaul 2003, fig. 51-28) which cannot be visible in woodes ‘vessels, [must therefore agree with Barbara Johnstone that we are dealing with frames of the skeletom first construction typical of skin boats; they were conspicuous if sunbeams shone through the sides Which is well documented for Inuit umiags (Johnstone 1988, 104, fig, 9.9). Certain technical traits speak ie favour ofthe skin boat genesis. as well: ribs are equally regularly distributed in both types and the cleats ofthe Hjortspring boat are situated inthe same places asthe hull-rib joints in the hide vessels (Fig. 6:5). Anotbe10 5 ‘common element is the use of the dead-eye stiteh, i. ‘without puncturing the material (Indruszewski 2009, 416-17, fig. 6). One may assume that both skin and \wooden horned boats were in permanent use, probably in the Bronze Age. Their evolution may be connected the changes in theit profiles, from strongly curved. ‘ones in the Bronze Age (specifically Middle and Late Bronze Age) to the slightly profiled, symmetrical ones of the Pre-Roman Iron Age (Kaul 2003, 187-200), Its dating is based on uncertain evidence and itis still being discussed (see e.g. Bockius 2013, 290), ‘They were found in a Hallstatt-period sanctuary, H_10 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 17, pl. 12:1), La Téne-period cones, La 10 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 39, pl. 24:6) and probably La 13 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 42, pl. 25:6), but also Roman-period sanctuaries, P II, 4 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 145, pl. 78:5, 6), P III, 7 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 152, pl. 87:4) and PIV, 1 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 172, pl. 91:9), and even an Early Migration-period site VI, 1 (Behm-Blancke 2002, 213, pl. 116:1). ‘There was also an idea that the use of iron rivets to cconnect the planks of northem European clinker boats wwas taken over along the river routes from Continental workshops, specifically those using the Gallo-Roman boatbuilding tradition (Indruszewski 2009). This hypothesis faces many gaps resulting from the lack of well-dated finds and thus in my opinion is purely theoretical at the moment. A reconstructed freebord measures from 0.74 to 0.78 m (Bockius 2013, tab. 2), A very large number of boat rivets was found also in Lundeborg, Svendborg kommune, Funen, where repairs could be carried on vessels berthed there (Qstergaard Sorensen 2003, 429). 18602120 BP and 1390240 BP. The calculation doubles the number of oarsmen portrayed as only a single row is shown on the images. ‘One has to note that in the case of the Sutton Hoo boat there are various calculations ranging from 28 10 40 oarsmen (McGrail 2001, 211), Itis assumed that also Sutton Hoo had strakes consisting of five planks, each butt joined by short clenched nails, ‘but one cannot be entirely sure as the wood completely decomposed and what survived was rust and the impression of the craft in the ground ‘The description is interpreted as a proof of additions 10 the population of the Wielbark-culture area in the Early Roman Period (Ciestiski 2016, 229-30, with refs) ‘Though adequately representing possible sea joumeys of warrior bands it does not have a strictly historical character (see Kolendo 2009, 34-5). See also the 0 12s Maritime Contacts across the Baltic legendary arrival ofthe Saxons on three boats to Britain in response to the invitation of Vortigern (Gildas, De Exeidio et Conquestu Britanniae 23) Logboats were documented in the northem European sacrificial bog sites where weapons of defeated invaders were deposited, eg. Vimose on Funen (Fig. 13:5, 6; Engelhardt 1869, 25, pl. 15:29, 31-2), Bjsbol (Norgind Jorgensen and Andersen 2014a, pl. 81) and IIlerup. The chronology of the first group is unknown, the second dates to the second-first ¢. BC so it precedes the other deposits, and the last ones have not been studied in detail, but even if they are contemporary tothe offerings they might have served only to carry some of the objects sacrificed out irom the lakeshore (Andersen I9S1, 16-17; Idem 1956, 10-11; Rieck 1995, 128). It nonetheless seems more probable to me that they were used for traditional purposes, such as fishing. Votive lakes were used also for non-sacral reasons in different periods, which is proveds by the finds of the lake from ‘Thorsberg, Lkr. Schleswig (Engelhardt 1863, pl. 16:4): neolithic and medieval finds from Vimose (Pauli Jensen 2009, 54), medieval and modem finds from Ejsbol (Norgitd Jorgensen and Andersen 2014b, 190), and fish-hooks in Illerup (Iikjaer 1993, 337-341). This could explain the logboats too. ‘There are archaeologically studied barriers and structures in narrow straits and on seashores arranged to stop or slow down the boats of invading armies to gain time for preparation of the defence. They are dated to the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods 0 are contemporaneous with many sacrificial weapon offerings (Kaul 1997, 137-45; Norgird Jorgensen 1997, 200-9; 2001, 67-82)Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Bibliography Primary sources Augustus, Res Gesiae Divi Augusti EW. Shipley, Vetleius Paterculus and Res Gestae Divi Augusti (Cambridge 1924), Gildas, De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae Six old English chronicles, of which two are now first translated from the monkish Latin originals, J. A. Giles (ed), J. Reilly (transl.) (London 1891), after htps: sourcebooks.fordham.edw/basis/gildas-full.asp Jordanes, Geriea Jordanes, The Gothie History of Jordanes, Ch. Ch. Mierow (ed.) (Prineeton-London-Oxford 1915). Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia Pliny, Natural History I-X (London-Ca 1963) Strabo ‘The Geography of Strabo, H. G. Bohn (ed.), H.C. Hamilton (transl) (London 1854-1857). Tacitus, Germania P. Cornelius Tacitus. Germania. Publiusz Korneliusz Tacyt. Germania, J. Kolendo (ed.), T. Pléciennik (transi) Fontes Historiae Antiquae. Zeszyty Zrédlowe Zakladu Historii Spoleczeristw Antycznyeh X (Poznati 2008), ibridge 1938— Secondary sources, Akerlund, H. 1963, Nydamskeppen. En studie i tidig skandinavisk skeppsbyegnadskonst (Goteborg). Adamsen, Ch., U. Lund Hansen, £0. Nielsen and M. Watt (eds.) 2009, Sorte Muld: Wealth, Power and Religion ‘at an Iron Age Central Settlement on Bornholm (Rone). Andersen, H. 1951, ‘Det femte store mosefund. Vabenfundet i llerup Adal’, Kum 1951, 9-22 Andersen, H. 1956 *Afsked med idalen’. Kul 1956, 7-22. Andrzejowski, J. 2019, ‘The Gothic migration through ‘eastern Poland ~ the archaeological evidence’. In A. CCiesliiski and B. Kontny (eds.), Interacting Barbarians Comacts, Exchange and Migrations in the First Millennium AD. Neue Studien zur Sachsen forschung 7 (Warsaw, Braunschweig, Schleswig), 225-37. Bately, J. and A. Englert (eds.) 2009, Orhere’s Voyage. late 9th-century account of voyages along the coasts of Norway and Denmark and its cultural context. Maritime Culture of the North 1 (Roskilde). Baver, E. L. 2018, “Two Iron age boathouses’, In D. Skre (ed.), dvaldsnes — A Sea-Kings’ Manor in First Millenium Western Scandinavia, Reallexikon der ‘germanischen Altertumskunde ~ Erginzungsbiinde 10+ (Berlin-Boston), 183-208. Behm-Blancke, B. 2002, Heiligtiimer der Germanen w Ihrer Vorgdnger in Thiringen. Die Kultstite Oberdor (Stuttgart). Biborski, M. and J. Iikjer 2006, Werup Adal 11. Di ‘Schwerter: Texthand (Aarhus) Bitner-Wroblewska, A. and A. Rzeszotarska-Nowakiew ic: 2016, ‘The Balt societies in Poland, 1-500 AD*. In A Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewiez (ed.), The Past Soviet Tol. 4: 500 BC-500 AD (Warsaw), 257-306. Blankenfeldt, R. 2013, "Weapon deposits in the Thorsbe Moor ~ 150 years of research and new perspectives In L. Khrapunov and F-A. Stylegar (eds,), Jer Ari Maria. Northern barbarians from Scandinavia tow the Black Sea (Kristiansand-Simferopol), 26-38. Bockius, R. 2013, ‘Zur kultur- und technikgeschichtliche: Stellung der Schiffsfunde aus dem Nydam-Moor’ A, Rau (ed.), Nrdam Mose 4: Die Schiff. Beitrge = Form, Technik und Historie (Aarhus), 215-99. Brogger A. W. and H. Shetelig 1953, The F7king ships, the ‘Ancestry and Evolution (Oslo). Bruce-Mitford R. L. $. 1975, The Sutton Hoo Ship Buri Volume 1. Excavations, Background, The Ship, Datins and Inventory (London). Bursche, A., J. Hines and A. Zapolska, Migration Per between the Oder and the Vistula. East Central ar Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages 450-1450, (Leiden-Boston). Cameron, P. N. 1982, ‘Saxons, sea and sail’. Internations: Journal of Nautical Archaeology 11.4, 319-32. Carlsson, D. 1991, ‘Harbours and trading places on Gotlan AD 600-1100". In O. Crumlin-Pedersen (ed.), Aspe: of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200-1200, (Roskilde 145-58, von Carnap-Bornheim, C. 1997, ‘Zur Bedeutung. de militarischen Seefahrt bei den Barbaren im Jahshundertn, Chr. — Skandinavien, die Nordsee unc ddas Schwarze Meer’, In A. Norgird-lorgensen and L. Clausen (eds.), Milisary Aspecis of 8 Society in a European Perspective. AD 1-13) (Copenhagen), 226-38. Carver, M. 2005, Sutton Hoo: a Seventh-Century Prince Burial Ground and its Context (London). Christensen, A. E, 1996, “Proto-Viking, Viking and Nos Craft’. In A. E. Christensen (ed.), The Earliest Ships The Evolution of Boats into Ships (London), 2-88. Cieslifiski, A. 2016, *The society of Wielbark Culture, AL 1-300", In A. Rzeszotarska-Nowakiewiez (ed.), Ti Past Societies, vo. 4: 500 BC-500 AD (Warsaw), 217 55, Seandlinay 126Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1987, *Hifen und Schiffahrt in der Ramischen Kaiserzeit sowie in der Vélkerwanderungs- und Merowingerzeit Dinemarks’, Frifimittelaltertiche Studien 21, 101-23. Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 1991, “Bidgrave og gravbade pi Slusegird”. In $. H, Andersen, B. Lind and O. Crumlin- Pedersen, Slusegdrdgravpladsen, vol. I (Athus), 93-266, Crumlin-Pedersen, 0. 1997a, Viking Age Ships and Shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haithabu and Schleswig (Roskilde). Crumlin-Pedersen, 0. 19976, ‘Large and small warships of the North’, In A. Nongird-Torgensen and B. L. Clausen (eds.), Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective, AD 1-1300 (Copenhagen), 184-94, ‘Crumnlin-Pedersen, 0. 2001, “The Slusegird boat recreated’. Maritime Archaeology Letter from Roskilde 16 (June 2001), 31-4 Crumlin-Pedersen, ©, 2003a, “The Hjortspring boat in a ship-archacological context’. In O. Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas (eds.), Hjortspring: A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context. (Roskilde), 209-33, Crumlin-Pedersen, O. 2003, “Initial analysis and reconstruction of the boat’. In O, Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas (eds.), Hjorsspring: A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context. (Roskilde), 23-36. Crumlin-Pedersen, 0. 2010, Archaeology and the Sea in Scandinavia and Britain: A Personal Account (Roskilde). Czamecka, K. 2010, *Nietypowe groty widczni ze schyiku starozymosci z ziem polskich". Wiadomosei Archeologicone LXI, \N1-32, Ejotrup, B. and T. Maarleveld (eds.) 2008, The Migration Period, Southern Denmark and the North Sea: A Workbook in Relationship 10 the Gredstedbro Find (Esbjerg), Engelhardt, C. 1863, Thorsbjeng Mosefiund (Copenhagen). Engelhardt, C. 1865, Nydam Mosefund 1859-1863 (Copenhagen) Engelhardt, C. 1869, Fmose Fundet (Copenhagen). Englert A. and A. Trakadas (eds.) 2009, Walfstan'’s Voyage: The Baltic Sea region in the early Viking Age as seen from shipboard (Roskilde) Evans, A. C. and R. L. S. Bruce-Mitford 1975, *The ship" In R. LS, Bruce-Mitford (ed), The Sutton Hoo Ship- Burial, Vol | (q3.) (London), 345-435. Gifford, J. 1995, ‘Sailing characteristics of Saxon ships as derived from halfscale working models with special reference to the Sutton Hoo ship’. International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 24, 121-31 Maritime Contacts across the Baltic Godlowski, K. 1985, ‘Der rimische Handel in die Germania libera aufgrund der archiologischen Quellen’. In K. Dawel, H. Jankuhn, H. Siems and D. Timpe (eds.), Untersuchungen zu Handel und Verkehr der vor- und rithgeschichtlichen Zeit in Mitel- und Nordeuropa, vol. I (Giittingen), 337-66, Gothehe, M. 2013, ‘Die Rumpfform des groBen Eichenholzschiffes Nydam B’. In A. Rau (ed.), Nidam Mose 4: Die Schiffe. Beitrdge 2u Form, Technik und Historie (Aarhus), 147-213. Grane, T. 2003, ‘Roman sources for the geography and ethnography of Germania’. In L. Jorgensen, B. Storgaard and L. G. Thomsen, The Spoils of Victory The North in the Shadow of the Roman Empire (Copenhagen), 126-47. Green, C. 1988, Sution Hoo: the Excavation of a Royal ‘Ship-burial, 2nd ed. (London. Grimm, ©. 2001, ‘Norwegian boathouses from the late roman and migration period—an analysis of their military function’. In B. Storgaard (ed.), Military aspects of the aristocracy in Barbaricum in the Roman and Early Migration Period (Copenhagen), 55-66. Grimm, ©. 2002, “The military context of Norwegian boathouses (AD 1-1500)’. In A. Norgird Jorgensen, J Pind, L. Jorgensen and B, Clausen (eds.), Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe (Copenhagen), 105-25. Grimm, 0. and A, Pesch 2011, The Gudme/Gudhem Phenomenon. Schriften des Archdologischen Landesmuseums Enginzungsreihe 6 (Neumtinster). Gschwantler, K. 1999, Die Anhinger der Kette und ihre Deutung. In W. Scipel (ed.), Barbarenschmuck und Rémergold. Der Schatz von Szildgysomlyé (Milan- Vienna), 63-79. Hardb, B. 2002 Uppikra in the Migration and Merovingian Periods, In B, Hardh and L, Larsson (eds), Central Places in the Migration and the Merovingian Periods. Uppakrastudier 6 (Lund), 41-S4, Haupt, N. and N. P. Fenger 2003, ‘The paddles’. In O. Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas (eds.), Hjortspring: A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context (Roskilde), 119-33, Helgesson, B, 2002, *Uppiikra in the fifth to seventh ‘Centuries. The Transformation of a Central Place and. its Hinterland’. In B. Hardh and L. Larsson (eds. Central Places in the Migration and the Merovingian Periods. Uppaikrastudier 6 (Lund), 3140. Hines, 1 2022, “Wulfstan in Truso: Old English text, Baltie archaeology, and World History’, In K. Jolly and B. Brooks (eds), Global Perspectives on Early Medieval England (Woodbridge), 115-35. 127Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea Hirte, Chr. 1989, “Bemerkungen zu Befund und Funktion der kaiserzetlichen Stammboote von Vaale und Leck. Offa 46, 111-136. Hocker, F. M.,.N. P. Fenger and K. V. Valbjorn 2003, “Documentation and calculation of boat characteristies’ In O. Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas (eds.), Hjortspring: A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Context (Roskilde), 84-102, J. 1993, Ilerup Adal 3. Die Giirtel. Bestandieile und Zubehor. Textband (Aarhus). Ikjer, J. 1994, ‘Das Mooropfer von Ilerup Adal ~ der Stand der Bearbeitung im Jahr 1994°, In C. von Camap-Bomnheim (ed.), Beitrage 2u romischer und barbarischer Bewaffuung in der ersten vier nachchrisatlichen Jahrhunderten. Marburger Kolloguium 1994 (Marburg-Lublin), 233-48. Iikjer, J. 1997, ‘Gegner und Verbundete in Nordeuropa warend des 1. bis 4. Jahrhunderts’. In A. Nongird Jorgensen and B. L. Clausen (eds.), Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective AD 1-130 (Copenhagen), 55-63. Indruszewski, G. 2008, “From Iron Age to Middle Age: the archaeological evidence of ships and boats of the Baltic Sea’. Questiones Medii Aevi Novae 10, 11-82. Indruszewski, G. 2009, ‘The origin of the clinker hull ‘construction’. In R. Bockius (ed.), Berween the Seas: Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium (on Boat and Ship Archaeology. Mainz 2006 ISBSA 11 (Mainz), 409-20. Johnstone, B. 1988, The Sea-craft of Prehistory (London- New York). Kaczanowski, P. 1994, ‘Aus dem Forschungen an der terrtorielen Differenzierung des Zustroms rmischer Walfenimporte im Barbaricum’. Iw C. vow Carwap- Borner (#p.), Beitrge zu rdmischer und barbarischer Bewaffnung in der ersten vier nachchristlichen Jahrhunderten (Lublin-Marburg), 207-22. Kaxprzycka, M. 1999, Tlo paleogeogroaficene osadnictwa Zutaw Elblgskich w pierwszym tysigcleciu naszej ery. Adalbertus 5. Kaul, F. 1997, ‘Priorslokke and its logistic implications’. In A. Norgird-Jorgensen and B. L. Clausen (eds.), Milinary Aspects of Scandinavian Society ina European Perspective. AD 1-1300 (Copenhagen), 137-45. Kaul, F. 2003, “Hijortspring boat and ship iconography of the Bronze Age and Early Pre-Roman Iron Age’, In O. (Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Trakadas (eds.), Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship in Contexs (Roskilde), 187-207, Mia Kazakivitis, V. (Kasannsurnoc, B)I988, Orudife baltskicl lemen IVIL vekov na teritorii Liny (Opyxue Sarrerarx rene II-VI nexoo na teppuropi Jira) [Weaponry of the Baltic Peoples of the 2nd-Ste Centuries inthe Territory of Lithuania] (Vilnius 1988) (Biurest9¢ 1988). Kokowski, A. 2010, ‘Die Wielbark-Kultur — Goten i= Mittel- und Osteuropa’. In U. Lund Hansen and A Bitner-Wroblewska (eds.), Worlds apart? Contacte ‘across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age. Network Denmark-Poland 2005-2008 (Copenhagen-Warsas 111-39. Kolendo, J. 2009, *Ziemie u poludniowo-wschodnice ‘wybrzezy Baltyku w Zrédlach antycznych*. Pruthense W141 Koniny, B. 2003, *Z motyka na Slofice? Modliwosss odzwiereiedlenia instytueji druzyny w- materiale archeologicznym’ In A. Bursche and R. Ciolek (eds Aniyk i barbar=yiey. Ksigga dedskowana Profesor Jerzemu Kolendo (Warsaw), 253-67. Koniny, B. 2017, ‘Brotherssin-arms: Balt warriors their interregional contacts in the Roman Migration periods (the case of the Bogaczewo ang Sudovian cultures)’. Lietuvos archeologija 43, 11-62. Kontny, B. 20193, Archeologia wojny. Ze stutiéw rojeniem barbarzviskie} Europy okresow wp raymskich i wedréwek ludéw (OSwigcim). Kontny, B. 2019, ‘O fodziach u Swiondw. In K. Fak (ed), Donum cordis. Studia poswigcone pam Profesora Jerzego Kolendo (Warsavs), V68-88. Kontny B. 2020, “The making of Vidivari: Germanic Baltic interculturation in the late fith Century Bursche, Hines and Zapolska (eds) (@.x), 649-88 Kontny, B. and M. Rudnieki 2020, “Roman origin Migration Period military equipment from Kujawy Bursche, Hines and Zapolska (eds) (q.:), SO4-S42 Kontny, B. and P. Szymatiski 2015, “Baltyjska zapinkx poczatku psinego okresu wedréwek ludéw 2 Pus InKontny B. (ed), Ubi tribus faucibus fucnta Vist fiumins biburtr Jerzy Okulicz-Kazaryn in memo (Warsaw), 333-50 Kurzyfiska, M. 2015, Linowo. Stanowisko 6. Biryn ementarzysko kultury wielbarskiej 2 pélio weschodniej czesci ziemi chelmbiskie) (Grudzia Torus. Lindquist, 8. 1942, Gotlands Bildstine, 2 vols. (Stock! Lipke, P. 1984, The Roval Ship of Cheops: A retrosp ‘account ofthe discovery, restoration and reconsruc based on interviews with Hog Aled Youssef Mou 128British Archaeological Reports International Serie (Oxford), Lund Hansen U, 1987, Rémischer Import im Norden. Warenaustausch zwischen dem Romischen Reich und cdem freien Germanien wiihrend der Kaiserzeit unter besondere Beriicksichtigung — Nordeuropas (Copenhagen), Lund Hansen U. 1995, Himlingoje — Seeland ~ Ewopa. Ein Graberfeld der jiingeren rimischen Kaiserzeit auf Seetand, seine Bedeutung und Internationalen Beziehungen (Copenhagen). Machajewski, H. 1992, *Skandynawskie elementy kulturowe ‘na Pomorzu Zachodnim z okresu wedréwek Iudéw (2 polowa IV w.-poczgtek VIw.)". Przeglad Archeologiczny 40, 71-96. Machajewski, H. 2008, "Sudzone des Ostseebeckens und der Elbekulturkreis in der spiten romischen Kaiserzeit und in der frihen Volkerwanderungszeit’. In B. Niezabitowska, M. Juscifiski, P. Luczkiewiez and S. Sadowski (eds), The Turbulent Epoch. New Materials rom the Late Roman Period and the Migration Period, vol. I (Lublin), 131-59. Madsen, 0. 1997, ‘Hedegird—a rich village and cemetery ‘complex of the Early Iron Age on the Skjem river’ Journal of Danish Archaeology 13, 57-93. McGrail, $. 2001, Boats of the World from the Stone Age to Medieval Times (Oxford) Micke, R. and A. Rau 2013, *Schiffsteile aus der Flensburger Sammlung ~ Ausgewahites Altfundmaterial aus dem Nydam-Moor im Archiologischen Landesmuseum Schloss Gottorf, Schleswig’. In A, Rau (ed.), Nydam Mose 4: Die Schiffe. Beitrdge zu Form, Technik und Historie (Aarhus), 301-19. Myhre, Bj, 1997, “Boathouses and naval organisation’. In A. Nongird-Jorgensen and B. L. Clausen (ed.), Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society in a European Perspective. AD 1-1300 (Copenhagen), 169-83, ‘Nasman, U, 1991, ‘Sea trade during the Scandinavian Iron Age: its character, commodities, and routes’. In O. Crumlin-Pedersen (ed.), Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200-1200 (Roskilde), 23-40, Natuniewicz-Sekula, M. and Ch. Rein Seehusen 2010, Baltic connections.Some remarks about studies of boatgraves from Roman Iron Age. Finds from Slusegird and Weklice cemeteries’. In U. Lund Hansen, A. Bitner-Wroblewska (eds.), Worlds apart? Contacts across the Baltic Sea in the Iron Age. Network Denmark-Poland 2005-2008 (Copenhagen-Warsav'), 287-313. Norgird Jorgensen, A. 1997, “Sea defence in Denmark AD 7200-1300". In A. Nongird Jongensen and B. L. Clausen Maritime Contacts across the Batti (cds.), Military Aspects of Scandinavian Society ina European Perspective AD 1-1300 (Copenhagen), 200- 9. Norgétd Jorgensen, A. 2001, ‘Sea defence in the Roman Tron Age’. In B Storgaard (ed), Military Aspects ofthe Aristocraey in Barbaricum in the Roman and Early ‘Migration Periods (Copenhagen), 67-82 Norgird Jorgensen, A. 2008, Porskjaer Mosefund (Aarhus). Norgard Jorgensen, A. 2014a, “SchluBfolgerungen’. In A ‘Nongard Jorgensen and H. Che. H. Andersen, Fjsbol Mose. Die Kriegsbeuteopjer im Moor von Ejsbol aus dem spiiten LJhs.Che bis sum fetien S.Jh.n.Chr (Moeszird), 191-231 Norgird. Jorgensen, A. 2014b, *Schluffolgerungen Kriegsbeuteopfer im Moor von Ejsbol SchluBfolgerungen und Zusammenfassung’. In A. Norgird Jorgensen and H. Chr. H. Andersen, Ejsbol Mose. Die Kriegsbeuteopfer im Moor von Ejsbol aus dem spitenLJhx-Chr bis zum frithen S.Jhan.Chr (Moesgird), 232-64, Norgird Jorgensen, A. and H. Chr. H. A. Andersen 2014a, “Schiffs- und Bootsteile’. In A. Norgard Jorgensen and H Chr. H. Andersen, Ejsbol Mose. Die Kriegsbeuteopfer jim Moor von Ejsbol aus dem spaten Ih Che is 2um Jrihen 5.Jh.n.Che. (Moesgard), 175-89. Norgird Jorgensen, A. and H. Chr H. A. Andersen 2014b, “Obrige Funde”. In A. Norgind Jorgensen and I. Ch. H. Andersen, jsbol Mose. Die Kriegsbeuteopfer im ‘Moor von Ejsbal aus dem spaten 1.JhoxChr. bis zum frien S.dhn.Chr. (Moesgard), 190 Orsnes, M. 1988 Ejsbol L Waffenopyerfunde des 4-5. Jar nach Chr (Copenhagen). stergaard Sorensen, P. 2003, ‘Crafts and trade’. In L Jorgensen, B. Siorgaard and L. G. Thomsen (ed), The Spoils of Victory: The North in the Shadow of the Roman Empire (Copenhagen), 429, Osimo, E. 1992, "Helleristninger i et utkantstrok. Bidrag tl skipshistorien fra nye jemaldersstninger pi Dalbo i Barum’, Universitereis Oldsakssamling Varia 24 (Oso). Ossowski, W. 2003, “Expanded logboats between the Baltic and the Black Sea’. In C. Beltrame (ed.), Boats, Ships and Shipyards. Proceedings ofthe Ninth International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology Venice 2000. ISBSA 9 (Oxford), 177-82. Ossowski, W. 2010, ‘Przemiany w sckutnitwie rzecenym w Polsce. Studium archeologiczne”. Prace Centralnego Muzeum Morskiego w Gdarsku Bl (Géahsk). Pauli Jensen, X. 2008, “From fertility rituals to weapon sacrifices: the case of the south Scandinavian bog finds’. In U. von Freeden, H. Friesinger and E. Wamers 129Transitions and Relationships over Land and Sea (eds.), Glaube, Kult und Herrschafi. Phanomene des Religidsen im I. Jahrtausend n. Chr. in Mittel- und Nordeuropa Akten des 59. Internationalen Sachsensymposions und der Grundprobleme der fridhgeschichtlichen Entwicklung im Mitteldonauraum (Bonn), 53-64. Pauli Jensen, X. 2011, ‘Friend or foc ~ alliances and power structures in southern Scandinavia during the Roman ron Age’. Lund Archaeological Review 2011, 35-47. Pomian, |., B. Sliwitiski, Sz. Useinowiez, T. Wazny 2016, “The remains of the medieval harbour in Puck (northem Poland): a few words about the results of previous research’, In A. Bliujiené (ed.), The Sea and the Coastlands. International Conference dedicated to the 70th birthday of Academician Professor Dr habil. Viadias Zullus. Archaeologia Baltica 23, 235-43, Ricek, F. 1993, ‘Ships and boats in the bog finds of ‘Scandinavia’. In 0. Crumlin-Pedersen and C. M. Thye (eds.), Ship as a Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia. Papers from an International Research Seminar at the Danish National Museum, Copenhagen, fith-seventh May 1994 (Copenhagen), 125-2: Rieck, F. 2013, "Funde von Schiffen und Schiffsteilen aus «dem Nydam-Moor 1859-2011. In A. Rau (ed), Nyda Mose 4: Die Schiffe. Beitrage 2u Form, Technik und Historie (Aarhus), 1-148. Rosenberg, G. 1937, Hjortspringfunder (Copenhagen), Rudnicki, M. and M. Rudnicki 2020, “Kujawy (Central Poland) between Antiquity and Middle Ages’. In Bursche, Hines and Zapolska (eds,) (@.s.), 469-499. Schuster, J. 2015, ‘Przybysze ze Skandynawii — mate cmentarzysko 7 okresu wedrwek ludéw’. In J ‘Andrzejowski (ed.), Czarndwko, stan. 5. Cmentarzyska 2 pine) starozytnosci na Pomorzu (c=e8é 1) (Lebork- Warsaw), Shetelig, H. and F. Johannessen 1929, Kvalsundfiunder og andre norske myrfund av fartoier (Bergen). Stylegar, FA. and O. Grimm 2008, “Boathouses in Northem Europe and the North Atlantic’. The International Journal of Nautical Archaeology 34,2, 253-68, Stylegar, F-A. and H. Reiersen 2018, “The Flaghaus burials’. In D. Skre (ed), Avaldsnes — A Sea-Kings Manor in First-Millenium Western Scandinavia. Reallexikon der germanichen Altertumskunde — Engiinzungsbande 104 (Berlin-Boston), 551-638 Sylvester, M. 2009, “The Haugvik Boat —a Pre-Roman Iron ‘Age Boat Find from Northem Norway. In R. Bockius (ed.), Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archacology (Mainz), 33-39, Seulta, W, 1993, °Z badati nad tzw. wezesnosredniowieezayam portem w Zatoce Puckiej. In J. Chudziakowa (ed). Badania archeologicene osrodka torwisklego w lata 1989-1992 (Toru), 163-8. Thomsen, P.O. 1991, “Lundeborg: A trading centre from| third-seventh century AD’. In O. Crumlin-Pederses (ed), Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200-12 (Roskilde), 133-44. Tuszytiska, M. 2005, Uikowy, Cmentarzysko kult ‘wielbarskie) na Pomorzu Gdariskim (Gdatsk). ‘Varenius, B. 1995, Metaphorical ships in Iron-age contex| In 0. Crumlin-Pedersen and B. M. Thye (eds.), Ship Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinaw (Copenhagen), 35-40. Valbjorn, K. V, 2003, ‘A hypothetical “Hjortsp skinboat", In O. Crumlin-Pedersen and A. Tal (eds.), Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Iron-Age Warship. Context (Roskilde), 137-40. Viner, M. 2003, ‘Sea trials’. In O. Crumlin-Pedersen ‘A. Trakadas (eds.), Hjortspring. A Pre-Roman Ii Age Warship in Context (Roskilde), 103-18. Weski, T. 1998, ‘Anmerkungen zum Wasserverkehr wah der romischen Kaiserzeit im Odergebiet und aut Ostsee”. In Beitrdge zum Oderprojekt $ (Bert 59-74. Westerdahl, Ch.1995, “Society and sail’, In O. Crum! Pedersen and B. M. Thye (eds.), Ship as Symbol Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia (Copenh 41-30. Wickler, S. 2019, “Early Boats in Scandinavia: Ni Evidence from Early Iron Age Bog Finds in Ai Norway’. Journal of Maritime Archaeology 14, 18% 204, Wolagiewiez, P. 1970, ‘Naplyw importéw rzymskich Europy na pétnoc od srodkowego Dunaju’. Archeol Polski XW/1, 207-52, 130