The Significance of Portages: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Significance of Portages, 29th Sept–2nd Oct 2004, in Lyngdal, Vest-Agder, Norway, arranged by the County Municipality of Vest-Agder, Kristiansand 9781841719306, 9781407329505

Citation preview

BAR S1499 2006

The Significance of Portages

WESTERDAHL (Ed)

Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Significance of Portages, 29th Sept–2nd Oct 2004, in Lyngdal, Vest-Agder, Norway, arranged by the County Municipality of Vest-Agder, Kristiansand Edited by

Christer Westerdahl

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

B A R

BAR International Series 1499 2006

The Significance of Portages Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Significance of Portages, 29th Sept–2nd Oct 2004, in Lyngdal, Vest-Agder, Norway, arranged by the County Municipality of Vest-Agder, Kristiansand Edited by

Christer Westerdahl

BAR International Series 1499 2006

Published in 2016 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 1499 The Significance of Portages © The editors and contributors severally and the Publisher 2006 COVER IMAGE

Listeid, portage of Vest-Agder, South Norway, May 2005. Photo: the editor.

The authors' moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher.

ISBN 9781841719306 paperback ISBN 9781407329505 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841719306 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by Archaeopress in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 2006. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2016.

BAR PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

Andrew Sherratt in memoriam Our friend and star as key-note speaker suddenly died of an heart attack 24th February 2006, quite unexpectedly from any point of view. Andrew was born in 1946; he had recently (October 2005) taken up a newly-created Chair in Old World Prehistory at the University of Sheffield. As the editor of this volume I learnt of this sad news at the very moment when the book was about to be printed. I can only regret the fact that Andrew is no longer with us. He was an exceptionally inspiring person, both as a person and as a scientist / lecturer. I myself got to know Andrew during my period as a senior lecturer in Copenhagen from 1991 to 2001. The reason why he appeared to be the obvious choice as the key-note speaker on the theme of the conference was that he often cast aside everything when visiting us as a guest lecturer and in my office enthusiastically threw himself into the drawing of the grand overland passages, if you like portages, of the Ukraine and elsewhere in the world, not to forget other ideas and cross-disciplinary designs. We were as happy to have him there and in Lyngdal as we are happy to have his text in this volume. It is important to remember that Andrew is leaving a considerable legacy in the archaeological world, which will outlive him by far, e.g. the concept of the ‘secondary products revolution’ and his research initiatives in Eastern Europe. This is no ordinary achievement in the current whirlwinds blowing, even in the Humanities. Instead of mourning, I suggest reading his selection Economy and Society in Prehistoric Europe, Changing Perspectives (1997), still of current use! Christer Westerdahl

The photo was taken by Linn Knudsen, Vest-Agder County Municipality of Vest-Agder

Contents Introduction Portages: a simple but powerful idea in understanding human history............................................................................... 1 Andrew Sherratt On the Significance of Portages. A survey of a new research theme................................................................................ 15 Christer Westerdahl Portage at the base of Jutland during the Viking Period and the Middle Ages................................................................. 53 Klaus Brandt The “Portages” in Latvian and Lituanian Appellative and Toponomastic Lexicon......................................................... 65 Ojārs Bušs Portages at the coast of Poland in medieval times ............................................................................................................ 69 Robert Domzal Portages of Power – a preliminary report from Rogaland, Norway.................................................................................. 77 Turid Tveit and Endre Elvestad Portages in prehistoric societies – evidence from The Lower Danube Chalcolithic traditions........................................ 85 Dragos Gheorghiu Portages in the Late Bronze Age of NW Germany......................................................................................................... 103 Olaf Höckmann Routes to the Arctic Ocean. Aspects of medieval and post medieval portage systems in the Russian north.................. 113 Marek E. Jasinski and Oleg V. Ovsyannikov An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to the Problem of Portages...................................................................................... 151 Gunilla Larsson Words for ‘portage’ in the Scandinavian languages, and place-names indicating old portages ..................................... 169 Eva Nyman On the use of portages and boat-hauling in Greenland ................................................................................................... 175 H. C. Petersen The Greenland portages as meeting sites........................................................................................................................ 179 Robert Petersen The Dnieper rapids in “De administrando imperio”: the trade route and its sacrificial rites .......................................... 187 Vladimir Ja. Petrukhin Portages in Early Medieval Scotland. The Great Glen route and the Forth-Clyde Isthmus ........................................... 191 Christine Phillips Early Medieval portages on the trade route between the Baltic and Black Sea: a case study from the Polish-Rus’ borderlands.................................................................................................................................................. 199 Katarzyna Skrzyńska-Jankowska The myth of portages: On ancient portaging at the Trøndelag coast, Norway ............................................................... 209 Kalle Sognnes Portages in South Scandinavia – a typology................................................................................................................... 217 Frans-Arne Stylegar

i

Drag and Eid in Harkmark, Vest-Agder, Norway .......................................................................................................... 225 Paul Sveinall A possible Roman time portage between the North Sea and Baltic................................................................................ 227 Ulrike Teigelake Schemes for artificial sea-river waterways in 17th century Courland ............................................................................ 233 Juris Urtāns Place-Name Evidence for Portages in Orkney and Shetland .......................................................................................... 239 Doreen Waugh The portages in the Grimstad-area on the southeast coast of Norway ............................................................................ 251 Johan Anton Wikander Sea routes across land. Portages in Denmark, particularly during the Viking Age and the Middle Ages ...................... 255 Max Vinner Abstracts The Díolkos trackway near Corinth, Greece................................................................................................................... 257 Olaf Höckmann Fossa carolina. An early medieval canal near a watershed............................................................................................. 259 Robert Koch The role of river systems, watersheds and portages for the formation of state borders of Northern Russia (Novgorod Land) ........................................................................................................................................................... 260 Evgenij Nozov Medieval portages of Northern Rus’: historiographical tradition, literary sources and archaeological evidence.......... 261 Nikolaj Makarov The Draged complex, the land uplift and the inner sea routes of the archipelago of Åland ........................................... 262 Nils Storå Portages Network ........................................................................................................................................................... 263

ii

Introduction During my first fieldworks in the 1970s I became familiar with the use of some of the last regular inland portages in northern Scandinavia. At that time Povl Simonsen in Tromsø, Norway, had already been active in this field for at least a decade. We got in touch and exchanged experiences – Povl, of course as teacher and I the student. Another study of mine concerned the find spots of Saami sewn boats, which were presumably used at such portages. I realized the importance of this hitherto neglected feature of past transport geography. I documented some of these portages along the Baltic and the Bothnian coasts of Sweden. They appeared as an aspect of the maritime cultural landscape, a concept I introduced in the late 1970s. The idea of arranging an international conference on this subject first appeared during the mid-90s, when quite a few concrete projects were already in train in Russia and Norway (led by Povl Simonsen, Marek Jasinski and Pål Nymoen in Norway, and Nikolay Makarov and Eugenie Nozov in Russia). It seemed that it would be a good idea to create – and maybe also develop – a preliminary network, bringing together a number of people, some of whom were unknown to each other and had no idea they shared a common field of research. Many different local and regional problems and aspects would then be brought forward in order to generalize and question concepts and interpretations. It would also be an excellent occasion to bring the whole neglected complex into focus and expose it to a modest measure of publicity at least. In 1998 the proposal was first aired at the International Research Center of Maritime Archaeology (of the Danish National Museum) in Roskilde, to which I had been attached since 1990 as an Associate Professor at the University of Copenhagen. However, when I left my post I brought this idea with me, ultimately to Norway and by way of the initiative of the County Municipality of Vest-Agder, it could be put into practice in 2004. The meticulous preparations had already begun by the spring of 2003. From 29th September to 3rd of October 2004, including arrival and departure dates, between 75 and 100 individuals attended the two days of lectures in Lyngdal, and a glorious one-day excursion in the best autumn weather possible. The principal locations were the portage sites of Listeid and Spangereid, and the lighthouse of Lindesnes, an important part of the incipient national lighthouse museum of Norway. There were in fact three different day sessions, two international, using only English, and a single day using only Nordic languages (but parallel to the second English session). In this volume the original English papers, and some translated from the Nordic session, have been brought together. Their subjects range geographically from Greenland to Russia, chronologically from the Mesolithic to Late Medieval, and (to a certain extent) modern times. The environments ranged from coastal to inland inter-river sites, and the topics from linguistic and etymological interests to myth making, ritual, and the experimental handling of boats at portages. We also hope ultimately for a future, more general and fully illustrated publication in Norwegian. The ambition was to create an international network, and the embryo of such a network has been included in the proceedings. Another ambition, to include good bibliographies on the subject and its wide-ranging ramifications, has also been achieved. Proposals have been made for a second international conference on this theme, ranging from Canada to Finland and Russia, but so far no such invitation has been offered in kind. Particular thanks for the success of the above are due to The County Municipality of Vest-Agder, the NSKDepartment, and its head officer, Mr Kjell Abildsnes, the County Archaeologist, Mr Frans-Arne Stylegar, and the County Antiquarian, Mr Svein Mjaatvedt. But as the organizer of the conference I am, of course, much obliged to all the active participants – not only the contributors. It should also be pointed out that the informal working board of the conference has also included an advisory group, including Dr Jón Vidar Sigurðsson of the Centre for Viking Age and Medieval studies of the University of Oslo, Dr Poul Holm of the University of Southern Denmark, Esbjerg and Mrs Kerstin Olson of the County Museum of Bohuslän, Uddevalla, Sweden, for whose support we are also extremely grateful. I would aslo like to thank Dr Doreen Waugh and the publishers for language revision and good cooperation in general.

iii

A note on the main themes The contributions are printed in alphabetical order of surnames (except for the first two general surveys), but they may also be classified by their principal theme: General surveys Sherratt Westerdahl Linguistic section Buss Nyman Waugh Coastal portages Brandt Elvestad/Tveit Jasinski/ Ovsjannikov Koch (abstract) Petersen, H.C. Petersen, R. Phillips Sognnes Storå (abstract) Stylegar Sveinall Wikander Vinner Inland portages Domzal Gheorghiu Höckmann Höckmann on the diolkos (abstract) Koch (abstract) Makarov (abstract) Nozov (abstract) Petrukhin Skrzynska Teigelake Urtans Experimental archaeology Larsson

Christer Westerdahl Organizer and Editor Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Department of Archaeology and Religious Studies Faculty of Arts NO-7012 Trondheim Norway [email protected]

iv

Portages: a simple but powerful idea in understanding human history Andrew Sherratt

“It is the sea more than anything else that defines the contours of the land and gives it its shape, by forming gulfs, deep seas, straits, and likewise isthmuses, peninsulas, and promontories... It is through such natural features that we gain a clear conception of continents, nations, favourable positions of cities, and all the other diverse details with which our map is filled.” Strabo Geography ii.5.17 “Corinthe fut admirablement bien située: elle sépara deux mers, ouvrit et ferma le Péloponnèse, et ouvrit et ferma la Grèce. Elle fut une ville de la plus grande importance, dans un temps où le peuple grec était un monde, et les villes grecques des nations. Elle fit un plus grand commerce qu'Athènes. Elle avait un port pour recevoir les marchandises d'Asie; elle en avait un autre pour recevoir celles d'Italie: car, comme il y avait de grandes difficultés à tourner le promontoire Malée, où des vents opposés se rencontrent et causent des naufrages, on aimait mieux aller à Corinthe, et l'on pouvait même faire passer par terre les vaisseaux d'une mer à l'autre. Dans aucune ville on ne porta si loin les ouvrages de l'art.” Montequieu, De l’esprit des lois, Ch. XXI, 1784

In a perfect world, portages would not exist—but then, neither would we. Let me explain. In the 1960s, geographers—including some distinguished Scandinavian1 ones—attempted to imagine how human life might be organised if it existed on a uniform plane, an “isotropic2 surface” in the jargon of the time. In the models they created, settlements were evenly arrayed, like the atoms in a crystal lattice, and at regular intervals there arose centres, themselves evenly spaced, giving rise to even more complex crystalline shapes.3 It was a useful attempt to explore the geometrical regularities potentially underlying the real way in which human populations organise themselves on the surface of the Earth, revealing some abstract principles which might be manifested— however imperfectly—in the real world. But it was founded on a myth,4 for on such a flat and even world, nothing would ever happen—probably not organic evolution, and certainly not the emergence of human beings and their development of complex social patterns—because all the most interesting and formative episodes in human history have taken place at interruptions and rough places on the surface of the globe, from the emergence of the human species in the rift valleys of east Africa to the development of farming and city life in the most un-isotropic landscapes of the Fertile Crescent of western Asia, where the African landmass bumped into Eurasia and created the ruckled

and faulted surfaces which we know as the Levant, Mesopotamia and Iran. The world is not a flat sphere, but presents a mosaic of opportunities and obstacles at every turn. Human lives are lived out on these surfaces, and we make our decisions in the context of these irregularities. Hence, portages: decisions to change the means of transport and take a different kind of route. This assertion of the importance of the local and the specific is not intended to replace the search for regularity and pattern, since the realisation that similar outcomes arose in different times and places, and on different scales, is surely one of the most exciting experiences that can happen to the historian or geographer—a distinction of roles, incidentally, which I propose to ignore as an artificial imposition on a set of processes taking place both in time and space (how could it be otherwise!). History and geography are two dimensions of the same thing. In looking at the way in which human populations have distributed themselves across the world, and why certain regions or points on it have risen to particular prominence at certain times, geo-historians are doing two things simultaneously. The first is to look at the local peculiarities of landscape which differentiate one part of the world from another, and the second is to look for regularities (a slightly more abstract word than “rules”, which is perhaps more appropriate for physics) which explain why similar outcomes occur in different places, and to look for the circumstances which give rise to them. These operations must also be set in a historical context, since such circumstances inevitably alter through time. Even where a landscape remains relatively stable, the context of its use by human populations constantly changes: a tropical rainforest is a different environment for an indigenous forager than for a logger or oilprospector, working in a wider spatial context. The “circumstances” which we need to take into account are thus both specific ones, like the arrangement of trading contacts at a particular time, and also general or comparative ones, like (say) the ability to carry light boats overland, which is true of half a dozen historically

1 William Bunge and Torsten Hägerstrand of the University of Lund were leaders of this movement, although the idea of an isotropic surface is more commonly associated with the name of the German, Alfred Loesch. These writers, and American contemporaries, were influential in what came to be called “New Geography”, expounded in classical form by Haggett (1965), and which exercised a formative influence on the “New Archaeology” of David L. Clarke (e.g. 1968, 1972). 2 From the Greek tropos, “turn”; on an isotropic surface, all turns are equal. 3 Christaller was a planner, who wanted people to live in such optimally efficient, energy-minimising arrangements—which are perhaps more common at the molecular level than at the scale which we inhabit as multicellular organisms. 4 A not uncommon feature of philosophical systems (compare, for instance the 17th and 18th century idea of the “social contract”), and not a fatal flaw unless it is mistaken for historical reality.

1

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

specific and unrelated traditions of boatbuilding, when faced with similar obstacles. The whole operation of understanding such things is thus an exercise in “joinedup thinking”, both in mobilising analogies from one part of the world to another, and also in setting a particular case in context on a variety of scales, in order to understand both the distinctive properties of cultural practices and the abstract logic of their operation. The abstraction sought by mathematical geographers is just one aspect of this total approach; but so also is local knowledge, a practical grasp of what was going on at the time, and a wide acquaintance with relevant matters throughout the world.

can be considered as a class of phenomena with common characteristics and significance—and themselves form part of a wider phenomenology of water routes, either fully maritime or by canal, and integrated in different ways with overland routes of different kinds, which underlie the whole development of urban and industrial systems across the world. They are thus a subset of the history and geography of transport—but they are also a stimulus to the imagination, in bringing together examples and ideas into productive conjunction, about the articulation of land and water routes on a variety of scales. The intellectual prehistory6 of portages: why the topic fell out of favour

The study of portages fits this prescription very well. Particular examples are famous, either locally or even nationally and internationally (Corinth and the Corinth canal, for instance, or the Isthmus of Panama); but we are so far missing a more generalised treatment which would bring them together and evaluate their similarities, differences, and their historical importance. That is why this volume is so significant, in opening up a new perspective on this aspect of the past. It is not that waterways or the balance between water and land transport have been neglected as historiographic themes – witness Jan de Vries’ (1981) book on the importance of canals in the economic development of the Low Countries, or even Pieter Geyl’s once radical hypothesis (1936) that the division into the Spanish Netherlands and the United Provinces had less to do with the resistant spirit of Protestantism than with the ability of Spanish warships to sail up the estuaries—to take just two examples from the Rhine delta. Rather, it is that these have been taken as isolated examples, and not brought together as a class of phenomena with a common set of models and interpretations—symptomatic, perhaps, of the separation of geography from history, and both from archaeology and ethnology. The potential for this approach, however, is demonstrated by explorations of the importance of river routes for understanding Hallstatt central Europe or Free Germania, on the northern edge of the expanding Greco-Roman world (Pauli 1993; Teigelake this vol.), complementing the better-known example of the Varangian Viking routes linking the Baltic and the Black Sea in the early medieval period (Nosov 19965), feeding the growing economies of the eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic world.. What is clear is that there is a huge topic in economic history (and by implication also in cultural and political history) concerned with the movement of goods—and the ideas that go with them—by water and land, and how the patterns of connections between regions (and the growth of inter-regional systems) are illuminated by a consideration of their logic. Portages are one aspect of a system for transferring goods, which are characteristic of a certain scale of activity and type of organisation, and

Such questions of traditional routes and the factors affecting them used to be in the main stream of geography, as it emerged in the later 19th century in the descriptive tradition of Friedrich Ratzel and Lucien Febre.7 Its characteristic questions concerned matters such as why towns grow up at route junctions, or at fords, or at the limits of river navigation; where centres of political control originated; or how cultural and landscape boundaries interact. It had a great deal to say about “break of bulk” points, where goods were transferred from one means of transport to another. This tradition flowed, via Paul Vidal de la Blache, into the Annales tradition of history-writing in France, and it also gave rise to a school of cultural geography in the USA, of which Ellen Churchill Semple (who studied with Ratzel) is the most relevant to present concerns.8 There is little influence of this tradition in present-day geography, however. World War II was a watershed in geographical writing, since this earlier, backward-looking perspective, emphasizing traditional practices and historical origins, came to be superceded by a more forward-looking approach that was increasingly concerned with planning and economic development in the contemporary world. If this “New Geography” looked to predecessors, it was to Alfred9 Weber’s Über den Standort der Industrien (Theory of the Location of Industries; 1909, translated 1929), with its concern for the optimal positioning of factories and the bulk transfer of their products. Stimulating as Weber’s work is (and relevant to portages, when scaled down to pre-industrial quantities), its 6

“Prehistory”, rather than “history”, because these early discussions have been so thoroughly forgotten. 7 Some of these insights go back to the preceding century, and there are many sound geographical descriptions and judgements to be found in the work of Charles Louis de Secondat, Baron de la Brède et de Montesquieu, author of De l'esprit des lois (1748), which we will have occasion to quote later on (Note 29). 8 For instance her discussions in Section IV (Maritime Activities) in the Geography of the Mediterranean Region: its relation to ancient history (1931, 579-707). The German tradition of political geography in was continued in the USA by writers such as Derwent Whittelsey (e.g. The Earth and the State, 1939), and retained its connections with historical geography in the writings of the British geographer W. Gordon East (e.g. The Geography behind History, 1938). 9 Younger brother of Max Weber, the founder of modern sociology.

5 Nosov (1996); cf. Forrest Pitts, ‘The Medieval River Trade Network of Russia Revisited’ Social Networks 1978/79) 1:285-292 reproduced at http://www.analytictech.com/networks/pitts.htm

2

ANDREW SHERRATT: PORTAGES: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL IDEA IN UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY century scholarship,12 it is none the worse for that: for it harks back to the informed discussion of questions of preindustrial transport and location which was the theme of much of the geography of the time (and when, indeed, there was still a pre-industrial world in Europe, or recent memories of it, to be studied). It was in that sense a mainstream contribution to geography, unusual only in going back to the ancient Mediterranean rather than being concerned with the more immediate roots of modern European urbanism in the late antique and medieval world. It was also a much more mainstream contribution to cultural history than it appears today, for it was written in the liberal tradition of Eduard Meyer (with his “modernist” emphasis on the importance of trade, contact and inter-cultural transfer), as opposed to the alternative tradition of ancient history associated with Karl Bücher (with its primitivist stress on autonomous evolutionary development and insistence on the autarky of the oikos, the Greek household, in which trade was held to be practically non-existent). In the intervening years, this primitivist, anti-trade interpretation has been largely dominant, at least in classics (although in a more sophisticated mode, associated with the work of Moses Finley); and these contrasting attitudes are still with us, for there are striking parallels between these old controversies in classics and contemporary debates in archaeology on questions such as regional autonomy versus the importance of interaction and maritime trade in the economic development of areas such as the Mediterranean.13 Such disputes serve to remind us that even apparently unproblematic and practical subjects as the importance of portages are embedded in wider interpretative issues and are in reality an intellectual minefield—for which the present discussion is intended as a map.

espousal marks a rejection of concerns with the vanishing world of pre-industrial Europe and a re-orientation of geography into an essentially presentist (or futurist) subject. Older writings were stigmatised as descriptive and environmentally determinist, and were rejected by the creators of the New Geography, who left behind questions such as those about portages, as geography turned to track a modern, developing, planned, post-War world, and turned its back on the pre-industrial world, at least in Europe. Hence the concern of New Geographers to wipe the slate clean, both of history and even of irregularities in the environment itself. This reorientation of geography, from past to present, goes some way to explaining why portages are not at the forefront of discussion in modern geography: for such phenomena relate to an earlier phase in the history of transportation. Yet the topic of portages, although a relatively novel subject for a volume such as this one, does, however, already have its reasoned exposition as far as one particular set of examples is concerned—one which awaits generalisation to other settings and circumstances. Moreover this discussion was published not just as the recognition of an interesting regularity, but was even expressed as a historical law: the loi des isthmes of Victor Bérard (1864-1931), formulated at the beginning of the 20th century.10 It is an absolutely characteristic episode of intellectual history, whereby knowledge is found and lost—falling victim to changing intellectual fashions and prisoner of the cellular and overspecialised academic structures within which that knowledge is accumulated.11 It is therefore worth spending a few minutes to liberate it and re-incorporate it into comparative discussion, for the episode of history to which it relates has striking analogies with other episodes, in the Baltic and beyond. Bérard was addressing an audience which was primarily a classical one, interested in Greek and Roman expansion in the Mediterranean; but his subject was essentially based in another cultural tradition, that of the Phoenicians, and perhaps that explains something of the reasons for its neglect. Certainly Bérard is now something of a bête noir amongst classicists: the American archaeologist James Muhly, in searching for a disparaging phrase with which to dismiss the (admittedly controversial) ideas of Martin Bernal’s Black Athena—an attempt to restore the formative role of the east Mediterranean civilisations in the formation of the classical world—described it as a “réchauffage of the theories of Victor Bérard”, and this was not intended to express praise. Although Bérard’s work belongs essentially in the world of later-19th

It is thus worthwhile for us here to pursue the work of Victor Bérard and its intellectual context, for in the last 70 years his insights have been largely forgotten, even though they provide one of the most systematic and reasoned expositions of the phenomenon. Bérard’s work was concerned with Homeric geography, or more precisely with the geography of the Odyssey.14 It was The Phoenicians and the Odyssey (1902-3, reissued 1927) which caused the controversy, in suggesting that behind the Odyssey lay a vanished Phoenician periplus or traveller’s account of the adventures of a Phoenician 12

His major work, Les Pheniciens et l’Odysee, was first published in 1902-3, although reissued in 1927, along with Les Navigations d’Ulysse and a photo album Dans le sillon d’Ulysse, in 1927-9. Although his work was by that time deeply unfashionable in classical circles, Bérard had married the daughter of the well-known publisher, Armand Colin, publisher of Les Annales (their son, Armand Bérard became a distinguished diplomat and writer on foreign affairs); this must have made re-publication easier than it might otherwise have been! 13 See Sherratt (1996); Sherratt, A. (2000), Sherratt, E.S. and Sherratt, A.G. (1993); Sherratt, A., and Sherratt S. (1998; also downloadable as a pdf file from the Trade Routes section of http://archatlas.org). 14 Today it is the Iliad which is more controversial, as the focus of scholarly disputes over the historical reality of the Trojan War (and the role of another nineteenth-century scholar, Heinrich Schliemann, in resurrecting it).

10 It is not surprising that classical authors themselves used the notion of isthmus, either as metaphor (Plato describes the neck as the "isthmus and boundary" between the divine soul above and the mortal soul below: Timaeus 69), or as a practical description (Strabo described Cappadocia as “the isthmus, as it were, of a large peninsula bounded by two seas… ”: Geography 12.i.3). 11 For instance, I was completely unaware of its value when I wrote a major article on this theme in 1996, and the name does not appear in its bibliography. I learned of it, ironically, from James Muhly’s discussion of Bernal!

3

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES sailor in the west Mediterranean.15 Homer was thus seen as a cosmopolitan Greek, working with Semitic materials. It was this which raised the ire of scholars such as Salomon Reinach, famously concerned with “the revindication of Europe, against the claims of Asia”, and other scholars (including Arthur Evans) concerned to praise the Hellenic heritage and disparage the Semitic contribution.16 Bérard was thus consigned to the ranks of those who had misunderstood ancient history. There are echoes here of the controversies over the relative roles of the Varangian Vikings and the indigenous Slav communities in the founding of the Rus’ and thus of the Russian state: the confrontation of the “Normanists” (who assert the critical contribution of the Vikings) and the “anti-Normanists” (who treat state-formation as an indigenous development). Both conflicts concern the relative contributions of intrusive trading communities (Phoenicians, Vikings) and indigenous populations (Greeks, Slavs), and thus in some sense the “identity” of modern cultural and political units. Modern, archaeological interpretations need to be free of such ideological baggage.17 Nowadays, classicists are beginning to be less uptight about the Phoenicians, and there is a remarkable revival in Phoenician studies, with a flood of new archaeological evidence (well summarised in Aubet 2001); in an age of multiculturalism and transnational migration, such phenomena seem less anomalous than they did a generation ago, in an age which was capable of conceiving an Endlösung to such situations. Nevertheless the anti-Semitic sentiments of his commentators have effectively served to silence discussion of Bérard’s famous generalisation, the loi des isthmes. For Bérard claimed to discern, in the settlement patterns of the Aegean (and especially in places called Astypalaia, “old town”) the traces of an ancient geography, belonging to the age of Phoenician seafarers; and moreover he set out to expound its locational logic. The first part of Les Phéniciens et l’Odysée (1927, 21114) is an essay in geography entitled sites et habitats, and was described by the contemporary Cambridge classicist F.M. Cornford18 as a “brilliant exposition” in a

“fascinating book”; in fact he was proud to proclaim that “my work is inspired by his discoveries”.19 He concisely describes Bérard’s views as follows: “We naturally think of an isthmus as a land-route, opening up a range of territory; we travel along it by the railway which takes us from Patras, through Corinth, to Athens. Our route by sea goes round the south of the Peloponnese, past Cape Malea, But, before the invention of steam, an isthmus, as M. Bérard has shown, is not only a link between two continents; it is of much more importance as a bridge between two seas. For the comprehension of ancient commercial routes, and of all that part of history which depends on them, it is essential to grasp M. Bérard’s cardinal principle”. (Cornford 1907, 33.)20 Bérard’s discussion (1927, 21-114) of the realities of ancient geography is one of the most stimulating discussions in print of travel and transport in the period before the steamship and the railway. After discussing some striking regularities in space and time—how Atlantic ports are on estuaries, but Mediterranean ones are displaced from them,21 or how the locations of harbours in Brittany shifted seawards out of their protecting inlets after the early modern period, he takes the Plain of Argos in the Greek Peloponnese as a case study. Noting how Nauplion has been from Venetian times the deep-water port, he works back through formerly prominent sites—Argos, the classical capital, Tiryns, on the sea when it was occupied in the Bronze Age, and finally Mycenae—a typical fortress dominating a defile through the mountains (Turkish dervend). This he compares with the situation in Albania down to the mid19th century, when the Beys of Elbasan, Berat and Tepeleni guarded the entries to defiles from the Adriatic across the Pindus and so to Thessaloniki and Constantinople, levying tolls. When larger vessels made the route round Cape Malea, these locations lost their life, called Microcosmographia Academica, a guide for the young university politician, still in print and immensely readable (and relevant today). 19 “In the next paragraphs I am following closely M. Victor Berard's brilliant exposition of his ‘Law of Isthmuses’ in Les Phéniciens et L'Odyssée, 1. p. 61 ff, and freely borrowing his evidence. Any reader of this fascinating book will see that all this section of my work is inspired by his discoveries.”(Cornford 1907, 32). 20 Cornford provides another example: “We will here adduce only one of M. Bérard's illustrations, because it is taken from Thucydides himself. Among the reasons which the historian gives for the great distress at Athens, caused by the occupation of Dekeleia, is the following: ‘Provisions formerly conveyed by the shorter route from Euboea to Oropus and thence overland through Dekeleia, were now carried by sea round the promontory of Sunium at great cost.’ The road from Oropus by Dekeleia to Athens was an isthmic route. Now that steam has made us independent of winds, no one would dream of sending corn from Oropus to Athens by road; and this land-route, which in the time of Dicaearchus was still a flourishing caravan-track, ‘well supplied with inns,’ is now utterly abandoned. But before the introduction of steam it was easier, quicker, and cheaper than the searoute round Sunium.” 21 Since Mediterranean rivers, lacking the Atlantic’s scouring currents, tend to produce prograding deltas at their mouths.

15

This motif, incidentally, underlies a great work of modern literature, James Joyce’s Ulysses; and it also finds echoes in T.S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land, in a section called “Death by Water”: “Phlebas the Phoenician, a fortnight dead, Forgot the cry of the gulls, and the deep sea swell And the profit and loss…” in sacrificing himself for the dying Fisher King. Bérard’s ideas were not only accepted at the time, but widely influential in the literary sphere. 16 “la révendication des droits de l’Europe contre les prétensions de l’Asie” (Reinach 1893, 3), which also vowed to “expel these mythical navigators [the Phoenicians] from Mediterranean history”. It is an astonishing fact (to a modern generation) that interpretations of the role of seafaring in the ancient world were so dependent on what were, in the last analysis, defamatory ethnic stereotypes. As Bérard himself expressed it: “longtemps encore, il se trouvera de vaillants coeurs pour defender le patrimoine sacré des ancêtres indo-européens et repousser toute invasion des influences sémitiques loin de ce domaine grec, citadelle et temple de la culture occidentale.” (1927, 27). 17 See, for example, Pavel Dolukhanov, (1966), The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus, which takes a stance sympathetic to the indigenist view. 18 Francis Cornford was author, not only of a standard work on Thucydides, (Cornford 1907) but also of a classic parody of academic

4

ANDREW SHERRATT: PORTAGES: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL IDEA IN UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY sense (a portage) more recently, being derived from French-Canadian usage in relation to the fur trade and the Voyageurs25—indeed, “Portage” is a not uncommon place-name in North America. In this sense, it is an overland connection between rivers, or a detour round an obstacle on a particular river, along or around which the light boats (usually birchbark canoes) could be carried. In this sense it is the direct equivalent of the Slav volok (Волок, also used as a placename,26 and hence sometimes a surname), usually translated into German as Schiffschleppweg. The analogies between these two riverine-based systems in the Old and New Worlds (both trading furs as a valuable commodity) are striking (Wolf 1982; Nosov 1996). Sadly, English has no equivalent word “ship-schlep-way” (the middle element coming via New York Yiddish, incidentally, but not in relation to ships!), so that we have no specialised word for the shortdistance transport of light ships, that cannot also be used of the simple carriage of goods—unless we make a contrast between “portage” for the former and “porterage” for the latter.

advantage. Here, then, is the logic of Mycenae’s prominence, in dominating the route from plain of Argos to Acrocorinth22 via Nemea (where Herakles confronted the Nemean lion), and controlling the flow of traffic between north and south (and, in terms of its onward links, between east and west). “Mycènes ne peut pas se comprendre sans le transit d’un commerce sur la route isthmique” (1927, 40). It is thus, as it were, a Bronze Age predecessor of Corinth, on the pivot between the Aegean and Ionian seas, the east and the central Mediterranean, at a time when the centre of gravity of maritime traffic lay to the south, in Crete and Rhodes and along the coast of southern Anatolia, rather than in Ionia as at the time of Corinth’s Iron Age prosperity.23 “De cet example,” he continues, “nous pouvons dégager une loi de la topologie antique: la ‘loi des isthmes’”; and he goes on to exemplify his principle in a score of further instances within the Aegean (1927, 40-114, with topographic maps Planches I-XXI), peppered with later analogies and comparisons (“Durant plusieurs ages, Ilion fut une Singapour, à la première entrée de cette mer de l’or et des grands fleuves…. Ilion apparait aussitôt comme la Byzance de cette période préhellénique”: 1927, 98, 99).

Yet there are several concepts here which we wish to capture for more general use, so let us review them. In the case of the postulated overland route past Mycenae to Corinth, we have an intermediate land-route between two bodies of water, each of them a maritime interaction sphere. In this case there is no suggestion that the vessels themselves were transported along the route, or even that seafaring traders travelled along with their goods, by different means of transport, over long distances. Rather, it is more likely that the goods passed through many different hands along the route, and that they were all passed through a large number of independent intermediaries. (Many ancient routes were of this sort: we shall come later to the Silk Road, one of the longest of its kind.) Goods travelling along the overland route from the Plain of Argos to the narrow plain of Corinthian were almost certainly transported by pack-animals, probably belonging to Mycenae or other centres. It could therefore be described as a segmented route, with the different segments in different hands, each with its own specialised means of transport—boats or donkeys.

Those concerned with early Mediterranean sailing must read the original: my purpose here is simply to assert the continuity of contemporary interests with such nowforgotten bodies of detailed discussion,24 and to suggest their relevance to a wider study of maritime affairs which may weld the isolated insights of a dozen different disciplines—alive or dormant—into a more coherent approach to these phenomena. Isthmus and portage: integrating land and water So far we have talked in terms of isthmuses rather than portages: and it is now time to investigate the connection between them. The paradigm case of Mycenae which Bérard presented is not what we would think of today as a portage in the simple sense. This word in English is of French origin and originally had the generalised sense of carriage or transportation, but it acquired a more specific

Yet this axial route across Bronze Age Greece was in some sense the predecessor of another axial route across the peninsula, also involving the area around Corinth, in the early to mid first millennium, the Iron Age: the route across the Isthmus of Corinth—in this case between the Saronic Gulf (rather than the Argolic Gulf) and the Gulf

22

Acrocorinth: “high Corinth”, the ancient citadel. Bérard does not talk about the Bronze Age, and indeed the first edition of his book was published before Arthur Evans began his excavations of Knossos: he refers, rather, to a vaguely-defined Homeric world containing both Greeks and Phoenicians, rather than the secondmillennium one which we would now populate with Minoans, Mycenaeans and Canaanites, the predecessors of the first-millennium groups of his terminology; but the contrast is a temporal one (and one of scale), and the terms are less important than the concepts. Indeed, we would now wish to differentiate more finely within the Bronze Age, and see in the Late Bronze Age climax of the 14th century BC some of the large-scale features which anticipate later developments, so his discussion should be seen as the construction of a model involving polar contrasts, rather than as a simple stadial succession. 24 This is not to assert that Bérard’s insights are unique (except in being so fully worked out, and so thoroughly forgotten), and no doubt many other nuggets of wisdom lie embedded in their respective regional or specialist literatures. 23

25

For the Voyageurs and the North American fur trade, see: The http://www.civilization.ca/vmnf/popul/coureurs/index2en.htm. trade involved the exchange of textiles (especially blankets), weapons and metal utensils in exchange for furs, principally beaver. The embeddedness of this trade in the contemporary world system needs to be stressed, especially the demand of fashionable industrializing Europe for the raw materials for hats. 26 E.g. Volokolamsk, 120 km to the north-west of Moscow, on the route from Novgorod to the Volga-Oka river basin, (from the Lama river to the Voloshnya river), the shortest way from the Novgorod to Moscow.

5

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES of Corinth, on a more directly east-west axis.27 This was a narrower strip of land (just 5 km as opposed to 45 from Mycenae), and thus passable as a Schiffschleppweg—a portage in the same sense as those on the great continental river-systems—on a long-distance journey between the Aegean and the Ionian Seas.28 Although occupying an analogous structural position to the Isthmus of Mycenae, it thus had both different physical characteristics and a different role in transport networks. Nevertheless its position picked out Corinth for prominence in the mid-first millennium BC in the same way as the Bronze Age route had privileged Mycenae in the mid-second.29 What was different was a pattern of long-distance voyaging in small ships (a pattern which probably started at the end of the Bronze Age, after 1300 BC), and which grew in scale during the first millennium BC (Sherratt and Sherratt 1993). This growth in the volume of traffic is reflected first in the construction in the late seventh or early sixth century of a slipway, the diolkos, along which the empty ships were hauled and the cargo taken on board again at the end, and then in the growth of Corinth’s two harbours, (Lechaion on the Gulf of Corinth, and Kenchreai on the shores of the Saronic Gulf), serving shipping confined to separate segments of the overall route (though perhaps sometimes owned by the same people, probably in this case Corinthians themselves). Thus, faced with a growing tonnage of shipping, the first reaction was to provide a mechanically assisted portage, and then to recognise that the larger vessels were best confined to their own seas, and that the goods had to be transhipped from one to another. The convenience of being able to sail along a single continuous route was traded off against the advantages of bulk transport—thus re-introducing a degree of segmentation, but now probably of a rather different kind, with more continuous ownership of the goods being carried.

The resolution of this tension could come about in two ways: either by taking a long-haul route around the southern Peloponnese (and the notorious Cape Malea), or by creating artificially the conditions of continuous sailing—the construction of a canal.30 Both were capitalintensive solutions, the former in terms of the construction of ships sturdy enough to withstand the more rigorous conditions (and to bear the inevitably increased losses by shipwreck), the latter in terms of shifting vast quantities of earth and rock. Herodotus records that the inhabitants of Cnidos in south-west Asia Minor—in a similarly isthmian situation to that of the Corinthians (albeit with different proportions of land and sea), being positioned on a long westward-jutting peninsula athwart the main route from Rhodes up the west coast into the Aegean, but having an equally narrow neck of land to pierce—had originally determined to cut a canal, but were deterred by an adverse oracle (perhaps expressing an inspired estimate of the real costs). In the case of Corinth, however, there was a long history of abortive attempts to drive a canal across the isthmus (most spectacularly by the Roman emperor Hadrian, not unused to big projects), and only successfully completed in the nineteenth century of our own era—the age which also saw the completion of the Suez canal, with an equally long history of abortive attempts). The Suez Canal was driven across another isthmus, that separating the Mediterranean from the Red Sea, and hence the Indian Ocean. It is thus an inter-oceanic isthmus, and therefore relevant to trading-systems on a much larger scale than those so far discussed—yet the principle remains the same, and the models can be scaled up appropriately. Thus, just as there are two passages from the Aegean to the Gulf of Corinth (via the Argolic Gulf and the Saronic Gulf respectively), so—on a grander scale—there are two passages from the Mediterranean to the Indian Ocean: one via the Persian Gulf and one via the Red Sea. In a sense, therefore, the lands between the Mediterranean and these two great inlets of the Indian Ocean form two large isthmuses, and the corridors between them form vast trans-isthmian routes. One of these links goes through Mesopotamia, the other through Egypt. This insight, on an intercontinental (or rather, inter-oceanic) scale, is due to the distinguished orientalist Maurice Lombard, a brilliant but relatively and undeservedly unrecognised member of the school of les

27 It is no coincidence that the tyrant of Corinth, Periander, who ruled from 627 to 587 BC and whose tyranny coincided with perhaps the greatest period of Corinth’s prosperity (during which the diolchos was constructed), both allied his town with the rich Ionian city of Miletus and also appointed his son Lycophron as tyrant of Corcyra (Corfu), an important trade partner in routes to Italy and the West. 28 With the island of Ithaca, home of Odysseus, symmetrically at the other end of the Corinthian Gulf, and serving as a stepping-stone to the West (either the Adriatic or, more importantly, the Tyrrhenian Seas). 29 The point had been grasped earlier, by the Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu, writing in 1748 (the passage cited in the original at the beginning of this chapter): “Corinth was admirably situated; it separated two seas, and opened and shut the Peloponnesus; it was the key of Greece, and a city of the greatest importance, at a time when the people of Greece were a world, and the cities of Greece nations. Its trade was more extensive than that of Athens, having a port to receive the merchandise of Asia, and another those of Italy; for the great difficulties which attended the doubling Cape Malea, where the meeting of opposite winds causes shipwrecks, induced every one to go to Corinth, and they could even convey their vessels over land from one sea to the other. Never was there a city in which the works of art were carried to so high a degree of perfection.”: (Montesquieu 1748: The Spirit of the Laws, Book XXI. “Of Laws in relation to Commerce, considered in the Revolutions it has met with in the World”).

30 There is a fascinating compendium of information about such early exploits, compiled at the height of Britain’s own canal-building enthusiasm during the Industrial Revolution, in a volume whose title I cannot resist quoting in full (though there is no space to exhibit all the varieties of typeface): A Treatise On the Improvement of Canal Navigation, Exhibiting the Numerous Advantages to be Derived from Small Canalsand Boats of Two to Five Feet Wide, Containing from Two to Five Tons Burthen, with a Description of the Machinery for Facilitating Conveyance by Water through the most mountainous Countries independent of Locks and Aqueducts: including observations on the great importance of water communications with thoughts on, and designs for, aqueducts and bridges of iron and wood, illustrated by seventeen plates, by R. Fulton, civil engineer, London: published by I. and J. Taylor at the Architectural Library, High Holborn, 1796.

6

ANDREW SHERRATT: PORTAGES: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL IDEA IN UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY Annales.31 Lombard was an economic historian of the early Islamic world (famous for his L’Islam dans sa première grandeur, 1971, and his great, three-volume Etudes d’economie medievale, 1971-8) and an inheritor of the interpretative tradition of Victor Bérard. His maps are a joy; but he died prematurely, and he is less celebrated than his contemporary Fernand Braudel, who shared his Bérardian geographical inheritance, and was equally enthusiastic about isthmuses (as we shall see). Let us merely note, at this point, that one of Lombard’s great trans-isthmian routes became a continuous waterway: like the Isthmus of Corinth, the Isthmus of Suez proved penetrable by canal. As in the case of the route between Argos and Corinth, however, the corridor which links the east Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf (from the ‘Amuq to Basra) was too long to be physically joined by canal, even today.32

routes from the sixteenth century onwards—and nowadays (especially with the addition of oil as a critical commodity) they are the cockpit of global disputes in the unstable centre of the Old World ecumene. Let us enlarge the scale again, to follow this logic in the context of the Oceanic Age which followed the Golden Age of Islam. Oceans are generally divided by continental masses, but are sometimes separated by what appear as mere strips of land, which are actually the summits of submerged mountain chains. Two strategic points, where these mountains narrow to their minimum extent, have been of unusual geo-economic and geopolitical significance: the narrow parts of the Malay Peninsula (the Isthmus of Kra), separating the Indian Ocean from the China Sea, and the narrow bridge of Mesoamerica, between Mexico and Colombia, joining North and South America. Once more a pair of similar features also form a contrast, in that one came to be occupied by a famous canal and the other has proved (up till now) impossible to link—thus displacing an incipient centre of prosperity and power. The important route between southern China and India ran in the 10th to 14th centuries through the China Sea and across the Malay peninsula—the long ridge which marks the boundary between the Eurasian plate and the northward-moving Indo-Australian plate, and is continued in a chain of islands reaching down towards New Guinea. This area had its own long history of seafaring, and provided the axis along which bird-of-paradise feathers had been supplied to Han China; but now it was an obstacle to the larger scale of long-distance voyaging between the major centres of civilisation. The answer to this was to pioneer trans-isthmian routes across the Malay peninsula, and it was this that led Paul Wheatley, in a famous book36 to use the term the “Isthmian Age” to refer to the history of the Malay Peninsula up to 1400 (i.e. before the rise of Malacca). Goods on their way to India would be unloaded and carried across the Isthmus of Kra. The site of Satingpra, on the eastern side of the isthmus and with navigable rivers flowing to the coast, was a major port in the period from AD 1000-1400, supported by irrigation and with artificial channels to allow shipping to enter the lagoon37. Although politically dominated by Funan— centred on a seaport on the opposite shore of the Gulf of Thailand—it nevertheless became the major (though not the only) port city on the peninsula, with facilities both for servicing ships and handling goods. Even during they heyday of Satingpra, however, some ships sailed round the peninsula, braving pirates and adverse winds; and with the growing size of shipping this route became more important and sustained the growth of the successive states of Srivijaya (Palembang, Sumatra) and Majapahit (east Java) The early Ming emperors founded a new straits port, Malacca, and when that began to silt up the British founded Singapore in 1819. Interestingly, there is

The riverine arteries provided by the Nile and the TigrisEuphrates were important from the very beginnings of urban civilisation there,33 after which they fell into something of a decline relative to their neighbours in the Mediterranean and Iran. However Egypt and Mesopotamia experienced not one but two great periods of prosperity: the first in the Bronze Age, in relation to their immediate, resource-rich hinterlands, and the second in the Islamic period, within a much enlarged sphere of interaction, when trade ran between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, and the focus of power lay along these routes. Athwart the axial routes across these isthmuses, the three great metropolitan centres of Antioch, Alexandria and Baghdad34 lay at the transitionpoints on these routes between land and water transport, and picked out a golden triangle at the centre of the Islamic and eastern Christian world. Further north lay Constantinople, at a constriction point on the route to the Black Sea and the northern Silk Road.35 Yet the scale of the world system continued to enlarge; and all of these areas declined in geo-political importance with the development of the Atlantic and long-haul inter-oceanic 31 The lack of recognition of Lombard’s work (1904-1965) is due in some measure to his early death, though his lecture notes were reconstructed into posthumous publications by his students and form a precious inheritance. (His son was the distinguished Asianist, Denys Lombard, 1938-1998).) However it is true that the history of the Islamic world did not carry the prestige associated with the study of medieval Europe, and structural geo-history was an unfashionable genre. Still, the subject of trans-isthmian routes seems to have been especially unlucky in its intellectual history. 32 Yet despite the obstacles which prevented canal-building, both of these latter corridors, which on their different scales linked one body of water to another, were axial routes in the Bronze Age; and this fact explains much about the prosperity of the sites that lay along them—one the one hand the great cities of the Syrian saddle, on the other the citadel of Mycenae. 33 These rivers were perhaps as important as transport arteries in urban genesis as they were in providing water for irrigation, which is the conventional explanation of the “rise of civilisation”. 34 Baghdad rather than Basra because of the entry of the Great Khurasan Road, the western end of the Silk Road, coming through the Zagros mountains immediately to its east; and the Tigris was, in fact, navigable for certain kinds of shipping as far up as Baghdad.

36 Paul Wheatley, The Golden Khersonese: Studies in the Historical Geography of the Malay Peninsula before 1500. 37 Janice Stargardt (2001; 1983).

7

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

currently discussion about the construction of a transisthian canal (not at the narrowest point of the peninsula, but at the flattest), probably financed by China. This would parallel what has already occurred in the New World, where the Spanish conquest, and its links both across the Atlantic directly to Spain, and across the Pacific to the Phillipines, brought a new importance to the narrow strip of land separating the two oceans. Whereas one part of it (the Isthmus of Tehuantepec) had been important in the development of indigenous civilisations, the narrowest part (the Isthmus of Panama) now took on a new significance, and plans for a canal were drawn up already in 1524. It did not become a practical possibility, however, until the nineteenth century, when the Spanish government authorised its construction (and the California gold rush stimulated interest and capital), so that construction was eventually begun in 1880 in the hands of a French company— organized by Ferdinand Marie de Lesseps, the builder of the Suez Canal.38

(When they did, during the pax mongolica, an important side effect was to transmit bubonic plague from east to west and so cause what Europeans call the Black Death!) Nevertheless particular commodities flowed in a consistent direction along it (either westward, in the case of silk, or eastward, in the case of metalware or horses). This is because there was a consistent price-difference as goods moved from areas of relative abundance to relative scarcity, and towards consumers willing to part with other commodities in exchanges that were advantageous to both parties. It was focussed into a particular corridor because of the constraints of topography and climate, along a series of oasis stepping-stones, though the term “road” is misleading because there was in fact a skein of individual pathways, like the fibres of a rope, rather than a single dominant highway. It thus forms a classic and extreme example of more general principles. Other famous long-distance “routes” (the Amber Route, for instance) had a similar structure: another skein of practical routes between many individual power-centres, which typically grew up at choke-points where individual pathways converged at a constriction, with the whole system subject to periodic shifts as one set of routes provided greater security or advantage than another.

The organisation of trade This rapid sketch of the comparative history of famous isthmuses,39 with the stark choice of canal-construction or circumnavigation as responses to the growing scale of trade, raises a further point about the ownership of the cargoes. What is also evident about this temporal succession of routes (although critically influenced by particular practicalities) is another long-term trend, that of de-segmentation—the growth of more continuous routes, with uninterrupted sailing. I phrase it as desegmentation, however, to emphasise that segmentation was a general characteristic of prehistoric and early historic routes (outside the borders of a narrow core area), and that ownership of goods usually passed through many hands in the pathway from extraction and production to ultimate consumption; and furthermore, that this often took place in conditions of general insecurity, with only localised centres of power. Prehistoric long-distance routes (of which the best-known case is that of obsidian dispersal from volcanic highlands to what were principally lowland consumers) have been illuminatingly described by Colin Renfrew as “down the line”, in that the material passed through many individual exchange negotiations and transactions—even though it sometimes travelled over long distances and often in consistent directions. In essence, the Silk Road was of the same kind—a route consisting of many individual transportation-steps, each with its own local organisation—and at least before the 12th century AD no individual is likely to have travelled over its full extent.

Bérard noted, as we have seen above, that Mycenae was a typical example of a choke-point site dominating a constricted route. The difference between Mycenae and Corinth (and why one replaced the other, in the following millennium) was that the route through the Argolid was inevitably segmented—at least in the physical sense, in that it required a long segment of land-transport between two passages by sea. Corinth, on the other hand, allowed for the continuous passage of ships, or at least for the rapid transfer of goods from one side to the other. The Argolid route was thus a natural route for a segmented system of transactions. Where there was continuous ownership of cargos (and indeed ships) over long distances, break of bulk would have been avoided where possible. Over time, therefore, the “Corinthian” type of route—especially with the help of haulways or canals— tended to win out. As well as the increasing bulk of cargoes, therefore, another factor in the evolution of routes was the type of ownership and the de-segmentation of transactions with the increasing concentration of capital. However, scale and bulk are not irrelevant to this, too, for there is another point of comparison between first-millennium BC Mediterranean and first-millennium AD Indian Ocean routes. In both cases, there was a phase (in the Mediterranean represented by the Phoenicians) when comparatively small cargoes travelled surprisingly long distances in the same vessels (the whole length of the Mediterranean, in this case), which was succeeded by a more “mature” phase of bulk vessels, within a more developed political framework, working their own, segmented “national” routes and interfacing at large entrepots (hence the name—“posts between”).40 A similar

38 An ironic footnote on the art and iconography associated with these enterprises in Egypt and America is that the idea of a giant statue originally envisaged by Frederic-Auguste Bartholdi to symbolise “Trade” at the entrance to the Suez Canal ended up in reality at the entrance to New York harbour, symbolising “Liberty”. 39 An awkward plural, in English, tempting one to parody Irving Berlin’s famous song: “I’m dreaming of a wide isthmus… and may all your isthmuses be wide”.

40 Such a system may well have been attained in the Bronze Age, too, in the later second millennium, but only in the eastern Mediterranean.

8

ANDREW SHERRATT: PORTAGES: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL IDEA IN UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY

Fig. 1

progression may be noted for routes between China and the Mediterranean, with the emergence of entrepots at Canton, Malacca, Calicut, Cambay, Hormuz, Alexandria, on the edges of regional maritime transport cycles.41

scale bulk traffic. At the same time, however, the increasing bulk of shipping made such operations more difficult, since they had to accommodate larger and larger vessels: only in the case of “oceanic dividers” was the effort worthwhile. Even today, large tankers prefer to circumnavigate obstacles such as Africa, to preserve the advantages of moving large quantities of materials, and without having to break bulk. The increasing scale of journeys thus went hand in hand with developments in marine transportation itself, and in the nature and volume of the cargoes. At each point in the development of shipping routes, there was a delicate balance of advantage between different solutions. Hence local histories were often discontinuous, and few coastal areas experienced continuous prosperity over long periods: instead, there was a pattern in which sites that were advantageous within one set of conditions rose to wealth and power, only to cede their advantage to neighbours or more distant competitors whose position had become more appropriate to changing conditions. (Such conditions were not, of course, purely economic, for political and security factors were important factors in the balance of advantage.)

The significance of scale Each of the successive increases that we have identified in the scale of the world system has thus picked out critical interruptions on sea-routes linking the major centres of population. When maritime traffic was mainly confined to inland seas, such obstacles were relatively small peninsulae on short-haul routes, which segmented the journeys into relays or necessitated the hauling of ships across them. As the scale of traffic grew to oceanic proportions, these same principles continued to apply, with the development of long-haul routes where the obstacles took the form of whole continents. The abstract geometry remained the same, but now the absolute size of the network was enlarged to oceanic and ultimately global dimensions. At each stage of growth, increasing quantities of capital were available which could be applied to ameliorating these obstacles. Thus facilities for trans-shipment were developed, or attempts to modify the landscape to make possible the passage of shipping—either by hauling, or by the expensive solution of cutting canals. Most of these had to wait for the large-scale mobilisation of labour or industrial means of earth-moving, in the context of large41

The relationship between transport strategies—overland carriage, or seafaring using either trans-isthmian or circum-cape routes—can be conveniently summarised in a diagram (Figure 1). Where the commodities of trade are small in bulk but high in value, they may easily be carried, and over surprisingly long distances: even before the beginnings of farming, obsidian was traded for distances of 1000 km or more, through many different

Chaudhury (1985): compare Maps 8 and 9.

9

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

parts of the world at very different levels of economic development. These often had a structure of concentric zones, with bulk transport by sea in the core area, fed by riverine arteries but also with a more distant zone within which valuable goods moved in smaller quantities and still largely overland.

transactions. The classic long-distance routes of early times were concerned with such “preciosities”, widely in demand between different cultures, for their exotic character and visual appeal – lapis lazuli, jade, amber, feathers, precious metals. With the development of urban economies, larger volumes of goods come to be mobilised—bulk supplies obtained locally, often moved by water, and intermediate quantities of desirable goods which it was advantageous to move by water, but in smaller quantities which might be loaded and unloaded relatively easily. It was in these “intermediate” circumstances that small trans-isthmian routes became important, even though long-haul routes by bulk carriers was the predominant mode of transport in core areas. There thus grew up a characteristic zonation of types of transport, corresponding to the varying degrees of urbanisation and capital concentration within a world system, a proliferating set of routes with different characteristics depending on the degree of capital concentration, itself part of an evolving social and economic system.

The shift from land-routes to sea-routes is thus a characteristic progression, repeated many times and on many scales during the growth of the world system, and going hand in hand with an increase in the bulk of items carried between particular places. The earliest civilisations of the fourth millennium BC, in Egypt and southern Mesopotamia, established colonial enclaves— Egypt in southern Palestine, Sumer in Susiana and Syria. Although those on the upper Tigris and Euphrates were connected to the mother-cities along the rivers, their extensive hinterlands in the mountainous areas of Turkey and Iran were linked by overland routes, while the Egyptian colonies were connected by an overland route running along the coast—the via maris. What is notable is that both areas experienced a shift to maritime routes in the third millennium: Egypt established maritime links along the coast to northern Palestine and Lebanon, while southern Mesopotamia developed routes along the Gulf, which eventually (by the Akkadian period) reached all the way to the Indus, and the riverine civilisation of that area provided a major conduit for goods from its hinterland in the north of the sub-continent and adjacent areas, which were then transmitted (along with its own products) by sea. Such shifts inevitably caused disruption and economic decline in areas now bypassed. On a vaster scale, the overland routes which constituted the Silk Road were effectively replaced by maritime routes through the Indian Ocean (making use of the major trans-isthmian routes of the Isthmus of Kra and the Gulf and Red Sea routes, at either extremity of that ocean. Finally, of course, the continuous sea-route around the Cape of Good Hope formed the ultimate stage in its spatial evolution— while not totally displacing alternatives.

Sea-routes, therefore, did not exist in isolation. The first dense population-centres—the earliest civilisations—lay inland, albeit along the axial routes of major rivers. From 2000 BC onwards, civilisations with a maritime focus developed in the Mediterranean, initially at the eastern end but gradually spreading west. The emergence of centres such as Rome was predicated on the seaborne transport of grain (for instance from Sicily, north Africa and the hinterland of the Black Sea). The specific importance of their locations lay in their access to highervalue resources such as metals in a terrestrial hinterland, for which other modes of transport were necessary. In the temperate European hinterland, river-transport played an important role; but at an earlier stage, when urban communities were still confined to what were essentially oases within the arid zone, there were few rivers other than the axial exotic-river arteries which sustained those civilisations themselves: the Euphrates, Tigris, Nile and Indus. There was thus a rather sharper contrast between land and water transport, just as there was in later times in relation to trans-continental routes (like the Silk Road), where the main continental rivers ran north-south rather than conveniently between east and west. There was thus the stark alternative, in moving goods between the eastern and western ends of the Old World, of taking them either on a long trans-desert trail, or of moving them in relays across the southern oceans – the China Sea, the Indian Ocean, and so through the Near Eastern isthmuses to the Mediterranean and the West. The shifting balance of advantage discussed above in terms of maritime routes was set within a similarly shifting network of land routes, with which they articulated or which existed as alternative pathways for the movement of goods. Although there were long-term trends—for instance from overland to maritime transport as the quantities of goods grew larger—there was no simple stadial progression: different scales and modes of transport existed contemporaneously, forming a complex network linking

It is evident from this that the concept of an “isthmus” can be applied on several scales, from small peninsulae jutting into sea-lanes, to the narrow land-barriers separating vast oceans. Classical geographers such as Strabo applied it both to the former and also to routes such as the north/south route across the “waist” of Anatolia, linking the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Writers of the Annales school applied it to the Near East (Lombard) and to the series of routes across Europe (Braudel), linking the Mediterranean with the Baltic, uniting the peninsula of Europe from one inland sea to another (with their Bronze Age ancestor in the “Amber route”. It is only one step further to see the Silk Road itself as another inland route across the “waist” of a continental mass—Eurasia itself—and linking the China Sea with the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. The evolving network of contacts, from the Bronze Age to modern times, is an alternation of land-routes and searoutes, in the context of an evolving technology of 10

ANDREW SHERRATT: PORTAGES: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL IDEA IN UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY millennium or earlier, reached the Baltic only in the early Middle Ages. This is reflected, too in maritime technologies: the sail was first used in the Mediterranean in the second millennium BC, reaching its western extremity early in the first; whereas in the Baltic even the oar only took over from the paddle in the centuries before the birth of Christ, while the sail only appeared in the seventh century AD. To some extent, therefore, the historical process corresponds to a simple expansion of a world system, with its concentric zones successively moving (in this case) northwards; but it is also a good example of a major topographic discontinuity, serving to focus activities and emerging as a secondary area of growth. In a larger structural setting, it can be seen as linked initially along the rivers to the Mediterranean (via the Bronze and Iron-Age Amber routes, and their Roman successors), but then developing its own eastward contacts (via the Varangian routes) not just to the Black Sea but to the Islamic world beyond. These new links coincided with the phase of urban development which also saw the first employment of the sail, and the explosive westward diaspora of the Vikings.

transportation and a growing volume of goods, and with an evolving spatial logic of routes—all set within a generally zonal pattern, centred on the expanding core areas of economic development. A particular property of this network, at any particular point in time, is its fractality: that is to say, it consists of a nested series of patterns, on many scales, which nevertheless possess a similar structure. It is this “self similarity” across many scales, such that an enlargement of one part will reveal a comparable pattern at a more detailed level, which has fascinated mathematicians in recent decades, and is often true of settlement-patterns and other spatial arrangements of human activities. The point is describing it in this way is not, however, to suggest that it should be approached by the complex formulae of Julia and Mandelbrot sets (stimulating though it might be to apply these ideas in a rigorous way), but rather to point out that there is no contradiction in applying these ideas to phenomena as different in spatial extent as the Spangereid portage and the Silk Road, or the riverine routes across continental Europe, because all these things existed simultaneously and manifested similar patterns—all of which are ultimately referable to the economic logic of comparative values and costs. While the commodities which flowed along these lines of contact were goods desired by particular human populations, and their values culturally constructed within particular societies, they had common properties of size and distance which render them susceptible to such an economic calculus, and thus to the emergence of common patterns in their movements, and to common trends in the evolution of such systems through time. It is this realisation which can give new life to mathematical geography, as it was dreamed of in the 1960s, by contextualising it in time and setting it within an organically growing network of human relationships.42

It would be a fascinating exercise to compare the Bronze Age canoe-routes of the western Baltic with those linking the Cycladic islands of the Aegean43 (each with its external inputs, along the Oder and the Meander respectively); but time does not allow an examination of this early stage of their respective histories, beyond the observation that it already had something of a coreperiphery structure in itself, with Zealand, Scania and western Jutland forming the centre, and the great tumulus of Kivik marking the interface with the rather different world of the eastern Baltic and the North (and, indeed, its own eastern route to the southern Urals).44 It is with the appearance of the sail, however, that the analogies with the Bérardian Mediterranean become striking, and the classic trans-isthmian route across the neck of the Jutland peninsula served to link the western Baltic and the North Sea, just as the isthmus of Corinth linked the Aegean and the central and west Mediterranean. Hedeby (Haithabu) was its Corinth—or was it Mycenae, since it was a porterage rather than a portage—and the Danevirke protected the passage through to Hollingsted, as described in a following chapter. This route remained important (with Schleswig as its slightly displaced successor on the Schlei), but as the volume of trade expanded the trans-isthmian route ceded its importance, following the logic which we have set out above, to the circum-cape route around the Skaw (Skagerak). In this later configuration, passage through the islands and the arterial route along the Scanian coast provided the control-point and centre of commerce, and Copenhagen (Kjøbenhavn, “merchants port”) became its focus—the Athens of the North?45

Northern Europe It is time to turn from contemplating these abstract qualities to the particular manifestations of these principles in northern Europe. We have already considered Corinth and Satingpra, and it is now time to situate Haithabu. Before considering its local topography, it is worth comparing Europe’s two inland seas, the Baltic and the Mediterranean (together with the Black Sea), both structurally and historically. Structurally, the two are not dissimilar as sources of livelihood (though of very different geological origin, and set within contrasting climatic zones), with peninsulae and islands breaking up their seaspace, and with external contacts to other landmasses and bodies of water. Historically, however, they offer a major contrast, or rather a time-lag; for urban life, which began in the Mediterranean in the third 42

It is in this sense a unification of the Enlightenment and Romantic projects respectively, in treating historical reality as being simultaneously comprehensible within an abstract comparative logic and also within an organic contextual unity. Both aspects are necessary to a satisfying comprehension.

43 As discussed so illuminatingly by Cyprian Broodbank, for instance, in his Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades. 44 Kristiansen (1987). 45 See Sherratt (2000).

11

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

At the same time as the great trans-isthmian route across Jutland (and continuing into later periods for small-scale shipping), the fractal pattern of a myriad of smaller porterages and portages was manifested at a variety of scales, from the short-cut across the south-western tip of Scania (which explains the historical significance of Lund) to the portage across the Spangereid where the obstacle of Lindesnaes divides Norway’s south-east and south-west coasts. This miniature isthmus of Panama— like the small island of Samsø, with its own Viking canal (though in this latter case perhaps obeying a military logic as much as a commercial one)—perfectly demonstrates the thematic unity and structural analogies across a whole spectrum of scales, and provides a microcosm for a wider world.

References Aubet, M.E., 2001, The Phoenicians and the West: politics, colonies and trade, Cambridge Bérard, V., 1902-3, Les Phéniciens et l’Odysee, (reissued in 1927), Paris. Bérard, V., 1927, Les Navigations d’Ulysse, Paris. Bérard, V., 1929, Dans le sillon d’Ulysse, Paris. Broodbank, C., 2000, An Island Archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge. Chaudhury, N.K. 1985 Trade and Civilisation in the Indian Ocean, Cambridge Clarke David L., 1968, Analytical Archaeology, London. Clarke, David L. (ed) 1972, Models in Archaeology, London. Cornford, F.M. Thucydides Mythistoricus 1907 London: Arnold Dolukhanov, P., 1966, The Early Slavs: Eastern Europe from the Initial Settlement to the Kievan Rus, Harlow. East, V.G., 1938, The Geography behind History, London. Geyl, P., 1936, The Netherlands divided (1609-1648), London Haggett, P., 1965, Locational Analysis in Human Geography, London. Kristiansen, K., 1987, ‘Center and periphery in Bronze Age Scandinavia’, in M. Rowlands, M.T. Larsen and K. Kristiansen (eds) Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge. Lombard, M. 1971 L’Islam dans sa première grandeur, Paris (Translated as The Golden Age of Islam). Lombard, M. 1971-8 (3 vols) Etudes d’economie medievale, Paris. Montesquieu, Baron, 1748: De l’esprit des lois, translated as The Spirit of the Laws (many editions). Nosov, E., 1996, “The river systems of eastern Europe and their role in the formation of towns and the Russian state” in G.P. Brogiolo (ed) Early Medieval Towns in the West Mediterranean, Mantua: Brossura. Pauli, L., 1993, ‘Der Münsterberg im überregionalen Verkehrsnetz’ in Bender, H., Pauli, L. and Stork, I: Der Münsterberg in Breisach II. Hallstatt – und Latenezeit, Munich. Pitts, F., 1978-9, ‘The Medieval River Trade Network of Russia Revisited’ Social Networks 1:285-292 reproduced at http://www.analytictech.com/networks/pitts.htm Reinach, S., 1893, Le mirage oriental, Paris. Semple, E.C., 1931, The Geography of the Mediterranean Region: its relation to ancient history, London. Sherratt , A., 1996, 'Why Wessex? The Avon route in later British prehistory' Oxford Journal of Archaeology 15(2), 211-34. Sherratt, A., 2000, ‘The Athens of the North’, Meddelelser fra Klassisk Arkeologisk Forening (Copenhagen), 47: 9-15. Sherratt, A., and Sherratt S., 1998, ‘Small worlds: interaction and identity in the ancient Mediterranean’, pp.329-343 in E.H. Cline and D. Harris-Cline (eds)

Conclusion This paper has not attempted to offer a continuous historical narrative, tightly structured by time, but rather a series of tactical comparisons set within an ever-enlarging arena which reflects the increasing scale on which goods were moved during historical times. It has deliberately emphasized far-fetched analogies, in a somewhat eclectic fashion, in order to find general principles underlying the diversity of examples. The factors that I have consistently sought to illuminate these examples are reflected in the oft-repeated phrases I have used in discussing them, which provide a thematic unity. These key words turn out to be terms much used in nineteenth and early twentieth century geography, even though mixed with others from the vocabulary of modern economics.46 The exploration of this topic has, I hope, demonstrated that there is no single body of ready-made theory on which to draw, but instead a fascinating mixture of old and new ideas which when tactically combined can illuminate a consistent set of historical phenomena. To investigate these more systematically would be a book in itself, while to compile a systematic narrative would be a multi-volume history of the world. Nevertheless these thoughts may serve as an introduction to the fascinating collection of case-studies which follows (which are inevitably only a fragment of this potentially vast field), and the continuing interaction between fact and theory will provide its own unexpected insights.47

46 Among the aspects not explored are the light which the articulation of land- and sea-routes can throw on the distribution of rock-art, rich burials and the elaboration of settlement structures, which relate to the performative dimension of movement, contact and exchange. Isthmuses were often meeting-places, which explains the extraordinary concentration of Neolithic rock-art at Kilmartin, Argyllshire, at the head of the Mull of Kintyre (and now crossed by the Crinan canal), halfway between the great Neolithic monuments of Maes Howe in Orkney and Newgrange in the bend of the Boyne, linked by a (segmented) route by way of the Great Glen and the coastal sea-lanes. 47 The illustrations which accompanied the original lecture may be viewed at http://archatlas.org on the page entitled “Portages”.

12

ANDREW SHERRATT: PORTAGES: A SIMPLE BUT POWERFUL IDEA IN UNDERSTANDING HUMAN HISTORY The Aegean and the Orient in the Second Millennium (Aegaeum 18), Liege (also downloadable as a pdf file from the Trade Routes section of http://archatlas.org). Sherratt, E.S. and Sherratt, A.G. 1993 'The growth of the Mediterranean economy in the early first millennium BC', World Archaeology 24 (3), 361-378. Stargardt, J. 1979, ‘The Isthmus of the Malay Peninsula in Long-distance Navigation: New Archaeological Findings’, Archipel 18, 1-25 Stardardt, J., 1983, Satingpra (Part1): The environmental and economic archaeology of South Thailand, Oxford, BAR Int.Ser.158. Stargardt, J., 2001, ‘Behind the Shadows: Archaeological Data on Two-way Trade between Quanzhou and Satingpra, South Thailand, 10th-14th Century’, in Angela Schottenhammer (Ed.) The Emporium of the World: Maritime Quanzhou, 1000-1400 (Leiden: Brill, 2001), p. 358. de Vries, J. 1981, Barges and capitalism : passenger transportation in the Dutch economy, 1632-1839, Utrecht. Weber, A., 1909, Über den Standort der Industrien (translated 1929 as Theory of the Location of Industries; 1909, translated 1929). Wheatley, P. The Golden Khersonese: Studies in the Historical Geography of the Malay Peninsula before 1500 (Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, 1961). Whittlesey, D., 1939, The Earth and the State: a study of political geography, New York. Wolf, E., 1982, Europe and the people without history, Berkeley.

13

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

14

On the Significance of Portages. A survey of a new research theme Christer Westerdahl Monuments in the landscape-landscape portals. Transit points in transport zones. Meeting places, nodes of power and control of transportation. Catalysts of the adaptation of transport vessel types and techniques. Watersheds in the cognitive worlds of mobile man. kings, have influenced the use of the portages for their own benefit and control.1

The idea of arranging the first international conference specifically on this subject in Norway was introduced by me in 2002. In fact it is a much older idea of mine. It was considered apt to choose Vest Agder as the site of the meeting. The geographical scope of the conference was gradually concentrated to Europe, especially northern Europe, although some exceptions were made.

Their everyday context is that of meeting places of people on the paths and roads of the land, and the traffic and transport on waters, almost exclusively in small boats. It is possible to see portages as an inverted picture, a mirror, of the sounds or canals and their ferries:2 the portages are to the water routes what the sound is to land roads, an obstacle that has been overcome by way of various devices.

The underlying assumption is that the profusion and variation of Norwegian sites – and other northern sites of the – and the pioneering investigations of them would be able to produce prototypes and to highlight various relevant aspects of at least the European potential. Rationally speaking, if the rugged coasts and mountains of Norway have produced such a number of portages, in spite of these being difficult and uncomfortable to ascend, not only with a boat, how much more should not the isthmuses of flatland Europe have been used for portages in ancient times!

With a keen eye for a reconstructed human geography we can discover the significance and detailed functions of the portages early in prehistory.3 They may be more obvious in the accounts of ‘power plays’ during the Middle Ages, by way of Norse historical sources during the 12th and 13th centuries and at the end of the Middle Ages.4 Archaeological datings are so far sparse. The portage at Tiltereidet in Sør-Trøndelag was dated by way of the wood of the hauling trail to the late Migration Age or the early Merovingian, AD 500-600.5 In a dynamic landscape portages develop in stages. The process of land upheaval may make the portage a middle stage between a sound and a canal. The canal across the portage at Spangereid in Vest-Agder can be dated even earlier by way of this process.6 Early settlement on a portage site presumably gives indications of the first regular use of it.

This is a kind of spontaneous reflection which might appear basically functionalist. Nonetheless the general application of the reflection seems relevant. But not all potential portages, however, were used and a solely functionalist explanation of their use is, therefore, insufficient. Their actual use is a product of cultural patterns and established cognitive systems. These are unknown to us, and our primary aim should be to try to discover these patterns through archaeology as well as other disciplines. The first thing is to find out how and why certain portages were used.

Eid sites are typical of the Norwegian coast. They have been observed fairly early by research in this country. The historian Yngvar Nielsen, thus states that they “are a particularity of the Norwegian coast.”7 The importance of the eid sites and the concomitant drag sites (hauling place) was however reduced by the arguments of the later text by the historian, Sverre Steen.8 There is indeed common sense in this. Steen points out that according to historical sources the portages can only be proven to be

The phenomenon that we are discussing – English and French portage, in Nordic languages, Norwegian eid, Swedish ed – with a basis in a watershed, is spread all around the world. It expresses a pluralism of significance. It has natural qualities as a portal of the landscape and as a cognitive border of human activities and human thinking.

1

Cf Westerdahl 2002a. Rogan 1984. 3 Gheorghiu, Höckmann, Teigelake, this volume, and e. g. Clarke 1952, Simonsen 2002: 33f 4 E.g. The Sagas of the Kings of Norway, Norges kongesagaer 1979, Olaus Magnus 1555; for comments to the latter Granlund 1947, 1976) 5 Smedstad 1988; BP 1470 +-70, kal. 532-645 AD. 6 Stylegar/ Grimm 2003a. 7 Nielsen 1905. 8 Steen 1929.

In addition, portages have always in the past been significant in transportation and thereby in the exercise of power, welding together various other aspects of human culture. Different types of authorities, from chieftains to

2

15

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1. The wood-cut illustration by Olaus Magnus in his Historia de gentibus…(1555) of the Russians (Muscovites) carrying their boat overland, presumably in the interior of Middle Finland. Every detail is apparently full of meaning, not just ornamentation. But these details do not correspond in all aspects to the text of Olaus, which is somewhat a problem. The propensity of Russians to mount plundering raids – in fact this mainly occurred during formal wars – in this sparsely populated part of the Swedish realm, mentioned in his text (Historia 11.7-8), is marked by the swords at their side and by the warlike contents of the boat. The boats, as he also points out, were carried by their crews to assist escape during tactical retreats. Olaus Magnus also indignantly points out that the Russians steal timber and build boats here, although on foreign soil. The kind of boat depicted here, like a pea pod, seems to be an accurate presentation of an extended aspen logboat (Finn. haapio), perhaps with a single wash-board affixed (sewn) on top. For the production of such boats you would need an open area with large (and very rare) aspen trees, a lot of pine tar, and during an intense period of work also continuous fires, which might have spread uncontrollably if carelessly managed. This probable misuse is perhaps the source of Olaus’ indignation at the behaviour of these Russians. But Olaus says himself in his text that the boats referred to by him (although not precisely to the boat illustrated in the wood-cut) are built from thin pine planks, and that they are so long that they could contain 20-25 men, which is clearly not the case in the craft illustrated. Furthermore since no oar-tholes are visible, either they were loose, as they might have been a hindrance in the forest and woodland, or the boats were only propelled with paddles, presumably for maintain a tactical silence during raids. Olaus had met some Russians himself at the market site of Tornio/Torneå in the innermost bay of the Bothnian at midsummer AD 1519 (Historia 20:2). But they were different from the references to the warlike raiders. Whatever the origin of these, the route of both groups would have gone either from the White Sea to the inner Bothnian by way of a string of lakes (Calonius 1929), in this case they may belong to the so-called Pomorians (Russ. po morje, ‘at the sea’), or by way of an almost continuous system of large lakes and rivers between them, ultimately downs the Oulo (Ule) river (Lukkarinen 1917; Naskali 1980). Both routes included portages, some of which have been described at the same time as Olaus Magnus in an interview with a Russian informant (recorded by Jakob Teitt, published 1898). Finds of sewn boats have been made at several places along these routes (Forssell 1983, 1985a, 1985b, 1995, Westerdahl 1985b). Such boats were used by several groups in the area, Saamis, Finns, Carelians, Russians, and probably others, too, as Olaus mentions that the same portage tactics were used by the defenders of the Swedish realm, and the specific details of techniques applied may reveal their ethnic origin (Forssell 1983).

16

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 2. Russians drag up their boat (?) on land at the market site of Tornio/ Torneå in the innermost Bothnian, presently on the island of Pirkkiö/ Björkö in Finland. The reason why the boat is furnished with clearly indicated oar-tholes is not clear, but may carry some importance. If we continue this comparison with the boat of fig 1, this one appears more sturdily built and also has a much more marked stem piece and a straight stern. Its form is amphibious, somewhat like a Lapland sleigh (figs 20, 21, especially 21). It would be intriguing if such a sleigh were intended, since, as we know, Olaus met his Russians at Tornio during midsummer. This has certainly a background in actual facts, but we may also surmise that Olaus perhaps simply wanted to indicate that these Russians were friendly and peaceful traders, in marked contrast to those illustrated by fig. 1. The unusual maritime experience of the cleric Olaus Magnus (Granlund 1947) makes it also plausible that he intentionally records the use of different boat (?) types for different purposes and conditions.

used in exceptional situations. In certain local histories and the like there is a tendency towards overemphasis of the historical importance of a site if it bears the placename element eid. At times it can almost appear as a kind of myth.9

Eidet, Sandviig-Eidet and Mands-Eidet. Portages were in fact used in this sense up to modern times, especially in the very north.11 These drageid sites were also well used in the interior. In the border area between present Swedish Jämtland and Norwegian Trøndelag, boats were dragged across “to Norway… (and) Sør-Lie parish” (Trøndelag) according to Abraham Hülphers in his description of Jämtland from 1773. The route went by way of the large lakes Hotagen, in Jämtland, and Rengen, which is on both sides of the border.

It is reasonable, therefore, to reinstate an historical balance between the “normal” coastal route and its alternative ramifications, largely for smaller vessels, where these sites have a definite, everyday, location. To bring this phenomenon back to that original significance is an important task. Precisely this view has been stressed recently by Povl Simonsen.10 Jakob Thode Ræder related a personal transport in 1805 across Tiltereidet in Møre og Romsdal, thus avoiding an exposed part of the outer coast with the well-known mountainous area called Stemshesten. The parson Hans Strøm mentions the important eid sites inside the justly feared promontory of Stadlandet, Sogn og Fjordane, in his classical work on Sunnmøre in 1755, where the boat people “in particular during the winter...usually choose the land road across Eidene, of which there are 3.” Strøm calls them Drags9

Among Norwegian pioneers of later times should be pointed out in particular Svein Molaug Povl Simonsen, Pål Nymoen and Ingrid Smedstad, who provide details of the history of land roads.12 Simonsen has systematically accounted for 67 hauling places and a potential of altogether 107 in northern Norway (figs 3-4). Nymoen has found more than 500 relevant place names only by 11 Simonsen op.cit, Ræder i Austigard 1976, Strøm part 2: 475f, ref. by Modéer 1936: 94f. 12 Molaug 1989: 185ff, Simonsen 1970, 2002, Smedstad 1988, Nymoen 1995, 1997.

Sognnes, this volume. Simonsen 2002.

10

17

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 3. Registered portages (67 sites) in northern Norway, from Nordland in the south to Finnmark and the Russian/Finnish borders in the north, as illustrated by Povl Simonsen (2002). The tight string in the east was used mainly by Saamis and this goes also for other inland portages in these areas.

Fig. 4. Potential portages (39 sites), but not confirmed by any sources so far in the same area as in fig. 3. From Simonsen 2002.

18

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 6. The Listeid portage in the county of Vest-Agder, from Eidsfjord of the seaside in the background (west) to the brackish waters of the Framvaren fiord in the foreground (east). Photo from Kalvenesfjellet mountain: the author 2005.

carried out in Russia.15 In Vest-Agder, South Norway, Frans-Arne Stylegar has, in particular, undertaken fieldwork at Spangereid, one of the most exciting, and certainly most multi-faceted sites of this type in Norway, and also the more complicated harbour area of Harkmark in the same area.16 The implications of the eid sites are indeed multi-faceted and some of these implications will be included in this survey. It is quite feasible to introduce a new research theme. Accordingly, this present conference was held in the county of Vest-Agder in the autumn of 2004. The point of departure is precisely Spangereid (fig. 5) on the basis of the well-known promontory of Lindesnes and Listeid (volume cover picture, fig. 6) inside the peninsula of Lista. The function of these sites has been known for a long time.

Fig. 5. The Spangereid portage in the county of Vest-Agder, one of the most important sites of south Norway. The picture is taken from the Midtbø hill towards the east and shows the entire narrowest part of the isthmus ending in the southernmost point of Norway, Lindesnes, commonly called the “Ness”, the “Naze”, and suchlike by European sailors. From both sides tiny bays can be discerned that penetrate deeply into the peninsula in the far background. On the site itself is a 12th-century parish stone church (and a large settlement of prehistoric times marked by large cemeteries), an array of hill forts, numerous boat-house foundations, a so-called “court site” and a canal dug during some period of the Iron Age, but presumably disused in stages pari passu the land upheaval (Stylegar this volume, Stylegar 2003, Stylegar/Grimm 2003, 2004). Photo: the author 2005.

We will return to Spangereid several times in these papers. The earliest written source, by the informed parson Peder Claussøn Friis (1566-1614), points out that the inhabitants “with the aid of the English” tried to dig a canal across this isthmus but failed since they struck rock during the work. Their ambition was to transform Spangereid into a trading site. But he does not mention any current use of the portage.17 Friis furthermore tells us

using the available Norwegian place-name registers. Swedish scholars have experimentally tried to find and to use portage sites in the interior of Russia and surrounding states since the 1980s in order to sail vessels of Viking Age types all the way to Miklagård or Constantinople, present Istanbul.13 The present author recorded fairly early in his career the portages of the Swedish Baltic coast and the northern interior of Fennoscandia.14 This process led me to criticize the validity of the experiments

13 14

15

Westerdahl 1985a, 1996, 1998, 2002. E.g. Stylegar 1999, and comparative material in e.g. Stylegar 2002, Stylegar 2001 and Paul Sveinall’s contribution to the Nordic session of this conference, in translation, in this volume. 17 Friis 1881: p 310: “Dette Eid, imellem Hafuit oc Lenefiorden, hafue Indbyggerne i fordum Tid begynt at grafue igiennem for Seiglatz Skyld, oc vilde hafue sæt der en Kiøbstad. Men der vaar Field oc heel Klippe under, som forhindrede oc forstørede det Arbeid oc Anslag, oc hafuer der værit stort Arbeid paalagt, som nock endnu siunis, oc gick dog icke for sig.” and, somewhat differently, on p. 449: ”Dette Eid jmellomb haffuit oc lenefiorden haffue Indbyggerne med de engelskes hielp i fordumb tijd begyndt at graffue igiennom for Segladtz Skyld, oc dersom det arbeyde kunde gaaet for sig, daa vilde de bygt der een Kiøbstad, men det vaar field under som forhindrede dette arbeid.” 16

Nylén 1983, 1987, Edberg /red/ 1996, Edberg 1998, 2001. Westerdahl 1989b: 194f.

19

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

in his classical description of Norway, that boats were driven across Listeid whenever storms or bad weather made it dangerous to double the peninsula of Lister. Holm, the regional governor, wrote in the Topografisk Journal of 1794 and 1795 that the common road for all those coming by boat from the north, or the west, went across Listeid.18

Eid Eid is basically an appellative denoting a natural feature. In addition it is a place-name element, occurring prolifically on the coast as well as inland. Accordingly we meet very frequently place names in the Nordic countries composed of the element Eid or Ed. As examples we could choose the Swedish Edsviken close to Stockholm or the well-known Eidsvoll along with the Swedish Edsvalla in Värmland, meaning the same. As for the second element, we know it from (Dals) Långed, Dragsed, Dragseid, Tiltereid. Alone it may appear as (Lilla) Edet, Ei(d)e, or Ed. It should be observed that Lilla Edet, ‘the small portage’, on the Göta älv River in Västergötland presupposes Stora Edet, ‘the large portage’. The latter name has now disappeared in common use but it originally denoted the portages past the huge waterfalls at Trollhättan, once one of the wonders of Europe (fig. 8).20 In historical times, the land passage (used before the canals) was completed in 1799 and was called Edsvägen, ‘the portage road’.21 The small portage, Lilla Edet, is situated on a series of rapids. But these also had to be by-passed, either by towing the boats in calmer waters and/or by the land transport of cargo, crew and boats. Important examples in the east are the Finnish Hangö, spelled ‘hangethe’ c. 1300, and Dagö (Hiumaa), DagaiÞi of the Guta Saga of the early 13th century in Estonia. The last element of many other ed sites is pronounced and spelled ö (‘island’) today, for example Arnö in Södermanland, Långö in Småland, both in Sweden.22 The word ed (or ejd) is a late loan from Norwegian. It appears that the Danish dialects with offshoots into Swedish Småland lack the word (Modéer loc. cit.). In Denmark the place names composed of the elements ed or eid may appear extremely sparse23 but the phenomenon of the land transportation of boats (or of cargo) must have been fairly normal, given the favourable topography in comparison with Norway and partly also with Sweden. Some instances are found at Limfjorden and at the root of Jutland in the south.24 Drag-names are certainly fairly common in Denmark (Vinner, this volume). In the North Saami language the word has been taken over from Norwegian as ájjde, in South Saami as aejrie.25 It is, however, seldom found in place names.

Fig. 7. From the fiord of Framvaren the postal road runs across another isthmus, called Briseid, to Åptafjorden. Photo: the author 2005.

Fig. 8. This oil painting by Achenbach 1836 shows the impressive falls of the Göta älv river, at Trollhättan, at Stora Edet, ‘the Great Portage’, Sweden. Photo: the art museum (Gemäldegalerie) of Greifswald, Germany, with thanks.

The etymological background of the name element is clear.26 It is closely related to the Latin verb eo, ii (ivi), itum, ire, ‘to walk, to go’, also the noun iter, ‘road.’ The latter word in its genitive form gives itineris, from which is derived itinerarium, road or travel description. Ivar Modeer reminds us that there are direct connections between vad (‘ford’) and ed, even philological ones. A

There are a number of portages of more local importance in this county, e.g. Briseid, which is linked to the interior postal road (fig. 7) and is directed towards Listeid and Flikkeid north of Flekkefjord. In the neighbouring county of Aust-Agder could be mentioned the eid sites of Grimstad, especially the parish centre of Eide.19

20

Cf. Boman/ Westerdahl 1984. Lundén 1954. 22 Modéer op.cit.: 96. 23 Nyman, this volume. 24 Cf. Brandt, this volume, Vinner 1997 and this volume with interesting reasoning on other areas. 25 Korhonen 2002. 26 Nyman, this vol.

18

21

Transl. the author; Friis 1881: 452: “Offuer detta Eid (listeid) lader mand offuer kiøre baader oc Jagter, naar mand icke kand komme uden om landet for storm, och aff det Wand Framvarde komme de igiennim eend strømb udj Saltfiord.” Vest-Agder 1955: 469; the “common road” would refer to the protected road for officials in bad weather. Otherwise the sea route was regular along the coasts of Norway. 19 Wikander, this volume.

20

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES ford or a shallow sound will be transformed into an ed by way of the land upheaval. Moreover, the ed sites are included within a larger complex of route or road passages known in old Swedish as (all)farväg, farled, före and also ford, with the same meaning found in Norwegian dialects as well as in English.27 In the discussions before this conference, Jan Paul Strid, of the University of Linköping, Sweden, has furthermore put forward his claim that ed in a toponymic meaning not only denotes ‘land between trafficable waters’ and suchlike, but also generally ‘road, route’, i.e. ‘a place where you walk’.28 Indications of the extent and distribution of the sites are shown in the map (fig. 10), which also records occurrences of bor names of Sweden.

accordingly means the end of two waterways of any kind, lake, river or sea, sometimes with a covering of ice, from both directions: the eid unites both. At the same time this gives the prerequisites for a harbour or landing-place on both sides. They can be used independently of the portage or hauling stretch, but the basic prerequisite is the topographic role of the portage. Another aspect is that of portage sites in relation to the land routes that may have passed along the isthmus where the portage is located. It appears that at the land road crossing of the hauling trail and the isthmus, a meeting place might have seemed appropriate. It may be assumed that this was an original reason for this function of the portage site, together with the two approaches from the water.

The Norwegian place-name pioneer Olaf Rygh,29 explains this name element in the following way:

Drag, draged “eidh n. (Gen. eidhs, dat. eidhi, in names of farmsteads eidhar f.) Eid. It now has a well-known use for a narrow strip of land joining two wider areas, and for a deep hollow in a hill that provides an easy way between two settlements. From it comes many place names. In many others the word seems additionally in olden times to have had another, related, meaning: a stretch, short or long, where you must walk across land (instead of by water or the ice road), which otherwise, because of the primitive state of the roads, must be used as much as possible. At waterfalls or rapids you would therefore often find places with the Eid element or a name that is connected to it. A well-known example is Eidsvold (orig. Eid) in Romerike, where the long water route down from (the lake) Mjøsen or (the river) Vormen, stopped at the first rapids on this river (Sundfossen), and where further transport accordingly must be overland to come either downstream to the Vormen or to Lake Øieren, or the Oslo fiord. As a second element it is often abbreviated to –e or –i. The word – in particular in the west (Vestlandet) – is often incorrectly written as Eide or –eide, where the pronunciation shows that the correct one was either Eid, eid or Eidet, -eidet. It is found in old compositions with vin and heimr; and also in a very old, deflected form Eidhund (Ødyn in Orkedalen).”

If boats were actually hauled or dragged overland the site may have been signified directly by being named Drageid, Draget, meaning ‘hauling place’. Few comprehensive maps of such locations exist but Widmark has one for Sweden, giving a modest indication of the terms’ extent (fig. 9). Rygh has the following explanation of Drag-:30 “drag n. (Gen. drags, Dat. dragi). Some farmstead names are derived from this, as well as from the related feminine form drog (Gen. dragar); both are created from draga, ‘drag, pull’. In place names they have evidently several different meanings, of which the following may be clearly demonstrated: 1) A place where you drag boats across an eid, to save a journey around a promontory, or through a sound, which is too shallow to be used (e.g. Drageid, Dragøen). 2) An elongated island or islet. 3) A road along which timber or firewood is dragged. 4) The feminine form appears in certain cases used in the meaning recorded by (Ivar) Aasen from Romerike: an elongated hollow in the ground, a small valley. More often, in particular in the north (nordenfjelds), there are names from this root, now written Drag-, Drage-, Drog-, which seem to be derived from a river name Drog or Draga (in some cases in the north/nordenfjelds, where it has been preserved, as Drugu, by assumed equality).”

When this word eid or ed is used as an appellative, as a word for a phenomenon, or as a place name, the meaning is that one must walk at the place denoted. You had to walk everywhere in the past, so this does not sound very remarkable or divergent. But place names must work to distinguish between different sites. You must wonder why you had to walk precisely there. Evidently, the meaning is that up to that location you have probably used another means of conveyance – in most cases a rowing boat. But some of the portages were also used in the winter (perhaps even more than in summer), and this means that the other possible vessel was a sledge. The eid

As can be seen from Rygh and his explanation of eid, as well as the alternative meanings 2) and 4) of drag, there still seem to be certain problems in the interpretation of the place-name elements Eid and Drag, but scarcely for the composition Drageid, Draged. Those two elements determine each other when combined. The same meanings will be found in all Scandinavian countries. Places with the name Drageid are often situated at reasonable hauling distances between two waters. Neither seems to be at an excessive height above sea level.

27

Modéer op.cit.: 88ff, 93. Strid will treat this theme in forthcoming works. 29 Rygh 1898: 48. 28

30

21

Rygh 1898:47.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 9. Swedish place name sites with the element Drag-, some proven, some possibly distorted. A large majority pinpoint portage sites for boats. Concentrations are found along the coasts of the south and in the area of transition from mid-Sweden, notably in the province of Jämtland, as far as Trøndelag in Norway. From Widmark 1957.

Along the outer coastline of Trøndelag we find several Drageid of this kind at Hitra, Flatanger, Vikna and Nærøy. But according to Povl Simonsen 75 m.a.s.l. is the highest point of any substantiated portage in northern Norway.31 31

Apart from dragging boats you can carry them and their cargo if they are suitably small. The Swedish place-name specialist Jöran Sahlgren points to the existence of at least two instances, one Swedish and one Norwegian, of a site called Byrdhede, now Böle at Lake Mälaren and

Simonsen op.cit.:11.

22

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 10. Swedish place names with the elements bor and ed, some proven, some, as in fig 9, potential. The concentration of the bor names is found in southern mid-Sweden, the former main iron-producing district, which may or may not have some significance for the distribution (see figs. 14a & 14b). The ed names are much more evenly distributed. However, they are lacking almost completely in the very south and in the north. In the south, most of the portages went out of use with the early road systems and presumably with them also the everyday meaning of the word ed. In the north they are replaced to some extent by Saami and Finnish names that have approximately the same meaning (see fig. 12). From Widmark 1957.

23

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES *Byrðeið, now Böle in Nord-Trøndelag.32 This is easily explained as ‘the portage where you carry something’. Carrying recurs in the exclusively Swedish bor names (below, figs. 9 and 10, 14a & 14b).

number for use at the same time. Of course, there is always the possibility that the local topography is troublesome, or that the names may refer to different systems and times. However, local knowledge must have very early picked out the relevant sites and made them into a part of time-honoured tradition. Therefore it seems that the apparent density must be explained in another way.

In the course of natural processes, as well as during their use by men, the portages could pass through several different phases during prehistory and history. These phases were, accordingly, the works of both nature and human interference. A sound may well have been lifted above the water by land upheavals. The portages were attractive as settlement areas because they offered two different sites for departures and two different views. Such a situation seems favourable to any lifestyle based on fishing and hunting at sea. We might add that human intercourse could also be sought, for many compelling reasons. The settlements of the Stone Age were assumedly more seasonal than at later times, reflecting a partly nomadic economy. In northern Norway the land uplift was so rapid that there was little opportunity for permanence in either sense of a sound or a portage. The practice of dragging or carrying boats was presumably normal procedure. Simonsen considers the permanent portages emerged at the time of the first permanent farmsteads, i.e. when they were given their present names. The present boat portages are dateable. Mollusc shells date the draining of Drag in Tysfjord, Northern Norway to 500-600 e.Kr.33

Place names denoting beacons, Norwegian vete, vite, Swedish böte and Danish bavn appear to have been parts of systems of warning for each incipient state. But they could obviously at times refer to sites which never accommodated beacons. By way of their characteristic shape they have been compared with other hills or ridges which are genuine beacon sites. These would then appear as migrant names, based on resemblance but at the same time migrant, since they are part of a tradition. A corresponding transformation of meaning, ‘slope (in a road) or hill, ridge’ of the word bor, originally meaning a ‘carrying site for boats (or cargo)’ has been pointed out in eastern middle Sweden by Gusten Widmark: “In the concept of bor the idea of an obstacle in the passage that brings about a change in the way of transport has been included”.34 The inexorable but slow process of change of denotation in place names, from natural to cultural significance appears to be normal. The same reasoning could be applied to the naming of watersheds, e.g. common “Scandinavian” köl, Saami kielas, and skeid, Saami keidas.35 It has been surmised here that this might apply to certain ed- or eid-names as well, since they mean partly the same thing. At any rate it might appear probable. Only in Norway there are, as previously mentioned, more than 500 apparent eidnames, i.e. those which are still spelled like that. Additionally there is a sizeable number of sites with eidand drag-names, which are unrecognizable, e.g. Isvik at Haraldseidet, Rogaland and perhaps Tregde, so far unexplained, near Mandal in Vest-Agder.

This type of sound may have been a sailing route and/or a passage for a ferry-style passage on a land route or path. The portage now becomes an obstacle to the sea route, but both sides of the portage acquire the function of a harbour or landing site. The land route may run on without any comparable hindrance across the isthmus. The control of the isthmus traffic may develop and change in several stages, pari passu with the changing power structures and their maritime or transport-related need for control. Migrant names? You could easily discern the density of certain placename types in the landscape. The reasons for the particular naming of certain places may not appear selfevident. This calls for some comments. I will choose something other than our eid names.

The process may in that case presumably be compared to other names of watersheds or to our other example – names of beacon sites. The sites which may be of current interest could have been thought to resemble other places with the element eid or ed. On the other hand there are many sites with a suitable topography which assuredly have been used for recurring passages, some indeed for the hauling of boats. Povl Simonsen has recorded that potential in northern Norway.36 He is also pointing to the significance of ship or boat type terms at suspected sites. At Varangereidet one of the end points is called Skipagurra. Skip- is a very uncommon name element in Finnmark, if not denoting anchoring roads of larger ships in later times. It is possible, therefore, that it denotes what

The warning beacons, Norw. veter, were situated on high hills or mountains, which are clearly visible, so that you could observe the fire or the closest vete, as soon as the alarm had been sounded. They need not be very densely placed. Sighting distances in clear weather could be expected to be considerable. Secondly, it would not be feasible to man more than a necessary few. But in certain areas the number of vete-names or corresponding indications seems to be too dense to be a reasonable

34

Widmark 1957: 92. Lindberg 1941, Pellijeff 1967. 36 Simonsen 2002: 39f, nr 68-107. Here figs. 3-4.

32

35

Sahlgren 1964: 82. 33 Simonsen 2002: 21.

24

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES The half-brother of St.Olav, Harald Hardrada in AD 1064 ascends the portage with the smaller vessels of his navy at Trollhättan-Stora Edet, as mentioned above, to be able to hunt his adversary Håkon Jarl inside the basin of Lake Vänern. In another situation he escapes the surrounding net of the Danish king Svend Ulvsson, also called Estridsen, by hauling his fleet along a shallow portage, possible partly in water at Lusbrei, close to the so-called Sløj canal to the north of Limfjorden, Jutland (referred to as well by Vinner, this volume).

was supposed to be a fairly large ship at the time of naming. Gurra means pass or defile in Saamish. In this meaning it is actually a parallel term to eid. On the other hand the name element eid is much more unambiguously denoting natural features than the beacon names. Simonsen refers to a similar denotation of hals and to some extent val.37 A genuine eid locality is indeed a watershed which could be recognized very easily by studying the terrain and the map. In contrast to beacons, the eid sites could without problem be as dense as natural features would dictate. What is meant here is simply that eid/ed as a place-name element may have had that functional or traditional significance of being not just an isthmus or a defile, but precisely a portage across which you carry or drag boats. And my suspicion is that this meaning may not necessarily agree with the facts. It could even be part of the myth of portages, which we referred to in the introduction. This myth may therefore have caused name migration and even change of denotation. It is not even obvious everywhere that a Drageid name would escape myth making in the past and/or a suspicion of a migrant name. Therefore, an archaeological, topographical and historical analysis of each single case is absolutely necessary.

A well-known picture from the portage of Tarbert on the Kintyre peninsula, “Saltire-eidet”, of western Scotland is of King Magnus Barfot AD 1098; in his saga he is hauled in his ship across the portage. He wields the side-rudder sitting in the stern and takes the land all the way to the port for the crown of Norway: “There warships often are hauled across.”40 During the civil wars in the reign of King Sverre of Norway (e.g. 1177) and somewhat later, the inner river and lake systems were used for hide-and-seek tactics by both sides. This concerned the River Glåma and extensive lakes such as Mjøsa, Øyeren, Tyrifjorden and Randsfjorden, with many boat passages overland. The pretender Knut Kristineson went by way of Lake Vänern and its tributary river Byälven in Sweden with a small fleet, including a fourteen-seater up to the River Glåma at Kongsvinger in AD 1226.

Norse literary sources Boat dragging and transport across portages has undoubtedly been a much more common phenomenon than we normally can visualize today. The references in Norse medieval literature may be well known.38 But the implications are mainly that they relate to the travels of powerful men and military situations. Viking Age Northerners were familiar with the Russian portages from countless expeditions to Novgorod, Kiev and Constantinople.

How the portages were used in everyday life and to what extent we do not know. Only some indications appear in literature, but it is indeed very plausible that they were used in all kinds of transportation with small vessels. The ethnological sources in later times, especially in roadless conditions in the north, could be brought to bear on earlier times in the south. Povl Simonsen uses some of these facts and traditions. He distinguishes between portages of local importance, such as farmstead portages (gårdsbåtdrag), public portages, coastal portages and inland portages, but stresses that it is impossible to draw a clear-cut line between them. Settlers of portage localities may have developed forms of mutual aid in hauling or carrying, as we have seen during the last centuries. It is only natural that such mundane matter is not treated in the kingly sagas.

A portage that is relatively often mentioned in the Norse sources is Mannseidet inside the Stad area, but seemingly more as a point of orientation than as a boat portage. It is related in his saga that King Harald Fairhair used the Haraldseidet portage inland from Haugesund. He also dragged his boats on land to by-pass an (intentional) obstruction in the Göta älv River in the south to attack and plunder the götar of Västergötland39. St. Olav was threatened by the levy of the svear during a plundering raid in Lake Mälaren and was supposed to have dug a canal across an isthmus where Stockholm is now situated to escape. This may not agree literally with the truth but certainly gives us a feeling of the fundamental conditions in boat-handling at that time.

International perspectives The existence of portage sites and portage practice is not by any means unknown in Europe, but for some reason it is not the mundane and everyday use of portages that is known in general. On the other hand it is likely that such exceptional military actions in European history would be remembered, like the transport overland of Venetian galleys to the Lago di Garda during the war against Milan in 1439, the rolling of Turkish galleys overland to

37

Simonsen op.cit.: 20. Above all Heimskringla by Snorre Sturlason and later royal sagas, although not all possible references will be made here. 39 Harald Hårfagres saga Ch. 16, Norges Kongesagaer I: 59 38

40

25

Norges kongesagaer 1979 2: 232.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 11. The Drag overland crossing of the peninsula (to the right) of Skäggenäs of Kalmarsund, southeast Sweden. The low, narrow isthmus is a very conspicuous natural feature, formerly a strait. In the 16th century a canal was dug across it by order of King Gustavus Vasa. The runic R marks ancient monuments on Swedish maps. If material traces are to be found of the dragging overland the portages are registered in the official survey of such monuments and are duly protected by law. From Norman 1995.

Dragos Gheorghiu, Bucharest, Roumania.42 The Late Bronze Age of central Germany is treated by Olaf Höckmann of Mainz. The same issue of finds of imported artefacts as indicators has been carried into Roman times by Ulrike Teigelake of Xanten.43

complete the encirclement of Constantinople by Mohamed II in 1453, some fairly extensive operations of the same kind undertaken by Czar Peter the Great in 1702 from the White Sea to take Nöteborg41, and even more so by his adversary Charles XII of Sweden against Norway in 1717. The Norwegians led by count Gyldenløve had already hauled a small archipelago fleet from Uddevalla in the same area to the Swedish lake Vänern in 1676.

Portages or watersheds of distinct significance for transports during the Neolithic are discussed by the British archaeologist Andrew Sherratt, our key-note speaker.44 According to his reconstructions these phenomena partly explain the concentration in Wessex of classical constructions like Stonehenge. With good reason these corridors could be called transport zones (below). Presumably they have certain relevance in the history of

The everyday practices of amphibious means of transport in prehistoric as well as historic societies is often largely neglected. This conference is partly an effort to redress the balance. A contribution on the search for central European portage areas during the Calcolithic is presented in this volume by

42

Cf. also Gheorghiu (ed.) 2003. Cf.also Teigelake 2003. 44 Sherratt 1996. 43

41

Dankov 2000.

26

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES matka, ‘journey’, is derived from the term for a longer portage, either between two waters or along rapids. This word is e.g. contained in matkatoimisto, ‘travel bureau.’ The vocabulary of the Finnish language is strikingly influenced by the needs and exigencies of inland exploitation by hunting and fishing. Some documentation on transports with portages in the Finnish interior is made by Eino Jutikkala51 with the parish of Ikalis at Kyräsjärvi, and Mauno Jokipii52 on church boats in the same area.

settlement. Sherratt accounts for phases and changes in the location of the zones in southern Britain. Some of the causes for the change are still obscure. Even in more continental contexts Sherratt has pointed to the significance of the portages. One example is the settlement geography of the Ukrainian great river systems and their watersheds. The potential and the traces of the important portage area at the foot of Jutland have been discussed for a long time. The issue of an actual boat-hauling trail was once challenged by Helmuth Schledermann45 but with little apparent success. Passages must have taken place, in fact quite early, and, furthermore, at times they may have had great range. More exceptional use is attested e.g. by Saxo on King Svend Grathe, who surreptitiously brought some ships into Slien and took them over land to the river Eider, in order to attack his rival Knud Magnusson and his Frisian allies in AD 1151 (Brandt, Vinner, this volume). Saxo remarks, however, that Svend got more trouble than gain from this, whatever he may mean by that. Later scholars have discerned plenty of archaeological sources of relevance. It has even been surmised that the mighty fortification line of Danevirke has part of its background in the need for a defence of the portage.46 In this volume the issue is treated by Klaus Brandt of the Gottorf Museum. Other extremely important passages, such as that of the southern sailing route to the Viking Age trading town Birca in Lake Mälaren is seemingly interrupted by a narrow portage across the isthmus of Täljenäset, south of Stockholm.47 It could have served as a control station for this traffic. At the same time it could have worked as a desirable obstruction for sudden attacks on the town. Traces of the boat-hauling passage may be discerned in boat finds made on the site.48 As late as AD 1436 it was recorded that the Swedish King Karl Knutsson dragged his fleet across that isthmus. In the Mälaren lake, a former fiord, basin there are a number of important strategic portages and boat-hauling sites, the most well known probably being Draget close to Stäket at Kungsängen, NW Stockholm. An extensive number of coastal portages, at least 20, are pointed out by me in the Swedish part of the Baltic.49 One of these is Draget at Skäggenäs, north of Kalmar (fig. 10 and mentioned further below).

Matka usually is derived from Saami muotka or muorka. In its turn the Saami word has been taken up by North Swedish dialects as mårka or mock(/e). The linguist KarlHampus Dahlstedt defines mårka in Swedish agrarian coloniser dialects as ‘land between two waters or along rapids, where you walk (possibly you drag or carry the boat) between two rowing routes, portage, ed.’ Apart from this meaning the word may denote ‘(firm) land between two lakes or enclosed water (or bogs)’and ‘land stretch along a stream, where a boat is hauled’. During winter conditions it may apply to a ‘land trail overland betwen two stretches of ice’.53 The word was used by Carolus Linnaeus in the description of his journey to Lapland in AD 1732. The missionary Petrus Læstadius observed a century later that “at the rivers, all that route which must be passed on land is a mårka, be it ever so long, and the whole forest along such a route is also called mårka.”54 As has been mentioned before, even ed, eid may carry this meaning. The related denotation of mårka and ed was already in the 1950s disappearing rapidly in northern Sweden. Up to our own time it has been preserved only in the northernmost parts of the country, in Norrbotten. Another word, lusp, originally from Saamish as well, has been taken up both by Finnish and Swedish in the meaning of ‘the head of a river, where a lake ends by way of a waterfall.’ This indirectly means a portage as well.55 The shorter portage in comparison with a matka is called in Finnish or Estonian taipal, taival/e. Both are well known in place names, along with a lot of other picturesque designations. The occurrences of such name sites in the Swedish inland north is illustrated by Dahlstedt (fig. 11). According to the Latvian linguist in this volume, Ojaars Buss, the Baltic languages seem to illustrate the phenomenon of portages in the terms valka or valks in place names apparently with the elements Valk-, or Pervalk-. They do not seem to be common in either of the Baltic countries. Valka and valks seems, however, to be closely related to the Russian term for a portage, volok, and pervalk to provoloka (below).

No doubt, portages as a phenomenon have been important in the past, i.e. in everyday use in any kind of transport and travelling. I have myself characterized the medieval transport conditions of inland Fennoscandia as “amphibious.”50 The same conditions are to be found much later in the north. This applies in particular to Finland and to Russia. It is worth mentioning that such an everyday general word of the present Finnish language as

The term волок, volok means portage in Russian. It is quite common in place names, even those denoting

45

Schledermann 1974. Roesdahl 1980: 44. 47 Damell 1972, 1973. 48 Westerdahl 1985c. 49 Westerdahl 1989c: 195. 50 Westerdahl 1996, 1998. 46

51

Jutikkala (ed.) 1969, map 4. Jokipii 1946. 53 Dahlstedt 1950:1; below, and fig. 12. 54 Laestadius 1831, transl. by the present author. 55 Dahlstedt 1950 1: 193f, 201 f. Here also fig. 12. 52

27

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 12. Different words used in the Swedish north with portage implications. Mårka (from Saami) and ed has clearly this meaning, but lusp (from Saami or Finnish) and hovde means the narrow outlet of a lake, where it almost invariably debouches into a waterfall. The latter meaning inclines towards a place where you have to leave the boat anyway, even if you do not carry it further. Often another boat is waiting for you below the falls. The occurrences of such name sites even today immediately gives you this impression by way of living word usage. Up to the last two generations the use of portages was general in this more or less roadless country. From Dahlstedt 1950.

important localities. It could apply to a portage with boat dragging as well as a watershed. During the High Middle Ages all the north Russian tax area of the republic of Novgorod was called Zavoloshe, ‘the other side of the portage(s)’. The watershed in question was that between the rivers debouching either in the White Sea or the Polar Sea or in the Black Sea or the Caspian Sea. During the Viking Age, AD 800-1050, the river systems along with their conspicuous portages were used by Scandinavians from the rivers of the Baltic, including the Finnish Gulf, all the way to Constantinople. The sites with voloki, ‘carrying or hauling places,’ were well known in old Russia, far into Siberia. They were a necessary prerequisite for colonization well into the 19th century.56 The intermittent way of summer travelling of the Russian pioneers is well documented by the diaries and descriptions of the followers of such expedition leaders as Yermak and Bering.57 Approximately the same goes for

the expansion of European fur trade and the settlement of interior Canada, the very lands of Les Portages, above all during the 17th and 18th centuries. Nowadays the expectations are somewhat exaggerated as to the possibility of sailing all the way to Constantinople in an “experimental” way – and in the same boat.58 The trail is then supposed to follow the wake of Viking Age northerners. In the past it was different. According to contemporary historical sources local Russian know-how and Russian boats were used.59 In certain cases only the cargo has been brought overland between two river landing stages. This technique is documented on a grand scale during the 13th century for German traders between the Lower Dvina and the Dnjepr at Smolensk.60 Søren Sindbæk adds the evident perspective of winter transport, demonstrating finds of contemporary sledges, possibly even in so-called boat burials.61

56 Kerner 1946, Jenkins/ Moravcsik 1955/1967, Crumlin-Pedersen 1988, 1989, Tegengren 1968, Westerdahl 1992, 1993, Edberg /red./1996, Makarov 1996. 57 Cf. Edberg 2003.

58

Nylen, 1983, 1987, Edberg 1998, 2001. De administrando imperio, Jenkins/ Moravcsik 1955/ 1967. Kerner 1946, Westerdahl 1992, 1993. 61 Sindbæk 2003. 59 60

28

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES across portages of the same kind as at the Norwegian or Scottish coasts. This boat is built of sewn seal hides over a wooden skeleton. The current sites still carry the name element Itill/er- with this meaning. They also worked as important meeting places among the Inuit villagers.66 Robert Petersen and his brother H.C. Petersen takes up the theme in a new way in this volume, giving us an idea how the portages were used within a hunting society on the move.

The related Polish word wlóka is on the other hand mostly pointing to a stretch in a river, often with rapids, but still a very shallow waterway, where boats have been tugged, but still in the water. The Polish archaeologist Katarzyna Skrzynska-Jankówska deals in this volume with the Polish-Bielorussian borderlands during the Middle Ages. Despite problems of interpretation of place names between the river basins of the Bug, the Narew and the Pripiat, the terms used for the watersheds and portages appear to be Polish przewłoka and Russian provoloka, cf. Baltic pervalk above. On the Pomeranian coast Robert Domzał of Gdańsk has surveyed the portage areas of the Middle Ages in German sources and in the field for this conference.62 The Nordic connections during the Viking Age were lively, even with the water systems of the Polish area, which may have involved the use of portages.63

In the Mediterranean the ship track across the Corinthian isthmus was particularly famous. Here the track, called diolkos67 was in fact constructed during the 8th century BC for the use of wheels. The modern canal of Corinth built around AD 1900 has not obliterated all traces of the diolkos. It appears that it was by means of this important passage and the node of Corinth itself that trade and transport in the Archaic Age, indicated by the transition from Geometric to Greek Oriental motifs, was transhipped into the Adriatic area. A short presentation was made at the conference by Olaf Höckmann (Mainz) on material supplied by Walter Werner.68

Similar stretches are included in the classical description of the travels of the rhos in the 10th century downstream via the rapids of the Dnjepr.64 It appears in Scandinavia once to have been a very well-known area. Aifur, the Nordic name of one of these rapids, is obviously mentioned on a Gotlandic rune-stone from Pilgårds in Boge. It also became the name of one of the “experimental” vessels in Russia during the 1990s.

Some other fascinating examples of possible land transport of boats concern ancient Egypt.69 They may include the transport of building sets of or of boat parts, overland from the Nile by way of the valley of the Wadi Hammamet to the Red Sea. This curious kind of transport may have been the prerequisite for Egyptian fleets on the woodless Red Sea already during the 3rd and 2nd centuries BC. The transport of wood and ship parts continued in the Fatimid and Mamluk periods of the Middle Ages by way of Qus, a Nile port close to Asuan and the administrative centre of southern Egypt to the Red Sea ports ‘Aidhab and Quseir al-Qadim. Tradition ruled that the Red Sea ports also were governed from Qus.70 The cataracts of the Nile upstream of Asswan served as an important barrier and transit point for trade. But the portage was used as well for the intercourse between Egypt and Nubia.

In Scotland there are altogether 46 sites carrying the place name element Tarbert, Tarbet, Tarbat, derived from the Gaelic word tairm-bert, ‘over-bringing,’ meaning precisely a boat portage, a Nordic drag.65 Many of these names, however, seem to be migrant. The most important sites appear to be found in western Scotland in connection with the Gaelic kingdom of Dalriada (Scotia), founded from Ireland in the 5th century AD. It later became one of the two main ingredients of the future kingdom of Scotland. This origin may have a certain significance in the interpretation of their function. There is indeed a Nordic connection as well. We have already mentioned Tarbert at Kintyre in connection with King Magnus Barfot, obviously one of the late-comers. Some other sites are known to literary sources: Tarbert on the island of Lewis, and other portages at Sullom Voe in Shetland and at Scapa Flow in the Orkneys. In the parts of Gaelic Scotland colonized by Norse settlers during the Viking Age the Norse name element eid has often been transcribed in present Gaelic place names as uidh. In this volume Nordic place-names in the Northern Isles indicating portages are treated by Doreen Waugh. The Tarbert complex of Scotland is accounted for by Christine Phillips, the latter with a starting point in an excavation at Tarbert of Portmahomack, Eastern Ross.

The precursors of the Suez Canal may have been used as well from fairly early times. This area has a very complicated history of hydrostrategy.71 The same goes for the Panamanian isthmus. Land transport seemed to be the rule at least in late Roman times on the southern Indian subcontinent, to avoid the dangerous passages of Ceylon or, as it was known, Taprobane, or Sarandip. Something similar applied to Thailand at Satingpra, the narrowest part of the

In Greenland the Inuits of the Thule culture carried as a rule their large umiaq, the woman boat (Danish konebåd)

66

Petersen 1986: 167ff. Verdelis 1957, Werner 1995 and abstract, this volume, by Höckmann. 68 Cf. Werner 1994. 69 Jenkins 1980: 111ff. 70 Pers. communication by Moshe Terdman, Haifa. 71 An extensive survey of efforts through millennia was made by Mamduh Hamza and M. Abdel Latif at the first international conference on Maritime Heritage, Malta 2003. 67

62

The paper of Domzal on these portages is included in this volume. E.g. Ekblom 1921. 64 As above, Jenkins/ Moravcsik 1955/1967, and Falk 1951, Petrukhin, this vol. 65 MacCullough 1995, this volume Phillips. 63

29

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Malay peninsula. This settlement area was well populated in historical times.72 Log boats of the salui type are still used on Borneo for regular transports across the watershed between Sarawak and Kalimantan, at present the Indonesian part of this huge island.73 Technical points of view The eid could accordingly be an isthmus between two waters, a promontory or something similar, large or small. The original meaning is that you walk across it. You have thus left your boat to continue on land. Otherwise you have carried or dragged your boat across. The techniques have varied. The case for experimental archaeology is furthered in this volume by Gunilla Larsson.

Fig. 13a. Drawing by the famous Swedish botanist Carolus (Carl) Linnaeus travelling in 1732 in the Swedish part of Lapland at the bidding of the Academy of Sciences in Stockholm. During his journey he travelled along the river valley of Umeälven toward Norway and the mountain range Kölen. At the Tuggen rapids his Saami boatman and follower carried the boat on his head – with the bailer as a cushion – so deftly overland that “not the devil could have kept pace with him”, as Linnaeus remarks in his diary, first published in London by the Linnaean Society in 1811 (and not before 1913 in his original Swedish tongue).

In the case of the salui in Borneo an old boat-builder invited by the Viking Ship Museum at Roskilde, Denmark, reports in an interview and on film how the boat in the past could be taken apart during long passages overland. This procedure however belonged to a period before his own time. Its sewing technique made this very simple. The dugout itself, comprising little more than the keel section, was carried by two crew members. Two men carried one side-board each. Stems and other details could be taken by the fifth member of the crew. The cargo had to be carried by the passengers. Nowadays the parts are permanently fastened to each other and the entire boat and its outboard engine are carried separately.74 This technique is not known from northern Europe, but once it may well have been applied inland. It could hypothetically have been a reason for the late survival of easily dissolvable sewing or lashing. If the vessel had attained a certain size it was necessary to haul it. In this process it was important not to damage it at the keel. For this reason sleepers were used, either loose and brought by the crew or permanently put in the ground (below).

Fig. 13b. The drawing of the Saami boat in Linnaeus’ diary. Despite its sketchy character, it is very informative, in an X-ray fashion accurately recording the two bulkhead-like but narrow rib planks in both stem and stern and the two “normal” naturally grown “crooks” in the mid-section, the flat bottom plank, somewhat lancet-like, and its extensions in a narrow but sturdy stem and stern post. The dots of the sewing stitches have only been sketched in the lower part of the boat drawing. Linnaeus and other travellers note the exceedingly narrow planking of cloven spruce, even down to a thickness of just 4 mm! Some of them state that you have to be very careful when stepping into the boat not to break them. Your first foot must presumably be directed to the keel plank, which is somewhat thicker. The construction clearly reveals its sophisticated adaptation to a travelling mode where portages were as ordinary as continuous waterways, wetlands and rivers were the normal routes. The boats had to be extremely light to be carried that often. Curiously enough these slender boats were even successfully used by skilful Saamis in strong rapids like those of Ångermanälven river further south as reported by Ehrenmalm in 1743.

A small boat was carried, if it was not too heavy. Linnæus shows in the summer of AD 1732 how his Saami boatman simply turned the boat on to his head and ran with it so rapidly along the mårka that Linnæus himself – without boat – had problems in following him. The drawings of Linnaeus show clearly the structure of this light boat with its sewing and lashings and bulkheadlike, but very thin, ribs (figs. 13a & b). This happened at Tuggen in the Ume River. Even in this respect place names could be of some avail, not only in Scandinavia. As we have already pointed out, a boat-carrying site is in eastern middle Sweden called a bor, which is a verb

72

Stargardt 1986. Cf. on the salui Nicolaisen/ Damgård Sørensen 1983. 74 Pers. comm., Hans Drake, Stockholm. 73

30

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 14a. Place names with the element bor in south Mid-Sweden. As has been pointed out at fig 10 their distribution in the main ancient iron-producing area may have some significance as to their meaning, the carrying in bor implicated then referring rather to heavy iron bars than to boats. But their general distribution corresponds, irrespective of the iron production, as well to common local traditions and to local dialects. Furthermore, the routes to Norway are also indicated by the sites. See further the details of fig 14b. From Widmark 1957. See also Hesselman 1930/35.

31

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 14b. The bor names in the inland area between two river systems in the provinces of Hälsingland and Dalarna, south midSweden, Voxnan River and Dalälven. Their distribution in this area point rather to interregional small-scale boat transportation than to the transportation of iron, which mainly went from the production sites further to the south, and to the Mälaren area, some for export abroad.

32

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES abstractive of bera, bära ‘(bear), to carry’.75 Many place names contain this element (figs. 10, 14a, macroscale, 14b, microscale). In particular they are found along the Dalälven River, e.g. Borlänge, presently a town, or Sundborn. Those who lived at such a carrying place, used by Scandinavians in Russia, could even be called after it, like the burjagi. This term is apparently, and strikingly enough, derived from the Nordic bor.76

Rana.83 The Russian place name Katyn, giving tragical associations for humanity, means a place where something has been rolled, presumably boats.84 Reasonably it would mean rolling on sleepers, but it could also apply to wheels. In Classical Antiquity up to the 12th century AD it seems that ships were placed on two trolleys each with at least two axles and pulled across the isthmus of Corinth. The trackway consists of rail-like furrows in the rock with a gauge of 1.5 ms in between.85 (fig. 15)

Sleepers It is probable, that sleepers, Nordic lunner, were put out permanently in the ground at the track where a boat most comfortably could be dragged. The sleepers seem usually to have been cloven logs with the rounded side upwards. They may have been anchored at the ends by way of stones or piles. Brushwood has also been observed as protection at the boat bottom.77 As has been mentioned, another alternative was to bring a sufficient number of lunner in the boat to use them at a portage, perhaps without any addition from the outside. It was presumably rather a natural procedure because the boats anyway normally had to be brought up on a beach, often very stony, at the landing site. Permanent landing sites with lunner were found at the naust, the boathouse, for boatbuilding and repair of boats. The earliest mention of finds of lunner (kavler) and stones from an actual hauling track seems to be that of Povl Simonsen, on Dragseidet at Uteid in Hamarøy, Northern Norway.78 He reports himself in a letter to the present author in 1970 that the prerequisite for finding such remains is the fact that there is a bog at this site and also that somebody has been digging there for some reason. The dating was 12th-13th century.79 But there are many other preserved sites of this type. Per Hovda mentions an eid (Krokeid) in Fana south of Bergen and that “there have been lying lunnar there to the last, and on a periphery map of Bergen the lunne track is marked”.80 Further remains of a ‘kavelbro’ have been found at Namdaleid in Trøndelag. The regular use of the portages seems thus to be dated by 14C or dendrochronologically. Tiltereidet, Trøndelag, has been dated by 14C to Late Migration Age/Early Merovingian Age, 6th to 7th centuries AD.81

Fig. 15. The cross-section of a regular Greek trireme of the 5th century BC on a trolley surmised for a gauge of 1.5 m, recorded at the diolkos of the Corinthian isthmus. After Walter Werner (1995), with thanks.

Probably the wheels were installed in independent pairs with an axle furnished with a beam with a slot for the keel. Such broken wheels and possibly axles might be found in the future on portages, perhaps less probably actual carts. The latter would have been applied to other uses as well. A similar method was used at Draget, Nynäs, Södermanland, Sweden, according to Modéer:86 “They dragged the boat across this site on round wooden lumps.” Probably this would mean parts sawn off from a log where a groove had been made in the middle. In Jämtland it is said in oral tradition that they lifted the boats sideways “as with timber” across sturdy logs placed up and down on the slope with series of steps hewn into the wood. By way of wooden levers the boat was lifted by steps at one end and then the other by two men. This method was used at the draged between Locknesjön and Storsjön and probably at other places as well.87

The sleepers do not need to be very densely placed. At Dragseidet in Hamarøy some were at a distance from one another of 3.5 m, but another displayed more irregular intervals.82 In later times either carts or loose axles with wheels were used, like at Kanstadeidet in Kvæfjord and Lødingen, Rota or Kunnavallen i Meløy and Sjoneidet i 75

Hesselman 1930/1935 and Widmark 1957. Falk 1951. 77 Simonsen 2002: 11. 78 Simonsen 1970: 55. 79 Simonsen 2002: 21. 80 Hovda 1978: 71. 81 Smedstad 1988. 82 Simonsen, loc.cit. 76

83

Simonsen op.cit.:13ff. Edberg /ed/ 1996. 85 Werner 1995. 86 Modéer 1936: 97. 87 Pers. comm. Walter Johansson, Hackås, Jämtland. 84

33

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 16. The Kanhave canal site at present, a depression of some 300 m across the narrowest part of the Danish island of Samsø in the Kattegat. The canal was dug in AD 726, and was lined with wood, which could be dated, but apparently was soon rendered unusable by sedimentation at the exposed end. Photo: the author 1994.

Fig. 17. The Ammerrännan, presently apeearing as a ditch across the sandy promontory of Falsterbo in Skåne, southernmost Sweden. This promontory was well known and justly feared by ancient sailors. Its reconstructed Germanic name SkaÞan-aujo, ‘the Island of Damage’, to some extent preserved in the name of Skanör, Falsterbo’s twin city, obviously was Latinized by Roman scribes to Scandinavia, Scandia etc. and also named the province of Skåne. The trouble was that doubling the cape you might at times run into the strong currents of the banks of Falsterbo rev on the inside (the Baltic side), which from time to time compensated for a difference of up to 2 m between the water levels of the Baltic and the Sound, and be completely destroyed on its boulders. It seems that this canal was dug to connect two harbours, one on the Baltic side of the promontory and one on the Kattegat or the Sound. It was designed for barge traffic with uniform size of vessels, not for actual ships. No dating has so far been possible, but a reasonable guess would be that it was dug during the High Middle Ages. During the first part of the 20th century, however, a real shipping canal was opened across the peninsula, Falsterbo canal, but further to the east than Ammerrännan. Photo: the author, 1992.

34

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES Another site has been pointed out by me on the strength of oral tradition at the narrowest root of Stor-Sudret, Gotland. The two harbours on the north and the south side of the promontory of Falsterbonäset in Scania (Skåne) seem to be connected by a canal. Passing the promontory on the outside was supposed to be exceedingly dangerous because of the sandy reefs at Falsterbo rev. This canal is called Ammerännan. You find a similar situation on the other side of the Sound (Öresund) at Ammerenden on Amager, south of Copenhagen. To judge from the verb am, appx. ‘creak, squeak’, these place names indicate a hauling place for boats, but probably still in the water, the lining making the sound. This association could even be carried inland, to the parish of Ammer in Swedish Jämtland, an area known for extensive portage practices.96

An interesting method has been described for Listeid in Vest-Agder: The keel of the boat was placed in a groove in a huge oaken log, horses were harnessed to the log, and the boat was dragged across the portage, with the crew supporting it on both sides. Two horses could haul a boat of 40-50 barrels.88 The last remaining log used for this procedure was still to be seen “about 75 years ago,” i.e. in the 1870s, if trying to compute from the publication of the source.89 Furrows and canals Moreover, you could probably find dry canals or furrows across the portage, similar to hollow ways. In many cases a groove will develop from repeated use. In those cases where a cart has been used a small cart track may be preserved in the ground.90 The furrows could also have accommodated some kind of wooden lining and could therefore be dated.91 Povl Simonsen relates the story on the last stage of the most important portages in northern Norway, when they were furnished with actual land roads at the end of the 19th century. In some cases this happened before they had ceased to function, in others afterwards, when the through-going land road was the only interest of the community.92

It has been proven that the canal of Kanhave on Danish Samsø is older than the Fossa Carolina, the famous effort to build a canal at the narrowest portage between the Rhine and the Danube. The work was initiated by the Charlemagne about AD 800.97 Kanhave canal has been dated dendrochronologically to AD 727.98 At Spangereid the canal has been documented and dated, according to the land uplift, to the later part of the Roman Iron Age or to the first part of the Migration Age, AD 400-550, by Frans-Arne Stylegar.99 This makes it possibly the oldest of its kind in northern Europe.

In some other cases a short eid could be excavated for a canal. There were also several later plans for this in the north but only one was realized.93 In older times an interest could be surmised in these cases by a powerful authority, rich in resources, a king or a local chieftain and in the Middle Ages perhaps, alternatively, by traders such as the Hansa or guilds of towns. Some examples from prehistory include the Kanhave canal on Samsø, Denmark (fig. 16), Spangereid in Vest-Agder, Norway, in the Viking Age or the Middle Ages the Fållnäs furrow of Södertörn, south of Stockholm, the Ammerrännan canal, nowadays a ditch, across Falsterbonäset promontory, Skåne (fig. 17), the oldest part of Draget canal, Skäggenäs, Kalmarsund, SE Sweden (fig. 11), “Kompan/a/sund/et” in Nederkalix, Norrbotten, Sweden.94 The oldest Väddö canal northeast of Stockholm appears to be dated to the 13th or 14th centuries95 and this dating could be reasonable even for some others, such as Fållnäs and Kompanasundet. In the latter case I have interpreted the name as indicating the interests of companies of birkarlar, the organized farmer/ trader of Northern Sweden and Finland. The dating is somewhat spurious. Some have anyway been redug or dredged several times.

At this stage there was already a well-established settlement of some extent at Spangereid, indicated by the largest preserved grave-field of Vest-Agder. In order to haul the boat overland certain assistance from the locals was needed. Of course, the crew of a large rowing ship might presumably have been so numerous that they could manage to do the work themselves. Otherwise the settlement would have been a resource to them, if the inhabitants were willing to cooperate. But the intruders must not be enemies. On the other hand the canal could presumably have been dug by the local people. The chieftain in charge could have promoted the project. The prerequisites for using some voloki in Russia, in particular those with extensive hauling stretches, would have existed only when people settled there. If you can date that settlement you will be able to date the regular and efficient use of the portage. This deduction is drawn by the Russian archaeologist Nikolay Makarov, who has specialized in Northern Russia during the Middle Ages.100 The settlement is traced in pagan times by its graves. It can not just be by coincidence that the largest grave-field of all Russia is found at the most important

88

1 barrel/ tønne =appx. 125 l. Vest-Agder 1955: 469. 90 Simonsen 2002: 11f. 91 E.g. Draget vid. Stäket northeast from Stockholm; after Björn Ambrosiani in Crumlin-Pedersen (ed.) 1991. 92 Simonsen 2002:17. 93 Simonsen, loc.cit. 94 Hypothetic, after Westerdahl 1987. 95 Strömberg 1985. 89

96

Ljunggren 1955. Koch 2002, abstract this volume. 98 Nørgaard Jørgensen in the same (ed.) 2002 with refs. 99 Stylegar/Grimm 2003. But Kanhave on Samsø does not have such a close array of power-indicating ancient monuments as Spangereid. Cf. the court site system of Norway where Spangereid is a part (Stylegar/Grimm 2004). 100 Makarov 1996, abstract in this volume. 97

35

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 18. The making of a sewn boat from Olaus Magnus’ Historia of 1555. This scene obviously refers to the Finnish inland, since a similar one has been placed there on the Carta marina of 1539. The water to the right then indicates the White Sea. It should be pointed out that the continuous seams indicated by the obvious depiction of the rope further confirms to Saami and Carelian sewing techniques rather than to what Forssell (1983, etc.) calls the Mekrijärvi type (from a boat find), or the Finnish type of single knots (Swed. näst, Finn. nide). On the other hand this technique would be almost impossible to record in such a simple wood-cut.

portage near Smolensk, between the Dnjepr and the Lower Dvina. This population must not only have assisted at the transports but also controlled the passage.

However it is doubtful that the large Viking Age vessels were of current interest for portages. As we have seen above, mostly smaller or middle-range vessels have been used this way according to the sagas, but even this only seems to have happened in rather extreme and memorable situations. The arguments for an adaptation to portages are weakened by the fact that these smaller vessels seem to have had wooden nails, rather than lashings, even before the large ones.

The adaptation of boats to portages on land and on ice. The Lapland sleigh. The most simple and most obvious adaptation of boats to an everyday amphibious way of transport would presumably be a tendency to keep down both the size and the weight.

And there is another, over-riding consideration. When simple every-day vessels were built the transition to more labour-saving and more rational methods was made earlier than in the larger ships, even if the use of these small vessels has been more regular at portages. In the sophisticated techniques of the magnificent long-ships we reasonably meet a prestige-laden work for chieftains and princes. They have been accorded an extremely large amount of labour. The Viking Age long-ships were, after all, the most highly valued gifts between the kings and their peers. They reflect an applied power. The exquisite quality of the wood and the ornamented details give the same impression as the cloven boards and their cleats which were part of the massive wood of the planking and, finally, their intricate lashings.102

The discussion on a possible adaptation has, however, concerned more spectacular sizes. A few authors have stated that the conservative survival of lashings betweeen ribs and planking in the classical Viking Age rowing ships might have a connection with the strain to which these ships may have been exposed in hauling overland.101 However this need not apply to actual portages. The vessels were regularly dragged into their boathouses (naust) for the winter. Such a technical detail would in that case have served both purposes.

101

102

Brøgger/ Shetelig 1951, but cf. Morcken 1980.

36

Varenius 1992.

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig.19. The find sites of sewn wooden boats in the North. The southernmost finds are Neolithic and continue all through the Iron Age proper. Some only indicate repairs by way of sewing. The bulk in the northeast are inland-adapted boats conforming to inland transport zones (Nos. 1a, b,c, 2) on fig. 25. All three techniques of this area are represented: continuously running seams, groups of running seams and single knot stitches (Swed. näst, Finn. nide). From Westerdahl 1985b, 1987.

With a similar functionalist first approach as above you would rather expect the sewing technique to survive in the roadless interior of the north because the iron nails would make them more heavy (fig. 18, 19). The need for light boats has its reasonable background in the many portages. On the other hand the boats were easily damaged, not only at portages. Iron could indeed be both

expensive and hard to find in these surroundings. If you had to find material for repairs in a roadless country, sewing technique in the fastenings would be favoured. Such a kind of repair was used even in the first ironclenched boats, e.g. in the Björke boat, Hille parish, Gästrikland, Sweden, wich is one of the oldest, entirely clinkered boat finds at the coast. Among the smaller boats 37

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES it is the oldest of the North in this respect.103 In the county of Agder, Norway, itself there is only one find of a sewn boat from Kongshavn at the coast of Randasund east of Kristiansand.104 As a stage in the general genesis of boats in the north sewing seems to be replaced by iron nails during the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD. The distinction between different adaptations cannot be made except in the North where sewing survived. There, the vessels had such thin planks that iron nails could not be used, only sewing.

ethnographic source from Borneo. In our area the running seam would then be less interesting than the single-knot technique,105 which has been used both in Scandinavia proper106 and in Finland in historical times.107 If this is correct, the running type of fastening would have been used mainly in light, portable boats. The dismantling would have been expected rather in larger boats for long transports overland. However such are thus far unknown so far. Finds of loose boat parts in wetlands do not indicate intentional disassembling but intentional conservation of formed material, with the intention of reuse to some extent.108 There are a few amusing and picturesque details in ethnographic reports. From Lapland it is told in the 18th century that when the Saami took his boat on his head109 his dog would be entrusted to carry small parts, especially the loose bulkheads, in his mouth. In fact loose finds of bulkheads are fairly often found isolated in bogs in northern Scandinavia. Perhaps the dog sometimes buried his burden in the ground?110 These bulkheads had been lashed with this simpler form of single näst (Finn. nide) knot to the planking. However the boat for which they were destined is so small that it could always be carried by one man. There was thus little need to dismantle it. There are also various keel or bottom arrangements in archaeological boat finds which may be connected with frequent hauling. Keels could be furnished with loose keels or extra keels outside the normal keel111 and extra bands or lining lengthwise. Abnormal wear is often to be observed. But this wear will often only mean use on the ice or on land along the normal track up to the boathouse. Erik Wahlberg brings to attention in 1956 that the “idea” of the Lapland sleigh. Swed. ackja, Finn. ahkio or pulk(k)a, presupposes the existence of portages. Boats have been hauled across eids and mårkor and people have realised the possibility of using reindeer as a draughtanimal for boats in winter conditions. The prototype of this sleigh is a small Saamish boat. The oldest known ackja, probably 13th century AD, documented by Wahlberg at Soukolojärvi in Swedish Norrbotten, is in fact constructed as a small sewn boat (fig. 20). Originally it was thus built with clinker overlap. Later it is built in carvel technique and the strakes are fastened with wooden nails to the ribs (fig. 21).112

Fig. 20. The reconstructed sewn Lapland sleigh of Soukolojärvi, Swedish Norrbotten. Perhaps this is a kind of prototype for a regular Lapland sleigh. Its origin in a boat is clearly indicated by its lightness, its clinker overlap of the planking and by the limber hole in its ribs (bottom, left). The stitches are continuous. A very early 14C-dating (without certificate) indicates 13th century, according to Erik Wahlberg (pers. comm.). As Wahlberg rightly concludes (Wahlberg 1956), the step from portages to the use of a boat on snow must have been natural from a cognitive point of view. The emergence of the Lapland sleigh appears therefore as an indirect proof of the every-day use of portages in summer in this area. It also reminds us that in winter all waters are land. Such a light vessel could have been dragged by humans. Cf. the amphibious form of the boat in fig. 2. From Wahlberg 1956.

It is of course natural to look for a technological change as the cause of the end of boat-hauling. But the character 105

Swed. näst, Finn. nide. The Øksnes find of N. Norway c. AD 800. 107 Mekrijärvi type, Forssell 1983. 108 Shetelig/ Johannessen 1929; and Vilkuna et al. 1993. 109 Cf. the drawing by Linnæus. Fig. 13a & b. 110 Westerdahl 1987 after the 18th century parson and author Pehr Högström. 111 In Norwegian dragkjøl; Simonsen 2002: 11; Larsson 2003: 91ff. 112 Westerdahl 1987: 44ff.

The dismantling of planked boats in order to carry them longer stretches overland could possibly have contributed in preserving sewing. We have already referred to the 103 104

106

14C AD 320, calibrated c. AD 400. Stylegar 1998.

38

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 21. Lapland sleigh for reindeer traction of recent date. Its construction differs from that of the older Soukolojärvi type (fig. 20) by conforming to some traits of terrestrial sledges, carvel edge to edge planking, no sewing is needed, but the ribs are still fastened to the planks with wooden nails, strong and heavy extra planking at the bottom. Photo: the author, 1978.

of this change may not be obvious. As to Northern Norway, Povl Simonsen, states that the transition to foreand-aft from square sails around 1900 was exceedingly important when trying to pass the great promontories inthe open sea. This made portages much less current. Then came the more obvious boat engine during the years 1910 to 1930, making the fishing boats independent of wind power.113 Literature referring to this discussion on boat technology can easily be found.114 Even if research in boat technology so far has given no definite results in relation to portages this aspect is well worth considering in the future. In particular underwater boat finds at the ends of an eid locality would be relevant.

Fig. 22. A string of coastal portages of the Swedish province of Hälsingland, indicated by its Drag- (Draged) and Ed- (Edsvik= Essvik) names. They were used into recent times with small boats but not continuously and not always with the boats carried overland. But in winter they could be used continuously all through by horses and sledges. This function is indicated by the name of the bay at the top, Vintergatsfjärden, ‘the bay of the winter route’. Again it must be rembered that in winter all waters become land. And portages where the trail is usually stripped from trees and other hindrances will still be used. From Westerdahl 2002a.

The portages in winter The season may have another significance for the way of travelling across an eid or a drag. In areas where fiords and lakes have frozen during the winter it is possible to go directly across land at the portages by way of sleighs, sledges or skis. I have an example from my own research area. Between the present cities Hudiksvall and Söderhamn in Hälsingland, Sweden there is an uncommon accumulation of place names like Draged, other Drag- names and several Essvik (Edsvik) across every single promontory115 (fig. 22). Obviously boats have been hauled or cargoes have been carried or people just have passed over. But at the end of the visible system there is a significant place name of a small fiord,

Vintergatsfjärden, ‘winter trail fiord’. It demonstrates the fact, also accounted for in oral tradition, that the portage system has been used in the winter as well. This trail continues across the characteristic isthmus of Hornslandetin the north. It could be followed up along the northern part of the province, but then in open waters. The southern part of the route made it possible to go by boat all the way inside the shelter of the islands and promontories at least during prehistoric times and the Middle Ages. And as we have seen above, Hans Strøm in 1766 explicitly points to the use of the eid sites inside Stadlandet in winter time. In another context we have

113

Simonsen 2002:18. In e.g. Bonns 1988, Crumlin-Pedersen 1991, Forssell 1983, 1985a, 1985b, 1986, 1995, Gjessing 1941, Granlund 1940, Korhonen 1982, 1987, Litwin 1985, Naskali 1980, 1998, Olaus Magnus 1555, Sorokin 1994, Westerdahl 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989a, 1996-98, Vilkuna et al. 1993, Vilkuna 1998. 115 Westerdahl 2002a. 114

39

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

mentioned the important study by Sindbæk on Viking Age Russia.

strangers. It has also been documented that people in later times have settled on the eid localities to earn some scarce hard cash from assisting at the portage.117 There is thus, but only exceptionally, even at the site itself a potential for the creation of mansions and accordingly for the emergence of chieftains controlling the traffic across the isthmi.118 These strategic eid localities may have given impetus to control by a central power, princes or kings. The mansion in question could also acquire its status as part of the crown demesne, and thus to be administered by royal bailiffs. The administrative royal mansions (called Hus(e)by, Husabø, etc.) are altogether c. 130 in number in all the Nordic countries except Iceland and the Faroes but including Orkney. Some are directly connected with portages or transitions between land roads and water routes. The general significance of these sites in transportation has been treated by Gerhard Larsson with particular attention to central Sweden.119 The place name specialist Lars Hellberg has pointed out that a Husby site in Rekarne, Södermanland was preceded by a manor called Bor, ‘the carrying site’; either of boats or of cargo. The parish name Byringe is derived from this manor.120

Fig. 23. A wooden stand for hauling boats along Trollforsen rapids, Gargnäs, Sorsele, N. Sweden. Parts of the remains were built in 1908. The present construction of c. 250 m in length was used by timber floaters, but the portage itself has been used for a much longer time. The same type of hauling stand was documented by the author in 1970 at two rapids along the upper part of Piteälven river, Benbryteforsen and another Trollforsen, further north. They were both much longer than this one. I was at the time working as a regular timber floater in order to collect ethnological material for a planned museum at Storforse, ‘the Great Falls’, on the life of the lumberjacks and floaters of this river valley. Unfortunately part of the material, including some pictures, was lost in a fire in 1983. Photo: Museum of Skellefteå, in the 1970s, with thanks long due.

It is no coincidence that the name of the realm, Norway, Norge, Noreg, has its origin in Nordrvegr, ‘the northern route’.121 The coastal route has bound the realm together.122 Of particular interest in this connection are the alternative routes by-passing the main route at Avaldsnes on Karmøy, where King Harald Fairhair established his most important royal mansion.123 Even in the Bronze Age the Karmsundet strait must have had a decisive significance in the political control of settlements.124 This strait, retained in the Middle Ages and later its function as the main thoroughfare and entrance from the south to Bergen.125 There are two salient points among the alternative inner routes. Both are portages. At Haraldseidet there is a portage which King Harald used himself, according to his saga.126 The other site is Sandeid, which is located somewhat more to the east.127 Apart from their role as alternative routes these two portages work as a border between the counties, in this case between Sunnhordland and Rogaland. The function of borderlands of certain portages will be a recurring theme in this text.

Power and agrarian potential Geological conditions may influence the potential for settlements on the portages. An isthmus of this type could during the process of land upheaval have functioned as a threshold for shell molluscs. This means that some accommodate shell banks. Povl Simonsen calls such an isthmus kvitval, literally ‘white whale’, and points to a sizeable number of Late Stone Age habitation sites which are located at such banks.116 The soil may thus be calcareous and fertile. Apart from the lime the lowland at the portage could have accumulated soil sediments, including fine-grained clay favourable for cultivation. Accordingly natural conditions may favour a permanent population which may control or assist at passages along the portage. The existence of such a population is determined by the extent and continuity of grave-fields. It could be surmised that in certain cases boats have been available for use on both sides of the isthmus. It was a great boon to the users of the sea to have two horizons in sight at the same time. In ethnological material it can be confirmed that people were very much aware of this advantage. And two harbours were available as alternatives in different wind directions. These harbours and their boats may have been used even for passages by 116

117

Simonsen 2002: 11. Cf. Stylegar 2002. 119 Larsson, G 1987: 17f, 24f with Draget at Kalmarviken, Uppland, p. 26 referring to sites in Östergötland, p. 27f, to place names ending in vad (‘ford’) and ed (‘portage’), p. 35-36, to Valde/Vardhede on the Olandsån River in Uppland; cf. the portage relationship of the medieval town of Östhammar to this river. On the Husaby phenomenon a recent interpretation by Westerdahl/ Stylegar 2004. 120 Hellberg 1942. 121 E.g. Titlestad 1996. 122 E.g. Syse 1978. 123 Cf. Opedal 1998. 124 Nordenborg-Myhre 1998. 125 Cf. Nordland 1950, Elvestad/ Opedal 2001. 126 Østrem 1996, Elvestad in prep. 127 Nag 1999, Stylegar 2002, Østrem manuscript 2003. 118

Simonsen 2002: 33.

40

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES burial sites of such settlements have yet another significance. In northern Norway Povl Simonsen has pointed to the site at Uteid in Hamarøy, between Presteidefjorden and Sagfjorden.131 Apart from that several prominent graves on portages are mentioned.132 It is possible as well to refer to the studies of Sognnes133on Valseidet in Bjugn at Fosen in Trøndelag. Even graves give sanctity to a site that is marking itself out as a portage. Precisely at the most important passage between the Lower Dvina and the Dnjepr is found, as mentioned above, the largest Iron Age cemetery in Russia. The site is close to present-day Smolensk and called Gnyozdovo or Gnezdovo after the spelling. A fairly sizeable number of the graves are thought to pertain to Scandinavians. And at Spangereid is the largest preserved gravesite of Vest-Agder.134 In a pattern of former inland water routes is found the gravesite at Dragby, Skuttunge, Uppland, Sweden, on a ridge at such a portage.135 In Gästrikland, Sweden, a fairly large cemetery is situated at Dragsheden in Hedesunda and in the water system of the River Dalälven.136 The funerary rites exercised here, and their past manifestations, may have connections to the portages as meeting places, where the memories of the ancestors could be symbolically displayed to passers-by.

Microalliances and royal estates Kings and other chieftains with ambitions have reasonably tried to ally themselves to local magnates in order to stop rivals or pretenders from exploiting the routes provided by the portages. This aim could be realised by valuable gifts, which often can be found during excavations of prehistoric grave mounds and grave fields. This type of find would presumably show international connections. The men or vassals of the king or chieftain have probably been marked in the grave contents, e.g. in rider graves, with horse implements and horses killed for their master. Frans-Arne Stylegar has suggested that boatgraves would be the maritime version of the rider graves.128 The boat in the grave would then indicate a naval organisation prior to the leidang, lið, where the local leaders accounted for their own ships and for their maintenance. A powerful indication of the existence of such ships and the places where they were built and kept during the winter are the naust sites, large foundations of boathouses for rowing ships. No other country in the north has anywhere near as many naust sites as Norway. At least 850 are known from all ancient periods.129 They have been dated from the Early Roman Iron Age to the High Middle Ages. In the later stage they are firmly part of the leidang, the levy fleet organisation. The economic status, and family relationships, of the medieval magnates can be reconstructed from the evidence of medieval diplomas. It may be possible, therefore, to indicate the position of the portages in this pattern.

The favourable situation of the portages could lead to other more permanent functional roles. Parish churches were thus erected in some cases on the eid site or close to it. Some later northern examples are provided by the churches of Lyngseidet between the fiords of Kjosen and Lyngen and Kaldfjordeidet W. Tromsø. In Agder there is a large medieval stone church at the important portage of Spangereid and another parish church site of Herad on Briseid, in Farsund. We have eide in Aust-Agder. At passages of the mail route or at the sea route privileged inns could be established. Sometimes both ends or starting points of a longer portage, often with a road connecting the ends, could have an inn. One example is given by the above-mentioned Briseid, where there were such sites both in Log to the west and Sande to the east. On a map from 1764 of Tiltereidet, Møre og Romsdal, the inns of Eidsvågen to the west and that of Eidsøra to the east are marked.137 These are just some examples.

Central meeting places in a ritual landscape The most important portages have often become parish centres with church sites. The cultic function in pagan times would be indicated by sacral place names and other signs of ritual. There is good reason for regarding sacrificial rituals at a portage as an expression of votive behaviour in connection with a journey which was supposed to be dangerous. A sacrificial site in connection with portages was mentioned in the late 9th century AD on the island of St. Eutherios, or Berezanj, in Old Norse probably Bjarkey, at the mouth of the Dnjepr in Russia.130 The rituals appear to carry a particular significance as they are situated at the border to foreign lands and the Black Sea.Vladimir Petrukhin ascribes them to the common legacy of Scandinavian and Slavonic rites in this volume. Perhaps an amalgamation might have occurred precisely during such joint travelling. It is to be surmised that sacrificial sites generally could be expected along the nodes of any important road or sea route, in particular those considered to be dangerous.

Some portages function as central places in other respects. Especially significant would be their use as market sites and as sites of assizes or other meetings for particular situations. The important hauling stretch at eid at the confluence of the rivers Vorma and Andelva in Romerike, was chosen as the site of the Eidsivathing assizes and an important stone church was built here in the Middle Ages (Eidsvoll). According to his saga, King 131

Simonsen 1970: 55, No. 16; cf. in the same: Leivset No. 9. Simonsen 2002. 133 Sognnes 2000a & b, and this volume. 134 Stylegar 1999. On the court site at Spangereid as part of a system in SW Norway Stylegar/ Grimm 2004. 135 Stenberger 1960. 136 Pers. comm. Bo Ulfhielm, Länsmuseet, Gävle. 137 Austigard 1976.

The relevance of settlements at a portage to offer assistance to transports has already been mentioned. The

132

128

Stylegar 1999. Grimm 2003. 130 Constantinos Porfyrogenitus; Jenkins/ Moravcsik: 1955/1967. 129

41

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Olav Tryggvason summoned a þing or assembly for four fylken at Dragseid (Mannseidet) of Stad.138 One of the candidates for the meeting places in the skipreide or for the great Gula thing in West Norway is at Eide near Eidsfjorden. On the other hand there are several other alternatives, including another eid.139As meeting places the portages must have been exceedingly convenient since they would be reached from the fairwaters on both sides of the isthmus. As an additional consequence a portage could mark the border of two fylken, which fundamentally was the basis of the organization into local assizes and the basis of any summons to a meeting.

relevant to the routes, have been known to coastal people since time immemorial. Potentially dangerous situations gave a motive for using Mannseidet142 inside the Stad area in western Norway. Such situations are also the reason for the portages of Spangereid and Listeid instead of the open sea outside the justly feared promontories or peninsulas of Lindesnes and Lista in Vest-Agder. If you had no such alternative you had the option of choosing to wait for favourable conditions to rise. This waiting took place in resting or emergency harbours on both sides of the dangerous promontories. It could take a long time, in fact weeks, before the dangerous leap was made.

Political control on a macro-scale

Prehistoric and medieval shipping as well as “small-scale shipping” in general was characterized by coastal routes. In Swedish that kind of sailing was known as “kära kusten”, in English as “hugging the coast”, in Italian as “costeggiare.” More dangerous passages could be converted to land transport. The British archaeologist Sir Mortimer Wheeler already in the 1940s pointed out the string of finds of Roman gold coins across the narrowest part of the Indian subcontinent from west to east. This must mean that the ancient mariners had preferred land transport instead of the precarious passage weathering Cape Comorin on Ceylon or, for other reasons, the shallow and maybe pirate-infested waters inside Ceylon.143

In Russia the voloki constituted the borders of various realms or chieftainships of the rhos, such as the Kievskaya and the Novgorodskaya Rus. The control of these watersheds has been considered one of the prerequisites of the first incipient Russian “state.”140 The promontory of Lindesnes with Spangereid is obviously now and again in the largely prehistoric Early Middle Ages thought of as the rather vague border of the influence sphere of the Danish realm in present-day Norway (according to studies by Frans-Arne Stylegar). There are several sites with portage function which deserve considerations of the same kind. The Huseby site at Lista west of Lindesnes has the potential of supervising both the coastal route and the portage route by way of Listeid. The position of the Húsar site at Eidsvoll in Romerike is pointed out by Langekiehl.141 Above have been indicated the location of these royal estates, husebyer, as results of strategies towards transportation.

Very early during my survey of the Norrland coast of Sweden 1975-1982144, I had good reasons for suggesting a Viking Age and Early Medieval route system, in principle consisting of three parts: 1) the inner route with the portages, for rowing vessels, 2) the coastal route, hugging the coast, with rest and emergency harbours at sounds between islands and/or the mainland, or at sheltered anchorages at the head of peninsulas, for larger rowing boats and sailing ships, 3) the outer route in sight of land but running mainly in the open sea (Norse utleið), only for sailing ships. I still think this pattern is fundamental to the understanding of the ancient routes.

Alternative routes Both inland and at the coast or inside the fiords there are thus portage sites of varying length and importance. Some could have served as alternatives to the main thouroughfare at the coast. By avoiding the coastal route it would be possible safely to by-pass rocky shores exposed to the storms and the swell of the sea or to avoid the ever-present danger of the currents which could drive you far out to sea. These dangers would be inherent in paddled as well as rowing or sailing ships, the latter especially the early, only square-rigged vessels. Roughly, this would cover the period from at least the Bronze Age up to and including the whole of the Middle Ages in the north. There is in fact a particular task for the natural sciences which examine the effects of details of local hydrology, natural geography, geology and oceanography, to explain the variations and to establish possible changes in the past. However, the general facts,

There could be other reasons for preferring land transport. There might be military and tactical reasons. By choosing another route a meeting with a dangerous and superior enemy at the coast could be avoided. Such an enemy could also be surprised by an attack at his rear or from an unexpected direction generally. But this would only be possible if the enemy did not know of the existence of a portage inland. Dispositions of this kind are not known only from the Middle Ages of Norway. As late as the first decade of the 17th century the Swedish crown orders

138

Olav Tryggvasons saga Ch. 59; Norges kongesagaer 1979, part 1: 169. 139 Helle 2001: 52f. 140 Nozov 1992. 141 Langekiehl 2003: 106.

142 Or two other sites, Sandviks-Eid and Dragseid, mentioned elsewhere in this text. 143 Taprobane in the past/ Sri Lanka; Wheeler 1954: 170f. 144 Westerdahl 1989.

42

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES vessels built with the explicit intention to be hauled overland in the Swedish and Finnish archipelagoes.145

remains of fires, possibly foundations of buildings for a watch force.

Portages could have been an alternative to a normal land road, which for some reason had been rendered inconvenient, would take too much time, or, again, was under the control of an enemy. Historical sources seem to confirm this way of thought in connection with portages. Closer details are due to very local factors.

The beacon-hill or its environment may also have accommodated a hill fort, either as a refuge or as a temporarily garrisoned place to defend the portage and to stop it from being used by an enemy. The garrison would seldom be concentrated to an eid but must have been aroused from afar by way of fire or smoke signals. It is possible that seasonal or more permanent camps close to portages existed in some unusual cases. A so-called ringtun or tunanlegg may have been discovered at Spangereid. The background might, however, have been some rather time-bound situation, such as the extensive Norse expeditions during the Roman Iron Age, which have been proven by the finds of weapon offerings in Danish bogs, in particular on Jutland.

In certain respects portages could work as macro-size transitions. A boat journey will then shift to land transport across very extensive land stretches. We have mentioned South India above. Fernand Braudel treats “la péninsule de France” in the sense of one gigantic portage. This has universal relevance. In the Braudelian case the Bay of Biscay was avoided and in fact some other dangerous passages, too. This was also the habit of certain Norwegian chieftains and kings presumably throughout the whole of the 11th and 12th centuries. They thus avoided doubling the entire southern part of the Scandinavian peninsula. Instead they chose the land road from Trøndelag to continue at sea to Staraya Ladoga and Novgorod, perhaps further into the Russian inland river systems. It is mentioned in the sources that the Norwegians had their boats laid up in Hälsingland on the Bothnian Sea. This province comprised a much larger land territory at the time, called Stor- (‘Great’)Hälsingland, including the present individual provinces of Medelpad and Ångermanland. Trading inhabitants of the Norse province of Jämtland had their booths and boats at this coast in the 17th century. We know that the site chosen was Fjäl outside the ancient estuary of the River Indalsälven, north of present-day Sundsvall. Perhaps this was also the embarcation site some centuries before?146

Route barriers The portages must have given strategic or tactical advantages in all maritime warfare with smaller rowing ships.147 Such vessel types were accordingly in use in the Nordic navies well into the 17th century. It is a fair guess that sea-route barriers may have been installed at important naval harbours to gain time during an attack to regroup across a portage. One of the most important and multi-phased Danish barriers, dated from the Pre-Roman Iron Age up to the Viking Age is Gudsø Vig on Jutland. The Danish archaeologist Flemming Rieck has pointed out the place name Skibsdrætt, ‘ship haul’, on the watershed for a small river debouching into Gudsø Vig. On the other side of this portage is another small river running to the Kattegatt.148 Natural obstacles at the entrances to portages may have been reinforced artificially to obstruct passages for boats with crews who were not familiar with the details of the passage. One such example has been discussed at Listeid in VestAgder.

Warning systems, fortifications, hill forts Examples of tactical or strategical portages in Norway would thus be Haraldseidet, known for this use by King Harald Fairhair, and Sandeid, which is situated somewhat further inland, and which is by far the widest tongue of land. Some of the thoughts presented here are based on the positions of these portages or transit points (Elvestad/Tveit, this volume). To defeat his adversaries in a maritime setting a king must be able to control such important places. That control might have been accomplished by an alliance with the local chieftain. In critical situations for the local chieftain military aid might have to be required from the outside. The general suspicion is therefore that warning beacons had been set up along with the establishment of watch-points at high hills overlooking the routes in both directions. These installations could be traced by way of place names (viti, varde, etc.) and be investigated for the scope of vision,

The landscape of hunting, fishing and trading inland In the agrarian wasteland for hunting and fishing in Northern Fennoscandia the amphibious ways of transport were well known and used up into our own times.149 According to my own interviews many transit points between rivers and other water systems were made visible by way of cairns or other such marks, e.g. cuts into the bark of trees along the route. Often the marks had been put up on both sides. They formed part of a landscape patterning that is today entirely unknown, except possibly in present-day canoeing. Many variants of place names with this significance still mark the spots where it took place. Karl-Hampus Dahlstedt, has, as mentioned above, documented dialect forms for portage situations in Vilhelmina, Swedish Lappland: mårka, 147

E.g. Westerdahl 2002b. Vinner 1997. 149 Cf. Campbell 1948, Steckzén 1964, Tegengren 1965.

145

148

Charles IX, Letters of the Realm, in Dec. 1607. 146 Westerdahl 1986.

43

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES 1947 and Vikraneidet in Ingøy as late as 1950.160 There are good pictures even in our time of boats being put on a trailer to be hauled on the asphalted road across Listeid in Vest-Agder. The participants of the conference took some of them.

hovd, lusp (fig. 12). Another, more northern, word of the same meaning is spänne. The Finnish language shows with much more clarity than the Nordic languages its background in an original culture of hunting and fishing. We have mentioned the word matka and its meaning in present Finnish. In the erämaa or wasteland, “outland, outmark”, the exploitation area, we find many placename variants of the verb kantaan, ‘to carry’, like Vettokannas, or Veneheitto, ‘the throw of a boat’, apart from the earlier mentioned taipale, taival, matka. The routes have passed many portages on the through-going trail between the Bothnian Gulf and the White Sea150, and between the Ladoga and the inner parts of the Bothnian Gulf.151 The boat types in Finland have been documented by Janne Vilkuna.152 The routes continued into Russia and further, to Siberia.153 The Sibirian ways of contact are of current interest even in prehistoric times. They include the winter trails for sledges.154 The role of the portages in the Saami transport landscape in Northern Norway is also shown by Povl Simonsen.155 He mentions astoundingly long stretches for carrying boats, up to 20-24 km156 but it would then only concern quite small vessels. For these inland transports of men we find the earliest sources in the account of Othere (Ottar) for King Alfred of England c. AD 890. They concern the boats of the Cwenas, whoever they were, “hy habbað swyðe lytle scypa & swyðe leohte”, “they have very small and light boats”.157 The last boat hauling sites On special occasions portages could be used between waterways inland. Church boats in southern Finland were hauled by their ceremonially-clad crews in a nostalgic repetition of the old ways.158 It was demonstrated that it was possible in relatively recent times to drag big rowing ships overland.

Fig. 24. Remains at the present day of the same stand as in fig. 23. Photo: the author 11th July, 2005.

In several contexts I have pointed out the importance of recent-day Northern Fennoscandia by way of functional survivals to provide materials for comparison with ancient times in the south.159 The very obvious first instance was precisely the ways of transport. A number of my own interviews in the northernmost part of Sweden return intermittently to the use of portages in the roadless interior. Povl Simonsen mentions the last known boat hauls in northern Norway as Dragseidet in 1930, Kanstadeidet in 1935, Hopseidet in 1935, Yttereidet in Måsøy during the 1930s, Kobberfjordeidet in Måsøy in

The last remnant of the amphibious ways of transport was experienced by the timber floaters in northern Scandinavia. They often dragged their boats overland along larger rapids, while following the logs downstream. New wooden stands with hauling trails were erected or restored up to the first half of the 20th century. They could reach a length of more than 1 km. Parts of some stands could still be seen in the 1980s, e.g. in the Pite and Skellefte river valleys in northern Sweden (figs. 23, 24). Povl Simonsen reports on similar “trallebaner” in the Pasvik valley near Kirkenes, northern Norway, built during the last century.161 I have myself seen and partly tried to use such stands for this purpose during timber floating in the Pite river as late as 1970 and 1971.

150

Calonius 1929 Naskali 1980, Forssell 1987. 152 Vilkuna 1998. 153 Tegengren 1968. 154 Finnish finds of Siberian wood, e.g. in Kivikoski 1964. 155 2002: passim. 156 Simonsen op.cit.:11 157 Lund 1983: 23. 158 Turesson 1959. 159 E.g. Westerdahl 1988. 151

160 161

44

Simonsen 2002: 18. Simonsen op.cit.: 32.

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 25. Transport zones of the north, according to Westerdahl (1995). The inland zones 1a, b, c and 2 thus comform to the use up to fairly recent times of sewn boats, the distribution of bor-names and other portage-indicating name sites inland, in all the languages and cultures implied in the area, Swedish/Norwegian, Saami, Finnish and Russian (in the continuation of zones 1a and 2). The corridor marked between 1a and 1b crosses Jämtland, a province of present-day Sweden where the isthmus of Scandinavia is at its narrowest. This is thus a trans-istmian passage on another scale, a truly macro-scale “portage.” Even from Norway, therefore, the Baltic was reached this way by a combination of summer portages with boat traffic on water and sledges in winter. The same goes for the reverse direction to the west with its ice-free harbours. Roman numerals in the south mark important transit points, Skagen (the Skaw), Falsterbo (rev), the Limfiord area of north Jutland, the passage by way of the Belts and the narrowest Jutland passage in the very south (Brandt, this volume). Some of them are connected with portages and canals. Coastal Norway is depicted here rather as a continuous route in itself. In reality it is potentially broken at several points. At the southwest point, between the portages of Listeid and Spangereid, an important area of transition presents itself, as we know from the results of this conference. It should have needed further elaboration even in 1995, when the map was made. This would also concern the important cape of Stad further north in Norway, which is not even marked on this map. These transit points are dangerous passages where emergency stops, portage or trans-shipment may be necessary. This position will often make their harbours and portages extremely important to the control by local and regional powers, possibly such control even becoming a prerequisite for such powers.

45

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Furthermore it is no coincidence that an ethnic interpretation of a cultural boundary during the Stone Age has been proposed on the weather-beaten Stad promontory area of the south part of mid-Norway, with its important portages inland, mentioned above (Bergsvik 2004).

Transport zones In my theoretical division of the landscapes of transportation I have tried to see eid and drag sites as expressions of transit points between what I have called different transport zones (fig. 25). A transport zone is defined as a dimension of cultural space where the use and construction of vessels is adapted to various local conditions. The most important conditions determining adaptation of means of transport appear to be nature,including climate, coastal topography, prevalent wind direction, the methods of cargo appliance, tradition with respect to building technique, along with a tinge of cultural identity. At the portages or watersheds people have changed their way of transport or their transport vessel.162 It is a reasonable guess that the borders of transit zones have taken on a particular importance for people’s understanding and categorization of their own cognitive orbit. This was indeed often indicated between the lines of conversation during the interviews during the 1970s.

Cognitive borders These borders of consciousness which I have referred to here could preferably be called cognitive borders. As such they may attain mythical or cosmological dimensions. With regard to a combination of archaeological conditions, folklore and ancient literature it might be possible to trace such dimensions even for prehistory and early history. In particular I would like to call attention to the study of Frans-Arne Stylegar on Spangereid,165 and thereby inferring Lindesnes as a cognitive border line. It could serve as a prototype for similar studies on portages. But there are certainly not many portages which would be implied on this level. The reasons for this are of great interest in each individual case as well as in a general way. It is essential, in other words, to explain the differences in function and significance between different portages hauling sites and watersheds. The wealth of significance presumably visualizes a balance between the men of power and the everyday life of common people.

Fig. 25. Transport zones (map). The function of borders According to these thoughts even cultural borders may coincide with transport zones and portages or watersheds.163 Inland the watershed could be thought of as a potential or cognitive portage. The forest in the western Swedish province of Västergötland, Sweden which forms the transition of the watershed where rivers run either to the north towards Lake Vänern or south and west towards the Kattegatt, is called Edsmären or Edsveden. Such a transition often becomes a border in people’s consciousness. For cultural or practical reasons it could also develop into an administrative border such as that of a state, county or parish, etc. In this case the border ran right through between the two administrative counties of Âlvsborg and Skaraborg.

On the other hand, it could not be denied that the carrying or dragging of boats across such boundaries – or stories on suchlike – may have appeared almost supernatural – or at least irresistably inviting in a narrative sense – especially to people unfamiliar with the procedure. Some indications have been made in literature, e.g. Hesselman on the legends of King Olav travelling with his boat overland.166 Even the seemingly supernatural appearance of enemies this way may have contributed to military success more than the tactical advantage obtained. There is a recurring motif among Brone Age rock carvings in Scandinavia of a man carrying or holding a boat on his raised arms which might indicate some kind of cosmological implication. However, the possible interpretations of this motif range over wide areas of human representations of the border between water and land.167

Present Kölen, or Kölarna, fvn. Kilir, Engl. ‘the keel’ or ‘the keels’, which signifies ‘the watershed’ par préference, is the traditional name of the mountainous borderlands, the watershed, between Norway and Sweden. As such it is recognized since ancient times on both sides.164 At the same time the portage is not necessarily identical with the border. Most often the watershed itself is implicated. The function of border is connected to the natural obstacle, the promontory or the watershed that is passed by way of the portage. Some good examples are provided by the maritime obstacle Lindesnes in comparison with Spangereid, or the maritime obstacle of Lista in comparison with Listeid.

Archaeological and other remains The study of portages will, by necessity, be a multidisciplinary activity. The study of place names is of paramount importance. Land-bound archaeology makes an important contribution to the analysis of the portages. The run of the land roads not only has some importance where they cut across portages, but also in a general way

162

165

163

166

Westerdahl 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998. Westerdahl 1989a, 1990, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998. 164 Ahnlund 1943.

Stylegar 1999. Hesselman 1930/35. 167 Westerdahl 2005, and the same, manuscript.

46

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES The portages may thus serve as catalysts for most current aspects of the past and of the cultural landscape: the economic and transport landscapes, the landscape of power and of the ritual and cognitive landscapes. Not least among these is the maritime cultural landscape.

as a part of the communicative network. The history of roads is an essential element in the study of portages.168 Both individual grave mounds and gravesites are also important indicators of the extent and character of settlement. The chieftains, their power constellations and their connections, can be followed in prestige objects found on the site. The ritual significance of a site could be indicated by graves, loose finds and place names. But for a diachronic type of analysis it is as current with historical studies of power and ownership of land, migration of people, trade, ecclesiastical relations, administrative boundaries and the location of assizes. Folkloristic and ethnological sources could make essential contributions to forming an opinion of the cognitive significance of areas adjacent to a portage.

General bibliography on portages Ahnlund, Nils: 1943. Kölen. In: Ibidem/the same: Svenskt och nordiskt från skilda tider: 19-28. Stockholm. Androschuk, Fedir: 2002. Har gotländska vikingar offrat vapen i Dnepr-forsarna? In: Fornvännen 97 (2002): 914. Austigard, Bj. (red.) 1976. Barndomsminne frå Romsdalen kring 1800. Jakob Thode Ræder fortel om gutedagane sine på Nes. Molde. Bergsvik, Knut Andreas: 2004. En etnisk grense ved Stad i steinalderen. In: Primitive tider 7, 2004: 7-27. Boman, Olof/ Westerdahl, C: 1984. Båtdrag vid Stora Edet? Några tänkbara vägar att med dragen farkost passera förbi fallsträckan i Göta älv vid Trollhättan före slussarnas tid. In: Meddelanden från Marinarkeologiska Sällskapet 1/7: 25-30. Bonns, Bertil: 1988. Fälbåtar och fälmän. In: Sander, A (red). Bottnisk Kontakt IV: 47-57. Skellefteå. Brøgger, A. W./ Shetelig, Haakon: 1951. The Viking Ship- their Ancestry and Evolution. Oslo. Calonius, Ingemar: 1929. Handelsvägarna från Vita havet till Bottniska viken. In: Budkavlen 2/29: 44-51. Åbo. Campbell, Åke: 1948. Från vildmark till bygd. En etnologisk undersökning av nybyggarkulturen i Lappland före industrialismens genombrott. Uppsala. New printing as Norrländska skrifter nr 10, Umeå 1982. Clarke, J. G. D.: 1952. Prehistoric Europe: The Economic Basis. London. Claussøn Friis, Peder: see Friis. Crumlin Pedersen. Ole: 1988. Schiffe und Schiffahrtswege im Ostseeraum während des 9.-12. Jahrhunderts. In: Oldenburg- Wolin- Staraja LadogaKiev. Bericht der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission 69, 1988: 530-563. Mainz/ Göttingen. Crumlin Pedersen, Ole: 1989. Vikingernes søvej til Byzans. Om betingelser for søfart ad flodvejene fra Østersø til Sortehav. In: Ottende tværfaglige vikingesymposium: 33-51. Århus. Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole (ed): 1991a. Aspects of Maritime Scandinavia AD 200-1200. Proceedings of the Nordic Seminar on Maritime Aspects of Archaeology, Roskilde, 13th-15th March, 1989. Roskilde. Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole: 1991b. Søfart og samfund i Danmarks vikingetid. In: Mortensen, P/ Rasmussen, B M (eds): Høvdingesamfund og kongemagt. Fra Stamme til Stat i Danmark 2: 181-208. Århus. Dahlstedt, Karl Hampus: 1950. Det svenska Vilhelminamålet 1 A-B (karta/map 13 in part 1 B). Uppsala/ København. Diss. Damell, David: 1972. Om Södertäljeleden. In: Fornvännen 1972/2: 123-126.

For prehistoric times the indications of portage areas offered by the distribution of import finds of particular significance are treated and discussed by several contributors in this volume, notably Dragos Gheorghiu, Olaf Höckmann and Ulrike Teigelake. The problems of reconstructing the original topography would appear to be considerable in parts of central Europe. Nikolay Makarov illustrates these problems with Russian examples,169 but they could be multiplied in any intensely exploited area. The problems of delineating such aspects as the actual run of the routes across watersheds, and other aspects which require precise locations, e.g. remains of settlements, ritual, border markings, etc., could be insurmountable – by the way a term which seems to have a certain bearing on portages! On the other hand, the unexploited or less exploited areas of north Russia or Scandinavia with Finland may offer patterns of understanding past conditions in the south. A general survey will indicate the importance of various transport-related finds at eid sites. They may illustrate the function of harbours by way of boat wrecks, boat parts, remains of boat building such as slipways and sleepers. They may include constructions, such as jetties, naust, other house foundations at the beach, and ballast on both sides of the portage.170 Others would include hollow ways or furrows in the ground, slipways with sleepers, even canals and route barriers. The existence of hill forts and warning systems with beacon sites could be made relevant in relation to the portages. The charting of ancient through-going sailing routes is indeed fundamental. The subjects of maritime archaeology and transport archaeology may become an essential part of both archaeology in general and of history in a broad sense. Man is an exceptionally mobile creature, and the experience gained underlies both current cognition and recurrent cosmology.

168

E.g. Westerdahl 2002a. Makarov 1995, abstract in this volume. 170 Pers. comm. Pål Nymoen. 169

47

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Granlund, John: 1947. Sjöfart och båtar hos Olaus Magnus. In: Sjöhistorisk årsbok 1947: 10-39 (Stockholm). Granlund, John (comments/ kommentar): 1976. Olaus Magnus Historia om de nordiska folken I-IV (Swed translation of Olaus Magnus from 1955 in reprint ). Östervåla. English version of comments translated by Peter Foote in the facsimile Latin edition, Copenhagen 1970. New edition in English (I-III) published comparatively recently by the Hakluyt Society, London, see Olaus Magnus. Grimm, Oliver: 2003. Grossbootshaus, Zentrum, Herrschaft. Eine Studie zu maritimen Zentralplätzen im nordatlantischen und nordeuropäischen Gebiet unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der norwegischen Grossbootshäuser (1-15 Jh). Marburg. Diss. Hellberg, Lars: 1942. Ortnamn på Rekarne. Bidrag till belysning av Södermanlands äldsta indelning. In: Namn och Bygd 30. Helle, Knut: 2001. Gulatinget og Gulatingslova. Leikanger. Hesselman, Bengt: 1930/1935. Långheden och Hälsingskogen. Namnstudier kring n gammal färdväg. In: Namn och Bygd 1930: 1-53. Uppsala. Also in: Hesselman, B: Från Marathon till Långheden. Studier över växt- och naturnamn: 125-181. Uppsala. Holm, P.: In: Topographisk Journal 1794, 1795. Hovda, Per: 1978. Gamle fjordnamn: -angr –istr. In: the same: Fra hav til hei. Heidersskrift til Per Hovda på 70-årsdagen 17. oktober 1978 (Hoff, I., et al. eds): 64-74. Oslo etc. Hülphers, Abr. Abr.son: 1773. Samlingar....Jämtland. Westerås. Jenkins. Nancy. 1980. The Boat Beneath the Pyramid. New York. Jenkins/Moravcsik: 1955 (1967). Constantine Porphyrogennitus De adminstrando imperio. Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. H. J. Jenkins. Dumbarton Oaks. Jokipii, Mauno: 1946. Ikaalisten kirkkovenelaitoksesta. In: Satakunta, kotiseutututkimuksia XIII: 249-284. Jutikkala, Eino (red.): 1959. Suomen historian kartasto. Atlas of Finnish History. Map/ Karta 4. Kerner, Robert J.: 1946. The Urge to the Sea. The Course of Russian History. The role of rivers, portages, ostrogs, monasteries and furs. Berkeley/ Los Angeles. Kivikoski, Ella: 1964. Finlands förhistoria (Finnish. orig. Suomen esihistoria). Helsingfors. Koch, Robert: 2002. Fossa Carolina. Neue Erkenntnisse zum Schiffahrtskanal Karls des Grossen. In: Elmshäuser, Konrad (Hrsg.) Häfen Schiffe Wasserwege. Zur Schiffahrt des Mittelalters. Schriften des Deutschen Schiffahrtsmuseums Band 58. Sonderdruck : 54-70. Korhonen, Olavi: 1982. Samisk-finska båttermer och ortnamnselement och deras slaviska bakgrund. En studie i mellanfolklig ordgeografi och mellanfolklig kulturhistoria. Skr. utg. av Dialekt- Ortnamns- och Folkminnesarkivet i Umeå. Ser A. Dialekter nr 3. Umeå. Diss.

Damell, David: 1973. Nya fakta om Södertäljeleden. In: Fornvännen 1973/1: 23-25. Dankov, M.: 2000. K voprosy o topografii Petrovskogo voloka. In: 2nd Conference on Marine Arch. of the Baltic area. St. Petersburg: 195- 203. Djupedal, Torkjell: 1996. Selja: kulturhistorisk handbok. Førde. Edberg, Rune (ed.): 1996. Vikingavägar i öster. Contributions by Rune Edberg, Mats G Larsson och E. A. Schmidt (transl. from Russian to Swed.) Meddelanden och Rapporter från Sigtuna Museer nr 1. Sigtuna. Edberg, Rune: 1998. Med Aifur till Aifur. Slutrapport från en experimentell österledsfärd. In: Fornvännen 94. Edberg, Rune: 2001. Vägen till Palteskiuborg. Rapporter och meddelanden från Sigtuna museer nr. 5. Sigtuna. Ehrenmalm, Arvid: 1743. Resa genom Vesternorrland til Åsehle lappmark. Stockholm. Ekblom, R.: 1921. Nordbor och västslaver för tusen år sedan. In: Fornvännen 3-4 1921: 236-249. Elvestad, Endre & Opedal, Arnfrid (red.): 2001. Maritimarkeologiske undersøkelser av middelalderhavna på Avaldsnes, Karmøy. Rapport fra Stavanger. Sjøfartsmuseum og Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger. AmS-Rapport 18. Stavanger. Falk, Knut Olof: 1951. Dnjeprforsarnas namn i kejsar Konstantin VII Porfyrogennetos De administrandio imperio. Lunds universitets årsskrift N. F. avd 1, Band 46 nr 4. Lund. Forssell, Henry: 1983. Fynd av sydda båtar i Finland. Båtar 1. Skärgårdsmuseet i Pernå skrifter. Lovisa.. Forssell, Henry: 1985a. Sewn Boats in Finland. In: McGrail, S./Kentley, E.(eds): Sewn Planked Boats. BAR Int. Ser. 276: 195-209, Greenwich/ London. Forssell, Henry: 1985b. The reconstruction of a sewn boat find from Lake Mekrijärvi. In: World Archaeology Vol. 16, No 3. Water craft and water transport: 304-311. Forssell, Henry: 1986. Keuruun venelöydöt. In: KeskiSuomi. Keski-Suomen julkaisuja 18: 18-28. Jyväskylä. English summary. Forssell, Henry: 1995. Mekrijärvibåten. En studie i tidig klinkbyggnadsteknik. Båtar 2. Skrifter utg. av Skärgårdsmuseet. Borgå. Friis, Peder Claussøn: 1881. Samlede skrifter. Udg. for den norske historiske Forening af Dr. G. Storm. Kristiania. Gheorghiu, D., 2003a. Gumelnita Hydrostrategies. In: Gheorghiu, D., (ed.), Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies, BAR International Series 1123, pp.39-56. Gheorghiu, Dragos (ed): 2003b. Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies. Symposium in Liège 2-8 Sept. 2003. BAR Int. Ser. 1123. Gjessing, Guttorm: 1941. Båtfunnene fra Bårset og Øksnes. Tromsø museums årshefter, kulturhist avd No 8 vol 58 (1935). Tromsø. Granlund, John: 1940. Träkärl i svepteknik. Nordiska Museets Handlingar 12. Stockholm. Diss. 48

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES 1905, Kristiania 1905, pp 137-155 (with MandalFlekkefjord of Vest-Agder). Nordenborg-Myhre, Lise: 1998. Historier fra en annen virkelighet: fortellinger om bronsealderen ved Karmsundet. AmS-småtrykk 46. Stavanger. Nordland, Odd: 1950. Karmsund og Avaldsnes. Handelsveg og Høvdingemakt i segn og soge. In: Haugesund Museum. Årshefte 1945-1950: 9-56. Norges kongesagaer 1979 1-4. (The Royal Annals/ Sagas/ of Norway). Oslo. Norman, Peter: 1995. Sjöfart och fiske. De kustbundna näringarnas lämningar. Fornlämningar i Sverige 3. Riksantikvarieämbetet. Sthlm. Nozov, Evgenij: 1992. The Russian river systems and the formation of states. Pre-printed papers, Medieval Europe ‘92. York. Nylén, Erik: 1983. I österled. Med vikingaskepp mot Miklagård. I. Uppströms genom Polen. Rapport Raä/ SHM, RAGU 1983:2. Visby. Nylén, Erik: 1987. Vikingaskepp mot Miklagård. Krampmacken i Österled. Borås. Nymoen, Pål Aa.: 1995. Sjøveien over land- om eid og båtdrag i Midt-Norge. In: SPOR nr 1/95: 34-36. Trondheim. Nymoen, Pål Aa.: 1997 (” Det er en eiendommelighed ved den norske kyst…”) Om eidenes betydning for ferdsel til sjøs. In: Kysten 1997 nr 1: 16-20. Nørgaard/ Jørgensen, A. et.al. (Eds.): 2002. Maritime Warfare. Technology, organisation, logistics and administration 500 BC-1500 AD. Publications from the National Museum. Studies of Archaeology & History. PNM. Vol. 5: 169-190. Copenhagen 2002. Olaus Magnus: (1555) 1970. Historia de gentibus septentrionalibus. (Romae) Copenhagen. See Granlund. English version of comments translated by Peter Foote in the facsimile Latin edition, Copenhagen 1970. New edition in English (I-III) published comparatively recently by the Hakluyt Society, London: P.G. Foote (ed): Olaus Magnus. A Description of the Northern Peoples 1555. London 1996-1998. Oldeberg, Andreas: 1956. "Tjautjerfyndet" i Västerbotten och några paralleller till de däri ingående föremålen. In: Fornvännen: 225-245. Stockholm. Opedal, Arnfrid: 1998. De glemte skipsgravene. Makt og myter på Avaldsnes. AmS-Småtrykk 47. Stavanger. Pellijeff, Gunnar: 1967. Archaeology and placenames. In: Hagberg, U E: The Archaeology of Skedemosse II: 131-137. Uppsala. Petersen, H. C.: 1986. Skinboats of Greenland. Ships and Boats of the North. Vol. 1. Roskilde. Roesdahl, Else: 1980. Danmarks vikingetid. Aarhus. Rogan, Bjarne: 1984. Om sundmenn og ferjevesen. Et bidrag til norsk samferdsels- og reiselivshistorie. In: Norveg. Folkelivsgransking 27 (1984): 97-156. Rygh, Olaf: 1898. Norske Gaardnavne. Forord og Indledning. Kristiania. Sahlgren, Jöran: 1930. Vikingar i österled. Något om Dnjeprforsarnas svenska namn. I: Namn och Bygd 18 1930: 135-148.

Korhonen, Olavi: 1987. Öst-västliga kulturkontakter i belysning av en båtterm (the boat term karv / karfi/ karbas etc). In: Björklund, G (et al., eds): Bottnisk Kontakt III: 11-21. Jakobstad. Korhonen, Olavi: 2002. Samiska ortnamn ur kommunikativ aspekt. In: Bårjas 2002: 57-71. Árran, Drag (Norway). Langekiehl, Atle Steinar: 2003. De administrative Húsargårdenes opprinnelse og kronologi. In: Collegium medievale 16, 2003: 67-134. Larsson, Gerhard: 1986. Husabyarna- led i en forntida samhällsplanering. Tekniska högskolan i Stockholm. Medd. från inst. för fastighetstteknik, sektionen lantmäteri 4:49. Stockholm. Larsson, Mats G.: 1987. Hamnor, husabyar och ledung. Univ. of Lund, Institute of Archaeology. Report Ser. No. 29. Lund. Litwin, Jerzy: 1985. Sewn craft of the 19th century in the European part of Russia. In: McGrail, s/Kentley, E (eds): Sewn Planked Boats. BAR International Series 276: Oxford. Ljunggren, K.G.: 1955. Amager och andra namn på AmIn: Namn och Bygd 43, 1955: 80-95. Lukkarinen, J.: 1917. Eräs muinainen kulkutie Laatokan ja Oulunsuun välillä. In: Suomen museo/ Finskt museum 1917: 1-7. Lund, Niels (red.): 1983. Ottar and Wulfstan. To rejsebeskrivelser fra vikingetiden. Vikingeskibshallen. Roskilde. Engl. transl. Lund, Niels (ed.): 1984. Two voyagers at the court of King Alfred. York. Lundén, Gustaf: 1954. Det forna Vassända-Naglum och Brätte stad. Trollhättan. Magnus, Olaus: see Olaus Magnus. Makarov, Nikolai A: 1994. Portages of the Russian North. In: Fennoscandia archaeologica XI: 13-27. Helsinki. McCullough, David A.: (1995). Portages in the Norse Maritime Landscape of Scotland and the Isles (Landrovers of the Sea). A paper for the Scottish Archaeological Forum 1995: Marine and Coastal Environments Conference. Manuscript. McGrail, Séan: 2001, Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval times, Oxford University Press. Molaug, Svein: 1989. Vår gamle kystkultur II. Oslo. Morcken, Roald: 1980. Langskip, knarr og kogge. Nye synspunkter på sagatidens skipsbygging i Norge og Nordeuropa. Bergen. Engl summary. Nag, Martin: 1999. Båt-dragerne Sandeid-Ølen i 1853. In: Vindatreet, Sogeskrift for Vindafjord 1999: 25-27. Naskali, Eero: 1980. A boat find in Rääkkylä. A preliminary report on the find. In: The Maritime Museum of Finland. Annual Report 1979: 2-7. Helsinki. Naskali, Eero: 1998. Savolaxbåtar. In: Sjöhistorisk Årsbok 1998-99. Människor och båtar i Norden: 298313. Nielsen, Yngvar: 1905. Middelalderske Samfærdsellinier i Norge, langs Kysten og paa Indsøer og Elver. In: Det norske geografiske selskabs aarbog XVI 1904-

49

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Stylegar, Frans-Arne: 1998. Jernalderbåten fra Kongshavn. In: Randesunds historielags årsskrift 1998. Stylegar, Frans-Arne: 1999. Spangereid. Et sørlandsk saga. Kristiansand. Stylegar, Frans-Arne: 1999. “Lidh”. Båtgraver i Agder. In: Agder Historielag. Årsskrift nr 75: 11-28. Stylegar, Frans-Arne: 2001. Harkmarksundersøkelsen 2000. Rapport. Vest-Agder Fylkeskommune NSKavd. Stylegar, Frans-Arne: 2002. Eit herresete i Sandeid. In: Vindetreet, sogeskrift for Vindafjord, 11 årg.: 6-8. Stylegar, Frans-Arne/ Grimm, Oliver: 2003. Ein Kanal der Spätkaiser- und Völkerwanderungszeit in Spangereied, Südnorwegen. In: Archäologisches Korrespondenzblatt 3/2003 (Jhrg. 33): 445-455. Stylegar, Frans-Arne/ Grimm, Oliver: 2004. Court Sites in Southwest Norway. Reflections of a Roman Period Political Organisation? In: Norwegian Archaeological Review vol. 37, No. 2, 2004: 111-133. Syse, Bent: 1978. Leden på Vestlandet, särskilt Fjordane och Sunnmøre, seminar paper, uppsats C1/20p framlagd vid seminariet för Arkeologi, särskilt nordeuropeisk, Uppsala vt. 1978. Tegengren, Helmer: 1965. Hunters and amazons. In: Hvarfner, H (ed): Hunting and fishing. Luleå. Tegengren, Helmer: 1968. Gamla färdvägar från Nordkalotten till Stilla Havet. In: Nordensköldsamfundets tidskrift XXVIII: 3-37. Helsingfors. Teitt, J: 1898. Klagomålsregister. In: Todistuskappaleita Suomen historiaan (Urkunder etc.---). Finska historiska samfundet V (5): 154ff-(160). Titlestad, Torgrim: 1996. Kampen om Nordvegen. Nytt lys over vikingtiden. Fra år 500 til 1050 e.Kr. Stavanger. Turesson, Gunnar: 1959. Dragsed. En vikingafarled i Åboland. In: Ortnamnssällskapets i Uppsala årsskrift 1959: 44- 46. Wahlberg, Erik: 1956. Ackjefyndet från Soukolojärvi. In: Norrbotten 1956: 80-92. Luleå. Varenius, Björn: 1992. Det nordiska skeppet. Teknologi och samhällsstrategi i vikingatid och medeltid. Stockholms Studies in Archaeology 10. Diss. Verdelis, Nicholas: 1957. How the ancient Greeks transported ships over the Isthmus of Corinth: uncovering the 2550-year-old Diolcos of Periander. In: The Illustrated London News Oct 19, 1957: 649651. Vest-Agder Fylke. Heimbygdskunnskap. Vest-Agder Lærerlag. Flekkefjord 1955. Ferdsleveger i VestAgder. After a manuscript av Fred. Barth: 446-471. Werner, Walter: 1994. Der Diolkos. Die Schiffsschleppbahn am Isthmus von Korinth. In: Nürnberger Blätter zur Archäologie, Hft 10, Jahrgang 10: 103-118. Westerdahl, Christer: 1985a. Bygger projekt Krampmacken på en illusion? In: Meddelanden från Marinarkeologiska Sällskapet/ MAS 3/8: 12-20. Westerdahl, Christer: 1985b. Sewn Boats of the North III. A Preliminary Catalogue with introductory

Schefferus, Johannes: 1673. Lapponia. Stockholm. With numerous translations in the following years to French, English, Dutch, German etc. Schledermann, Helmuth: 1974. Skibe på ruller og i kanaler. Myter, spekulation og forskning omkring et Danevirke-problem. In: Sønderjyske Årbøger, 1974: 5-33. Sherratt, Andrew: 1996. Why Wessex? The Avon route and river transports in later British prehistory. In: Oxford Journal of Archaeology Vol. 15 /2): 211-236. Shetelig, Haakon/ Johannessen, Fredrik: 1929. Kvalsundfundet og andre norske myrfund av fartøyer. Bergen. Simonsen, Povl: 1970. Fortidsminner nord for polarsirkelen. Tromsö/ Oslo/ Bergen. Simonsen, Povl: 2002. Nordnorske båtdrag. In: Braut II. Nordiske veghistoriske studier: 7-40. Lillehammer. Sindbæk, Søren M.: 2003. Varægiske vinterruter. Slædetransport i Rusland og spørgsmålet om den tidlige vikingetids orientalske import i Nordeuropa. In: Fornvännen 98 (2003): 179-193. Smedstad, Ingrid: 1988. Etableringen av et organisert veihold i Midt-Norge i tidlig historisk tid. Varia 16. Oslo. Sognnes, Kalle: 2000a. Valseidet i Bjugn –landskap for de døde? In: Spor 1/2000: 34-37. Sognnes, Kalle: 2000b. Det hellige landskapet: Religiøse og rituelle landskapselementer i et langtidsperspektiv. In: Viking 2000: 87-121. Sorokin, Pjotr: 1994. Some results of the study of medieval boatbuilding traditions in north-west Russia. In: International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA): 129-139. London etc. Stargardt, Janice: 1986. Hydraulic Works and Southeast Asian Politics. In: Marr, D.G./ Milner, A.C.(eds): Southast Asia in the 9th to 14th centuries. Singapore. Steckzén, Birger: 1964. Birkarlar och lappar. Stockholm: Birkarlarnas vardag pps 383-390. Map Pl. 10 Färdvägar på Nordkalotten vid 1500-talets slut. Land routes of the northernmost part of Fennoscandia during the last part of the 16th century (Olof Burman 1598). Steen, Sverre: 1929 (1942). Ferd og Fest. Reiseliv i norsk sagatid og middelalder. Oslo. Steinnes, Asgaut: 1955. Husebyer. Den norske historiske forening. Skrifter 32. Oslo. Stenberger, Mårten: 1960. Gravfältet vid sockenmötet. Dragby i Skuttunge, orientering och problem. In: Tor 1960: 63-86 (with Maj-Britt and Sten Florin: Naturhistorisk utveckling vid Dragby under bronsåldern. Från en påbörjad undersökning över områdets kvartärgeologi pps 87-121.) Strøm, Hans: 1766. Beskrivelse over Fogderiet Søndmør del 2. Strömberg, Bo: 1985. Den äldsta Väddökanalen. In: Rospiggen 1985: 8-22. Sturlason, Snorri: 1951. Heimskringla III (ed Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson). Íslenzk Fornrit XXVIII. Reykjavik.

50

CHRISTER WESTERDAHL: ON THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES Srednevekovaja model (Water and Land Transportation Systems in Northern Europe: Medieval Model). In: Rossiyskaya Arkheologiya 4/97: 61- 78. Moscow. Russian version of the Fennoscandia paper. Westerdahl, Christer: 2002a. Förhållandet mellan landvägar och vattenleder. In: Braut II. Nordiske veghistoriske studier: 41-70. Lillehammer. Westerdahl, Christer: 2002b. The cognitive landscape of naval warfare and defence. Toponymic and archaeological aspects. In: Nørgaard-Jørgensen, A. (et al.): Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. Publications from the National Museum (PNM). Studies in Archaeology & History Vol. 6: 169-190. Swedish version: Sjökrigets och sjöförsvarets kognitiva landskap i äldre tid. Toponymiska och arkeologiska aspekter. In: Forum navale 57: 10-42. Westerdahl, Christer/ Stylegar, Frans-Arne: 2004. Husebyene i Norden. In: Viking 2004: 101-138. Westerdahl, Christer: 2005. Seal on Land, Elk at Sea. Notes on and Applications of the Ritual Landscape at the Seaboard. In: International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA) 34.1. 2005: 2-23. Westerdahl, Christer: (manuscript) Contrasts in action. Prehistoric cosmologies at the seaboard and inland. Wheeler, Sir Mortimer: 1954. Rome Beyond the Imperial Frontiers. Harmondsworth. Widmark, Gusten: 1957. Ordet bor som appellativ och ortnamnelement. In: Namn och Bygd 45 1957: 43-99. Uppsala. Vilkuna, Janne/ Taavitsainen, Jussi-Pekka/ Forssell, Henry: 1993. Suojoki in Keuruu. An ancient boat harbour in Central Finland. In: Coles, J./ Fenwick, V./ Hutchinson, G.(eds): A Spirit of Enquiry. Essays for Ted Wright: 85-90. Exeter. Vilkuna, Janne: 1998. Finska båtar från förhistorisk tid/ Suomen esihistoriallisen ajan veneet. In: Sjöhistorisk årsbok 1998-99. Människor och båtar i Norden: 256267. Vinner,Max: 1997. Med vikingen som lots....Swed. version (there exist also one Danish and one German, of the same year). Roskilde. Østrem, Nils Olav: 1996. Haraldseidet og segna om båtdragsvegen til Harald Hårfagre. In: Vindatreet. Sogeskrift for Vindafjord 1996: 32-38. Østrem, Nils Olav: manuscript 2003. Maktsentra og farleier. Inleiing. Introduction to a local conference on portages in Vindafjord, Norway.

comments. In: International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (IJNA) vol 14: 33-62, 119-142. London. Westerdahl, Christer: 1985c. Treenails and History. A Maritime Archaeological Hypothesis. In: In honorem Evert Baudou. Archaeology and Environment 4. Deptm of Archaeology, Umeå university. Umeå: 395414. German version: Holznägel und Geschichte. Eine schiffsarchäologische Hypothese. In: Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv 8 1985: 7-42. Bremerhaven. Westerdahl, Christer: 1986. Medeltida sjöleder i Ångermanland/ Medelpad. In: Ångermanland/ Medelpad 1986: 179-203. Westerdahl, Christer: 1987. ”Et sätt som liknar them uti theras öfriga lefnadsart.” Om äldre samiskt båtbygge och samisk båthantering. Skrifter utgivna av Johan Nordlander-sällskapet 11. Umeå. Diss. Westerdahl, Christer: 1988. Saamish river boats- and a functional survival. In: Filgueiras, O L(ed): Local Boats. ISBSA IV. BAR Int. Series 438 (I-II): 141-172. Oxford. Westerdahl, Christer: 1989a. Norra Ångermanlands som kulturell gränszon. In: Tre Kulturer. Medlemsbok för Johan Nordlander-sällskapet 5: 121-152. Westerdahl, Christer: 1989b. Norrlandsleden I: Sources of the maritime cultural landscape. A handbook of marine archaeological survey. English summary (15 pps). Arkiv för norrländsk hembygdsforskning XXIV. Härnösand. Westerdahl, Christer: 1990. En kulturgräns ur maritim synpunkt. In: Nurmi, V. (red.): Bottnisk Kontakt V: 33-38. Raumo. Westerdahl, Christer: 1992. Vikingatidens transportteknik i Ryssland. In: Fellows-Jensen, G/ Lund, N (red.): Ellevte tværfaglige vikingesymposium, Københavns Universitet 1992: 7-26. Århus. Westerdahl, Christer: 1993. Verkehrstechnik auf Binnenwasserstrassen in Russland zur Wikingerzeit. In: Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv 15 1992: 83-104. Bremerhaven. Westerdahl, Christer: 1994. Kulturgränszonen i norra Ångermanland. Dess yttringar under ett längre tidsperspektiv och några förslag till förklaringar. In: Edlund, Lars-Erik (ed): Kulturgränser- myt eller verklighet. DIABAS 4. Skrifter från den dialektgeografiska databasen vid Umeå universitet: 309-327. Umeå. Westerdahl, Christer: 1995. Traditional zones of transport geography in relation to ship types. In: Olsen, O./Skamby Madsen, J./Rieck, F.(Eds): Shipshape. Essays for Ole Crumlin-Pedersen: 213-230. Roskilde. Westerdahl, Christer: 1995-99, Samischer Bootsbau. Teil I-IV. In: Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv 18 1995, Teil 1: 231-260, 19 1996, Teil II: 317-348, 21 1998, Teil III: 233-254. 22, 1999: Teil IV: 285-314. Bremerhaven. Westerdahl, Christer: 1996. Amphibian transport systems i Northern Europe. A survey of a medieval way of life. In: Fennoscandia Archaeologica XIII: 69-82. Helsinki. Westerdahl, Christer: 1998. Vodno-suchoputnije transportnie sistemi v Severnoj Evrope: 51

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

52

Portage at the base of Jutland during the Viking Period and the Middle Ages Klaus Brandt

During the Viking Period and the Middle Ages goods, and on rare occasions, ships were transported over the Schleswig Isthmus in the south of the Jutland Peninsula. Ships from the North Sea coming from the west made it to the Eider and Treene rivers and deep into the interior. On the eastern side they used the firth of the Schlei, a fjord which penetrated deep inland from the Baltic. Only a stretch of land 16 km long between the Treene and the Schlei had to be overcome.

risen since the time of the Vikings, and that near Haithabu 50-60 cm.4 In the river basins of the Eider and the Treene the increase in water level in the North Sea became noticeable so that the effects of the tides reached further and further inland. This was intensified by the fact that dikes since the 11th /12th century increasingly limited the flooding areas on both sides of the river, resulting in the floods running further and further upriver. 2 The Schleswig Isthmus as Gateway

In the literature the Schleswig Isthmus has only once been more thoroughly treated as such, by Schledermann.1 Otherwise it is always mentioned solely in the context of the trading centre of Haithabu and the defence system of the Danewerk and the Heerweg which runs north-south. It is only since research has been dealing more intensively with Hollingstedt, Haithabu’s and Schleswig’s North Sea harbour, that the Schleswig Isthmus in its own right has become increasingly the focus of attention.

From the point of view of traffic geography the Schleswig Isthmus has a double function (fig. 1). For the north-south traffic, on the one hand, it represents a 4.5 km wide lowland pass over which all routes have led from prehistoric times up into today. The Danish kings availed of the topographical situation to protect their kingdom, whose southern boundary lay on the Eider, from attacks from the south. Around the year 700 the first rampart with external ditch was constructed.5 In the course of the following five centuries the Danewerk was increasingly extended so that a complex system of ditches and banks emerged. Seen as such the Schleswig Isthmus formed a gateway from the Jutland Peninsula to the South, to Northern Germany and to the continent.

Preliminary examinations of archaeological, historicalcartographical and geological-pedological nature were published in the year 1987.2 For a while it was doubted that the banks of the Treene at Hollingstedt had also been used during the Viking Period as a landing place for ships. This uncertainty was dismissed by following excavations in the years 1995 and 1996. The ground investigations which were carried out until 1998 brought two landing places for ships at Hollingstedt to light and for the first time produced information on the technical details of these landing places as well as on the construction and age of the church there.3

On the other hand the Schleswig Isthmus formed a land connection between two different traffic systems - that of the North Sea and that of the Baltic Sea. In this respect the Schleswig Isthmus represents that which is described in the Nordic sphere as an “eid”, i.e. an isthmus between the ends of two waterways.6 The stretch of land between the Treene and the Schlei was about 16 km long. It was over this isthmus that one of the most important European trading routes ran in the Viking Period and in the Middle Ages. Seagoing ships could sail along the Schlei in the east 7and along the Eider and the Treene in the west.8 Starting at the Treene, ships, or boats, to be more precise, could travel as far as the lower course of the Rheider Au, as the excavations south of the village of Hollingstedt showed (fig. 4).9 Probably those boats could not operate on the open sea and transhipping was necessary.

1 Natural Conditions The so-called Schleswig Isthmus is formed on its western side by the broad wet valleys of the Eider and Treene rivers as too by the marshlands of the Rheider Au, an easterly tributary of the Treene (fig. 1). The wide valleys arose as meltwater channels during the last Ice Age, when the edge of the ice lay approximately on a line west of Schleswig. In the east the Schlei, a subglacial meltwater channel, cuts deeply inland with a length of 38 km. The natural landscape was, over the course of the centuries, subjected to various changes albeit not so serious as those in areas where the land rose. However, the water level in the area around the inner Schlei has

4

Kalmring 2002: 59 f. Andersen 1998: 243; Erlenkeuser 1998: 194. 6 Westerdahl, this volume. 7 Crumlin-Pedersen 1997 8 Siegloff 2004: 73-87. 9 Cf. Brandt 2002: 101 f. 5

1

Schledermann 1974. Incl. Lüdtke 1987, Unverhau 1987, Hoffmann 1987. 3 Brandt 1999; 2002. 2

53

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1 The Schleswig Isthmus. Harbours, castles and trading-routes.

The situation in terms of transport geography offered the prerequisites for the emergence of ports on both sides of the isthmus. Seen from the west, the Schleswig Isthmus constituted a gateway to the Baltic region, observed from the east it represented a gateway to the North Sea area. This function is evidenced for the Viking period and the Middle Ages, into the first half of the 13th century - for four and half centuries, therefore.

3 The Schleswig Isthmus as a transport route The ship landing places in the west and the east formed the starting points for the transport routes. In the 8th century there developed on the western end of the Schlei in a southern side-bay the trading centre which we are used to referring as Haithabu. In the course of the 11th century the port shifted to the northern shore of the Schlei —to the centre of modern-day Schleswig. The counterpart in the west, so far as we are able to ascertain at present, was formed by two medieval landing places for ships at Hollingstedt, one of these being on the banks of the Treene itself and the second somewhat further inland on an easterly tributary of the same river. For the Viking Age too one may infer that there was a landing place on the banks of the Treene.

Both functions, i.e. border defence and trading route, are not directly connected. It has been suspected that the Danewerk also served in safeguarding traffic over the isthmus.10 However, the trade route running more or less parallel to the Danewerk could hardly be secured from the latter. In its eastern section the southern route from Haithabu or Schleswig to Hollingstedt ran to the south of the Main Wall. It was only when the Kovirke/ Kograben11 was functioning that the whole route was afforded protection by the Danewerk.

10 11

Frahm 1944: 109 f; Roesdahl 1980: 44. Built in the second half of the 10th century.

54

KLAUS BRANDT: PORTAGE AT THE BASE OF JUTLAND DURING THE VIKING PERIOD AND THE MIDDLE AGES

Fig. 2 Haithabu. Excavation-areas, the early hill-fort Hochburg, the later semicircular wall, the cemeteries, the jetties and the palisades protecting the harbour (after Radtke 1999 fig. 43)

55

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 3 Schleswig. The older topography (12th cent.) with the harbour, the shoreline and the churches (after Vogel 1999 fig. 1)

Much research has been done on the situation in Haithabu (fig. 2).12 Settlement on the western bank of the Haddeby Noor began in the 8th century. In the 11th century Haithabu’s heyday came to an end. In the second half of the 10th century the settlement was enclosed by a bank and a ditch. This semicircular rampart encompassing an area of 24 hectares, was heightened time and time again so that it finally reached a height in excess of 8 metres. Large cemeteries attest to permanent settlement. Excavations in 1979 and 1980 in the port uncovered fortified access ways to the ships’ landing places and jetties which, having been built around the middle of the 9th century, were replaced by new structures in the second half of the same century.13 Prior to the building of these structures, ships must have landed at a simple landing stage. The topography of the settlement, which up until now had been assessed only partially on the basis of excavations carried out in the 1930s and 1960s, became considerably clear after geophysical surveying in

During the 11th century there developed on a peninsulalike area on the opposite banks of the Schlei a new port settlement which assumed Haithabu’s function (fig. 3).14 In the last two decades of the 11th century jetties were erected on the banks of the Schlei and these were extended in quick succession - obviously expression of the young trading centre’s economic boom. Alongside the commercial-civic establishments the palace and cathedral constituted centres of worldly and spiritual rule, very probably already in the 11th century.15 During the first half of the 13th century Schleswig lost her function to Lübeck. Therefore the importance of the Schleswig Isthmus as a transport route diminished rapidly.

12

14

13

2002. Parallel roadways led from the settlement to the harbour and a roadway running parallel to the river bank enclosed the harbour. The area within the semicircular rampart was not densely built up all over even when one disregards the burial grounds.

Summary in Radtke 1999. Kalmring 2002: esp. 114-117.

15

56

Vogel 1999. Radtke 2000 b.

KLAUS BRANDT: PORTAGE AT THE BASE OF JUTLAND DURING THE VIKING PERIOD AND THE MIDDLE AGES even considering theories that a canal once connected the Treene with the Schlei.

On the west side of the Schleswig Isthmus the ships coming from the North Sea landed on the banks of the Treene at Hollingstedt, as we now know with certainty from recent excavations (fig. 4 Nr. 1-2).16 The favourable location of the place results from a ridge of sand extending directly to the river. Thus it was here that ships travelling up the Treene were afforded the opportunity for the first time of reaching solid ground on the eastern bank of the river. Additionally the river forked at Hollingstedt, allowing the ships to comfortably land in the quiet waters of the easterly arm of the river. From here one could reach the Schlei in easterly direction on a favourably marked-out route.

There is only a single account of ships being transported overland and that was shortly after the year 1150 in the context of belligerent conflicts between the three pretenders for the throne, namely Knud Magnusson, Sven Grathe and Waldemar.21 Knud had formed an alliance with the Frisians on the west coast of Schleswig and had erected a fort on the lower reaches of the Treene. Sven Grathe mustered fleet and cavalry in Schleswig and from there had ships towed overland in order to deploy them against Knud and the Frisians. Three written sources, albeit with minor differences, report about this. According to the oldest report, that of Saxo Grammaticus,22 the ships were brought to the Eider. Two 13th century sources, the Knýtlinga Saga23 and the Annales Ryenses,24 contain more exact details about the places concerned, naming Hollingstedt as the destination point of the ship transport. The latter source, because of its proximity to the place where the events happened, must have had a better knowledge of the locality so that the naming of Hollingstedt as end station of ship transport overland may be confirmed. Sven had a sufficiently large team for towing the boats at his disposal.

Contrary to some formerly held opinion, the use of the Treene riverbanks began, as numerous finds now illustrate, in the Viking Period. It appears indicative that traces of solid structures are missing, as is characteristic for the landing places of Viking Age and medieval ships.17 Buildings, and then only very few, were not erected until the 11th/12th century on the riverbank. More elaborate constructions followed in the second half of the 12th century when access to the landing stages was facilitated by the building of massive wooden platforms. Import ceramic ware from the Rhineland and tuff from the Eifel Mountains attest to links with the Rhine region. Small ship-parts made of iron, rivets and caulk pegs lead one to conclude that ships of Nordic construction as well as those of Kollerup or Bremen Type, i.e. early cogs, steered for Hollingstedt and, indeed, were repaired there where necessary.18

When one wanted to transport a cargo ship overland this meant a far greater effort and expenditure of labour. First of all the goods had to be unloaded and later, when the ship was let down to water, the goods had be reloaded. In the case of a trading vessel a sufficiently large number of men for land transport was absent.

A second landing place was discovered on a small tributary of the Treene some 800 m further inland (fig. 4 Nr. 7-8). This place, located on the bank of a water channel just 3 m wide, shows no signs of fixtures and is therefore to be addressed purely as a landing stage. Only boats with a maximum width of 3 m could reach here. Accordingly the freight was reloaded from larger ships to smaller ones on the lower reaches of the Eider or Treene. People and lighter boats must have stood ready at such reloading places and lighter stations. That Rhineland tuff, among other materials, was used as a building material in some churches along the lower reaches of the Eider and Treene can probably be put down to the fact that lightening and transferring of tuff loads occurred here.19

In Norways’s written sources mention is frequently made of the transport of vessels over towing distances but here too it is in the context of warlike undertakings. How the overland transport of ships in Scandinavia was carried out in everyday life and to what extent it was undertaken is hard to say. What is clear, though, is that only small ships were transported.25 So far as we can see, quite a variety of goods were transported between Haithabu/Schleswig and Hollingstedt. The carts and wagons going between Haithabu/Schleswig and Hollingstedt were primarily bringing animal skins, wax, honey and tar. Quality craft product were traded in the other direction and in Schleswig’s heyday masses of money were on the move, as expounded by Radtke.26 The only bulk product to be transported by cart from west to east was tuff stone which, in the second half of the 12th century and the beginning of the 13th century, was primarily used in building churches.

Despite our increase in knowledge about the port settlements of Haithabu, Schleswig and Hollingstedt in recent years, we still know little for certain about the transport routes connecting these settlements with one another. For a long time it was thought that ships, as a rule, were towed across the Schleswig Isthmus. Schledermann20 was the most recent to deal in detail with the variety of possibilities of transport across the isthmus,

21

Frahm 1944: 110; Schledermann 1974: 13 f. Gesta Danorum lib. 14, VIII, 3. Olrik & Ræder 1931: 385. 23 Chap. 8. 24 Kroman 198:165. 25 Cf. Westerdahl, this volume, with ref. to Simonsen 2002: 11. 26 Radtke 2002 b.

16

22

Brandt 1999, 2002. 17 E.g. Lynæs: Ulriksen 1998: 25-42; cf Ellmers 1972: 213-216, 226. 18 Siegloff 2004. 19 Rohde 1986: 328 f. 20 Schledermann 1974

57

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 4 Hollingstedt. Plan of the village with the two landing-places (no 1 and 8), the church (no. 5) and the medieval cemetery (no. 6)

The excavations at the two ships’ landing places at Hollingstedt yielded information on details relating to working procedures. The ships were in general loaded and unloaded in the river. During the excavations it was observed that the riverbank area had been prepared in such a way for pulling ships on land. In the 1995 Hollingstedt-Lahmenstraat excavation, twigs and branches were unearthed which had been spread out over a large area between the riverbank and the platform.27 In addition there were finds of caulk pegs, some still unused, others used but prepared for reuse. This leads to the conclusion that ship repairs were undertaken here.28 To carry out such work the ships had to be hauled on land, the ships’ undersides sliding gently over the layers of boughs and twigs.29

not contemporary but rather had succeeded one another. All in all the streaks may be dated to the 12th century or first half of the 13th century. It seems reasonable to see them as cart tracks. Unambiguous tracks of wheels, however, were not found either in plan or in section. The tracks could also stem from some sort of sledge. The coloration streaks started off markedly about 40 m away from the bank of the Treene. Apparently the means of transport was then changed meaning that the goods were carried the 40 m distance down from, and to, the river. Also at the second landing place the goods had to be carried after the unloading of the ship was done. The subsoil was so wet that it must have been impossible to reach the water channel with a cart. In plan the sand, turf and clay were strongly mixed due to people obviously sinking down heavily into the ground at the riverbank. Solid ground was not reached until some 25 or 30 m from the bank.

After unloading the goods were transported overland. How this happened is suggested by archaeological findings in the 1996 excavation site.30 In plan three archshaped humus streaks stood out which stemmed from shallow hollows. All three streaks were 1 m wide and almost parallel to each another, implying that they were

At both landing places there must have been porters standing ready for ships arriving or for getting ships loaded in preparation for departure. Most likely these bearers were recruited from the local population. Although they were not required for the whole year through, and not constantly even during the shipping

27

Brandt 2002: fig. 5 N 84-95 E 110-120. Siegloff 2004: 50-53, 57-62. Cf note 27. 30 Brandt 2002: fig. 5 N 84-94, E 151-158. 28 29

58

KLAUS BRANDT: PORTAGE AT THE BASE OF JUTLAND DURING THE VIKING PERIOD AND THE MIDDLE AGES transported to the southern shore on ferries. According to Radtke’s interpretation, the threat of a penalty was not only valid for carts going to Rendsburg but also for those going to Hollingstedt. From the ferry station on the southern bank of the Schlei, therefore, there seems to have been a road going south to Rendsburg and another leading west to Hollingstedt.

season, the work meant extra earnings for the Hollingstedt inhabitants at any rate. If we presume that transport over the Schleswig Isthmus was undertaken with carts, on pack animals or by messengers, then the question regarding the roads being used by this traffic presents itself. Neither terrain elements such as hollow-ways nor archaeological findings which could be associated with a roadway across the Schleswig Isthmus are known.

The function, structure and location of the ferry station is convincingly presented by Radtke.35 He positions it there on the banks of the Schlei where the Alte Rendsburger Landstraße points, this being the road which connected Schleswig with Rendsburg and the Eider crossing and which ended blindly in the north (fig. 6).

Schietzel31 yet believes that the Crooked Wall or Krummwall which runs for long stretches through very damp land was used as a road. But excavations showed that phase 1 of the wall had been primarily built made for military purposes. The road running directly at the foot of the bank on the north side may have been used during building and defending the Danewerk.32

From the ferry station on the south bank of the Schlei there had also been a road to Hollingstedt according to Radtke.36 The point of departure for his considerations are the Doppelwall/Double Wall and the Bogenwall or Bowed Wall in the Danewerk which he sees as a barrier, a view which is widely accepted.37 But in my opinion this should be questioned. The road through the Doppelwall and the Bogenwall can only have become significant after the second half of the 16th century. Thereby we have modern conditions being projected back into the Middle Ages. Moreover the Doppelwall and Bogenwall would have been most unusual for a gateway in the course of a rampart. The two sharp bends along this route and passage through damp flats raises the question as to whether we can possibly be dealing here with an overland route in this form that was very frequently used.

With certainty there were several possible routeways on the 16-17 km stretch between Haithabu and Schleswig in the east and Hollingstedt in the west. For traffic on nonconsolidated roads it is the terrain which, as a rule, plays the decisive role in choosing what route to take. For the reconstruction of ancient route ways, large-scaled 17th 19th century maps are useful, 33as they show how the terrain was prior to the extensive cultivation of the past two centuries. Taking the terrain into consideration one route for traffic between Haithabu and Hollingstedt presents itself (fig. 5 & 6). This route led out from the southern gateway of the semicircular rampart, went around the hills at Gr. Dannewerk, passed the Danewerk’s Main Wall at Rotenkrug and then, passing south of the village of Ellingstedt, led onto Hollingstedt.

Accepting the fact that Radtke’s well-proven ferry station on the southern banks of the Schlei was the starting point for traffic travelling to Hollingstedt, then the wagons going there would first use the routeway that the Alte Rendburger Landstraße follows, and go around the deep valley of the Busdorfer Teich, a pond, and the Reesendamm in the south. Then they would go next westwards in the direction of the Heerweg/Ochsenweg and the Gateway, bending off at the Main Wall at Rotenkrug (fig. 6).

The most favourable land route in the terrain between Schleswig and Hollingstedt left the town in the direction of northwest, reaching the high ground on the northern edge of the Schlei valley via Mönchenbrückstraße, Michaelisstraße and Schubystraße. Remaining constantly at about the same height it continued as far as the moraines at Hüsby (fig. 6). From there on it used the dry sandy plain in westerly direction and joined up south of Ellingstedt with the old road coming from Haithabu (fig. 5).

Radtke also sees the possibility of a second ferry station,38 arising from the finding of Wreck IV on the western bank of the Haddeby Noor south of the semicircular rampart. For traffic heading for Holligstedt the route would follow that which already led from Haithabu to Hollingstedt in the Viking Period.

Another route between Schleswig and Hollingstedt comes into question for Radtke34 from the interpretation of Article 30 in Schleswig’s Town Charter. There reference is made to punishment being imposed upon those who having already crossed the Schlei halfway on their way over to the southern bank have not yet paid customs. From Schleswig Port freight carts were apparently 31

35

32

36

Schietzel 1968: 182 Andersen 1998: 243 f. 33 Lomeier & Haack 1963; Neynaber & Hemsen 1761 a & b. 34 Radtke 2004: 20

Radtke 2004: 22-27. Radtke 2004: 31 and fig. 4 on p.28. Incl. Andersen 1998: 247-250. 38 Radtke 2004: 28 f. 37

59

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 5 The Schleswig Isthmus. Viking-age and medieval roads.

Fig. 6 Viking-age and medieval roads in the surroundings of Haithabu, Schleswig and Dannewerk (ground-map: Neynaber & Hemsen 1761 a)

60

KLAUS BRANDT: PORTAGE AT THE BASE OF JUTLAND DURING THE VIKING PERIOD AND THE MIDDLE AGES All this indicates that the king had a church erected very close to the ship landing place on the bank of the Treene which was to primarily serve the traders and boatmen as a ritual space.

4 Concentration of political power on the Schleswig Isthmus The Schleswig Isthmus belonged politically to the sphere of control of the Danish king. So long as the isthmus was used as a transit route for international trade between the North Sea and the Baltic and between Scandinavia and continental Europe, one must reckon that the Danish king controlled this route. The king had bases in Schleswig in the form of a royal court which can be attested to back to the first half of the 11th century through royal sojourns there.39 On the basis of building history and archaeological investigations the location of the royal court was able to be pinpointed to the site of the Franciscan monastery which was founded in the core of the old city in 1234.40 In the 12th century a fort was erected on an island in the Schlei in front of the town, thus separate topographically from it. This fort functionally formed a unit with the court. Although this defensive structure was probably instigated by Knud Laward, the king’s deputy, the fort must have been open to the king at any time. Until the death of Waldemar II in 1241 all rights of the duke were derived from his royal feudal lord.41

The presence of the king at both end points of the Schleswig Isthmus - in Haithabu, Schleswig and Hollingstedt - underlines the significance of this traffic route. It should not be forgotten, however, that the region as a whole, as a frontier zone to the neighbouring Saxons and Slavs and the defence line of the Danewerk, claimed the attention of the rulers time and time again. But it is not just the presence of a king that is typical for an isthmus and the traffic routes crossing it, it is also the seats of the chieftains and lords.46 The chamber graves on the edge of the inhumation cemetery of Haithabu and the cemetery of Thumby-Bienebek on the southern shore of the Schlei attest to the fact that members of an upper class, both social and economic, were in residence here. 5 Churches Just some 100 metres from the banks of the Treene stands the Hollingstedt church (fig. 4 No.5), a structure built of Rhineland tuff and dating to the second half of the 12th century. 47 Excavation in 1995 showed, that this church had no predecessor, but was erected at the place of former dwelling-houses.48 The proximity to the riverbank and the landing place for boats can be seen as a striking feature, especially when one considers that the church had such an extreme peripheral location, not only within the village but also within the parish. For the river formed the western border of the parish. This all seems to indicate that it was primarily the traders and the boatmen who used the church, praying for a good voyage over the sea or thanking God for a successful one. It is to be understood that King Waldemar I (1157-1182) or his son Knud (1182-1202) who supported Schleswig’s trade with all their might, arranged the have the church built in the “North Sea harbour” of Schleswig. This is indicated, as mentioned above, by the patronage and patron saint of the church.

One may assume that there was also a royal court at Haithabu as the two rune-stones nearby which were erected by Asfrid, the wife of King Knuba, in memory of their son Sigtrygg, lead one to conclude that the royal family stayed for long periods in Haithabu during the first half of the 10th century. The magnificent ship burial with its elaborate structure and rich grave goods, dating either to the middle of the 9th century42 or later about the year 900, according to conventional chronology, must surely have had a member of the royal family buried in it. The royal court would also have been the seat of the comes vici mentioned in the year 854 which observed the important matters of the king in fiscal and legal areas in Haithabu. Such a court could have been located either inside or outside the semicircular rampart. On the west side of the Schleswig Isthmus a king’s court is also handed down to us, albeit late. In a contract between King Erich and Duke Waldemar of Schleswig in 1285/1286 a royal property in Hollingstedt is named.43 It seems that, on the initiative of the king, the Hollingstedt church was erected in the second half of the 12th century since the patronage of the church was in the hands of the duke in the 16th century, the duke being the legal successor to the king.44 In addition to this the church, or at least an important altar, was dedicated to John the Baptist, the adoration of whom played an important role in the politics of Waldemar I (1170) and his successors.45

The special position and function of the church at the ships’ landing place is further underlined by the fact that a medieval graveyard was situated in the middle of the village,49 so that one may presume the existence of a second church here.50 This church would have to be seen as that serving the resident population. Traces of it, however, have not yet been discovered. The erection of churches on important route ways over isthmuses has been noticed too in other places.51 I began

39

Radtke 1977. Vogel 1999: 188. Windmann 1954: 92 f. 42 Wamers 1994. 43 SHRU II, No. 676: 1285; No.691 and No.697: 1286. 44 Prange 1965: 33. 45 Radtke 2002 a: 223 f. 40

46

41

47

As highlighted by Westerdahl, this volume. Ellger & Teuchert 1957: 308-316. 48 Brandt 1999: 303 f. 49 Loewe 1971. 50 Kieffer-Olsen 2002, after Radtke 2004: 37 f. 51 Westerdahl, this volume.

61

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

with the church in Hollingstedt because the situation there presents itself very clearly to the observer. On the east side of the Schleswig Isthmus matters are somewhat more complicated because besides the location on the isthmus here other factors play a role in the erection of churches. The church of Haddeby lies just as peripheral within its parish as Hollingstedt, and therefore did not have the function primarily of being centre of a parish, as remarked upon by Radtke.52 “The sacred function is older than the parochial system”. The church building was erected about 1200,53 the late phase of Schleswig’s flowering period and of the transit trade across the Schleswig Isthmus.54 The excavation findings of Kamphausen and Jankuhn do not favour an earlier church building. Radtke would like to see a church building dated to about 1200 in association with royal military commander resident in the place named Haddebooth which is also hinted at by the church’s royal patronage. Radtke does not trust the ferry station itself as having enough strength as a location factor. However, the parallels to churches at ships’ landing places jump out at one, especially in the case of the above-mentioned Hollingstedt church which was likewise subordinate to royal patronage and which was presumably erected about the same time on royal property.

boatmen preferred. Patron saints such as Clement and Knut could indicate merchants from the British Isles and from The North.56 There is a lot to be said for the Nikolaikirche, a church located near the port, being narrowly linked with those involved in trading on account of its patron saint. The church made completely from Rhineland tuff belonging to the St. John’s Monastery may have been built by people who had close contacts with the Rhineland. Stoob57 sees most of the seven churches that were named in the year 1196 in Schleswig as merchants’ churches, “Kaufmannskirchen”, and thereby uses a term which evolved from the examples of churches in German colonisation areas. 58 How far this term is relevant for the circumstances in Schleswig would have to be examined case by case. Bibliography Andersen, H. H., 1998, Danevirke og Kovirke. Arkæologiske undersøgelser 1861-1993. Århus. Annales Ryenses. In E. Kromann, Danmarks middelaldige Annaler, 149-176. København 1980. Brandt, K., 1999, Neue Ausgrabungen in Hollingstedt, dem Nordseehafen von Haithabu und Schleswig. Ein Vorbericht. Offa 54/55. 1997/98: 289-307. Brandt, K., 2002, Wikingerzeitliche und mittelalterliche Besiedlung am Ufer der Treene bei Hollingstedt (Kreis Schleswig-Flensburg) – Ein Flusshafen im Küstengebiet der Nordsee. In K. Brandt, M. MüllerWille & C. Radtke (Eds), Haithabu und die frühe Stadtentwicklung im nördlichen Europa. Schriften des Archäologischen Landesmuseums 8, 83-105. Crumlin-Pedersen, O., 1997, Viking-age ships an shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haithabu and Schleswig. Ships and boats of the north 2. Schleswig/Roskilde. Ellger, D., &. Teuchert, W., 1957, Die Kunstdenkmäler des Kreises Schleswig ohne die Stadt Schleswig. Die Kunstdenkmäler des Landes Schleswig-Holstein 8. München. Ellmers, D., 1972, Frühmittelalterliche Handelsschiffahrt in Mittel- und Nordeuropa. Offa-Bücher 28. Neumünster. Erlenkeuser, H., 1998, Neue C14-Datierungen zum Danewerk, Schleswig-Holstein. In H. H. Andersen, Danevirke og Kovirke. Arkæologiske undersøgelser 1861-1993, 189-201. Århus. Frahm, F., 1944, Hygelstedt - Hollingstedt. Offa 6/7, 1941/42: 108-117. Hoffmann, D., 1987, Geologische Untersuchungen in Hollingstedt. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 25: 129-140. Johansen, P., 1958, Die Kaufmannskirche im Ostseeraum. Vorträge und Forschungen 4: 499-525. Kalmring, S., 2002, Zu den Hafenanlagen von Haithaby. Dendrochronologische und kulturgeschichtliche Untersuchung zu den Befunden der Ausgrabung 1979/80. Master dissertation University of Kiel.

One cannot rule out the possibility that older church buildings existed before the church of Haddeby and that these are identical to churches present in Haithabu since the time of Ansgar. Continuity which can generally be observed in the case of churches says something for a high age for the church of Haddeby. A road within the semicircular rampart, recorded with geophysical methods and dated to the Viking Age, shows the same course as that Church Way, “Kirchenweg”, depicted on 18th century maps, this in turn supporting the idea of an older church building in Haddeby. On the other hand the graves with west-east alignment within the semicircular rampart which are interpreted as Christian call for a church building there.55 So, as in the past, it is still uncertain as to where a church was standing during Haithabu’s heyday. Whether the church at Haddeby was not actually built until 1200 or whether a church stood there when Haithabu was at its peak, in any case it may be associated with the ferry station on the southern shore of the Schlei. Whether from among the numerous churches which are recorded for Schleswig it is possible to see the one or the other in the context of transit traffic is difficult to decide (fig. 3). In everyone of them the traders and boatmen could have prayed for a successful forthcoming journey or have thanked God for a happy end to their most recent travels. Certainly there were churches that the traders and 52

Radtke 2004: 33. Ellger & Teuchert 1957: 280-289. Radtke 2004: 32-38. 55 Radtke 2004: 37 f. 53

56

54

57

Stoob 1976. Stoob op. cit. 58 Johansen 1958.

62

KLAUS BRANDT: PORTAGE AT THE BASE OF JUTLAND DURING THE VIKING PERIOD AND THE MIDDLE AGES Schietzel, K. 1968, Haithabu und Hollingstedt - Kograben und Danewerk. In Schleswig. Haithabu. Sylt. Führer zu vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Denkmälern 9, 167-186. Mainz. Schledermann, H., 1974, Skibe på ruller og i kanaler. Myter, spekulation og forskning omkring et Danevirkeproblem. Sønderjyske Årbøger 1974: 5-31. SHRU II. Hasse, P. (Ed), 1888, Schleswig-HolsteinLauenburgische Regesten und Urkunden II. Hamburg/Leipzig. Siegloff, E., 2004, Studien zu den Sintelfunden an der Schleswiger Landenge. Diplomarbeit University of Kiel. Simonsen, P., 2002, Nordnorske båtdrag. Braut II. Nordiske veghistoriske studier, 7-40. Lillehammer. Stoob, H., 1976, Zur Topographie von Alt-Schleswig. Acta Visbyensia 5: 117-126. Unverhau, D., 1987, Hollingstedt aus kartographiehistorischer Sicht. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu. 25: 83-128. Ulriksen, J., 1998, Anløbpladser. Besejling og bebyggelse in Danmark mellem 200 og 1100 e. Kr.. Roskilde. Vogel, V., 1999, Der Schleswiger Hafen im hohen und späten Mittelalter. In J. Bill (Ed), Maritime Topography and the Medieval Town. Papers from the 5th International Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in Copenhagen, 14-16 may 1998. Publications from The National Museum . Studies in Archaeology & History 4, 187-196. Copenhagen. Westerdahl, C., 2005, On the Significance of Portages. A survey of a new research area. (this volume). Windmann, H., 1954, Schleswig als Territorium. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte Schleswig-Holsteins 30. Neumünster.

Kieffer-Olsen, J., 2002, Gravskikken som kilde til Danmarks kristning. In L. Bisgaard & R. S. Christensen (Reds), Kristningen af Norden – et 1000-års jubilæum. Mindre skrifter udgivet af Center for Middelalderstudier Syddansk Universitet Odense 21, 27-36.Odense. Knýtlinga-Saga. In B.Gudnason (Ed), Danakonunga sögur. Íslenzk Fornrit 35, 81-321. Reykjavík. Loewe, G., 1971, Hollingstedts Kirche - kein Packhaus. Jahrbuch für die Schleswigsche Geest 19: 79-82. Lomeier, K. & Haack, M. (Eds), 1963, Die Landkarten von Johannes Mejer, Husum, aus der neuen Landesbeschreibung von Caspar Danckwerth 1652. Hamburg-Bergedorf. Lüdtke, H., 1987, Die Keramik von Hollingstedt. Berichte über die Ausgrabungen in Haithabu 25: 982. Neynaber, C. H. & Hemsen, J. C., 1761 (a), Special Charte der Gegend um Schleswig, aufgemessen und verzeichnet im Jahr 1761. Landesarchiv Schleswig-Holstein Abt. 402 B II, Nr. 155. Schleswig. Neynaber, C. H. & Hemsen, J. C., 1761 (b), Plan der Gegend von Hollingstedt aufgemessen und verzeichnet im Jahre 1761. Staatsbibliothek Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Kartensammlung N 24977: 20. Berlin. Radtke, C., 1977, Aula und castellum. Überlegungen zur Topographie und Struktur des Königshofes in Schleswig. Beiträge zur Schleswiger Stadtgeschichte 22: 29-47. Radtke, C., 1999, Haiaby. Urbanisation: Strukturen und Funktionen. In Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde 13 : 378 f. Berlin-New York. Radtke, C., 2002 (a), Krieg und Kult - Die Eroberung der Insel Rügen 1169 und die Portalreliefs an den Domen von Schleswig und Ribe. In A. Nørgård Jørgensen & J. Pind (Eds), Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. Publications from The National Museum. Studies in Archaeology and History 6, 217-236. Kopenhagen 2002. Radtke, C., 2002 (b), Schleswig im vorlübischen Geld- und Warenverkehr zwischen westlichem Kontinent und Ostseeraum. In K. Brandt, M. Müller-Wille & C. Radtke (Eds), Haithabu und die frühe Stadtentwicklung im nördlichen Europa. Schriften des Archäologischen Landesmuseums 8, 379-429. Neumünster. Radtke, C., 2004, Der Prahm „Haithabu IV” in seinem historischen Kontext: Schleitransit, Fährstation, Überlandwege und die Kirche von Haddeby. In K. Brandt & H. J. Kühn (Eds), Der Prahm aus dem Hafen von Haithabu. Beiträge zu antiken und mittelalterlichen Flachbodenschiffen. Schriften des Archäologischen Landesmuseums. Ergänzungsreihe 2, 17-41. Neumünster. Roesdahl, E., 1980, Danmarks vikingetid. Aarhus. Rohde, H., 1986, Überlegungen zur mittelalterlichen Wasserstraße Eider/Treene/Schlei. Offa 43, 1986: 311336. Saxo Grammaticus. J. Olrik & H. Ræder (Eds), Saxonis Gesta Danorum. Havniae 1931.

63

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

64

The “Portages” in Latvian and Lituanian Appellative and Toponomastic Lexicon Ojārs Bušs

be almost one of the language universals, polysemic is the English word portage too, very polysemic is the equivalent Finnish word taival (which means ‘a way’ as well). And so we have in Finland some place-names Taivalkoski for rapids and settlements, the primary, etymological meaning of such place-name may be ‘the rapid of a portage’, but it may be ‘the rapid of (some kind of) a way’ as well; both etymologys hold water and you can read explanations of both kinds in the cards among files of Finnish place-names in the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland (Kotimaisten Kielten Tutkimuskeskus) in Helsinki.

It can be quite hard to find a word with meaning ‘portage’ in modern Latvian. The English (and French) word portage and the equivalent Russian word волок is translated as valka in some (very few) dictionaries [KLV 1959, 1, 171; ELD 771]. There is an example in the «thesaurum» of Latvian (especialy of Latvian dialects) [ME; EH], where the word valks is used in a context, that makes you infer the meaning ‘portage’ («līdz valkam, kas starp Daugavu un Dņepru (t. i., sauszemes joslai, kas starp diviem ūdens baseiniem)» [EH 2, 753, s. v. valks III]), but you can’t be absolutely sure that your conclusion is the right one. And there isn’t valka or valks with such a meaning in the biggest standard Latvian explanatory dictionary [LLVV], or in the encyclopedias [LME; LPE]. One of the reasons is that this concept surely didn’t have a big role in the history of Latvia, but there are also pure linguistic reasons for it – the use of such terms were made inconvenient by homonymy and polysemy (compare valks I ‘everyday clothes’ and valks II ‘a brooklet’ [LLVV 8, 279] and the many meanings of the words valks and valka in the different subdialects of Latvian (see 5 homonyms valks [ME 4, 457] and 3 homonyms valka [ibid., 455]). The use of the equivalent therm – pervalkas – in the Lithuanian language is made easier an more convenient by the addition of the prefix per- (in fact it is a derivation from prefixal verbum pervilkti ‘to pull over’); by the way, we have very similar term for a portage in Polish – przewłoka, having – from the etymological point of view – the same linguistic basics and the same structure of the word. Still we have to struggle with some polysemy in Lithuanian too, because the word pervalkas can refer to a place of ferry as well (at least according to Georg Gerullis [Gerullis 1922: 121]), although in the dictionary of modern Lithuanian language [DLKŽ4 550] only the meaning ‘tarp dviejų vandens kelių esanti sausuma, per kurią pervelkami laivai’ (‘the plot of land between water-ways and which is used to pull boats over’ = ‘portage’) is given. This Lithuanian word – pervalkas – is translated as valka in the Lithuanian-Latvian dictionary (with the explanation in brackets: zemes josla laivu pārvilkšanai ‘a land zone for the pulling of boats’ [LiLaV 371]); but there is both the valks and valka translated as pervalkas in the Latvian-Lithuanian dictionary [LaLiV 693]. From all that lexicographical detail you can see there isn’t a strong tradition in Latvian for a word, that would mean ‘a portage’; you can find two lexems (of the same origin) in some dictionaries, but it would be very hard to find the one or the other in real Latvian texts (not a single case of use is registered in the frequency word-book of Latvian [LVBV]. And a propos homonymy and polysemy: the polysemy of terms with the meaning ‘portage’ seems to

And now let us come back to Latvia. Probably you could find a closer connection with the real historical portages (if such have been) in Latvia by analyzing Latvian toponyms. For instance, one of the hypothesis for the etymology of the name of the Latvian-Estonian border town Valka (Est. Valga) says it had been connected with a real portage, with a pulling of boats from the Pedele to the Gauja rivers. But there are also some other possible explanations for the origin of that toponym [Bušs 2003, 35–36; 2004], and a few of them seem to be more believable as the mentioned connection. Many Estonian linguists (Paul Ariste inter alia) believe the name of the mentioned town is derived from Finno-Ugric (Finnic) valk-/valg- ‘white’. You can find many toponyms with that lexical root in Estonia and Finland, to mention only some Estonian place-names of the Tartu region Valge, Valgepää, Valgeraba, Valkena [Pall 1969, 264–265] or the name of the Finnish town Valkeakoski. That – FinnoUgric – explanation of the origin of the name of town Valka is quite believable, nevertheless a Baltic (Latvian) origin of the mentioned name seems to be equally possible. There are about 830 place-names (mostly microtoponyms – names of meadows, marshlands, woods etc.) with the component valk-, registered in the card index of Latvian toponyms in the Latvian Language Institut in Riga. 98% of them – about 815 – are still localized in Kurzeme, the southwestern part of Latvia, quite a long way from northern Latvia (the town Valka is placed on the northern border of Latvia). And mostly (almost always) the mentioned place-names of Kurzeme are based on the word valks ‘a brooklet’ (that geographical term is now well known in standard Latvian too, but it’s a word of dialectal origin, connected with the same region of Kurzeme) or on the dialectical lexically semantical versions of this word, referring to a humid meadow, to a meadow, that is in some way connected with a water course or to a other humid place, i.e. to a bog. All that lexical complex of Kurzeme’s Valks/valks seems to be Etymologically based on Indoeuropean roots 65

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Map. Latvia and Lithuania

of Kurzeme. We can find in northern Latvia some other reflections of typical lexical dialectisms from the region of Kurzeme as well, and it means, that a connection of origin of the town-name Valka with a dialectism from Kurzeme is not impossible, although the credibility of such an explanation is still quite small. To make a first summary: one of the possibilities in explaining the etymology of the above-mentioned Latvian-Estonian border town is connected with the hypothesis of a portage between the Pedele and the Gauja, nevertheless some other explanations for the origin of the name Valka are more credible (although still hypothetical).

and words from the semantic field of ‘humidity’, we can compare it with a Latv. adjective valgs ‘humid, moist; damp’, and the name of the famous Russian river Volga. On the other side the Latvian word valka or valks ‘a portage’ is etymologically connected with Latv. verb vilkt ‘to pull, to drag, to draw, to trail, to haul; to tow, to tug’ (in that cluster of etymologically related words we have a change of the root vowel -i- : -e- : -a-: vilk- : velk- : valk). It means, that at least 98% of Latvian place-names with Valk- have – unfortunately for us – nothing to do with the portages. And, may be, even the «suspicious» name of town Valka can (to say the truth, very hypotheticaly) still be connected with the many valks of Kurzeme (there is known a feminine variant valka too in some Latvian subdialects of Kurzeme). As a joining link you can treat a wood-name Zaļā Valka (Latv. zaļā ‘green’) 30–40 km south (to be more exact: south-southeast) from the mentioned town; that wood-name seems to have the same etymological meaning as the valk-names

A more believable testimony for a real existence of an (or some) ancient (or perhaps not so ancient) portage (-es) is given by some Lithuanian toponyms. We have in Lithuania not so many toponyms with Pervalk-. In the index of toponyms in the Lithuanian Language Institute in Vilnius one can find only around a dozen of them; 66

OJĀRS BUŠS: THE “PORTAGES” IN LATVIAN AND LITUANIAN APPELLATIVE AND TOPONOMASTIC LEXICON We have also in Lithuania some microtoponyms with Pervalk- (most of them mentioned above), and some names of relatively larger geographical objects as well. Those names – first of all the names of two villages – can probably give a relatively credible testimony for a real former existence of quite ancient portages. They – those names – are Pervalkai – a village in northern Lithuania, on the river Mūša in the district of Pasvalys – and Pervalka – a former fishing village (today a health resort) in Neringa (Neringa is a long narrow peninsula – and as such a typical portage site – on the Kurshi Inlet); near the village is a small gulf Pervalkos įlankis, and also a cape – Pervalkos ragas. Both of these latter villages are located near water – a river or bay – and therefore a connection between them and a more or less ancient portage seems to be quite credible (although in the case of Pervalka on the Mūša, one has to take into consideration the possibility of a ferry link as well). However, there is also a very different explanation for the origin of the name Pervalka in Neringa: that the whole village was dragged (Lith. pervilktas), from a site a little way off, to escape the danger of sinking beneath the quicksands around the notorious, shifting dunes.

some are mentioned in other sources. First of all should be named a hydronyme, which had already in the scientific, linguistic literature been etymologically connected with the lith. appellative pervalkas ‘the portage’. It is Pervalka – the name of part of a lake in the Rokiškis district, near the village of Jūžintai [Vanagas 1981, 255]. In the etymological dictionary of Lithuanian hydronyms by Aleksandras Vanagas, the late, best-known Lithuanian onomast, where the mentioned etymology is inserted, you can, unfortunately, find neither the name of the lake, of which a part is Pervalka, nor an explanation why a part of a lake is named “the portage”; it must be, by the way, a very small lake because on a map of the Rokiškis district we are unable to find in the Lithuanian encyclopedia a single lake marked near the village of Jūžintai [s. TLE 3, 562]. In the above-mentioned index of Lithuanian place-names there are three other lakes of interest – Pervalkas in the Joniškis district, Pervalka (“Perwalkas” 1746) in the Zarasu district, and Pervalkas in the region of Vilnius, registered 1686. It is still not very clear why a lake could be toponomastically connected with a hypothetical portage – probably with a small one; but a connection with a ferry seems to be far less credible because we have here, as mentioned, very small lakes. Nevertheless those four hydronyms can, perhaps, provide evidence of the existence of small or very small portages on the banks of those lakes (i.e., from the lake to a path?).

Latvian and Lithuanian are the only living Baltic languages. But there was a third Baltic language too: Prussian or Old Prussian. Old Prussian died out in the 17th century, some of the toponomastic lexicon of that language (and some other linguistic material, too). Old Prussian was spoken in the first half of the last millennium along the southeastern coast of the Baltic Sea, centring on the former German/East Prussian district of Königsberg, which is today Kaliningrad, a part of Russia. Old Prussians, living in that territory, did have some place-names very similar to the Lithuanian Pervalka: Perwalken, Parwolke, Parwulken. Georg Gerullis, a German linguist of Lithuanian extraction, has connected the origin of those place-names with a ferry: “Es sind wohl Orte mit einer Fähre” [Gerullis 1922: 121]. Unfortunately we do not have the exact geographical coordinates of these ancient Prussian villages. Nevertheless, if there were indeed ferries at these sites they must have been located on a river (or perhaps a lake) and this does not preclude the additional possibility of portages at these locations as well. A hypothetical connection between the previously mentioned Old Prussian place-names and some ancient portages is also quite feasible (and these portages can be seen as a kind of link between the portages in the eastern Baltic and the examples in Poland [Domzal 2004; SkrzynskaJankowska 2004]).

We have, among Lithuanian geographical objects named by the Pervalk(as) toponyms, one very typical for our item: it’s an isthmus in the district of Moletai, near the village of Palakajys. We can see from the name of the mentioned village (Pa-lakajys, Pa-, etymologically, was a prefix) that the village is located near the Lake Lakajų Ežeras (or the River Lakaja) we have in Moletai district. To be more exact, we have two lakes – Baltujų Lakajų Ežeras and Juodujų Lakajų Ežeras (‘white’ and ‘black’) – and an isthmus between Lake Juodujų Lakajų Ežeras and another lake – Kertuojų Ežeras. It is that isthmus that seems to be the isthmus known as Pervalka, registered in the index of Lithuanian place-names. From the (in all) around 850 Latvian and Lithuanian (and Old Prussian as well) place-names, that are more or less “suspicious” from the point of view of the history of portages, it is that one that appears most “suspicious” of all: it’s very likely that just here was a true portage (probably an ancient one too, but most likely a relatively recent one). Some other Lithuanian microtoponyms with Pervalk- can provide (hypothetical) evidence for the existence of some other quite small and recent portages in Lithuania. There are, for example Pervalka, a meadow in the village of Andriūnai (Rokiškis district), Pervalkas, a field in the village of Moliakalnis (Ignalina district), Pervalka, a bathing place near the town of Pasvalys, and Pervalkiškiai, fields (and before a settlement) in the village of Užpelkiai (Šilute district).

Summarizing our information on portages and Baltic place-names: 1) We have the Latvian-Estonian border town of Valka, a name possibly connected with portages, however this connection is tenuous. 2) We have in Lithuania – in the north and probably in the southwest (Neringa) also – place-names that can 67

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

more or less credibly be connected with ancient portages. We also have some microtoponyms – mostly in eastern Lithuania (e.g. the region of Moletai) – that testify to the existence of recent and relatively small portages. 3) We have had in Old Prussia three villages with names that can (hypothetically) be connected with portages. Finally, we can also say that the linguistic evidence for the existence of important ancient portages in the lands of Baltic people – Latvians, Lithuanians, Old Prussians – is very hypothetical, nevertheless there is the relatively high chance that some smaller portages were established there. Literature Bušs, O. 2003 Personvārdi, vietvārdi un citi vārdi: izpētes pakāpieni. Rīga. Bušs, O. 2004 Vēlreiz par Valku un valkiem Latvijas toponīmijā. Onomastika mūsdienu zinātnes skatījumā. Akadēmiķa Jāņa Endzelīna 131. dzimšanas dienas atceres starptautiskās zinātniskās konferences materiāli. 2004. gada 20. februāris. Rīga. DLKŽ4 Dabartinės lietuvių kalbos žodynas. IV leidimas. Vilnius, 2000. Domzal, P. 2004 Portages on the coast of Poland in medieval times. The Significance of Portages: Abstracts. [Lyngdal, 2004], p. 11. EH Endzelīns J., Hauzenberga E. Papildinājumi un labojumi K. Mīlenbacha Latviešu valodas vārdnīcai. 1.–2. Rīga, 1934–1946. ELD English-Latvian Dictionary.4 Rīga: Jāņa sēta [without the year of publication]. Gerullis, G. 1922 Die altpreussischen Ortsnamen. Berlin und Leipzig. KLV 1959 Krievu-latviešu vārdnīca. 1.–2. Rīga. LaLiV Balkevičius J., Kabelka J. Latvių-lietuvių kalbų žodynas. Vilnius, 1977.. LiLaV Balkevičs J., Balode L., Bojāte A., Subatnieks V. Lietuviešu-latviešu vārdnīca. Rīga, 1995. LLVV Latviešu literārās valodas vārdnīca. 1.–8. Rīga, 1972–1996. LME Latvijas PSR mazā enciklopēdija. 1.–3. Rīga, 1967–1970. LPE Latvijas padomju enciklopēdija. 1.–102. Rīga, 1981–1988. LVBV Latviešu valodas biežuma vārdnīca. Apvienotais (1.–3.) sējums. Rīga, 1973. ME Mīlenbahs K. Latviešu valodas vārdnīca. Rediģējis, papildinājis, turpinājis J. Endzelīns. 1.–4. Rīga, 1923– 1932. Pall, V. 1969 Põhja-Tartumaa kohanimed. I. Tallinn. Skrzynska-Jankowska, K. 2004 – Early Medieval portages on the trade route between Baltic and Black sea – a case study from the Polish-Russian marsh zone. The Significance of Portages: Abstracts. [Lyngdal, 2004], p. 12-13. Vanagas, A. 1981 Lietuvių hidronimų etimologinis odynas. Vilnius.

68

Portages at the coast of Poland in medieval times Robert Domzal for instance. In some cases this element of transport geography did not have a permanent form and was a place which was selected on one off basis e.g. during war expeditions.

The problem of portages has not been widely discussed in the Polish literature so far. This subject of an important element of the Polish cultural landscape, apart from one article which selectively treated the portages on the sailing route between the lakes Śleszyńskie and Gopło on Kujawy (Kowalenko: 1952) has not been discussed yet. Such situation cannot be explained by the fact of limited resources rather than the lack of broader interest in the discussed problem. The subject of this conference touches upon the research area of the field of studies called maritime ethnology, which practically is not practiced in Poland at all.

Definition There is no doubt that the Polish word przewłoka – portage is of Slavic origin (the Chroatian Prevlaka at the Kotorska Bay and Privelack at the Łaba River, Privalk near Lubeka) and has been recorded in the written sources since the early medieval times. It is confirmed by the Slavic word Valka, Volko meaning pull, which appeared and still appears in different forms in the Slavic countries: folk, włok, włók, volock. This name together with its modifications pertained mainly type of a pulled fishing net widely popular in Europe in the former Eastern Prussia Flocknetz (Solymos 1984). In this context, there is interesting Slavic name for one of the types of pulling fishing nets used in inland waters. Its name is przywłoka (Znamierowska-Prüfferowa, 1988). For the low Vistula region this name appears in 1st half of 17th century for the small lakes near Gniew. In those lakes only net przewłoka was used for fishing (Lustracja województw Prus Królewskich 1624, 1967).

This article is placed mainly in the chronological frames of the medieval period whereas many of the discussed aspects will have their roots earlier in the history. The features of cultural landscape, which are particularly characteristic for the coastal areas, have survived until 19 and 20 centuries. Apart from my attempt to define the term ‘portage’ I would like to show in this paper examples of such places in Poland and Europe and formulate research postulates for further detailed work on the meaning and character of places for boat dragging in Poland and other neighboring countries. Portages, as an inseparable element of cultural landscape, can be met in different areas of Poland and Europe and their character seems to be closely connected with the type of hydrographic layout on a given region. In the light of the above, places where portages can be found in Poland may be divided into two main types, which will be characterized below: 1. 2.

One of the oldest definitions in Polish, which can be found in the Słownik Staropolski (Dictionary of Old Polish), says that a portage is a place of pulling boats from one river to another, locus ubi linters ex alio flumine in aliud transportantur (Słownik Staropolski t. VII, 19731977). This definition has narrowed the places of boat dragging to rivers only and did not reflect the complexity and variety of these elements of cultural landscape. Another, broader definition of a portage says that it is a place located between two water basins (rivers or lakes) in which boats used to be dragged or transported on carts (Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich t. 4, cz.3, 1970). It seems that for the Polish conditions a portage can best be defined as follows: a section of land separating two water basins, which appears in inland or coastal areas and constitutes a navigational obstacle, whose traversing required boat dragging or carrying of vessels. The existence of portages could have been a result of the need either to shorten or to make water transport easier. In both these cases it required carrying or transporting boats over a specified section of land. In the following examples I will try to justify this proposal for a definition.

coastal type river or lake type

Boat dragging could have had a permanent form and be connected in the first case with the necessity to reach the sea from a lake for example. Periodical sanding of the sailing inlet caused the necessity of boat portage. Communication problems appeared periodically also at the estuaries of smaller rivers to the sea. Changeable water levels caused the creation of shallowness forcing boat dragging, particularly up the river. A record about an unsuccessful trial of Danish boats hauling through the estuary of the Dźwina river during the expedition to Wolin and Kamień in 1170 (Saxo1886) has survived in historical resources. In the second case a portage could have been constituted by a short section of land, which divided inland basins, lakes or rivers. In this case, they were often a section of a trade route. The existence of portages could also have been caused by the need to short cut the water route by cutting a long or navigationally dangerous bend of a river

Geographical conditions and character of portages To begin with, I would like to stress the extreme difference between the geographical character of centraleastern Europe in contrast to that of Scandinavia. The rocky land of northern Europe, which was shaped 69

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Portages in Poland 1- Portage Slesinskie-Goplo 2- Portage “Preuloka” by Gardno See 3- Portage by Krakowiec (Heid See) near Gdansk 4- Portage by Miedzyzdroje (Wicko Lake) 5- Portage Ostroda-Elblag Channel 6- Hel Penninsula probable medieval portage between Puck Bay and Baltic Sea (Rivers: Plutnica and Czarna Wda) 7- Vistula Lagoon (cartographic sources which must be proved by written evidences)

70

ROBERT DOMZAL: PORTAGES AT THE COAST OF POLAND IN MEDIEVAL TIMES Fishing was one of the basic activities of the medieval local people. It was performed both on numerous lakes as well as rivers. The fishing techniques and boat types on inland waters whre different from those from the coastal part of Poland. Along with the influx of colonizers from the German towns more and more detailed sources start to appear. Among them are diplomatic, accounting and economic books run by the Teutonic Knights order administration. In the Prussian diplomatic code of 1273 there is a record of incorporation for two fishing villages. One of them was called Dragenvolt (CDP Ur No 160). Its suffix most certainly derives from the word Drag, which is of Nordic origin. The village mentioned above was located between two arms of the Vistula river, proper Vistula and the so-called Neuwasser. This typonymy would suggest the connection between the term Drageid as a place located between two water basins (Westerdahl, 2003). Dragheim, another village near Malbork on the Nogat River known form early medieval times, was mentioned also in 1643 when two townsmen were granted with a permission to build an inn (APGd).

thousands of years ago, where like in Norway, there are numerous bays and fiords which cut into it, did not undergo any significant topographic or hydrographic evolution. The trade routes, together with the characteristic elements of cultural landscape including portages, have not changed their essential qualities or even naming until today (Westerdahl 1989b). The activity of boat hauling in Northern Europe was reflected in the construction of the bottom part of vessels used on portages. The keel was protected from damage by an oak covering beam called “drag” (Falk 1912). Transport zones and trade routes in Poland went along meridionally and parallel of latitude along rivers, cutting across them frequently in places called “przewóz” (carriage), whose remnants from medieval times are visible today in the form of names of places in their original forms (Długołęcki 1989). As a result of settlement changes, a part of settlement happened to be located on the opposite bank of a river, which had its reflection in the Slavic typonymy e.g. Prerow, across a ditch (a village in contemporary eastern Germany and in Czech Republic). While boat dragging in the portages is rarely recorded in the sources, pulling boats against the river stream was a very common activity. In the oldest sources for the area of central Europe this activity was called treyl, deriving from the word treideln- to pull (Kluge 1911). Scandinavia is an example of a region where, thanks to sagas, written sources have been much better preserved than in the continental Europe. Nordic sources dating from 10th-13th centuries (the Viking expansion period) bring many examples of the use of portages, particularly during trade and military expeditions. Diplomatic codes for northern Poland appear at the end of this period. However, there are no detailed narrative resources, rich in topographic descriptions and historiographic events, which would contain descriptions of portages.

An interesting example of a place name has been recorded for the Slavic settlement in the lower Vistula Valley near Świecie. Its origin is related to old Slavic names of people. A place called Drogosz, presently Dragacz, existed under the name of Tragosz in 1595 and was known as early as 1225. According to H. Górnowicz this name was created as a suffix to names of German type Trago (Górnowicz, 1982). The Geographical Dictionary of the Polish Kingdom quotes the translation of Tragarz (Porter) for this place (Słownik Geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego, vol. XII, 1892). So far among the typonymy and hydronymy of the areas colonized from 13th century I have not been able to locate the name of Verzögerung, deriving from ziehen, a German word meaning pull, which could mean a portage. Słownik Języka Polskiego )The Dictionary of the Polish Language quotes the German word heruberschleppen, heruberziehen as the translation for hauling (Słownik Języka Polskiego, 1858). Among the local names, which mean places where boats were pulled, some were preserved until the 20th century. In the area of the Vistula River delta, where the above village of Dragenvolt was located, there existed a road called Schlepsweg ‘zum schleppen Kahne vom Flus zur See’ close to a place Krakowiec (Krakau) (Grunberg 1935). It may be assumed that the boat dragging could have taken place between the Vistula river and the Heid see Lake, which is still visible on the maps and plans dating from the 18th and 19th centuries (Pelczar 1995).

Etymological Clues The earliest recorded names for portages appearing in Sweden and Norway are referred to as Eid or Drag. These elements of the Nordic language can also be found in the area of the Gdansk Pomeranian dating from the medieval times. Until 13th century, the Vistula River separated the people of Prussian origin on the eastern bank of the lower downstream of the river from the people of the Slavic origin on its western side. Unfortunately, the written sources dating from the times proceeding the colonization by German settlers are not detailed enough to allow identification of any portages. In connection with the colonization and economic activity, starting from the medieval times, the boggy and lagoon areas were gradually drained, embankments were built and new water routes were indicated. Consequently, the transport geography, toponymy and hydronymy has changed as well. Tracing back these changes seems to be rather difficult although the analyses of particular regions have already been made (Bertram, La Baume, Kloeppel, 1924).

Types of portages Places where portages appear in Poland may be divided into a few types: 1. Coastal type – lakes located at the coastal separated from the sea by dune spit, which had an inlet in the past. 71

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

ruled out that periodically, apart from hydrotechnical works on the maintenance of depths, the local fishermen and sailors were forced to go through these inlets by dragging their vessels along shallow canals. This aspect requires further research into the resources.

As a result of erosion, straits were covered with sand, which caused the inlet connecting the lake with the sea to be gradually cut off. Fishermen had to overcome this section by pulling their boats or nets. Fishing villages located at the lake whose inhabitants wanted to go fishing in the sea had to be moved closer to the seafront. Such a pattern is repeated in most cases of lakes in Poland located near the sea. Additionally, the connections of lakes or lagoons with the sea constituted an important strategic point, which was protected by watchtowers or strongholds (Kowalenko 1954, page 11). One of the earliest portages confirmed by the sources in northern Poland is indeed / a coastal place called Preuloca in the Pomeranian documents (PU no 339). This place is associated with a fishing harbor on the Gardno Lake, mentioned in 1282 by a Pomeranian Duke Mestwin. A portage separating the present lake of Wicko from the sea, which left a trace of a canal in the landscape, was probably of a similar type. In the past this inlet constituted an important connection between the Pomeranian Bay and the present Szczeciński Lagoon. The strategic character of this inlet is marked by the remnants of a stronghold situated at its estuary at the place called Międzyzdroje.

2. River and Lake type The system of rivers and lakes in central Poland, which had a varied hydrological character, consisted of sections, which were difficult to traverse for boats and ships. Due to the trade routes, which existed along them, merchants had to look for ways of avoiding obstacles or shortening their journey through dangerous fragments such as water cataracts. The portage between the lakes Ślesińskie and Gopło on Kujawy was of this type. It is, so far, the best researched portage in Poland on an inland water route situated in the belt of Kujawy lakes between the Ślesińskie and Gopło Lakes (Kowalenko 1952). In the written sources this place was recorded as early as 1314 as a settlement Przewloky (Kod. Dipl. Wpol. II 964). According to Kowalenko the portage between the lakes has traditions sometimes reaching the contacts of the Roman Empire with the Polish land, connected with the existence of the Amber Route. Archeological settlement, however, has been confirmed in this place only for the medieval times. Portage had a form of a hill, in the past of an island, on its eastern and western side there existed a valley, which was flooded with water as late as the medieval times. In the times of the portage use it separated the system of lakes and created a level difference of 1 m between them. The obstacle required pulling the boats by hand. This place was of defense character and most probably there was a castellan town strengthened by embankment whose remains are still seen in the landscape. Between the years 1938-39 Warta-Gopło Canal was dug omitting the inlet of the portage. During earth works the remains of pine and oak pales, dug in a row along the shore, were come across. Kowalenko assumes that a port could have existed at the portage as well.

Moreover, fishermen for covering the distance between the present Gdańsk Bay and the open sea could have used depths periodically appearing on the Hel Peninsula. Inlets appearing after storms divided the Hel Peninsula into island sections. These changes can be traced owing to the preserved cartographic sources dating from 17th and 18th century (Szeliga 1982). A problem of portages is also connected with the exhisting of the medieval harbour in Puck mouth of river Płutnica which flows out from wetland Bielawskie Błota to Puck Bay. From the same wetland flows out another small River, Czarna Wda. It is possible that about 1000 years ago these two rivers were connected building the channel between Baltic Sea and Puck Bay (Litwin: 1995). Such a connection shortened the sailng route around the Hel Panninsula. The possibility of the existence of portages within the area of the Vistula Lagoon calls for further detailed research. Among the Slavic names of places dating from before the period of the German colonization of this area, the toponymy of the village Posewalk (Pozewalk), the present Jantar, is of special interest. According to Przemysław Urbańczyk this name reconstructed as Pozdevolk may be connected with the periodic dragging of boats or nets (Slownik Starozytnosci Slowianskich: 1970, t. 4, cz. 1). So far, this theory has not been confirmed in the written sources. The peculiar topographic character of the Vistula Spit dividing the Baltic Sea from the Vistula Lagoon caused the fact that the depths appearing in different periods (natural troughs or canals appearing in the areas of topographic lows in spits) were sanded after storms or blocked on purpose during military actions (Długokęcki 1995). It cannot be

Traces of places where boats had to be hauled appear in diplomatic and narrative sources for the medieval history in Poland. Nearby the portage described above, close to Wieluń in Wielkopolska, the Diplomatic Code of Wielkopolska mentioned a place in the village of Chochlew (present Kochlew), where the archbishop of Gniezno obliged the local inhabitants to naves….. transtrahere in connection with the difficulties in fishing on the Warta River (Cod. Dipl. Wpol. V, no 423). 3. Portages used occasionally Traversing a section of a river, for instance its extended shallow or boggy bend, was connected with frequent changes of hydrographic network, which until the medieval times did not undergo anthropogenic changes. Examples of such portages can be found in today’s 72

ROBERT DOMZAL: PORTAGES AT THE COAST OF POLAND IN MEDIEVAL TIMES dragging, carrying or transporting boats from one lake to another is necessary. When a few hundreds maters is involved, it is done by the tourists themselves. Moreover, there are places, where lakes are a few kilometers or more apart. On such isthmuses there are villages often called Przewóz whose inhabitants offer boat transport for some small charge. In his analyses of the old Polish vocabulary connected with navigation, E. Łuczyński did not relate the word Przewóz to the place where boats were transported. He narrowed this meaning to the equivalent of bród (eng. ford) of a river, a shallow place used for crossing the river (Łuczyński 1986). It requires further analyses how many of such portages are a permanent element of the landscape, whose functioning reaches medieval or earlier times. It cannot be stated at present without detailed topographic and archival research.

Lithuania in the Niemen basin. This subject is discussed in detail below. Other written sources for the central-eastern Europe For the discussed area in the medieval times the sources in Latin play an introductory role in the search for places where boats were dragged on land. The Latin verb trahere appears as above, for the description of the activity of boat pulling on land. This is confirmed in other medieval sources in Latin, which have been preserved for the area of Pomerania and today’s Lithuania. Within the area which was intensively militarily colonized in the medieval times there are a few examples of names which could have marked the places of portages. Particularly the Niemen River with its wide hydrographic network had numerous navigation obstacles which had to be overcome by dragging or carrying boats. It is reflected in the names of places such as: Dragemynske (SRP II: 701). During one of the expeditions against the pagans in 1376 Jan de Lorchez Sambii built the boats in the forest and had haul them (per terram trahunt) for half a mile to the place called Pristen (SRP II :581). This place can be located on the upstream Niemen north of Grodno near the place called Przewłoki or Przełom. The narrowing of the Niemen current in this region powered by the smaller rivers flowing into it, caused the need to make the water route easier by forming a shortcut, along a current which was too fast and which was described by the medieval chronicle Wigands of Marburg (SRP II). A stronghold existed near this portage in the 14th century (Syrokomla 1861). The local name Przełaje exists until today. J.Litwin has recently spoken about the Niemen navigation (Litwin 1997).

In 2001 in the Register of Towns and villages in Poland there were 7 villages called Przewłoka (Spis miejscowości w Polsce 2002). Among them there are cases of this name having nothing in common with the hydrological network and a place of boat dragging as defined in this speech. What is interesting, as far as unusual places of boat transportation are concerned, is the section on the route of the Ostródzko-Elbląski Canal, built 1825-1844 for economical connection of East Prussia with the Baltic Sea. There are shipways, unique in the whole world scale, for transporting ships and yachts, which have to cover fragments of land with the difference of height up to 100 meters. Transportation is carried with the use of special rail trolleys. The problem of portages in Poland and the neighboring countries of Central and Eastern Europe has only been touched upon in this article. On the basis of the above analyses there is a need to sum up the conclusions for further research in this field:

Nearly everywhere in Europe, where busy inland routes existed, there were places, which made navigation more difficult. Local names, which can be found both in Poland and in the neighboring countries, make their location possible. I have mentioned Lithuanian portages above. Places of portage type existed also in the medieval times within the area of today’s Ukraine. Another portage is mentioned in 1436 in the foundation (incorporation) for a local parish church in a village of Buczacz on the Strypa River (Slownik Geograficzny Krolestwa Polskiego 1888, p. 182). The German researcher Zierhoffer confirms the information about the portage in the discussed place. This place would be a shortcut for a water route leading along the river’s bend, which was difficult to overcome. The village assumed its name from the function it played (Kowalenko 1952).

1. Portages in this article can be divided according to water basins into coastal and inland ones. There were also places where portages were used occasionally and summarily. 2. There is a need for verification of historical and contemporary names of places Przewloka not only in Poland, but also in other neihbour countries where Slavonic settlements are known. This should be done in comparison with the hydrographic and topographic layout of the area in order to state whether and where places of hauling boats could really exist. Also the palces with the name with a prefix Drag- and Trag should be analised. 3. Geographical character of different parts of Europe determined the location of places where boats were dragged. Changes in the climate such as its warming during the medieval times in central Europe had an important influence on changes in the hydrological network of inland waters. It was reflected in the changes in typonymy and hydronymy.

Conclusions Portages have not disappeared from the central European Landscape. They come through a revival period and they uncover their mysteries thanks to the developing tourism on inland water routes. The Kashubian Lakes region in northern Poland may be an example here. Many of the officially indicated canoe routes have places, where 73

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Lustracja Województw Prus Królewskich 1624, 1967, wyd. S. Hoszowski, Gdańsk Peteri von Dusburg „Chronikon Terrae Prussiae” w Scriptores Rerum Prussicarum t.1, - 1861 Leipzig Pommerellisches Urkundenbuch, 1882, hrsg. v. M.Perlbach, Danzig Saxo Gramatici Gasta Danorum, 1886, wyd. Holder A., Strassburg

4. Places of boat dragging were of great importance for trade routes. It can be proven by traces of defense settlement, which can be found nearby. Strategic places of boat dragging, both of coastal type as well as river or lake type, were often guarded by strongholds or watchtowers. 5. Portages were a characteristic element of transport routes appearing in Central and Eastern European conditions both at the coastal as well as on different sections of rivers and lakes. 6. The question of adjusting types of boats in a given region to places where they were dragged requires further analyses. The problem of the existence of canals connecting The Vistula Lagoon and the Kuronski Lagoon with the Baltic Sea, which was touched upon in this text, was reflected in the way the fishing boats were built on both water basins. On the Vistula Lagoon the traditional wooden boats had a flat bottom and minimal immersion due to the need to cover shallow sections of the so-called depths. It may be confirmed by the names of boats, which appeared on these water basins: Flachboot, Kielboot, Schleppschiff. Moreover, some of the boats e.g. Plot, Strandboot had a bottom part in which the keel was replaced by a broad keel board, which made pulling the boats to the shore safely and enable dragging it along a stone beach. These boats often had special strips of wood, the so-called Scheuerleisten (Mitzka1933).

Other references Bertram, La Baume, Kloeppel 1924. Das WeichselNogat-Delata. In: Quellen und Darstellungen zur Geschichte Westpreussen, 11. Długokęcki, Wiesław 1989. Przewozy na Żuławach na tle sieci drożnej w średniowieczu. In: Osadnictwo nad Dolną Wisłą w średniowieczu. Warszawa. Długokęcki, Wiesław 1995. Mierzeja Wiślana od XIII do połowy XV wieku. Gdańsk. Falk, Hjalmar 1912. Altnordisches Seewesen. Heidelberg Górnowicz, Hubert: 1982, In: Dolina Dolnej Wisły, pod red. B. Augustowskiego, rozdział 10 Nazewnictwo, Gdansk Grünberg, Günter 1935. Die Danziger Nehrung. Danzig Kluge Fridrich 1911. Seemannssprache Wörterbuch, Halle Kowalenko, Władysław 1952. Przewłoka na szlaku żeglugowym Warta-Gopło-Wisła. In: Przegląd Zachodni, R. VIII, Poznań Kowalenko, Władysław 1954. Piana, Świna i Dźwina jako szlaki osadniczo-komunikacyjne słowiańszczyzny bałtyckiej VIII-XIII w. In: Przegląd Zachodni, R.X, Poznań Litwin, Jerzy 1997. Niemen, wiciny i spław do Królewca. In: Rzeki. Kultura, cywilizacja historia, t. 6, Katowice Łęga, Władysław ks. Obraz gospodarczy Pomorza Gdańskiego w XII i XIII wieku Łuczyński, Edward 1986. Staropolskie słownictwo związane z żeglugą w XV i XVI wieku, Gdańsk Mitzka, Walter 1933. Deutsche Bauern- und Fischerboote. Heidelberg Pelczar, Maria 1995. W stulecie przekopu Wisły… (18951995), Gdańsk Słownik Języka Polskiego 1858. wyd. przez Samuela Lindego. Lwów Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich 1970. t. 4, cz.1, Warszawa Słownik Geograficzny Królestwa Polskiego 1888. t. IX, Warszawa Solymos, Ede 1984. Über den Ursprung und die Verbreitung des Schleppbeutelnetzes. In: The Fishing Culture of the World, Vol.1. ed. B. Gunda, Budapest Syrokomla, Władysław 1861. Niemen od źródeł do ujścia, Wilno Szeliga, Jan 1982. Rozwój Kartografii Wybrzeża Gdańskiego do roku 1772, Wrocław Westerdahl, Christer 1989b. Norrlandsleden I: Sources of the maritime cultural landscape. A handbook of marine archaeological survey. Arkiv för norrländsk Hembygdsforskining XXIV. Härnösand.

The subject of the existence of portages in central-eastern Europe undoubtedly requires further detailed research. Among the research postulates formulated in this text the following problems should be stressed at the end. The question of appearing permanent or temporary portages within the area of the Hel Peninsula and the Vistula Spit require deep research. This research should be based on the analyses of the preserved written sources as well as ethnographic research. Verification of historic and present names of places Przewłoka with its local variations in Poland and in the neighboring countries should give an answer to the question in which places this name was connected with the place of dragging, transporting or carrying boats. Separate analyses should be made for the places called Przewóz in order to find out if there are among them such that played the role of portages as a place of boat hauling. References Written sources Archiwum Państwowe w Gdańsku, 508D, 329/2574 Printed sources Codex Diplomaticus Prussicus, hg.von J.Voigt, Bd. I-IV , Königsberg 1836-1861 Kodeks Dyplomatyczny Wielkopolski: t. II, 1878, t. V, 1881, wyd. I. Zakrzewski, Poznań

74

ROBERT DOMZAL: PORTAGES AT THE COAST OF POLAND IN MEDIEVAL TIMES Westerdahl, Christer 2003. On the Significance of Portages. A survey on new research area. Znamierowska - Prüfferowa 1988. Tradycyjne rybołówstwo ludowe w Polsce. Toruń

75

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

76

Portages of Power – a preliminary report from Rogaland, Norway Turid Tveit and Endre Elvestad in the coastal landscape, was rooted in actions aimed at conducting other people’s actions in a desired way. We will suggest as some kind of a subtle warning to potential enemies, or safety to potential allies – potency might be an appropriate term. Another important aspect is that the exercise of power and production of power symbols are probably most intense in areas or periods where resistance or the possibility for resistance was great.

Introduction Throughout history Rogaland, on the South West Coast of Norway, has been the entrance for maritime contact and overseas voyages between Norway, the WestEuropean Continent and the British Isles. The archaeological evidence of this contact is mainly imported luxury items from the Roman Iron Age, the Migration Period and the Viking Age. Rogaland’s importance as an entrance is mirrored in the distribution of ancient monuments in the landscape. A large majority of the grave mounds are situated along the fairways, and in particular around the harbours where they were intended to be seen from the waterways. The same tendency is also found at the portages with prehistoric monuments near the tracks on land, or by the fjords leading to them. At the same time the number and size of the monuments tends to increase in relation to the strategic importance of the harbour or the fairway. This trend, viewed in the light of general theories concerning the symbolic meaning of the grave mounds, opens the possibility of understanding the monumental burials as visual expressions of maritime power, of control and possessions. It is not easy to define the notion of power. In recent decades the theories of Michel Foucault have triggered a debate that opened a room for an alternative epistemological approach to the term, or rather, of how power works. Even though Foucault’s writings can be cryptic and often resist simple interpretations, they might provide a relevant method for analysing how monuments are actively used in power strategies, and as important elements in prehistoric ruling techniques. According to Foucault power is not a possession – to individuals, groups, classes or institutions. Rather than being a fixed superstructure, power is embedded in social relations as actions upon actions (Foucault 2000:343). It’s an exercise that structures the possible fields of action of others (op.cit.p. 341). Power is also an exercise that involves the production and exchange of signs (op.cit.p. 338).

Fig. 1 Known and hypothetical sailing routes (the grey lines) in the northern part of Rogaland.

In the northern part of Rogaland, known as Haugalandet, there are at least four alternative sailing routes – a western route in open waters west of Karmøy, the fairway through the sound of Karmsund, and the portages Northeast of Karmøy.

The maritime power as displayed in the grave mounds can be understood as productive signs within power strategies. It is no coincidence that they are situated along the fairways or around harbours. Harbours and fairways were locations where potential antagonists were most likely to meet in coastal societies, and the fairways were channels for the flow of prestige goods – another important element in prehistoric power strategies. From a Foucaultian perspective, the distribution of grave mounds

To sail the open waters west of Karmøy is a risky business. There are few harbours, there are lots of dangerous sunken rocks and skerries, and the area is exposed to fierce winds and waves. On the other hand the Karmsund is well protected against wind and waves, and 77

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Harold Hairfair, dragged his fleet across the portage in order to escape from his enemies before the battle of Hafrsfjord around 900 AD (Østrem 1996: 32-33). According to the same myth he established a royal residence at Haraldseid, which is quite interesting because the farm was a royal estate in the Middle Ages like many other strategic places or harbours along the central routes in the same period (Bjørkvik 1958:74).

relatively free from sunken rocks. The only obstacles are strong currents in the northern part of the sound, and exposed waters south and north of it. The open water in the north called Sletta is described in modern pilots as a dangerous wave area, because the great variations of depths and tidal currents cause large and unpredictable waves. The significance of the sound is illustrated by the fact that Dutch maps and pilots from the 16th century and onwards named it Dat Liet, or the Fairway with a capital letter. The Iron Age and High Medieval port and royal centre Avaldsnes, is situated in the sound a little south of where the currents are strong, and the sound is quite narrow. Archaeological and written sources indicate a centre for chieftains and kings from the Roman Iron Age to the High Middle Ages. An argument often used to explain the concentration of power at Avaldsnes, was the opportunity of controlling the shipping at the entrance to the way further north, south or west. On the other hand there would be little use exercising power at Avaldsnes without the opportunity of doing the same at strategic points on the alternative routes.

From recent times there are several accounts of the overland transport of boats. In the 1930s two brothers were hired to carry three boats. The vehicle they used was a hay-sled. It was also said that in the 1930s it was quite common to carry boats across Haraldseid. The boats were open clinker built vessels with four or six oars and they used to carry them on wheeled sleds. According to another account from the same period it was also usual to put logs or thwarts under the boat to make it easier to move (Østrem 1996: 35-36). In addition to ethnographic evidence there are also several place names that not only indicate the activity, but also seem to locate the activity in the landscape. There are place names like Båtaleite (the boat-lookout), Båtavegen (the boat-track) and Båtavikjå (the boat-inlet). The place names pinpoint different places with different functions at the portage such as the landing place, the track and a place with a view to the northern landing place and fairway. Most of them are concentrated to the southern part of the portage (op.cit. p. 35-36).

The portage at Haraldseid The portage at Haraldseid is situated northeast of Avaldsnes between the Skjoldafjord and the Ålfjord. The isthmus at Haraldseid is approximately 3 km long with a maximum height of 40 metres. There are several accounts of the transport of boats across the isthmus. According to an old myth the Viking king

Fig. 2 A small cairn in an area with several possible tracks and sunken roads. Photo: Elvestad/Tveit

78

TURID TVEIT AND ENDRE ELVESTAD: PORTAGES OF POWER – A PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM ROGALAND, NORWAY

Fig. 3 Tracks running into the bog at Haraldseidvågen. Photo: Elvestad/Tveit

Another aspect is that only 2 of 12 cairns are situated near medieval or prehistoric farms – the others were placed only a few metres from the sunken roads. We find a similar situation in the fjords where the cairns and grave mounds are often situated on islands or promontories, not connected to prehistoric farmyards but to the fairways. This seems to indicate a link between the graves and the tracks. The human movements in the landscape are probably the real reason for the selection of the burial places.

The investigations The initial archaeological investigation surveyed the landscape for visible structures that could relate to transport activity. The result was the discovery of clusters of different tracks or sunken roads, and several cairns close to the tracks. The types of tracks vary from the Ushaped and the V-shaped sunken roads, to more diffuse structures that resemble embankments or road cuttings. In general the structures are preserved in areas undisturbed by modern farming, and it seems likely that the cultivation of arable land has erased the traces. But although the sunken roads disappear in the cultivated fields, there seems to be a connection between them. They follow the ridge at the western side of the portage in the same direction. It might seem like a paradox that the highest point in the corridor of sunken roads is about 65 metres above sea level, while the highest point in the bottom of the valley, is no more than 40 metres. The explanation might be that the ridge is relatively flat with no natural obstacles, and relatively dry because the soil consists of sandy morainic deposits. The bottom of the valley alternates between swamps, small lakes and rocks.

The following excavations were part of Turid Tveits Master’s thesis in archaeology at the University of Bergen. Since the interpretation of material from the excavation is not yet finished, and the result from radiocarbon datings was not ready at the time this paper was written, we would like to stress that this paper only gives a preliminary interpretation of the archaeological structures at the portage. The sites At the end of the portage in the north, there are two sunken roads running parallel into a bog bordering the present shoreline.

An interesting aspect is that most of the cairns are not monumental. Unlike many monumental graves they do not address larger spaces in the landscape, but lie quietly and introverted to be seen only by those passing close by.

The first testpit was opened on a transverse section of the parallel sunken roads a few metres from the bog. The 79

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 4 The overturned raised stone in the middle of the earthwork. Photo: Elvestad/Tveit

As mentioned before, the test pit was close to the spot where the tracks end in the bog. The height above sea level is approximately 3 metres indicating that the bog was open water 1.500 years ago, and that the tracks were closely related to the shoreline. The type of shards and the stone monument strengthen the impression that the construction was probably built and in use in the Early Iron Age.

testpit displayed a rather complex structure. The depressions on each side initially understood as sunken roads, can be interpreted as two tracks on each side of an artificial earthwork, approximately 2 metres wide and 75 cm high. The tracks were probably dug down to a layer of sand, and the waste material was used in the earthwork. In the bottom of the tracks there was a thin layer of gravel and stones with a breadth of 1 metre. The layer of gravel might be the result of erosion due to wear, but it is also possible that the layer was intentionally put down to stabilise the sand underneath. Along the edge of one of the tracks there was a low string of stones marking the transition between the track and the earthwork. In the middle of the earthwork between the two tracks there was an overturned stone monument, and close to the monument there was a concentration of charcoal and burnt bones.

It is not easy to understand these structures. Their construction has no similarities with traditional piers, slipways or boathouses in the western part of Norway. But on the other hand, the tracks’ direction towards the former shoreline, suggest that they may be linked to a landing place for floating vessels. The tracks are also different from the structures of ordinary sunken roads. First, they seem to be dug out and are not worn down. Second, the bottom layer was flat and not rounded as seen in many sunken roads. Still it is possible to interpret the tracks as traces of traffic. A second testpit about 7 metres further south displayed many of the same characteristics as the first one – a layer of gravel in the tracks on each side of the earthwork. The tracks could be followed for approximately 50 metres before disappearing into another bog. The tracks appeared again on dry land on the other side where they divided into a butterfly-like pattern of different types of tracks. Close to one of them there is a low cairn.

It is interesting to note that close to the north shore of a possible portage, 6 kilometres south west of Haraldseid, there were several standing stones that might have a connection to an additional and hitherto unknown landing place. On the left fringe of the track, there was another structure of flat stones and one small standing stone. Beside the standing stone there were several fragments of pottery from the Early Iron Age.

80

TURID TVEIT AND ENDRE ELVESTAD: PORTAGES OF POWER – A PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM ROGALAND, NORWAY this depression seemed to be due to wear. Not by walking or riding, but by the transport of broader objects.

500 metres south of this area there is a pasture with at least 8 cairns, and through this pasture there are two parallel depressions with a length of 100 metres resembling sunken roads. One is quite distinct; the other is rather shallow. One testpit was established 90º across the two depressions. In the distinct depression there was moraine sediment of grey silt under the turf and a layer of reddish brown sand. Between the silt and the sand there was a thin layer of gravel cut off at each side by two darker fields with the same breadth of approximately 20 cm. The fields were running parallel in the same direction as the track, and the breadth between them was 120 cm. Between the track and the parallel depression, there was an earthwork consisting of reddish brown sand containing fragments of coal. In the shallow depression there were no traces of structural elements. Our interpretation of the track is that the original ground surface and the relatively loose sediment of sand, was removed to uncover the compact layer of grey silt. The waste material was placed close to the road forming the earthwork between the depressions. The darker areas might be wear marks from wagons, wheeled sleds or sleds. The width between the wear marks was, as already mentioned, 120 cm, approximately the same as in Danish prehistoric roads (Jørgensen 1988:101). One argument against a prehistoric dating, is that due to the broken and steep landscape on the West Coast of Norway wagons were not common before the 19th century. But if the wear marks are a result of sleds it might be much older.

Fig. 5 Layer of stones in a dugout depression. Photo: Elvestad/Tveit

It does not seem reasonable to include all of the tracks into an activity of hauling boats across the portage. There is so far no archaeological evidence that positively can confirm this kind of activity. On the other hand it is difficult to exclude it, since it is rather uncertain what kind of constructions were made to facilitate the land transport of floating vessels in prehistory. It is also reasonable that boats on sleds or wagons will cause the same wear marks on the ground as other transported objects.

In another pasture at the southern end of the portage, there are at least 5 formations resembling sunken roads. The shape varies between the U-shaped, the V-shaped and the square-shaped. Close to one of the roads there are two cairns. And near another road in the same area there is a third cairn.

But even though the structures at the different sites are vague in relation to the portage, and it’s even more difficult to define them as traces of boat transport, it is tempting to suggest that at least some of the tracks are related to some kind of transport across the portage. This hypothesis is partly based on some of the tracks’ connection to the northerly landing place. But also because archaeological finds and prehistoric monuments, like raised stones and graves at Haraldseid, show the same characteristics as finds and prehistoric monuments on strategic places along the Early Iron Age waterways in general. If we map the distribution of power symbols like prestige objects and graves in relation to the fairways an interesting pattern appears.

In this area one testpit in a deep V-shaped formation revealed a structure similar to the tracks at the first site – a dugout depression with a layer of stones in the bottom with a breadth of 1 metre. The only difference was that the bottom layer consisted of fist sized stones laid upon sandy and humified sediments. The depression was about 40 – 50 cm deep and was dug into sediment consisting of gravel. A survey with an earth auger gave the impression that the structure continued for at least 25 metres in each direction from the test pit.

Power in the landscape

Another testpit was dug on a site close to the area with the portage place names. This track was a box-shaped or square depression with a breadth of approximately 1,5 metres and approximately 30 to 40 cm deep. Directly under the upper layer of turf, there was a thin flat layer of gravel and sand. But in contrast to the other structures

The distribution of prestige goods, like rings or other objects of gold or drinking equipment from the Late Roman Iron Age and the Migration Period, seems to define a network of power in the northern part of Rogaland. 81

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

drinking rituals, establishing and maintaining the connections between the human and the divine, the living and the dead and confirming the universal order (Holand 2001: 78, 87, 103). Drinking ceremonies could also be a device for establishing alliances, loyalty and a hierarchic order (Solberg 2003: 89-90). If we accept that Avaldsnes (or the northern part of the Karmsund) was a centre for a high ranking elite, it is possible that finds of prestigious objects of less splendour, like cauldrons, drinking vessels, rings of gold or weapons in other parts of the district, were distributed from Avaldsnes in order to maintain alliances to an elite of second or third rank (Holand 2001: 82, Solberg 2003: 93-94). One striking aspect regarding the pattern of distribution, is that the finds of bronze cauldrons, imported glass vessels, rings or other items of gold, are found at strategic places near the central fairways. It would be beyond the limit of this paper to describe all the finds, but we will present the most obvious ones, the finds at Haraldseid and by the fjords leading to the portage. At Haraldseid a faceted glass vessel was found. At Sørhus a few kilometres east, a bronze cauldron, and at Vårå a payment ring of gold. From Innbjoa came a payment ring, a golden band, and a golden ring almost identical with the ring from Avaldsnes. From Utbjoa close by, a finger-ring of gold, and a shield boss of bronze was found together with a spearhead and a sword. At Alna between Utbjoa and Haraldseid there were several finds from Early Iron Age graves. Two of them comprised of a full set of weapons including swords, seaxs, lances, javelins, arrows and shields. There were also beltstones, bronze tweezers and probably a bronze cauldron in one grave, and a wooden bucket with bronze fittings in the other.

Fig. 6 The distribution of prestige goods (the black dots) i.e. gold rings and drinking vessels in the northern part of Rogaland.

There is a large concentration in the northern part of the Karmsund, with Avaldsnes as a centre. In the same area we also find a concentration of large grave mounds dated from the Bronze Age to the Viking Age. On a general basis the northern part of the Karmsund is characterised as a first degree centre of large grave mounds in opposition to centres of minor degrees in the surrounding district (Ringstad 1987: 239). One of the most astonishing monuments at Avaldsnes was a grave mound from the Late Roman period. The mound was originally 5 metres high and with a diameter of 43 metres. It was somewhat unscientifically excavated in the beginning of the 19th century, but some of the finds survived. Among the finds there was a large neck ring of gold, rather unique in Norway. There were seven finger-rings of gold, a drinking horn with silver fittings, gaming pieces, a weight, a shield boss of silver, two bronze buckets, a strainer for wine and a Roman sword.

It is no coincidence that the objects were revealed in these places. Utbjoa, Alna and Vårå are excellent harbours, and there are grave mounds or cairns in the entrance, stressing their important position in an Iron Age maritime context. In the harbour at Utbjoa there were four large slipways probably from the Iron Age or the Middle Ages. Since collections of larger slipways are quite rare in Norwegian harbours, it is tempting to suggest that they indicate a place with a special function, like a naval base. The military importance of the place is underlined by a Migration Period hillfort approximately 4 kilometres southeast of the harbour. It is also interesting to note that the place name Vårå actually can mean a guarding place or a protected place, and near the modern farm there are remains of an Iron Age farm including a large long house (Østrem 1999: 1718). It is also a local tradition that locates a hillfort on a nearby hill, although there are no visible structures left.

These grave gifts were not randomly chosen objects, but expressions of the sovereignty of the deceased and his family. The neck ring of gold was the attribute of the rulers, as were the finger-rings and the shield boss of silver (Solberg 2000: 93, Jensen, Jørgensen & Hansen 2003: 312). In addition it is likely that the buckets, the drinking horn, and the wine strainer are expressions of

In the southern part of the Skjoldafjord there are few 82

TURID TVEIT AND ENDRE ELVESTAD: PORTAGES OF POWER – A PRELIMINARY REPORT FROM ROGALAND, NORWAY chieftain was redistributing symbols of power like weapons, drinking vessels, rings or other items of gold, in order to maintain alliances to chieftains of minor ranks.

finds that can support the presence of power in the Early Iron Age. Still there are some indications that important harbours were under the domain of chieftains. On a small island protecting a harbour named Toftøysundet, on the outermost headland of the fjord, there are several cairns. The harbour is the first one when entering the Skjoldafjord from the south, and was probably of great importance for rowed vessels.

The motives were complex, but we would like to suggest that the control of the sailing route, either on water or overland, gave the chieftains at Avaldsnes an opportunity to exercise administrative control of the flow of prestige goods which was fundamental to the Early Iron Age economy – not only in the northern part of Haugalandet, but also in larger parts of the West Coast of Norway. Another motive was to prevent or neutralise unwanted movements of naval forces threatening the network.

On the opposite side of the fjord somewhat further in, there is a harbour named Hervik actually meaning an inlet for a naval fleet. Hervik is an excellent harbour with several single burial mounds and one cemetery. But contrary to the other harbours, the graves are situated in a farm context not easily seen from the harbour. 3 km further north in a narrow passage of the fjord there is small inlet named Narravik deriving from the term knarr denoting a Viking Age war ship (Falk [1912] 1995:127). East of Hervik on the other side of the fjord there is another Narravik.

Literature Bjørkvik, H., 1958, Jord-eige og jord-leige i Ryfylke i eldre tid, Rogaland historie og ættesogelag. Falk, H., [1912] 1995, Fornnordisk Sjöfart, Båtdokgruppen Foucault, M. 1994, The Subject and the Power. In J. Faubion (ed), Power, Allen Lane The Penguin Press Holand, I. 2001, Sustaining life. Vessels import to Norway in the first millenium AD. AmS-skrifter 17, Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger, Stavanger Jensen, X. P., Jørgensen, L. & Hansen, U. L., 2003, Den germanske hær. Krigere, soldater og officerer, in Sejrens triumf – Norden i skyggen af det romerske imperium. L. Jørgensen, B. Storgaard & L.G. Thomsen (reds.). Nationalmuseet, København. Jørgensen, M. S., 1988, Vej, vejstrøg og vejsperring. Jernalderens landfærdsel in Fra stamme til stat 1. Jernalderens stammesamfund, Mortensen, Peder & Rasmussen, Birgit M. (eds), Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter XXII Ringstad, B., 1987, Vestlandets største gravminner. Et forsøk på lokalisering av forhistoriske maktsentra, unpublished magister thesis in archaeology, University of Bergen Skoglund, F. K., 2002, The coastal defence in Scandinavia; The role and composition of the military organisation in the Viking and Early Middle Ages, M.Phil thesis, University of St. Andrews Solberg, B., 2000, Jernalderen i Norge, Ca. 500 f.Kr.1030 e.Kr. J.W. Cappelens Forlag a.s. Oslo Østrem, N. O., 1996, Haraldseidet og segna om båtdragsvegen til Harald Hårfagre. Vindetreet, Sogeskrift for Vindafjord, published by Sandeid, Vikedal og Imsland sogelag and Skjold og Vats sogelag. Østrem, N. O., 1999, Tysvær. Gard og ætt 5, Tysvær kommune

A mountain in the vicinity of Hervik is named Vetafjellet. The name means the mountain with a vete that is a fire that was lit as a warning sign when enemies approached. The view is magnificent and covers the district of Haugalandet in general, and there are sight lines to 2 veter in the west and southwest. From the top it was possible to survey the traffic in larger parts of the Ryfylke basin. On the highest point there is a modern cairn, but the cairn is placed in a larger stone circle that probably was the fundament for a former vete. According to written sources the veter were an important part of an extensive coastal defence system introduced by the king Håkon Haraldsson in the 10th century. But it seems reasonable that the warning system is much older, and might have been used to communicate military threats between important harbours, farms or hillforts in the Early Iron Age as well (Skoglund 2002: 49). We are aware that it is dubious to let the place names denoting activities in the Viking Age or the Medieval Period support the same activity in the previous periods without further archaeological evidence. On the other hand the topographical conditions are still the same and the strategic places in the Early Iron Age were still strategic in the subsequent periods. The place names are therefore relevant indications in the search for the positions of power in the Early Iron Age landscape. Conclusion As a conclusion we would like to stress that the monuments and the finds of prestige objects at the portage or the harbours in the fjords leading to the portage, are inscriptions of power strategies in the maritime landscape. The different clusters of archaeological structures and finds seem to define places representing a past dynamic network of power positions, whose function was to limit the possibility of active resistance. The centre was probably Avaldsnes where the 83

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

84

Portages in prehistoric societies – evidence from The Lower Danube Chalcolithic traditions Dragos Gheorghiu

(Ursulescu 1998: 96). This is probably due to the instability of the Danube course resulting in the flooding of certain areas such as the Romanian Plain and the Carasu valley, combined with the continuous rise of the sea level (the so called “Neolithic transgression”, Bolomey 1978, or “Flandrian Transgression”, Caraivan 1998:9) that, in time, immersed Dobrogea’s littoral (Bolomey 1978). According to geologists (see Cotet 1976) the marine transgression created a gulf in the area presently occupied by Galatzi town which influenced the course of the Danube and its tributaries, the space between the two anastomosing arms of the river becoming a sort of interior Delta and the eastern part of the Romanian Plain an immense marshland (Valsan 1971). One method to set the limits of the flooded zone before the stabilizing of the Danube course could be the study of the spatial positioning of the Neolithic settlements of Cris, LBK or Early Boian (“BoianBolinineanu”) communities (Pandrea 1994: 20, fig.3) that avoided settling the area. One could infer that the transport over land of the boats between two water routes was a compulsory practice for life in this wetland environment.

Introduction or Once more on the Danube in prehistory A classical subject of the XX century archaeology (see Childe 1929), the Danube River is still, in the new century, a topic to offer original subjects for reflection on the prehistory of Europe (Fig.1). One of the most settled zone in prehistory was the Lower Danube, which is a good subject for studying the early utilization of portages. The Lower Danube area [i.e. the sector of the Danube from the Iron Gates, km 1074, up to the Delta] which represents 26% of the total river length, is characterized by a low plain on the northern bank, with a first set of tributaries running from north to south (between the 23°25° E longitude), and a second set running from the North West to South East (between the 27° – 28° E longitude), with a high calcareous terrace on the southern right bank, such configuration explaining the periodical flooding of the northern left bank of the river. This low wetland was characterized by a series of buffer lakes (today all dry), that collected the cyclical flooding (Vespremeanu 2004: 60), a process that generated zones with discontinuities between dry land and wetland under the form of “myriads of islands and water clearings” (Băncila 2000: 61; 68).

As mentioned before, the changes in the hydrological system of the Danube during the early Neolithic occurred probably because of the influences produced by the rising of the Black Sea level, but could also be related to the tectonic activity (cf. Brown 1997: 192) of the region (Valsan 1971: 286 ff), a cause which incidentally would also explain the collapse of the dry-land bar separating the Marmara Sea from the sweet water lake “Black Sea” (Gorur et al. 2001; Gokasan et al. 1997). It is possible that in the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic periods, before this geological event took place, one of the earliest portages existed, between the Marmara and the sweet lake “Black Sea”, positioned between the two rivers that crossed the land bar (see Gokasan et al. 1997).

At the 20th meridian the Danube turns northward and divides into two branches that unite at the level of the 45th parallel, to split again to the north and reunite again after 70 km, creating, until recently, a cyclical wetland zone. (Băncila 2000: 57). At the middle of this area the Carasu valley (see Ghidul excursiilor D. Dobrogea 1961), which traverses the Dobrogea plateau to the East, could have acted as a true branch of the Danube during the flooding periods. In this hydrosystem the Danube acted as a principal collector of the rivers of the area, (which flowed from west to east and from south to north and then to east), and connecting link to the marine littoral, thus solving the issue caused by many of the Danube’s tributaries not being navigable on long distances, due to the natural interruptions of the valleys and their small water debit.

The area most likely to reveal prehistoric portages seems to be the western part of the Black Sea in Dobrogea, a high ground between the Danube and the Black Sea that links the Balkans and the Near East with the North Pontic area. This region is now surrounded by the waters of the Danube and the Black Sea on three sides, constituting a sort of isthmus. It is crossed by two valleys: the Carasu river valley and the Casimcea valley. Carasu valley divides Dobrogea at the middle, the northern part being mountainous and the southern part being a plateau ending in the Varna region.

Colonization of the wetland In the Eastern part of the Romanian Plain, a relatively recent territory (Valsan 1977; Cotet and Martiniuc 1960; Cotet 1976), as well as in Dobrogea there is no archaeological evidence of early Neolithic activity

If there is now general agreement that between 7470 85

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1. Map of the Lower Danube area showing the Danube and tributaries and Dobrogea region with the the portage between the Black Sea and the Carasu river.

7580 BP Dobrogea’s coast was redefined by a sea level rise (Gorur et al. 2001; Ballard et al. 2000; Uchupi and Ross 2000), there is much disagreement between geologists concerning the speed of the process that filled the settled valleys and estuaries (see Vespremeanu 2004: 98, fig. 43; Fortey and Lericolais 2003: 15; Aksu et al. 2002; Uchupi and Ross 2000; Ballard et al. 2000; Ryan and Pitman 1998; Pirazzoli 1996; Caraivan 2002-2003: 57-58). Submerged Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age settlements in the maritime estuaries (Lazarov 1993), as well as 5th century B.C. Greek cities partly submerged, such as Callatis (today Mangalia), demonstrate a post Neolithic continuous process of sea level rise on the littoral of Dobrogea.1

Boian (Late phase) communities (advancing south-north along the Danube and eastward up to the seaside, Pandrea 1994: 13; Oberlander and Oberlander 1979) colonized the region (Neagu 1997). Such inferences are formulated due to the absence of Early Neolithic sites on the contemporary littoral of the Black Sea but this situation does not exclude the existence of old littoral sites, today submerged.

Archaeologists agree that the settling of Dobrogea happened after this hydrologic event, in Middle Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic period (late 6th - 5th millennium B.C.), when the Hamangia communities (coming from the Near East across the recent Bosporus straits and advancing from south to north along the littoral up to the Danube Delta) (Berciu 1966) and the

A brief history of the settling of the Lower Danube region in the 5th millennium B.C. reveals a transformation in the dynamics of the occupation of the territory between the Neolithic and Chalcolithic (Bailey et al. 2002), as the duration of occupation of sites and the shape, dimensions and complexity of houses. Since the stratigraphy of the occupations is very thin, it is supposed that Middle Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic settlements had a short existence (Bailey 2000: 154), this being an indication of a dynamic adaptation to the environment (Neagu 2000: 27), unlike the Chalcolithic occupation of this area characterized by more lasting settlements and a more elaborate architecture.

1 First research on this subject was carried in early sixties on the Black Sea coast by Constantin Nicolaescu-Plopsor.

I chose as a study case among the Chalcolithic traditions of South Eastern Europe the Gumelnita-Karanovo VI 86

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE in a strategic location on the water.

(dated 5th millennium B.C., see Bem 2000-2001) which developed on a large area from Thessaly to the North Western Pontic lowlands (Fol et al. 1989: 99, fig.30) including the wetland of the Danube and the Dobrogea Plateau (Gheorghiu 2001a) where it replaced the Boian tradition, because its hydrostrategies of subsistence and long distance trade entailed the use of portages.

The emergence of tells in the Lower Danube area, on hydrostrategic locations such as river mouths on the Danube, or marine estuaries, created clusters of longlasting settlements functioning as economic networks. Tells were not a generalized category of settlements; in the eastern part of the Romanian Plain, on the Calmatui river (a tributary of the Danube), the clusters of settlements positioned on hydrostrategic locations as levées, islands or terraces near lakes and marshes (Pandrea et al 1997: 30) did not succeed in forming tells.

The settling of the Gumelnita communities in the Lower Danube and Dobrogea on terraces, levées and islands occurred after the stabilizing of the Danube’s course as an adaptation to the recurring flooding occurring after the melting of the snow or after abundant rains and to the channel changes between the anastomosed branches of the river (see Marinescu Bilcu 1997: 141, plate I). Some of the Gumelnita A1 and A2 communities settled along the Danube and Carasu valleys and along the littoral (see Pandrea 2000: 70, fig.12; Hasotti 1997: Fig. 74) and, beginning with phase A2, one can detect a unity in material culture on a very large geographic area (Hasotti 1997: 75), a fact indicative of a developed system of communication between settlements leading to cultural homogenization. For communities living in a discontinuous wetland and depending on navigation, an efficient system of communication could have not been possible without the use of portages, which is why I believe that to demonstrate the existence and to understand the functioning of Chalcolithic portages in the hydrologic context of the Lower Danube, one needs to analyze the characteristics of that period that would have generated portages, such as the emergence and functioning in a network of tell-settlements, navigation and the long-distance trade with exotica.

Tells and trade as long time cooperation Tells shall be perceived as an index of a social and economic inter-settlement cooperation, being at the same time the result of local barter and long distance (and longterm) trade. I believe that tell-settlement clusters related to the Danube functioned due to a continuously strong cooperation on land and water routes, with autonomous micro zones (interdependent within a larger geographic network). From the perspective of technology and trade the Lower Danube area could be seen as the periphery of a cultural core situated in the Balkans, whose diffusion of technology and trade markers such as copper metallurgy, graphite painting, and imported Aegean Spondylus and Dentalium shells is visible in the archaeological record. Spondylus shells from the Aegean were found in the Medgidia tell on the Carasu valley (Hartuche and Bounegru 1997: 79, fig. 10), and in the Harsova tell on the Danube valley, where a workshop for processing fragments of the exotic shell was discovered (Comsa 1973; Galbenu 1963: 508), as the redistribution of the imported exotica compelled a re-dimensioning of the materials. In general the periphery of a tradition is characterized by the fragmentation of the exotica, by the copying of the core fashions (see Gheorghiu 2005b), by the use of skeuomorphs made of common materials and by a less skillful execution (cf. Kowalewski 2003). The ceramics decorated with graphite also belong to the exotica category and are an index of the core-periphery trade relationship.

The tell - A cultural and a natural alluvium Beginning with the middle of the fifth millennium B.C. (Bailey 2000: 156) one can detect in the Lower Danube area a greater degree of steadiness in the generation and evolution of human settlements that employed a new strategy of habitation, by living for several generations on the same location and creating tell-settlements. This temporal dimension is very important when discussing a significant cultural attribute like portages. Tells, the cumulative result of the collective work (Chapman 1994: 138; Sherratt 1983: 192-3) of some social units (Kotsakis 1999: 73), were made up of buildings surrounded by palisades and ditches (see Gheorghiu 2002), whose coordination could be perceived as similar to other organized collective activities such as navigation and portages. Among many causes, the emergence of Chalcolithic surface architecture with solid wooden structures was possible also due to the use of trapezoidal heavy flint adzes that may have influenced the technological development of wooden boats.

One can infer that the positioning of settlements along the river-marine hydrosystem (formed by the Danube and its tributaries and the Black Sea coast), linked the SubCarpathians to the Aegean and the Balkans with the North Pontic area, and (most probably) created a “salt road” directed from north-west to south, acting simultaneously as a “Spondylus road” (see also Willms 1985) and of copper ore (Todorova 1978: 64) directed from south to north. Exotica as one of the many motivations for long routes, navigation and portages

Generally speaking, tells used to be the result of a mixed economy arising from the combination of wet harvests with dry harvests (Gheorghiu 2005a) and were positioned

Exotica is today one of the indexes visible in the archaeological record used to identify and to give reason 87

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

for long distance trade. As “ conspicuous trophies of successful emulation (…), gauges of affection and assurances of personal worth and well-being” (Clark 1986: 82), exotica was not only the raw material for making “prestige” objects, but also objects with a more powerful content. The “otherness” produced by the surface shine of Spondylus or of copper, or the luster of the graphite, when compared with local materials, could have been perceived as a magical power, thus possibly explaining the effort of acquisition through a long trade; this is why I believe the concept of “prestige” should be interpreted as “magic”. In Chalcolithic, the exotic Spondylus frequent in Middle Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic is gradually replaced by copper, a new skeoumorph material, that copies Spondylus bracelets, flint axes and bone awls and whose magic connotation could have resulted from the changes in color (Charles 1994:66) after the alchemic metallurgical process as shown by ethnographic examples (Eliade 1977). Due to its aquatic origin the exotica shells could have been related to water symbolism and would have been a sign of far away southern waters, of navigation and portages, being a sort of remainder of distant exotic places. In this way the possession of such an item could have been analogous to the possession of a holy relic from a sacred site, obtained through pilgrimage in historical Europe (see Brown 1981).

Navigation Direct evidence for navigation One type of navigation documented for the Gumelnita tradition is the maritime one, as bones of marine fish living far from the coasts (Sparus aurata, Radu 20002001) were found in Dobrogea settlements situated on lakes’ shores. Archaeologists are today aware of the existence of a long distance maritime trade during the Chalcolithic, a cultural trait which is to be related to the settlements’ development and the exploitation of coastal environments (Marangou 1991: 40; Todorova 1978: 64). For instance, the emergence of complex societies in the Aegean (Renfrew 1972) is seen as being inspired by changes in maritime exploration (Broodbank 2002) accompanied by changes in water craft and intensification of exchanges especially of prestige goods. Similarly, in the Balkans the relation between settlements and water (for a relationship between the concentration of exotic funerary goods and the proximity of cemeteries to the sea coast see Bailey 2000: 206) is seen as the development of the coastal clusters of the Varna group (today submerged because of the rise of the sea level; Lazarov 1993: 11; Ivanov 1993: 20, fig.1), used as bases for cabotage from the Bosporus to the steppe rivers of the north of the Black Sea (Lazarov 1993: 16).

Archaeologists agree that copper from some metallurgical centers was directed from the Balkan-Carpathian autonomous (Renfrew 1969) metallurgical province (Cernych et al. 1991) to the north (Lazarov 1993: 12).

Another type of navigation identified was along the rivers and across lakes. Navigation on the rivers could have been possible, technologically ranging from simple flotation systems such as rafts made of bound tree trunks and floatable skin containers, up to more complex designs. The domestication of bovines and ovicaprines, widespread in Boian (see Bolomey 1982) and Gumelnita (Balasescu et al. 2003: 59 ff) settlements, suggests the use of hides for daily use, including the floatable objects for navigation, analogous to the historical corracles and curraghs.

Copper, “a source of extra wealth for north Balkan (…) cultures” (Chernykh 1992: 50), was extracted from Bulgarian mines (Gale et al. 1991) and exported to the Lower Danube as purified material (cf. Todorova 1978: 64) using pyrotechnic methods (see Šljivar 2003: 9). For instance, the copper from the Ai-Bunar mine (a site positioned near the Marica river) could have been first directed to the large tells in Bulgaria, and then redistributed to the northern area, thus explaining the small dimensions of the Lower Danube copper objects. To accomplish the travel one could navigate along the rivers and the littoral, and at the same time cross short segments of dry land.

Even if archaeological evidence for leather boats, for monoxyla (discovered across a large part of Mesolithic and Neolithic Europe; Marangou 1991: 31 ff.; Marangou 2001a: 195; Marangou 2003:17; Höckmann 1996:27 ff.) or for floats is still missing in the Lower Danube area, we imagine that such things could have existed in the Chalcolithic communities discussed because their technological level would have permitted it.

Traded copper circulated between the Balkans and Moldavia (as demonstrated by the Karbuna hoard found in the Precucuteni tradition, Chernykh 1992: 38, fig. 10), Western Ukraine (Chernykh 1992: 50) and the steppe (Chernykh et al 1991), following the marine coast and afterward along estuaries and river valleys, and developed a counter-process (Chernykh 1992: 50), to mention only the painted ceramics of Cucuteni-Tripolye tradition found in many of the Gumelnita settlements (Lazurca 1980).

Specialized fishing instruments as nets’ weights, copper hooks or harpoons made of antler bones discovered all around the wetland area from early Gumelnita, as at Radovanu (Comsa 1986, 44), up to late Gumelnita phase B at Cunesti (Popescu 1938), Varasti (Christescu 1925), Chiselet (Dumitrescu 1933), Ulmeni (Dumitrescu 1925), Cascioarele (Stefan 1925; Dumitrescu 1965), Pietrele (Berciu 1956), Tangaru (Berciu 1935), Gumelnita 88

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE eponymous site (Dumitrescu 1925), Uzunu (Comsa 1986), and Harsova (Galbenu 1962) are an index of intensive wet-harvest and consequently of navigation. Indirect evidence for navigation Some of the metaphors displayed by Chalcolithic objects reveal the use of navigation or of the floatability of some items, that could have been used for navigation too, such as the miniatures, i.e. the iconic ceramic models of boats (see Marangou 1991; Hockmann 1996) that characterize Balkan Neolithic and Chalcolithic material culture, which display examples of elongated ceramic objects interpreted as being boats (for a complete list see Marangou 1991: 25). In addition to the list mentioned I add a couple of new examples from the Lower Danube area:

Fig.2. Zoomorphic dish, Gumelnita tradition, Sultana tell, Giurgiu Museum.

A ceramic dish exhibiting a head of a duck (Sultana tell, Gumelnita tradition, Fig. 2, Giurgiu Museum) that can be interpreted as a sort of corracle with a prow duck head. The main criterion for the identification of a boat is the zoomorphic head, because such symbols seem to have been used from prehistory (McGrail 1987: 64; Marangou 2001b: 740), proto-history until recent times (Tilley 1999: 126) as symbols to characterize ships (see McGrail 2001: 139, fig.4.36; Marangou 1991: 25; see also Theocaris 1973: 199), and because the symbol of an aquatic bird can be related to water and floatability. The four protuberances of the vase can be interpreted as devices increasing the portability of the vase, and the grooves related to them as being cords or stripes to carry the object. Fig.3. Anthropomorphic dish representing a curragh, Sultana tell, Gumelnita tradition, phase A2, Giurgiu Museum.

A special case of iconicity in the rendering of a boat is represented by a painted ceramic dish decorated with a pattern of lozenges and displaying a couple of anthropomorphic characters, male and female, placed in its middle in a sitting position (Sultana tell, Gumelnita tradition, phase A2, Giurgiu Museum, diam. 23 cm, h. 5 cm) (Fig 3). The dish could be interpreted as a possible floatable object built in the manner of corracles, used to cross watercourses as supported by ethnographic examples2; see McGrail 2001: 294, fig.8.2). In this interpretation the lozenge pattern could represent the plaited pattern of the wickerwork.

Another kind of metaphor is isomorphism. Seeking isomorphisms between the partition of space in Balkan Chalcolithic and the practice of navigation, I believe to have found some analogies between the oval house design of middle Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic and the shape of boats. Between Middle Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic and Mature Chalcolithic there is a change in the geometry of houses, the oval shapes of semi-subterranean houses characteristic for the dynamic period being replaced by wattle and daub surface rectangular buildings of large dimensions (Neagu 2000: 30).

In relationship with navigation and portages could be ascribed all objects related to floatability and floats (i.e. “personal aids to floatation with man partly immersed in water”, McGrail 1985: 294) as the Gumelnita object (Oltenita Museum) representing a bunch of miniature vases tied together, whose function could have been that of a flotation device, as shown by ethnographic examples (see McGrail 2001: 266, fig. 6.17).

The oval- and round-shaped Middle Neolithic houses of the Dudesti (Cernica phase) and Boian traditions (with dimensions varying between 3 to 4m long, 1.50 to 3m wide and 0.50 to 1.70 deep; see Comsa 1957: 47 ; Comsa 1974a: 147; Paunescu 1964: 298 ; Neagu 1997: 54) may echo the form of reed boats, comparable to the reed bundle zaimas (ovoid boats made of a bunch of reeds used in the Near East), the round hide boats (see McGrail 2001: 265) or corracles (Fig. 5) or the round basket boats (see McGrail 2001: 294). A similar

2 Corracles were common until recently in northern Europe (e.g. in Ireland, see www.quinnpiac.edu/other/abl/etex/irish/pictures/143.html) and are still in use in contemporary India. It seems that they were in use in the south of Europe at the end of the Middle Ages. A curragh, which is a sort of large ovoid corracle is represented at the Sistine Chapel in Michelangelo’s fresco depicting the flood.

89

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 4. A flood of the Danube in 1934. Photo by Dr. George Gheorghiu.

Fig. 5. View of the Danube and the Bulgarian plateau from the Romanian Plain.

similar to a boat keel, we could imagine that the shape of the roof produced the image of a boat turned upside down (for a related interpretation of the roof in insular Polynesia see Austin 1997: 1212).

isomorphism between boat design and architecture as proportion and inner division of space, seems to have existed in the LBK tradition from Western Europe, whose longhouses with boat-like shapes (plan naviforme, Coudart 1998: 74) resemble the monoxyla longboats, with separations designed to strengthen the boat (see Marangou 1991: Pl.5, a,b).

Such isomorphisms seems to have been specific for nautical populations, to cite the example of Easter Island (see Heyerdahl and Ferdon 1961: 60, fig.5) where oval shaped stone and reed buildings copied wooden pirogues turned upside-down (a symbolism frequent in Polynesia, where “canoes and houses are closely associated”, and “myths revolve around the connection of the two forms”, Austin 1997: 1212), the southeastern Asia vernacular architecture being also often liked with the ship symbolism (Schefold 1997:1100; see also the Bodjao

If in the case of oval buildings it seems undemanding to relate them to boat design, the rectangular geometry of Chalcolithic houses with wooden platform, central post and separation walls is rather difficult to be ascribed to navigation. Since the principles of structural building with a central post infer the existence of a master beam that supported the wooden structure of the building 90

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE boat-houses, Bier 1997: 1193), and therefore highlight the importance attached to water-borne transport. If in the material culture of Neolithic communities only the above mentioned isomorphisms suggest an intensive use of water transport, during the emergence of Chalcolithic complex societies one can distinguish in material culture a larger reflection of this practice.

Macro level At a macro level a detailed analysis of the paleoenvironment reveals that the types of navigation mentioned in this paper implied the use of portages due to the discontinuities of the water routes, some of these being the result of the cyclical flooding of the Danube (Fig. 4) some of natural blockages.

Chalcolithic portages – a consequence of the hydrogeographical context

The Danube’s cross section in the area studied is characterized by a low plain to the north (the Romanian Plain) and a high terrace to the south (the Bulgarian PreBalkan and the Lugodorie plateaus) (Fig. 5); consequently the flooding of the Danube was absorbed by the buffer lakes bordering the river’s left bank. These lakes, whose northern shores were settled by Gumelnita populations, were separated from the Danube by a vegetation and sandbar that must have been crossed by prehistoric navigators to reach the Danube. Similar scenarios occurred on the large buffer lakes and swamps between the two anastomosed branches of the Danube, an area that could have been crossed uninterruptedly, by boat, only during the flooding of the Danube, but which necessitated the use of portages during the dry season. On the sea littoral some of the lakes or lagoons (see Radu 2000-2001: 168) had sandy bars that must have been crossed to reach the sea.

During the stabilization period of the Danube hydrologic system (i.e. Middle Neolithic/Early Chalcolithic) the colonization of the wetland used portages as an essential hydrostrategy for the transfer of boats and cargo. For the prehistoric populations, the specificity of the Lower Danube area, which is the discontinuity between dry land and water because of the seasonal flooded plain and permanent lakes along the river course and between the two anastomosing arms separating the Dobrogea plateau from the Romanian Plain, compelled them to use portages in their daily life hydrostrategies. An example of the discontinuities already mentioned are the lakes along the Danube, to cite only the Cascioarele lake, which was until recently one of the river’s buffers, that acted as a sort of cyclical wetland, the Chalcolithic tell on the central island Ostrovel being reached by dry land in summer and by boat in spring, autumn and winter (Gheorghiu 2005a). Another example is the area between the anastomosed branches of the river which was formed by a succession of dry land and wetland.

Analogous to the settlements positioned on lake and river terraces and levées (Fig. 6), the settlements positioned on lake islands or in (perennial or cyclical) marshlands along the fluvial course (Fig. 7) required a similar crossing of the dry land as well as navigation on water to be in contact to other settlements or to reach the Danube or the Black Sea coast.

The study of the Lower Danube Neolithic and Chalcolithic paleoenvironment infers that portages were certainly an implicit cultural trait, but they are not explicitly visible archaeologically.

I believe the most important portage for the lower Danube area could be found in Dobrogea. To use a shortcut to the Danube, coming from the sea coast (from a place situated near the actual promontory of Constanta town, a lowland with a slope of 2.3 - 6 ‰ (Caraivan 1998: 8; 12, fig.1) one must cross a 10 km of terra firma and then navigate up to the Danube along the 42,5 km Carasu river valley. In the 5th millennia B.C. the Constanta cape was flanked to the north by two large lagoons (as suggested by osteological remains, Radu 2000-2001: 168; see also Popescu and Caraivan 20022003: 59), this inferring the use of a primary portage in order to reach the mainland when coming from the sea.

To identify portages in a historical society one could use historical texts, toponyms and iconography (see Westerdahl 2003), but none of these are valid for prehistory, therefore any discussion of the subject must rely on archaeological indirect evidence and ethnographic models, and on the personal knowledge acquired through experimentation. The main topic of the present text is to analyze in what manner portages, whose existence is implied by the hydrologic configuration of the region discussed, could have been reflected by the material culture of a prehistoric society.

The Carasu large valley could have acted in prehistory as the most efficient shortcut between the south waters (the Mediterranean, the Aegean and the Marmara seas) and the Lower Danube hydro-system, as it seems it functioned in Antiquity and the Middle Ages, since images of ships with masts, dated around the 10th century A.D. (Barnea and Bilciurescu 1959; Bogdan 1959) were found as graffiti in the churches excavated in the Murfatlar chalk hill on the portage. At the middle of the 20th century A.D., using the work of political prisoners,

Methods of identifying Chalcolithic portages Comparable to the method of identifying navigation, the identification of portages should start at the macro-level with an understanding of the relationship between sites and the paleo-wetland and continue at the micro level with artifacts and evidence for trade exchanges.

91

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig.6. The eponymous Gumelnita tell positioned in the wetland of the buffer lakes of the Danube.

Fig. 7. The Harsova tell positioned on the Danube. The concrete wall of the modern house built at the base of the tell shows the level of the river during flooding.

communication). The position of the Casimcea river in relation to the large Carasu river valley and the Danube could have been exploited as a way of returning to the Black Sea shore when coming from the Danube on a portage. Archaeological evidence shows that Casimcea settlements functioned for a short length of time, compared to the neighboring network of tell-settlements positioned along the Danube and in the marshlands between the Danube’s arms as Ghindaresti, Harsova and Bordusani.

the river valley was transformed into a channel that also cut the portage in order to become the shortest water way to link Central Europe to the Black Sea. As early as 1858 a railroad designed by British engineers (Lungu 1987:268) was built parallel to the channel and linked Cernavoda town, positioned at the Carasu river-mouth, with Constanta town on the littoral. The second valley that crosses the Dobrogea plateau from NW to SE, not as large as Carasu valley and characterized by a dendritic network of small tributaries is the Casimcea valley, which ended in a large gulf, now a lake separated from the sea by a sandy bar (Comanescu 2004: 173). The Casimcea valley was settled by populations belonging to Gumelnita phase A which built settlements on the Tasaul lake small island (MarinescuBilcu et al. 2000-2001), near the river mouth, in the caves along the river valley (Hasotti 1997) and on the small tributary river Tirgusor (V. Lungu personal

If other portages existed in the region, they could have been between the Casimcea valley (up to the Casian sector) and the Panduru settlement, when coming from the Tasaul lake with a cargo on the Targusor small river, due to the longitudinal proclivity and the sinuosity of the Casimcea valley in this sector (see Comanescu 2004: 29, fig. 5).

92

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE Harsova tell layers of occupation are 6 m high, Hasotti 1989: 9, and the Medgidia tell 3 m high, Hartuche and Bounegru 1997: 92), functioning in a sort of riverine system.

Another possible portage could have been on the Bulgarian plateau, between the river Provadijska Reka (ending in the Varna gulf) and the rivers Goljamo Kamcija and Reli Lom, a hydrologic system linking the Black Sea littoral (the Varna gulf to the south-east) to the Danube (the Arges river mouth to the north). Tellsettlements are mentioned (see Todorova 1982:2, fig. 1) on all the listed rivers, a fact which suggests a possible connection between the littoral and the Danubian zones via this rieverine route, entailing the use of portages.

A second example is the presence of prestige ceramics from the tells positioned along the rivers flowing across the Balkans into the Black Sea, (Fig. 9), discovered in the Lower Danube area in Dobrogea in the tell settlements along the Carasu and the Calmatui rivers and on the southern Moldavian hydrosystem.

Micro level Characteristic to the graphite decorated vases is the elaborate rendering, the small dimensions and the thinness of the walls, compared to the other types of Chalcolitic ceramics, these attributes facilitating transportation over long distances. It appears the fragility of such objects traded from distant places assured them an extra value.

The direct evidence At a micro level, the analogies in material culture (such as imported exotic materials and objects) from the Bulgarian littoral settlements, from the settlements along the shortcut of the Carasu valley, and from the settlements along the valleys of the Danube tributaries support the presence of a 5th millennium B.C. trade route linking the Aegean seaside with the Danube hydrosystem, one that could have certainly used portages.

The graphite ceramic of the Marica – Karanovo V tradition produced in the tell settlements of Goljamo Delcevo and Sava was discovered in the Medgidia and Cernavoda Gumelnita phase A tell settlements along the Carasu valley (for analogies see Todorova 1982: 91, fig. 5.3, 1,3, 13 and Vulpe 1939: 53, fig.1/2,3,4,5), in Liscoteanca – Movila Olarului, Liscoteanca-Mos Filon, Liscoteanca-Movila din Balta, Liscoteanca – Santoeni, Insuratei – Popina II settlements positioned on the Calmatui river, as well as in those positioned along the rivers from Moldavia (Dodesti on Siret river; Stoicani and Baneasa on Prut river, or to the north of the Chilia branch of the Danube as Vulkanesti on the Cahul lake, or Lopatica and Bolgrad on the Cuhurlui lake) (see Pandrea 2002: 131, 145, fig.10; Hartuche and Bounegru 1997: 82, fig. 52/6).

A first example in support of this assumption is the presence of objects of Aegean origin such as the Spondylus shell bracelets in the Gumelnita tellsettlements along the Carasu river (Medgidia and Cernavoda) and in Harsova, the nearest settlement on the Danube, as well as the Dentalium beads on the Bordusani tell (Voinea 1997: 77), situated in the marshland between the Danube’s arms, north of the Carasu river mouth. In Harsova the workshop for processing the Spondylus (Comsa 1973; Galbenu 1963), demonstrates a relatively large scale trade of this item. In the same workshop was discovered a small deposit of copper tools and jewelry, whose chemical composition (Junghans et al. 1968) is different from that of the majority of the objects found in the settlements from the Danube plain (Comsa 1990: 12), which infers for the Harsova tell the use of different copper sources than Ai-Bunar, probably situated in the north of Dobrogea, at Ceamurlia, Altantepe, Horia or Balabancea (Comsa 1990: 11), and offers a new picture of trade routes and portages.

The water route that linked the tell-settlements in the Balkans to the tell-settlements of the north of the Romanian Plain and the south of Moldavia, had only a short sector of dry land between the sea and the Carasu River valley which infers that it could have functioned as a portage for the trade with prestige ceramics. The existence of a portage in the Casimcea valley could be suggested by the fact that the same ceramics decorated with graphite are found on the Tasaul island (MarinescuBilcu et al. 2000-2001: 127) and in the Panduru settlement. Archaeologists infer that the ceramics found on Tasaul island could have been decorated also with pyrolusite (Marinescu-Bilcu et al. 2000-2001: 127), a material specific to the Varna region (Todorova and Naceva 1971: 71), consequently being a southern import. In favor of the existence of portages in the Balkan hydrosystems, that would have linked Varna with the Danube, one argument could be the similarities between the pieces of gold from the Varna cemetery and those discovered at Sultana, Vladiceasca, Chirnogi (Halcescu 1996: 11) or Gumelnita (eponymous) (Dumitrescu 1961; Comsa 1974b) tells positioned near the Danube.

Harsova is situated at a crossroad of six water routes (four branches of the Danube and the Calmatui and Ialomita rivers that spring from the Sub-Carpathian Mountains), from the salt (Radulescu and Dumitrescu 1966:259) and graphite deposits (Radulescu and Dumitrescu 1966:156) (Fig. 8), a kind of distributorsettlement for the Lower Danube area. This is why I believe that Harsova, the largest tell in the Lower Danube area, functioned as a distribution centre for the raw materials from the Carpathian area and for the raw and finished exotica from the south and north-east. All the settlements already mentioned, along the route between the sea littoral and the Danube, were of tell type, thus indicating they lasted for many generations (the 93

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 8. Satellite view of the Danube and tributaries in the Harsova tell area.

Fig. 9. The clusters with graphite ceramics: A. Goljamo Delcevo and Sava, B. Medgidia and Cernavoda, C. Liscoteanca – Movila Olarului, Liscoteanca-Mos Filon, Liscoteanca-Movila din Balta, Liscoteanca – Santoeni, Insuratei – Popina II, D. Dodesti on Siret river; Stoicani and Baneasa on Prut river, Vulkanesti on the Cahul lake, Lopatica and Bolgrad on the Cuhurlui lake.

The indirect evidence

Metaphors

Information on portages in prehistoric societies could come as well from the indirect evidence in archaeological record as metaphors or skeuomorphs.

To the category of metaphors can be ascribed the decoration of certain ceramic objects with patterns that may be interpreted as representing objects made of plaited vegetal fibers, that could have been utilized for transport on water. There are striking analogies between these patterns (some of them scratched on ceramics, some painted with graphite) (Fig. 10) and different ethnographic objects made of vegetal fibers (Fig. 11) or

I believe that metaphors related to flooding, or to floatability could offer information on the hydrostrategies involving portages.

94

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE

Fig. 10. Ceramic lid from Sultana tell, Gumelnita tradition, Giurgiu Museum, with a decorative pattern of plaiting painted with graphite.

Fig. 12. Kuffa model (after Hornell 1946: plate 17b, McGrail 2001: 60, fig. 3.5).

The ceramic portable boats I identified in the Gumelnita tradition could have been a symbol of the existence of a water cult (see Gheorghiu 2003; Gheorghiu 2005a) related to fertility (cf. Tilley 1999: 130), as suggested by the human couple of the Sultana vase discussed above, and also to wealth, strength and power (Tilley 1999:131) due to the magic content of the cargo, or to sacredness, since navigation and portages were represented by a ritual object. Other metaphors for portages may not have been visually related to navigation. In my opinion, the ceramic human feet discovered in nine settlements of the Lower Danube area (Simon and Serbanescu 1987), including the Medgidia tell on the Carasu valley (see Hartuche and Bounegru 1997: 70, figs. 40; 41), could have acted as exvoto, offered after passages on portages, which represented a difficult moment of the voyage because of the carrying of cargo and boats. Portages could then have been perceived as a rite of passage and subsequently structured as such (see Van Gennep 1960, Turner 1969).

Fig. 11. Hide boat under construction from Southern India (after McGrail 2001: 265, fig.6.16).

animal skins, used for navigation or floating, as the zaima and quffa reed bundle boats (see McGrail 2001: 60) (Fig. 12) (for a ceramic model in the Balkans see Tringham et al. 1990: pl. 10.5; Marangou 2001b: 748: fig. 3) or the corracle hide-boats (McGrail 1987: 179; Greenhill and Morrison 1995: 75), plaited round baskets that can sustain one to three persons and can be carried on the head, like an ordinary container.

Skeuomorphs

The curraghs used in the open waters of Northern Europe were similar constructions of wickerwork, but larger than the coracles, and elliptical rather than round. All the navigation objects mentioned could be produced by simply plaiting or fastening reeds of other aquatic plants, or covering wickerwork with hides and could be easily made, easily transported on dry land or easily dismantled and remade after the crossing of the dry land.

Information on floatability, and therefore on portages, may be derived from skeuomorphs too. Certain ceramic skeuomorphs copy the hide containers (Fig. 13) (easily recognizable because of their shape and system of portability) that could have been used as flotation devices to cross water courses (see McGrail 1985: 294). When put together these hide containers could have produced hide float rafts, similar to those used today in India for the transport of goods and people (for buoyed rafts see McGrail 2001: 263, fig. 6.13).

Due to its characteristics (portability, etc) the corracle could stand for a metaphor for navigation and portage.

95

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 14. Ceramic lid representing a house (tell?) on a mound and the converging roads. Giurgiu Museum.

Fig. 13. Ceramic skeuomorph of a hide container carried with ropes. Gumelnita tradition.

Portages on tells The location of tells created the conditions for portages since they were positioned on higher ground, compared to the water level, thus necessitating the dragging of boats and carrying of the cargo. It is my belief that the roads to reach the tell are represented on a particular type of ceramic lids that show the tell as a single house positioned on a convex surface and the roads as grooves that converge on to the central construction. (Fig. 14) In my opinion a place to protect and deposit the boats could have been the double palisades, such as those of the Luncavita tell (Hasotti 1997: 78) located on the Danube terrace in Dobrogea. Fig. 15. Replica of a vase with curved base and skeuomorphs of cordages, to be carried on the head. National Museum of History Bucharest.

Ethnographic examples demonstrate that the dragging of boats was facilitated by sledge-way wooden structures (for wood transport on such structures see Cotterell and Kamminga 1990: 222), and their use in the Lower Danube Chalcolithic seems possible because wooden platforms built in a similar way were current in tells.

(under the shape of ceramic grooves on the surface of the vase) used for a better manipulation of the object. As ethnographic examples (Hornell 1946: 34-37; Deloche 1994: 32-33; McGrail 2001: 263) and experiments I carried with replicas of vases with curved bottom show, ceramic portable objects when sealed and waterproofed with fat had good floatability and could have been used to cross small watercourses.

Portable objects and portages The category of portable objects includes as well the floatable ceramic containers (Marangou 1991:22) designed to be carried on the head (with a curved bottom to allow for easy portability; see Gheorghiu 2003) (Fig. 15), part of them displaying skeuomorphs of cordages

Through experimentation, the synergy of portable and floatable ceramic and hide objects helps us evoke the 96

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE hydrographic system characterized by discontinuities between water surface and dry land.

intricate image of the Chalcolithic cargo portages in the Lower Danube wetland, an operation that needed the use of artifacts for dissimilar purposes.

One can infer that after the stabilization of the hydrology of the Lower Danube area, which can be dated with the beginning of the Chalcolithic, and the colonization of the wetland, there was a change in the use of portages, from those of daily subsistence, or short distance trade, to long distance trade with various prestige items. This new kind of portages became vital for the intrasettlement development (the emergence of tell-settlements) and the intersettlement development (the networks of tells) that shaped the long distance trade between the Balkan and the Danube settlement networks. The emergence of tells in the wetland of the Lower Danube was possible due to the strong connections between settlements within each cluster and between the clusters of settlements which used navigation and portages. Among the many motivations that sustained the emergence of the stratified society in the Chalcolithic was the attraction for the magic of exotic materials that developed long trade routes to the south. One of its effects was the setup of a metallurgical system that linked the Balkan and Dobrogea copper mines with the north-western Pontic area by means of marine and riverine ways and portages.

Design in context Dendrology (Tomescu 1996-1998), archaeozoology (Moise 2000; Radu 1997) and experiments suggest that for navigation the materials that could have been used in the Lower Danube wetland were hardwood species, reeds and animal sub-products such as hides, fat and bones. If monoxila were carved from massive trees, the other kind of boats discussed could have been built from the materials mentioned, the animal hides covering the wickerwork, while the fat and fish glue and oil were used for waterproofing the resulting design, as examples from historical times show (see Chaudhuri 1997: 122). The resulting objects were probably constructed using a technology analogous to that of wattle and daub house building (see Gheorghiu 2004), i.e. a plaited vegetal structure being covered by elastic materials coated against infiltration, a design adapted to the geohydrologic and dendrologic context of the Lower Danube. Effort, harnesses and lifted boats

One can admit that beside the long distance portages on terra firma, such as the Carasu portage linking the Black Sea with the Danube, in all Chalcolithic traditions there were also micro-portages, determined by the hydrologic context, used daily or seasonally. The spaces of portages were particular, ritualized spaces with a symbolism referring to wealth, power, magic and settlements’ development.

One significant subject for the archaeologist is to envisage through experimentation the effort necessary to accomplish such endeavor, beside the shape and the dimensions of the objects carried over portages. For example, experiments demonstrate that “roughly 18 men per ton would be needed to drag a sledge on level ground” (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990: 218), an action that could be improved by using harnesses (Cotterell and Kamminga 1990: 218), a design specific for Eastern European Chalcolithic (see Gheorghiu 1994). The use of harnesses for dragging boats over portages like sledges or tribullum seems logic for the heavy boats that could have been dragged on long distances and carried on small distances like a corracle. It is possible that large hide boats like the curraghs had also an exterior wooden keel positioned over the hide cover to allow a good slide on soil (see Johnstone 1972) when dragged over portages.

Essential for the Lower Danube Chalcolithic portages is the fact they contributed to the cultural development of the periphery of Boian and Gumelnita traditions. In conclusion, portages were thus essential for the development of an emerging stratified society that functioned in the Lower Danube wetland due to a specific spatial organization, special designs in material culture, and the political exploitation of the power of the exotica. Acknowledgements

Like the ceramic vases that were carried with the use of cordages the large hide covered baskets could have been reinforced with plaited cordages and carried in a similar way over portages. Experiments demonstrate that a 2m diameter wickerwork structure can be transported on the head by one person who holds the plaited cordages and, when filled with a 40 kg load, by minimum two persons using the same cordages as shoulder harnesses.

I owe many thanks to Dr. Christer Westherdahl for inviting me to participate in the conference and to Drs. Olaf Höckmann and Christina Marangou for the help with documentation on prehistoric navigation. Thanks also to Dr. Roger Doonan for the valuable comments on the first draft of the paper.

Conclusions

Thanks also to Dr. Vasilica Lungu for the information on the unpublished Panduru settlement.

I believe that portages were vital for the prehistoric population communities living in the hydrosystem of the Lower Danube region because of the determinism of the

Last but not least my gratitude goes to Bogdan Capruciu for reviewing the English of the text. The experiments cited were carried in the village of Vadastra, near the 97

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Caraivan, Gl., 2002-2003, Evolutia zonei lacului Tasaul in Cuaternarul tarziu, Pontica XXXV-XXXVI, Muzeul de istorie Constanta, pp.53-59. Caraivan, Gl., 1998, Old Dobrogea Black Sea Coastlines, Pontica XXXI, pp. 7-14. Cernych, E.N, I. Avicola, T.B.Borceva, L.B.Orlovskaya and O.Tenejsvili, 1991, The Circumpontic Metallurgical Province as a System, in Lichardus, J. (ed.), Die Kupferzeit als historiche Epoche, Symposium Saarbrueken und Ozenhausen, 13.11.1988, Bonn, pp. 593-622. Chapman, J., 1994, The living, the dead and the ancestors: time, lifecycles and the mortuary domain in Later European prehistory, in Davies, J. (ed.) ritual and Remembrance: Responses to death in human Sciences, Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, pp. 40-85. Charles, J.A., 1994, Determinative mineralogy in the early development of metals, Historical Metallurgy. The Journal of the historical metallurgy Society 28, No.2, pp. 66-81. Chaudhuri, K.N., 1997, Trade and civilization in the Idian Ocean. An Economic history from the rise of Islam to 1750, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Chernykh, E.N., 1992, Ancient metallurgy in the USSR. The Early Metal Age, Cambridge University Press. Childe, G., 1929, The Danube in Prehistory, Clarendon Press, Oxford. Christescu, V.1925. Les stations prehistoriques du lac de Boian. Dacia II, 280-284. Clark, G.,1986, Symbols of excellence. Precious materials as expression of status, Cambridge University Press, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney. Comanescu, L., 2004, Bazinul morfohidrografic Casimcea, Studiu geomorphologic, Editura Universitatii, Bucharest. Comsa, E., 1991, Ensembles néolithiques près du littoral roumain de la Mer Noire, Thracia Pontica IV, pp. 167-176. Comsa, E. 1986. Santurile de aparare ale asezarilor neolitice de la Radovanu, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos II, 61-67. Comsa, E., 1973, Parures néolithiques en coquillages marins decouvertes en territorire roumain, Dacia 17, pp. 61-76 Comsa, E., 1956, Rezultatele sondajelor de la Dudesti si u nele probleme ale neoliticului de la sud de Carpati, SCIV 1-2. Comsa, E.,1974a, Istoria comunitatilor culturii Boian, Academiei, Bucharest. Comsa, E., 1974b, Figurinele de aur din aria de raspandire a culturii Gumelnita, Studii si cercetari de istorie veche si arheologie 25, 2, pp. 181-190. Cotet, P., 1976, Campia Romana. Studiu de geomorfologie integrata, Ceres, Bucharest. Cotet, P. and Martiniuc, C., 1960, Geomorfologia, in Monografia geografica a Romaniei, Editura Academiei, Bucharest, pp. 243-255.

Danube (Grant CNCSIS 1612 and Ministry of Culture Grants 2003-4). References Aksu, A.E., Hiskott, R., N., Kaminski, M.A., Mudie, P.J., Gillespie, H., Abrajano, T., and Yasar, D., 2002, Last glacial-Holocene paleooceanography of the Black Sea and Marmara Sea: Stabile isotopic, foraminiferal and coccolith evidence, Marine Geology 190, pp. 119149. Austin, M.R., 1997, Polynesia and New Zealand, in Oliver, P. (ed.), Vernacular architecture of the world, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 12101214. Bailey, D.W., 2000, Balkan Prehistory. Exclusion, incorporation and identity, Routledge, London. Bailey D.W., Andreescu, R, Howard. A.J., Macklin, M.G. and Mills, S. 2002. Alluvial landscapes in the temperate Balkan Neolithic: transition to tells. Antiquity 76, 349-355. Ballard, R.D., Coleman, D., and Rosenberg, G., 2000, Further evidence of abrupt Holocene drowning of the Black Sea shelf, Marine Geology 170, pp.253-261. Barnea, I. and Bilciurescu, V., 1959, Santierul arheologic Basarabi, Materiale 6, pp. 543-562. Balasescu, A., Udrescu, M., Radu, V. and Popovici, D., 2002, Archéozoologie en Roumanie. Corpus de données, Ceratea de Scaun, Targoviste. Băncila, V., 2000, Spatiul Baraganului, Istros, Braila. Bem, C. 2000-2001, Noi propuneri pentru o schita cronologica a eneoliticului romanesc, Pontica XXXIII-XXXIV, Muzeul de Istorie Nationala si Arheologie Constanta, pp. 25-121. Berciu, D., 1966, Cultura Hamangia. Noi contributii, Editura Academiei, Bucharest. Berciu, D. 1956. Sapaturile de la Pietrele raionul Giurgiu (1943 si 1948), Materiale II, 520-543. Berciu, D. 1935. Sapaturile arheologice de la Tangiru (1934). Raport preliminar. Buletinul Muzeului Judetean Vlasca I, 1-55. Bier, M., 1997, Badjao (Sulu Sea), in Oliver, P. (ed.), Vernacular architecture of the world, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p.1193. Bogdan, P., 1959, Grafitele de la Basarabi, Materiale 6, pp.562-563. Bolomey, Al., 1982, Contributie la cunoasterea economiei animale a culturii Boian in lumina materialelor de la Cascioarele, Jud.Calarasi, Cercetari arheologice V, pp. 169-193. Bolomey, Al., 1978, Why no Early Neolithic in Dobrogea, Dacia N.S. XXII, pp.5-8. Broodbank, C. 2002, An Island archaeology of the Early Cyclades, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Brown, A.G. 1997. Alluvial Archaeology. Floodplain archaeology and environmental change Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brown, P., 1981, The Cult of Saints: Its rise and function in Latin Christianity, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 98

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE Late Chalcolithic, in Peregrine, P. and M. Ember, (eds.), Encyclopedia of Prehistory, vol.IV, Kluwer Academic and Plenum, pp.356-380. Gheorghiu, D., 2001b, Tropes in Material Culture, in Gheorghiu, D. (ed.), Material, Virtual and Temporal Compositions: On the Relationships between Objects, BAR International Series, 953, pp.17-26. Gheorghiu, D., 1994, Horse-Head scepters – First images of yoked horses, The Journal of Indo-European Studies 22, Nrs. 3 & 4, pp. 221- 250. Ghidul excursiilor. D. Dobrogea, 1961, Asociatia geologica Carpato-Balcanica, Bucharest. Gokasan, E., Demirbag, E., Oktaz, F. Y., Ecevitoglu, B., Simsek, M., and Yuce, H., 1997, On the origin of the Bosphorous, Marine Geology 140, pp. 183-199. Greenhill, B. and Morrson, J., 1995, The Archaeology of boats and ships. An introduction, Conway Maritime Press, London. Gorur, N., Namic-Cagatay, M., Emre, O., Alpar, B., Saking, M., Islam-Oglu, Y., Algan, O., Erkal, T., Kecer, M., Akkok, R., and Karlik, G., 2001, Is the abrupt drowning of the Black Sea shelf at 7150yr BP a myth?, Marine Geology 176, pp. 65-73. Halcescu, C., 1995, Tezaurul de la Sultana, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos XIII-XIV, pp. 11-18. Hartuche, N and Bounegru, O., 1997, Sapaturile arheologice de salvare de la Medgidia, Jud.Constanta (1957-1958), Pontica XXX, pp. 17-104. Hasotti, P., 1997, Epoca neolitica in Dobrogea, Muzeul de Istorie Nationala si arheologie, Constanta. Hasotti, P., 1989, Observatii privind cultura Gumelnita in Dobrogea, Pontica 21-22, pp. 7-21. Heyerdahl, T. and Ferdon E.N. (eds.), 1961, Archaeology of Easter Island, Monograph of American Research and the Museum of New Mexico, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London Höckmannn, O., 2000, Schiffahrt in der Steinzeit, in Porumb, M. (ed.), Omaggio a Dinu Adamesteanu, Bibliotheca Ephemeris Napocensis, Cluj-Napoca. Hornell,J., 1946, Water transport, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Ivanov, I., 1993, La question de la localization et des etudes des sites submerges dans le lac de Varna, Pontica XXVI, pp. 19-26. Johnstone, P., 1972, Bronze Age sea trial, Antiquity 46, pp.269-274. Junghans,S., Sangmeister, E., and Shröder, M., 1968, Kupfer und Bronze in der fruhen Metallzeit Europas, Katalog der Analysen, Berlin. Kotsakis, K., 1999. What tells can tell: Social space and settlement in the Greek Neolithic, pp.66-76 in Halstead, P. (ed.), Neolithic Society in Greece. Sheffield, Sheffield Academic Press. Kowalewski, S., 2003, Backcountry pots, Ancient Mesoamerica 14, pp. 67-75. Lazarov, M., 1993, Les sites submerges le long du Pont Ouest dans le contexte de l’histoire pontique et méditeranéenne, Pontica XXVI, pp. 7-18. Lazurca, E., 1980, Ceramica cucuteniana in contextul asezarii gumelnitene de la Carcaliu (Judetul Tulcea),

Cotterell, B. and Kamminga J., 1990, Mechanics of preindustrial technology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney. Coudart, A., 1998, Architecture et societé néolithique. L’unité et la variance de la maison danubienne, Éditions de la Maison des Sciences de l’Homme, Paris. Deloche, J. 1994, Transport and communication in India, Water transport, Oxford University Press, New Delhi. Dumitrescu, Vl. 1965. Principalele rezultate ale primelor doua campanii de sapaturi din asezarea neolitica tarzie de la Cascioarele, Studii si Cercetari de Istorie Veche 16, 215-237. Dumitrescu, Vl. 1925. Fouilles de Gumelnita. Dacia II,29-102. Dumitrescu, H. 1961, Connections between the CucuteniTripolye cultural complex and the neighboring eneolithic cultures in the light of the utilization of goleden pendants, Dacia N.S. 5, pp.60-94. Dumitrescu, H. 1933. Rapport sur les sondages de Gradistea Fundeanca. Dacia III-IV, 150-156. Eliade, M., 1977, Forgerons et alchimistes, Flammarion, Paris. Fol, A., Katinčarov, R., Lichardus, J., Bertemes, F., and Krăstev, I., 1989, Bericht über die bulgarischdeutschen Ausgrabungen in Drama (1983-1988), Philipp von Zabern, Main am Rheim. Fortey,R. and G.Lericollais, 2003, Sur les traces du Déluge, La recherche Hors série, April-June, pp. 1418. Galbenu, D., 1963, Neoliticeskaia masterkaia dlia obrabotk ukrasenii v hairsova, Dacia VII, pp.501-509. Galbenu, D. 1962. Asezarea neolitica de la Harsova. Studii si cercetari de Istorie XIII, 300-311. Gale, N.H., Stos-Gale, Z.A., Lilov, F.,Dimotrov, N., and Todorov, T., 1991, Recent studies of Eneolithic copper ores and artifacts in Bulgaria, in Mohen, J.P. (ed.), Découverte du métal, Picard, Paris, pp. 49-76. Gheorghiu, D., 2005a, The formation of tells in the Lower Danube wetland Late Neolithic, Journal of Wetland Archaeology, (forthcoming). Gheorghiu 2005b, On Chalcolithic ceramic technology: A study case from the Lower Danube traditions, in Gheorghiu, D. and Andrews, K. (eds.), Ceramics in the New Millennium, British Archaeological Reports, International Series, (forthcoming). Gheorghiu, D., 2004, Building a ceramic object: The 2003 Vadastra Project experiments, The Old Potter’s Almanack, vol. 11, no.3, Cardiff university, pp.1-5. Gheorghiu, D., 2003, Gumelnita Hydrostrategies, in Gheorghiu, D., (ed.), Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Hydrostrategies, BAR International Series 1123, pp.39-56. Gheorghiu, D., 2002, On palisades, houses, vases and miniatures: The formative processes and metaphors of Chalcolithic tells, in A. Gibson (ed.), Behind Wooden Walls: Neolithic palisaded enclosures in Europe, British Archaeological Reports, Oxford Gheorghiu, D., 2001a, South-Eastern European Early and 99

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Pandrea, S., 1994, Inceputul culturii Boian in Campia Brailei, Istros VII, Braila, pp. 7-26. Pandrea, S., V.Sarbu, M.Mirea, Asezari gumelnitene pe valea Calmatuiului, Istros, VIII, 1997, pp. 27-62. Paunescu, Al., 1964, A propos du neolithique ancient de Draghiceanu et de quelques survivances tardenoisiennes, Dacia 8, pp. 297-305. Pirazzoli, P.A., 1996, Sea Level changes: The last 20000 years, Willey. Popescu, D.1938. Les fouilles de Cunesti. Dacia V-VI, 109-120. Popescu, D. and Caraivan, G., 2002-2003, Evolutia zonei lacului Tasaul in Cuaternarul tarziu, Pontica XXXVXXXVI, Muzeul de Istorie Nationala si Arheologie Constanta, pp. 53-59. Radu, V., 2000-2001, Studiul materialului arheoihtiologic, Pontica XXXIII-XXXIV, Muzeul de Istorie Nationala si Arheologie Constanta, pp. 165170. Radu, V., 1997, Archaeozoology. Pisces, Cercetari arheologice X, pp. 96-105. Radulescu, D., and Dumitrescu, R., 1966, Mineralogia topografica a Romaniei, Editura Academiei, Bucharest. Renfrew, C. 1972, The Emergence of civilization, Methuen, London. Renfrew, C. 1969, The Autonomy of the south –east European Copper Age, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 35, pp. 12-47. Ryan, W. and W.Pitman, 1998, Noah’s Flood, Simon and Schuster. Schefold, R., 1997, Toraja saddle-roof, in Oliver, P. (ed.), Vernacular architecture of the world, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 1100. Sherratt, A., 1994, Core, periphery and margin: perspectives on the Bronze Age, in Mathers, C. and Stoddart, S. (eds.), Development and decline in the Mediterranean Bronze Age, Archaeological Monographs 8, Sheffield, pp. 335-345. Sherratt, A., 1983, The Eneolithic period in Bulgaria in its European context, in Poulter, A., (ed.), Ancient Bulgaria, vol. I, Nottingham, pp. 188-198. Simon, M. and Serbanescu, D., 1987, Consideratii privind reprezentarea simbolica a piciorului uman din aria culturii Gumelnita, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos, pp. 29-34. Šljivar, D., 2003, New data about the beginning of copper mining and metallurgy in the Vinča culture of the central Balkans, Cu+, Bulletin du groupe de travail sur la paléométallurgie des cuivres et des minerais associés, No.3, pp.5-10. Theocaris, D., 1973, Neolithic Greece, Athens. Tilley, C., 1999, Metaphor and material culture, Blackwell, Oxford. Todorova, H., 1978, The Eneolithic period in Bulgaria in the fifth millennium B.C., BAR International Series (Supplementary) 49, Oxford. Todorova, H., and Naceva, V., 1971, Pseudophirnisova keramika ot eneolitnoto nakolno seliste pri s. Ezerovo, Varnenski okrag, Archeologia 2, pp.66-75.

Peuce X, pp.13-19. Lungu, A.D.G., 1987, Construirea si rascumpararea liniei ferate Constanta-Cernavoda, Pontica XX, pp. 267274. Marangou, C., 2003, Neolithic watercraft in Greece: Circumstantial evidence and serious guesses, in Beltrame, C., (ed.), Boats, ships and shipsyards. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on boat and ship archaeology, Venice 2000, Oxbow Books, Oxford. Marangou, C. 2001a, Neolithic watercraft: Evidence from Northern Wetlands, in Purdy. A., B. (ed.), Enduring Records. The Environmental and Cultural Heritage of Wetlands, pp. 191-205. Marangou, C. 2001b, Neolithic craft: Evidence about boat types and uses, in Bassiakos, Y., Aloupi, E., and Facorellis, Y. (eds.), Archaeometry issues in Greek Prehistory and Antiquity, Hellenic Society of Archaeometry and Society of Messenian Archaeological Studies, Athens. Marangou, C., 1991, Maquettes d’enbarcations: Les débuts, in Thalassa. L’Egée prehistorique et la mer, Actes de la troisième Rencontre égéenne internationale de l’Université de Liège, Université de Liège, pp.21-50. Marinescu-Bilcu, S., 1997, Archaeological researches at Bordusani – popina (Ialomita County). Preliminary report 1993 – 1994, Cercetari arheologice X, pp. 3540. Marinescu-Bilcu, S., Voinea, V., Dumitrescu, S., Haita, C., Moise, D., and Radu., V., 2000-2001, Asezarea eneolitica de pe insula « La Ostrov », lacul Tasaul (Navodari, Jud. Constanta). Raport preliminary – Campaniile 1999-2000, Pontica XXXIII-XXXIV, pp. 123-131. McGrail, S., 2001, Boats of the World. From the Stone Age to Medieval times, Oxford University Press, Oxford. McGrail, S., 1987, Ancient boats of N.W.Europe. The Archaeology of water transport to A.D. 1500, Longman, London and New York. McGrail, S., 1985, Towards a classification of water transport, World archaeology 16, 3, pp. 289-303. Moise, D., 2000, Etude du materiel osteologique appurtenant aux mamiferes, decouvert dans le Complexe 521 (depotoir) sur le tell neo-eneolithique de Hirsova (dep. De Constanta), Cercetari arheologice XI, pp.84-111. Neagu, M. 2000, Comunitatile Boian-Giulesti din Valea Dunarii, Istros X, 25-34. Neagu, M., 1997, Comunitatile Bolintineanu in Campia Dunarii, Istros VIII. Oberlander- Tarnoveanu, E. and Oberlander-Tarnoveanu, I., 1979, Asezarea enoliticica si necropola de la Sarichioi, Materiale, Oradea, pp. 58-70. Pandrea, S., 2002, Debut de la culture Goumelnitsa au nord de la Plaine Roumaine, Cultura si civilizatie la Dunarea de Jos, XIX, pp.122-146. Pandrea, S., 2000, Cateva observatii privitoare la periodizarea culturii Boian, Istros X, pp. 35-70. 100

DRAGOS GHEORGHIU: PORTAGES IN PREHISTORIC SOCIETIES – EVIDENCE FROM THE LOWER DANUBE Tomescu, I., 1996-1998, Rezultate preliminare la flora arborescenta obtinuta prin analiza materialului lemons provenit din asezarea eneolitica, Buletinul Muzeului “Teohari Antonescu”, pp.107-113. Tringham,R., and Krstic, D., 1990, Selevac. A Neolithic village in Yugoslavia, Monumenta Archaeologica 15, UCLA, Institute of Archaeology, Los Angeles California. Turner, V., 1969, The Ritual process, Penguin, Harmondsworth. Uchupi, E and Ross, D.A., 2000, Early Holocene marine flooding of the Black Sea, Quaternary Research 54, pp. 68-71. Ursulescu, N.,1998, Inceputurile istoriei pe teritoriul Romaniei, Demiurg, Iasi. Valsan, G., 1971, Opere alese, Editura Stiintifica, Bucharest. Van Gennep, A., 1960, The Rites of passage, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London Vespremeanau, E., 2004, Geografia Marii Negre, Bucharest University, Bucharest. Voinea, V., 1997,Artifacts made from hard raw material of animal origin, Cercetari arheologice X, pp. 72-84. Westerdahl,C., 2003, Eid och båtdrag, Agder Historielag 79, pp.44-64. Willms, C., 1985, Neolitischer Spondylusschmuck. Hundert Jahre Forschung, Germania 63, pp. 331-341.

101

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

102

Portages in the Late Bronze Age of NW Germany Olaf Höckmann When dealing with the phenomenon of Portages, one may ask what the term means. As far as my knowledge goes, it was coined in French Canada by traders − socalled voyageurs − who went west the indigenous style in bark canoes, and carried them around rapids, or across watersheds. In French, a portage so is ’un lieu où un bateau est porté autour d’un obstacle’.

Adriatic was caused by the existence of an overland “cargo portage”. In the Iron Age there is a concentration of finds conspicuous both from a quantitative, and a qualitative angle, in the area between the former Ljubljansko Barje bog or in German, Laibacher Moor that formed part of the Black Sea catchment, and the river Isonzo that discharges into the Adriatic.

Such obstacles were formed not only by rapids but in a wider sense, by watersheds as well, unless even more. They indeed did interrupt river communications, and were dealt with in a variety of ways. The ideal one was by constructing installations across the watershed by which the ships themselves could be moved from the one body of water to the other. Let me mention one example, namely the diolkos across the isthmus of Corinth, in Greece. Twice in Antiquity it was attempted to solve the problem of connecting the Gulf of Corinth, leading towards the Adriatic, with the Saronic Gulf being part of the Aegean, by cutting a canal across the isthmus, but both attempts were doomed primarily for technical reasons. In the earlier case the tyrant of Corinth, Periandros (c. 600−560 BC), is said to have installed the diolkos when the canal project was abandoned.

I would try to demonstrate that archaeological data suggests a comparable situation in the Late Bronze Age of Northwest Germany (Fig. 1). ⎯ Let me define what “Northwest Germany” means. It is bordered in the south by the river Lippe, discharging into the Rhine, and so finally the North Sea. In the west the Dutch border sets an artificial limitation. In the north there are the North Sea, and the river Elbe for borders. The eastern border is less clearly defined. − Fig. 1 demonstrates that I shall transgress this area for including a watershed between the the river Alster debouching into the Elbe, i.e. the North Sea, and the river Trave flowing east toward the Baltic. In the Middle Age, on the lower Trave there arose the city of Lübeck, the “capital” of the Hanseatic League of so-to-speak independent cities2 that for a while controlled oversea trade from the Biscaya to now NW Russia. Lübeck had in the 14th century built the earliest artificial waterway connecting it with the river Elbe, namely the Stecknitz canal. A major raison d’être is thought to have been to give Lübeck an easy access to the salt-pans of Lüneburg. Salt was vital for preserving the herrings fished by Hanseatic towns, and exported S to the inland. This data favours the idea that already in the Bronze Age, this portage between the North Sea and the Baltic may be thought to have formed a major highway.

In a second place there may be taken for sure that small vessels used to be carried or pushed across watersheds without any built installations, so to speak the Canadian way. Some portages of this type were long, as the one the Vikings used for getting to the Black Sea demonstrates. Finally, in many cases the cargo only, and its owner was moved across a watershed by land transportation, for there getting along in a chartered boat on the river that would take them to their final destination. I would suggest the term “cargo portages” for such cases. A splendid example is formed by the mountain route connecting the catchment of the river Sava discharging into the Black Sea, in Slovenia, with the river Isonzo discharging into the Adriatic. It is likely that it gave rise to the long-lived idea that the Danube not only discharged into the Black Sea, but by a branch into the Adriatic also. The case is instructive from two points of view. On the one hand, the Argonauts tale the core of which goes back to Bronze Age traditions,1 may be cited for a literary source. The Argonauts managed to escape their Kolchian persecutors by sailing up the Danube to the point where “it sent a branch toward the Adriatic”, and in the tale this branch then took them home to the Mediterranean. Archaeological data, on the other hand, suggest that the long-lived idea of a Danube branch discharging into the 1

Most of Northwest Germany is part of the Great Plain belt that stretches from Flanders to the Baltic countries. A considerable part of it was rendered inhabitable by peat bogs shown grey in Fig. 1. Since their main direction runs SW − NE, for E − W traffic across the bogs by carts or pedestrians, trackways had been built from the Neolithic on. The largest bog of all, the Bourtange Bog, now straddles the Dutch border, right in the W in Fig. 1. In the LBA it formed a shallow lake that turned bog only after a natural “retaining dam” broke sometime about the 6th century BC.3 The situation will have had some bearing on the emergence of a rich LBA “centre” at Drouwen in the province of Drenthe in the Netherlands (Fig. 1: 4) that 2 In theory they formed part of the Medieval Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation but in fact this dependance was more or less formal. 3 Casparie 1986, 180; 205.

E.g. Braund 1998, 289.

103

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1 LBA hoards and extraordinary single finds connected with watersheds or rivers in northwestern Germany and adjacent areas: 1 Rheda.- 2 Münster-Gittrup.- 3 Gleesen.- 4 Drouwen.- 5 Melle.- 6 River Lesum.- 7 Garlstedt.- 8 Deinstedt.- 9 Oerel.- 10 Stade.- 11 Hamburg-Volksdorf.- 12 Bad Oldesloe.- 13 Mönkhof.- 14 Hemmelsdorf. Dot: hoard in a portage situation.- Circle: other hoard connected with river navigation.- Triangle: extraordinary single find.

was connected with regions as distant as North Germany or Jutland, and Central Germany.4

not check the data but feel sure that more than 90 % of all finds are formed by cremation burials in plain urns without any conspicuous gravegoods.6 The deficience in weapons is particularly striking when compared with the situation in adjacent areas, and the same holds true of hoards of bronze objects, or gold ornaments. The few

From an archaeological point of view, NW Germany in the LBA presents a thought-provoking image. On the one hand, sites are as numerous as again only in the Middle Age, suggesting a considerable population.5 On the other, however, finds as a rule are utterly inconspicuous. I did 4 5

6 Voss 1967, 39 calculates that c. 1 % of all LBA tombs in Westfalia contained any bronze items at all, rarely larger than pins, razors, or pincers.

Butler 1986. Wilhelmi 1983, 62.

104

OLAF HÖCKMANN: PORTAGES IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE OF NW GERMANY or three logboats, but there may be thought that more boats were involved which carried but a couple of kilograms each.10 But if the loss of bronze could not be replenished regularly, the North would by and by have been depleted of the stock of metal needed for its production of both utility items but also of prestige objects. Denmark, and all of Scandinavia could not do without fresh bronze regularly arriving from the Urnfield area, via NW Germany, or another passage farther E, emanating from the Lausitz civilisation, that need not occupy us now. The situation is mirrored by the fact that so to speak all LBA bronzes found in NW Germany, had their origins either in the Urnfield or the Nordic area, or imitate prototypes from there. This holds true both for “utility bronzes” for everyday use, and for prestige objects.11 Eventually, both classes may have reached the North in separate ways. It is the class of prestige bronzes that by its distribution suggests some connection with water-ways more clearly than that of “utility bronzes” (Fig. 1).

exceptions from this rule will later form the focus of my paper. At a first glance the situation suggests that NW Germany was a backward area densely settled by people living at a level of material culture not much more advanced than in the Stone Age. It would be most striking, and hard to understand for the reason that both in the north and the south there abutted civilisations with plenty of highly conspicuous metalwork, namely the so-called Urnfield culture in S Germany and parts of France, and the Nordic Bronze Age in N Germany, and S Scandinavia. There rule crucial differences in the conditions of metal supply among both civilisations. The Urnfield one had easy access to copper that was mined e.g. in the Alps while tin was available primarily but not only, in Cornwall. How abundant bronze was is demonstrated by several hoards of “Launac” type in France, containing hundreds of worn bronze objects each, that seem to have been meant for being exported to Etruria for raw material.7

There can be generalised that NW Germany drains toward the North Sea by the major rivers Ems, Weser, and Elbe (Fig. 1). While their prevailing directions run N or NE, the river Ems first sets off from its sources in the hill country of eastern Westfalia, on a westerly course. Within this section it runs more or less parallel to the river Lippe, S of it. In the vicinity of the towns of Rheda, on the Ems (Fig. 1: 1), and Lippstadt on the Lippe, both rivers approach each other to a couple of miles, with no natural obstacle of any kind inbetween.

As opposed to this, the Nordic BA had hardly any sources of metal of its own. Native copper on the island of Helgoland seems to have been exploited to some degree8 but it certainly could not contribute much to supplying the Nordic area with copper. Moreover, tin would at all accounts have to be imported from somewhere else. For whatever reason the people of the Nordic BA chose being supplied by importing finished bronze objects, from the south. Then, the nearest provider would have been the Urnfield area in S Germany on the one hand, and the Lausitz civilisation in Central and E Germany, and W Poland on the other. In the present context only the former will be considered.

The situation is peculiar insofar as the r. Lippe does not discharge into the North Sea directly as the Ems does, but forms part of the catchment of the large river Rhine. It starts its long way to the North Sea, far away in the Alps. Later it passes through SW Germany, i.e. the core area of the Urnfield civilisation, before meeting the debouchure of the r. Lippe, and finally the sea. The Urnfield people did utilise water-ways, as several dugouts from the Swiss lakes demonstrate.12 Not too far distant, in SW Germany,

There is no alternative to interpreting NW Germany as one vital transit area for supplying the Nordic civilisation with bronze.The amount needed in Denmark per year for replacing the “consumption” by deposition in tombs and hoards, has been calculated as no more than c. 120-200 kg.9 That is as little as could have been transported in two

10 There is not the slightest bit of evidence as to how Urnfield wagons crossed the r. Elbe or the straights between the island of Als, and Fyn. If they had been sent N fully assembled, they would have called for vessels of considerable size for taking them to Fyn. As opposed to this, the Stade find makes think the wagons arrived at the r. Elbe in a dismounted state that would have eased their being shipped in small vessels. The case is open. 11 There even are finds of scrap from Nordic bronze objects in the Urnfield area (e.g. Höckmann 1974). They might have arrived there in the luggage of itinerant Urnfield bronze-workers who for a while had worked in the North, and been paid in whatever bronze scrap then at hand. Even more intriguing is the find of an undamaged bronze belt-box of Nordic type in the Urnfield settlement of Corcelettes, in Switzerland (Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 116 no. 434; pl. 324). It differs from genuine Nordic ones in some respects, and so might be understood to be the product of an Urnfield bronzeworker who for some time had worked in NW Germany or Jutland. At Corcelettes also was found a scrap fragment of a genuine Nordic belt-box likely produced near the lower r. Elbe (Thrane 1975, 226 fig. 127.- Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 116 no. 435; pl. 324), supporting the view that there had existed direct contacts between Corcelettes and the Nordic sphere. 12 Arnold 1995/6.

7 As to such hoards: Gras 1985, 157. The cargo of a wreck at Rochelongues off the Mediterranean coast of France (Bouscaras − Hugues 1972) supports the view of Gras that bronze scrap from different periods but now mixed together, was in the 6th century BC exported from Gaul to somewhere else in the Mediterranean, likely Etruria which then provided Gaul’s upper class with the beloved wine (Höckmann 2001, 234 with note 40; 242). At the same time in the Black Sea area, relations between the Greeks, and the Thracians and Scythians, seem to have relied on the supply of wine to the barbarians as well. 8 Lorenzen 1965.- Hänsel 1982. 9 Kristiansen 1981, 258 calculates c. 40-50 kg for Zealand, and four to five times that much 160-250 kg) for all of Denmark. Since Zealand was supplied by channels farther E, there results the amount of c. 120200 kg that will have passed through NW Germany. In the case of “plain bronzes” for everyday use it is not known who was in charge of such transports, as opposed to the transfer of prestige goods that may be thought to have been exchanged among élite communities as princely gifts, or dowries.

105

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

the fortified settlement of Burkheim where bronze was worked, is situated right on the Upper Rhine.13 In my opinion there may be thought that Urnfield bronzework went on its long way to Scandinavia first on the Rhine. The r. Lippe then would have presented an access to NW Germany, and finally, W Denmark. There exists another passage into NW Germany farther E. It is formed by the river Ruhr of the Rhine catchment that approaches the Hoppecke creek of the catchment of the r. Weser to less than 2 miles, near Gevelinghausen on the Ruhr. The Ruhr was navigable at Gevelinghausen and beyond while the Hoppecke is not, but after a couple of miles it meets the river Eder, a tributary of the Weser, which was navigable by Bronze Age boats. At Gevelinghausen a unique prestige object came to light, namely a richly ornamented amphora of hammered bronze (Fig. 2,1).14 One production centre of such sheetbronze vessels was as far distant as Etruria, whereas the northernmost finds were excavated on the island of Fyn.15 Another hint at a significant rôle of the r. Ruhr is given by a deposit of three urnfield swords at Hagen, on that river.16 There becomes apparent how important the transit area between the bronze-exporting Urnfields to the S, and the bronze-importing Nordic lands was.17 The immediate reason for the deposition, eventually as an urn, of the spectacular amphora at the watershed near Gevelinghausen formed by no more than a single hill, cannot be specified, and I would refrain from presenting any suggestion. There did not exist any “centre” around Gevelinghausen, as far as the finds now known imply. The more unlikely it is that the extremely valuable amphora was deposited at this very watershed by no more than chance, the less so since this is not the only find of this kind in NW Germany, during the LBA. A similar case is formed by the find of an intact Urnfield sword of Auvernier type, the only one of this type far and wide, on the small river Else at Melle (Fig. 1: 5; 2,2).18 Its early, ambiguous find documentation has by Tackenberg 1974 meticulously been assessed. There cannot be any doubt that the sword had been found in the wetland next to the river at Melle.

13

Grimmer-Dehn 1991, 97 ff. Jockenhövel 1974.- Thrane 1978, 27; 28.- Wilhelmi 1985, 33 ff.Jockenhövel 1994, 83 fig. 79.- Kristiansen 1998, 170; fig. 88. − Produced N of the Alps, imitating Villanova prototypes in Italy: Jockenhövel 1974, 36.- Thrane 1978, 27. 15 Thrane 1966 (Per. IV).- Thrane 1978 (Per. V). 16 Aschemeyer 1966, 68 no. 2; pl. 35,2.- Thrane 1968, 159 Abb. 6 no. 10.- Wilhelmi 1985, 30 fig. 25,1-3. 17 There needs to have existed a system of exchange, but it cannot yet be finally asessed what the Nordic lands had to offer in return for bronze and gold, implying it consisted of substances that did not leave any traces to be found in excavations (e.g. cattle, furs, amber from Jutland on its way to the Mediterranean, or slaves ?). 18 Tackenberg 1964. 14

Fig. 2 Extraordinary Urnfield bronzes found in northwestern Germany and adjacent areas: 1 Hammered-bronze amphora from Gevelinghausen.2 Auvernier-type sword from Melle. 3 Helmet “from the river Lesum”. 4 One of four bronze wheels found at Stade.

106

OLAF HÖCKMANN: PORTAGES IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE OF NW GERMANY

Fig. 3 Cast-bronze belt-boxes from Westfalia and the Netherlands: 1 Münster-Gittrup. 2 Rheda. 3 Gleesen. 4 Drouwen, The Netherlands.

settlement but it has not yet been hit by archaeologists’ trovels. What is known are on the one hand, extensive urn cemeteries nearby,19 and on the other, some conspicuous bronzes that seem to have formed gravegoods in the cremation burial of a child.20

The situation would not be singular but for the fact that c. 2 miles W of the site, the Else approaches the river Hase to c. 200 m, at Melle-Gesmold (Fig. 1: 5). The Else flows E toward the r. Weser whereas the Hase flows W towards the r. Ems. Both rivers form a W-E interconnection between two of the three major rivers in NW Germany. It regained actuality during the Roman presence in the early 1st century AD. In the 13th or 14th century AD a short “canal” was dug for diverting water from the Hase to the Else, in favour of the Else watermill at Melle. This made the place one among very few “bifurcations” in Europe. The short ditch could not be sailed even by very small boats, and certainly nobody ever tried to do so.

The find confronts us with the most spectacular type of Nordic prestige bronzes, namely what are called “suspension vessels” (Danish: “haengekar”, or “Hängebecken” in German) or more appropriate, belt boxes. These items look like vessels (Fig. 3) but they certainly were something else than mere containers. They seem to have been stately ornaments worn on the belts of women of high status,21 within societies of a hierarchic structure that may be called chiefdoms.22

The r. Else could not be navigated yet at Melle. Some miles of formerly swampy soil separate the places from where on small boats could sail both rivers. That makes the situation at Melle a portage in its strict sense, since at a small distance from both rivers there would have been land byways on dry soil. They could e.g. have been used by wagons like the ones that used the bog trackways farther N, for moving cargoes across watersheds.

These bronze belt-boxes of which more than 400 are known, differ from Urnfield vessels imported to the Nordic area by being not chased but cast. That has been my reason for neutrally calling them “cast bronze bowls” in Sprockhoff (Höckmann 1979), for becoming independent from any hypothesis on their former use. The mastery of the founders in casting “vessels” with walls no more than 1 mm thick, has not been attained again ever since.

Both cases discussed, Gevelinghausen as well as Melle, intrigue by their situations within long-range traffic systems in LBA Germany. Both finds, however, cannot yet be put into a social context, but now seem to be isolated phenomena.

One such “bowl” had at Rheda served for the urn of a cremated child. Other bronze gravegoods as e.g., horsegear, also stand out among what is regular in the

⎯ 19

Höckmann, in print. Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 113 no. 414; pl. 311.- Wilhelmi 1985, 31 sq., fig. 26. 21 Kristiansen 1974.- Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 8; 10; 13 f.; 20 f.; 22; 25. 22 Service 1977, 39 ff.

A different case is formed by an LBA site at Rheda where the rivers Lippe and Ems both navigable there, approach each other to a couple of miles of smooth ground (Fig. 1: 1). There can be thought that there existed an affluent

20

107

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

LBA of Westfalia, and emphasise the prestigious status of that child, and in a wider sense the settlement itself. It may justly be called a “centre”, be it in the Danish sense of a place of extraordinary affluence, a rigdomscenter, or just a place of extraordinary size as becomes apparent by the vast urn cemeteries next to it.

hardly credible that such exorbitant objects of an incalculable worth reached the North just by some form of trade in its modern sense. They rather may be thought to have formed diplomatic gifts or dowries among princely families of the Urnfield area, and chiefly ones in Denmark that knew of each other, and formed alliances in order to safeguard stable conditions for long-range “trade”.30

This outstanding status hardly can be thought to go back to mere chance, but rather will depend on the watershed situation between the rivers Lippe, of the Rhine catchment, and the r. Ems. There are more such extraordinary settlements on the r. Ems that seems to have formed the lifeline of the regional LBA group. Verlinde’s naming this group “Ems culture” is appropriate.23

Two hoards with two cast belt-boxes each in the centre of the “Triangle”, found at Oerel (fig. 1: 9)31 and Deinstedt (Fig. 1: 8),32 might eventually be related to a portage-like cross connection between the Weser, and the Elbe via the smaller rivers Geeste in the W, and Schwinge in the E where the bronze wheels were found. One of the Oerel belt-boxes seems to be an ancestor of the small group of such objects in Westfalia and the Netherlands (Fig. 3).

The map (Fig. 1) demonstrates that Urnfield bronzes destined for W Denmark, had to find their way between the many peat-bogs until finally arriving at the “triangle” between the capital rivers Weser, and Elbe. Likely people from Westfalia, i.e. the Ems country, played some rôle in that trade system, as can be deduced from some finds of “keyhole tombs” of Westfalian type, differing from the local types, up to Uthlede on the Lower Weser.24

As opposed to all other belt-boxes in the “Triangle” it differs from genuine Nordic ones and may be thought to have been produced by a local bronzeworker of nonNordic stock, in a somewhat loose imitation of “imported” Nordic prototypes as were found in the “Triangle”. The Oerel one is similar enough to the earliest belt-box on the r. Ems, found at Münster-Gittrup (Fig. 1, 2; 3,1)33 for making think that the “Gittrup founder” had either been at home in the “Triangle” himself, or received strong impulses from there. In either case there may be surmised that the most opulent Nordic type of female prestige object was transferred to Westfalia as a personal belonging of an élite woman from the “Triangle” who may be thought to have become married to a far-away chief of the Ems culture for sealing a long-range alliance (note 30) meant for securing a permanent supply of bronze from the S, to some chiefdom in the “Triangle” that reaped profit from passing bronzes northward to W Denmark. It will also in exchange have forwarded some products of Denmark southward, but their nature or destination have not been assessed yet. Gittrup anyway formed the starting-point for the production and distribution of belt-boxes found at Rheda (Fig. 1: 1; 3,2), Gleesen (Fig. 1: 3; 3,3), and less closely dependent, at Drouwen in the Netherlands (Fig. 1: 4; 3,4).

Other singular finds demonstrate that the “Triangle” formed a focus in the “trade” contacts among the “southern” suppliers of urnfield bronzes, and the “northern” consumers in a wider sense who had formed a bridgehead S of the r. Elbe for meeting the imports early, and channeling them into the wanted directions. Among these singular finds there may first be mentioned the only Nordic lure found in Germany, at Garlstedt (Fig. 1: 7).25 Two finds of extravagant Urnfield bronzes emphasise that southern “traders” (?) directed their interests to the “Triangle” for meeting a calculable demand. One is a bronze helmet from the Urnfield area dredged from the r. Lesum, on the W flank of the “Triangle”, long ago (fig. 1: 6; 2,3).26 It is unique in the North. On the E side there came to light a find even more impressive, at Stade on the r. Schwinge, namely four cast-bronze wheels for a wagon (fig. 1: 10; 2,4).27 Bronze items belonging to Urnfield wagons were also found in the Helleved hoard on the Danish island of Als as a stepping-stone from the mainland,28 and Fyn as their final destination.29 It is

In the strict sense the r. Elbe forms the northern border of NW Germany. Let us, however, finally cross the river for a look at a portage situation connecting the r. Elbe, with the Baltic. It already has been mentioned above. The Elbe branch of it is formed by the r. Alster that debouches into the r. Elbe, at Hamburg (Fig. 1: 11). Right there, at Hamburg-Volksdorf (Fig. 1: 11), a Nordic belt-box came

23

Verlinde 1985, 368 ff.; 399 ff. 24 Meyer − Tempel 1980, 160.- Wilbertz 1983-4.- Verlinde 1985, 373.Eckert 1996, 244 ff. (keyhole tombs at Vechta). 25 Jacob-Friesen 1963, 351 fig. 350.- Häßler 1991, 497. 26 Jacob-Friesen 1963, 352 sq.; fig. 296.- Hencken 1971, 57; 64.Jockenhövel 1994, 66 fig. 60 (W. Kubach). 27 Jacob-Friesen 1927.- Drescher 1958.- Pare 1987, 49 no. 7; 50 sq. fig. 19; 20,1.- Häßler 1991, 525; pl. 9.- Jockenhövel 1994, 92 fig. 88 (G. Weber). 28 There is a hollow-cast bronze ornament from the yoke of a pair of wagon-horses: Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 72 no. 146; pl. 336 no. 641. 29 Jacob-Friesen 1970.- Thrane 1975, 126; 129 f.- Pare 1987, 46 no. 4; 7; 49 fig. 18,1.3.5.- Schovsbo 1987. If a certain type of flat-headed nail known from wagon burials in S Germany, in Funish hoards is taken for assessing Urnfield wagons in Fyn, the total would amount to no less

than five such finds. So extraordinary a concentration in so small an area as Fyn, only can be explained by direct contacts with the Urnfield world, at an élite level (see n. 30). 30 Kristiansen 1993. 31 Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 113 no. 411-2; pl. 309. 32 Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 109 no. 388-9; pl. 291-2. 33 Neujahrsgruß Münster 1987, 56, fig. 26.- Schumacher-Matthäus 1990, 158 sq., fig.- Höckmann, in print.

108

OLAF HÖCKMANN: PORTAGES IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE OF NW GERMANY Urnfield vessel on the Swiss lakes but rather looks like a hide boat on a wooden frame, so to speak a kind of curragh, as such boats of Celtic ancestry on the W coasts of Scotland and Ireland were called.40 Hide-boats of one kind or the other were known in NW Germany early.41 They were light enough for having been carried across watersheds, as the one between the rivers Lippe, and Ems at Rheda (Fig. 1: 1), like it was done by Canadian “voyageur” traders travelling in Indian-type bark canoes.42 It would, however, be rash to pretend being known that this very type also served the Alster-Trave portage, where so to speak seagoing boats might have crossed the watershed between the North Sea, and the Baltic (Fig. 1), so to speak anticipating a Viking-Age portage connecting both seas, based on the prominent trading-place of Haithabu, near Schleswig. − If the eventual portage between the rivers Geeste, and Schwinge in the Elbe - Weser “Triangle” (Fig. 1: 11) really existed, it is more likely to have been traversed by light river boats than by sea-going ones, unless by only the cargo.

to light long ago, in a situation ambiguous to interpret when having to base oneself on the old documentation.34 The find can go back either to a belt-box foundry, or a group of “fire pits” that seem to have played some rôle in a kind of fairs where multitudes of people met.35 The latter might suggest a somewhat “commercial” interpretation of major bronze hoards in the southern contact area of the Nordic sphere, as opposed to the one suggested above by the exchange of gifts among élite families. After a land bridge of c. 10 km of dry land the Baltic branch of this portage as is formed by the r. Trave, is met (Fig. 1). Where it comes closest to the Alster, at Bad Oldesloe (Fig. 1: 12), three hoards were deposited during Per. IV-V, two of which contained belt boxes, and one, two finger rings of gold, as is extremely rare in LBA finds both Nordic, and NW German. Moreover, there exists a report on a sword not preserved itself.36 Since swords seem to have been the “male” equivalents to “female” belt-boxes as top-ranking prestige goods, there exists a conspicuous concentration of paramount bronzes, plus the gold ringlets, of Per. IV and Per. V date at Bad Oldesloe. There hardly can be any doubt about the reason for its existence, since midway between Lübeck and the Baltic, another belt-box hoard at Mönkhof (Fig. 1: 13)37 adds to this concentration along the r. In addition, few kilometres distant, right N of the Trave’s debouchure into the Lübeck Bay, there came to light another belt-box hoard at Hemmelsdorf (Fig. 1: 14).38 If the belt-box from Hamburg-Volksdorf mentioned above, found few miles distant from the lower course of the r. Alster, is added to this context, the final number of six finds within this concentration of top-ranking prestige bronzes within a closely limited area may be called singular in the LBA of the North. It calls for a special explanation. In my opinion there is no alternative to connecting it with the portage situation between the North Sea, and the Baltic. ⎯

Fig. 4 Fragmented clay boat model, from an urn burial of local type at Datteln-Natrop-Klostern, on the river Lippe. (After Höckmann, in print).

Is there any evidence as to how such portages functioned? The only archaeological document is the photograph of an old find of a fragment of the LBA clay model of a boat, lost in World War II, from the r. Lippe (Fig. 4).39 It certainly cannot mean a dugout as was the regular

At the Rheda portage (Fig. 1: 1), both the r. Lippe and the r. Ems were navigable for river boats. As opposed to this there might be thought that at Gevelinghausen or Melle (Fig. 1: 5) no boats were carried across the watersheds. I pointed out that in both cases one water-way of both was too small for being navigated right away. In these cases the portage situations might have meant that precious cargoes were carried over land, implying that on the next river another boat could be chartered for getting on toward the final destination.

Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 111 no. 399; pl. 299. Thrane 1974.- Horst 1978.- Ders. 1985, 121 ff.- Christensen 1986.Schünemann − Hasselhof 1987. 36 Hingst 1959, 151 ff.- Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 108 no. 384-5; pl. 287-8. 37 Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 113 no. 410; pl. 306.- Höckmann 1981. The badly preserved belt-box represents a rare variant of the general type, likely to be connected with the Danish islands S of Fyn. 38 Sprockhoff − Höckmann 1979, 111 no. 401; pl. 302. - Further N more belt-box and sword hoards confirm that the Alster-Trave portage formed a major component in supplying W Denmark with Urnfield bronze. It seems to have been controlled by local chiefs who thus became wealthy enough to deposit exorbitant hoards. 39 Eggenstein 1995, 48.- Höckmann 2000, 88 fig. 5.4.- Höckmann, in print. 34 35

40 Höckmann 2000, 88.- Höckmann, in print. As to curraghs: Hornell 1970, 136 ff.; 175 ff.; 179 ff.- Johnstone 1980, 37 ff.; 42 sq.; 56 sq. 41 Ellmers 1985, 55 ff. 42 Nute 1966.

109

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

I would, however, suggest to keep in mind that in so unsymmetric a watershed situation, an empty boat could easily have been floated downstream in a water-course too shallow for being sailed by a loaded one. Even if eventually, cargo also would have to be carried, moving the boat across the watershed would not have formed a prohibitively difficult task. I on my own cannot cite any other reason for this suggestion but common sense, but hopefully one or the other colleague will be able to present written evidence from later situations that might be applied to such situations in Prehistory.

Drenthe, The Netherlands. Palaeohistoria 28, 169210. Drescher, H. 1958: Der Überfangguß. Ein Beitrag zur vorgeschichtlichen Metalltechnik (Mainz). Eckert, J. 1996: Bericht der Archäologischen Denkmalpflege 1995. Niedersächsisches Landesverwaltungsamt. Institut für Denkmalpflege, Außenstelle Weser-Ems. Oldenburger Jahrb. 96, 229-249. Ellmers, D. 1985: 200 Jahre Schiffsarchäologie im Flußgebiet der Weser. Deutsches Schiffahrtsarchiv 8, 43-94. Eggenstein, H. 1995: Die frühen Ausgrabungen Albert Baums 1897/8 an der Lippe in den Gemeinden Waltrop, Datteln und Selm. Ausgrabungen u. Funde in Westfalen-Lippe 9B, 35-94. Gras, M. 1985: Aspects de l’économie maritime étrusque. Ktema 10, 149-159. Grimmer-Dehn, B. 1991: Die Urnenfelderkultur im südöstlichen Oberrheingraben. Materialhefte zur Voru. Frühgesch. 15 (Stuttgart). Hänsel, B. 1982: Frühe Kupferverhüttung auf Helgoland. Archeologia Polski 27, 319-322. Häßler, H.-J. 1991: Ur- und Frühgeschichte in Niedersachsen (Stuttgart). Hencken, H. O’Neill 1971: The Earliest European Helmets. Bull.Amer.School Prehist.Res., 28 (Cambridge/Mass.). Hingst, H. 1959: Vorgeschichte des Kreises Stormarn. Die vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Denkmäler und Funde in Schleswig-Holstein, 5 (Neumünster). Höckmann, O. 1974: Zu den Resten nordischer Bronzebecken aus dem Fund von Petit-Villatte. In: O. Höckmann et al. (Hrsg.), Festgabe Kurt Tackenberg zum 75. Geburtstage von seinen Schülern dargebracht. Antiquitas Reihe 2 Bd. 10, 85-109 (Bonn). Höckmann, O. 2000: Late Bronze Age Prestige Goods and Water-ways in Northwest Germany. In: IKUWA.. Schutz des Kulturerbes unter Wasser. Beiträge zur Ur- und Frühgeschichte Mecklenburg-Vorpommerns 35 (Lübstorf). Höckmann, O. 2001: Etruskische Scxhiffahrt. Jahrb.RGZM 48, 227-308. Höckmann, O. in print: Ein gegossenes Bronzebecken aus Gittrup, Stadt Münster/Westf. Ausgrabungen u. Funde in Westfalen − Lippe 10. Hornell, J. 1970: Water Transport.Origins and Early Evolution (Newton Abbot). Jacob-Friesen, K.H. 1927: Der Bronzeräderfund von Stade. Prähistor.Zeitschr. 18, 154-186. Jacob-Friesen, K.H. 1963: Einführung in Niedersachsens Urgeschichte, II (4th ed.; Hildesheim). Jockenhövel, A. 1974: Eine Bronzeamphore des 8. Jahrhunderts von Gevelinghausen, Kr. Meschede (Sauerland). Germania 52, 16-54. Jockenhövel, A. (ed.) 1994: Bronzezeit in Deutschland. Special no. of Archäologie in Deutschland (Stuttgart). Johnstone, P. 1980: The Sea-craft of Prehistory (London − Henley).

Let us sum up. In the LBA, NW Germany formed one crucial transit area for supplying the Nordic Bronze Age culture with bronze objects finished in the Urnfield area of S Central Europe, many of which in the North were melted down for raw material. The finds presented above, make think that in the LBA of NW Germany an intricate system existed for providing the Nordic countries with bronze of Urnfield origin. Some outstanding LBA finds at watersheds in NW and N Germany suggest that such places were special. They seem to have been controlled by local chiefs who one way or the other profited from the transit “trade”, obtaining riches part of which they for reasons not understood yet, gave away in extraordinary bronze depositions near watersheds.43 Acknowledgements Assistance of various kinds by drs Susanne Greiff and H.G. Frenz is warmly appreciated. References Arnold, B. 1995/6: Pirogues monoxyles d’Europe centrale. Construction, typologie, évolution. Arch. neuchâteloise 20/21 (St.-Blaise). Aschemeyer, H. 1966: Die Gräber der jüngeren Bronzezeit im westlichen Westfalen. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 9 (Münster/Westf.). Bouscaras, A. − C. Hugues 1972: La cargaison de bronzes de Rochelongues (Agde, Hérault). In: Omaggio a Fernand Benoit I = Riv.Studi Liguri 33, 1967 [1972], 173-184. Braund, D. 1998: Writing and Re-Inventing Colonial Origins: Problems from Colchis and the Bosporus. In: G.R. Tsetskhladze (ed.), The Greek Colonisation of the Black Sea Area. Historia Einzelschr. 121 (Stuttgart). Butler, J.J. 1986: Drouwen: End of a ‘Nordic’ Rainbow ? Palaeohistoria 28, 133-168. Casparie, W.A. 1986: The Two Iron Age Trackways XIV (Bou) and XV (Bou) in the Raised Bog of Southeast 43 Kristiansen 1998, 174 already observed that there existed some “centres of wealth” in “entrance” positions to the Nordic sphere. He applied the observation especially to Seddin, E of NW Germany, but it can be generalised.

110

OLAF HÖCKMANN: PORTAGES IN THE LATE BRONZE AGE OF NW GERMANY Thrane, H. 1984: Lusehöj ved Voldtofte − en sydvestfynsk storhöj fra yngre broncealder. Fynske Studier XIII (Odense). Verlinde, A.D. 1985: Die Gräber und Grabfunde der späten Bronzezeit und frühen Eisenzeit in Overijssel IV. Ber.ROB 35, 231-411. Voss, K.L. 1967: Die Vor- und Frühgeschichte des Kreises Ahaus. Bodenaltertümer Westfalens 10 (Münster/Westf.). Wilbertz, O.M. 1983-4: Ein Kreisgrabenfriedhof mit Schlüssellochgraben von Handrup, Ldkr. Emsland. Die Kunde N.F. 34-5, 139-155. Wilhelmi, K. 1983: Die jüngere Bronzezeit zwischen Niederrhein und Mittelweser. Kleine Schriften Marburg 15 (Marburg).

Kristiansen, K. 1981: Economic models for Bronze Age Scandinavia − towards an integrated approach. In: A. Sheridan − G. Bailey (eds.), Economic Archaeology. Towards an Integration of Ecological and Social Approaches. BAR, Internat.Ser. 96, 239-303 (Oxford). Kristiansen, K. 1993: From Villanova to Seddin. The reconstruction of an élite exchange network during the eighth century B.C. In: C. Scarre − F. Healey (Eds.), Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric Europe. Oxbow Mon. 33, 143-151 (Oxford). Kristiansen, K. 1998: Europe before History (Cambridge). Larsson, L. 1989: Bronze ! Power and wealth in Bronze Age Scandinavia. In: H.-A. Nordström − A. Knape (Eds.), Bronze Age Studies. National Museets Studier 6, 25-44 (Stockholm). Lorenzen, W. 1965: Helgoland und das früheste Kupfer des Nordens (Otterndorf). Meyer, D. − W.D. Tempel 1980: Der Hünenberg bei Uthlede, Ldkr. Cuxhaven. Archäologische Befunde aus der Frühbronzezeit, späten Bronzezeit und römischen Kaiserzeit. Nachrichten aus Niedersachsens Urgesch. 49, 153-173. Nute, G.L. 1966: The Voyageur (St. Paul 1931; Repr.). Pare, C.F.E. 1987: Der Zeremonialwagen der Bronzeund Urnenfelderzeit: seine Entstehung, Form und Verbreitung. In: Vierrädrige Wagen der Hallstattzeit. Mon.RGZM 10, 25-67 (Mainz). Schovsbo, P.O. 1987: Oldtidens Vogne i Norden (Frederikshavn). Schumacher-Matthäus, G. 1990: „Bronze”zeit in Westfalen ? In: H. Hellenkemper, H.G. Horn, H. Koschik, B. Trier (ed.), Archäologie in NordrheinWestfalen, 151-161 (Köln). Service, E.R. 1977: Ursprünge des Staates und der Zivilisation und der Prozeß der kulturellen Evolution (Frankfurt/M.). Sprockhoff, E. − O. Höckmann 1979: Die gegossenen Bronzebecken der jüngeren nordischen Bronzezeit. Katalog RGZM 19 (Mainz). Tackenberg, K. 1964: Eine unerfreuliche Fundgeschichte. Die Kunde N.F. 15, 126-131. Tackenberg, K. 1971: Die jüngere Bronzezeit in Nordwestdeutschland. Teil I. Die Bronzen. Veröffentlichungen der urgeschichtl. Samml. des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 19 (Hildesheim). Thrane, H. 1966: Dänische Funde fremder Bronzegefässe der jüngeren Bronzezeit (Periode IV). Acta Arch. 36, 157-207. Thrane, H. 1968: Eingeführte Bronzeschwerter aus Dänemarks jüngerer Bronzezeit (Periode IV-V). Acta Arch. 39, 143-218. Thrane, H. 1975: Europäiske forbindelser (Köbenhavn). Thrane, H. 1979: Fremde Bronzegefässe in südskandinavischen Funden aus der jüngeren Bronzezeit (Per. V). Acta Arch. 49, 1-35.

111

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

112

Routes to the Arctic Ocean Aspects of medieval and post medieval portage systems in the Russian north Marek E. Jasinski and Oleg V. Ovsyannikov

Introduction

cultural phenomenon, sometimes leads a researcher to the conclusion that it was invariable for centuries. However, such a conclusion is not always justified. We believe that in the course of a long practice of hunting and fishing (as well as in any other sphere of human activities), the generic designs and solutions, that were the most rational and appropriate to the real situation, have developed specific variants characteristic of a particular hunting or fishing region.

Throughout the vast expanses that stretched from northern Scandinavia to the Arctic regions of western Siberia, significant archaeological records have been discovered and investigated. These records are essential for our understanding of cultural and ethnic processes that had been taking place from circa 500 A.D. in the territories adjoining the Arctic Ocean. Archaeological data and written documents of the 17th18th centuries became the foundation for studies of colonisation of this vast region with such aspects as formation of settlement systems, development of handicrafts, transport zones and hunting and maritime economy as the focus of research.

The main portage networks In the present paper we are intending to trace some general tendencies in the formation and functioning of the system of portages in the eastern part of northern Europe (Fig. 1). These portages were related to the formation of a maritime-based type of economy and the system of portages included a number of subsystems.

In this paper, the authors consider the northern system of portages as a united trans-Arctic route dating from the Iron Age. This was a network that stretched from northern Scandinavia and the western coasts of the White Sea and Northern Dvina River to the Arctic regions of western Siberia. It consisted of two sections with the Dvina area at its core. The two sections had their specific functions and features in different periods. The Lower Dvina region permanently served as an intersection where the south-north routes crossed with the west-east ones.

1. Northern Botnia – The White Sea “Kayanskaya Zemlya” or the Kayan Land, is situated between the Gulf of Bothnia and the White Sea. Via the rivers flowing into the Gulf of Bothnia, sea-going vessels bouses and shnyakas were dragged to the eastern watershed and came to the upper Kem River and other rivers flowing into the White Sea. Via this route, the Zavolochye or “the Land beyond the Portages” was reached in the Iron Age. The portages continued to function in the 15th-16th centuries when Swedes moved their naval ships with military detachments overland and attacked Russian White Sea volosts (i.e. Pomorye region) as far east as the mouth of the Northern Dvina River. (Fig. 1; 2).

The primary subject of the present study is northern Russian boat and shipbuilding that delivered one of the crucial elements of portage infrastructure – transport vessels. The database at our disposal consists of archaeological records and information on almost 700 Pomor vessels of the 17th-18th centuries that we have gathered from various written sources. This evidence enables us not only to discard some earlier incorrect interpretations but also, more importantly, to trace the most essential patterns in the development of the Pomor boatbuilding during the period preceding the reign of Peter the Great and the early decades of the 18th century.

2. Pinezhskij portage The starting point for the further Russian colonisation eastward was that of the town of Kholmogory. It was the nucleus of manufacturing and trade of the whole of northern Pomorye up to the late 1600’s when this role was assumed by Arkhangelsk. Kholmogory controlled the mouth of the Pinega River where the Pinega portage system started. The route was defended by a system of small fortresses including the stone fortress of Orlets and the wood-and-earth forts of Pinezhskij and Verkolsky.

The formation of vast hunting and fishing regions along the Arctic coastline and on high-Arctic islands undoubtedly required corresponding development and diversity of nautical transport means. A fishing and seahunting fleet had to answer to many demands: fishermen and hunters must have had at their disposal a complete set of reliable vessels of diverse types corresponding to the structure and techniques of their occupation. Recognition of the traditional stability or certain conservatism of

The Pinega portage was a lowland route of 6 km with lakes and bogs that connected the Pinega and Kuloy rivers. In its lower reaches, the Kuloy River flows

113

Fig. 1. Map of the Russian North with the archaeological sites mentioned in the present paper.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

114

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Fig. 2. Map of Russian Lapland with the Kola Peninsula and the White Sea in the 18th Century. Russian National Library, St. Petersburg.

4. Yamal portage

through a broad gulf into the Barents Sea giving an outlet for sea hunting and fishing near the island of Morzhovets and the Kanin Peninsula (Fig. 1).

The route to the Kara Sea and the Gulf of Ob followed Yugorsky Shar Strait as far as the Yamal Peninsula. The portage across the latter was via the Mutnaya and Zelenaya rivers and a system of small lakes (its overland section amounting only to 2 km). The further way led to the mouth of the Taz River where the gateway to the whole of northern Siberia – the Russian town of Mangazeya - was founded in the 17th century. (Fig. 1; 4a, b)

3. Kanin portage Further to the east, via the sea and the mouth of the Mezen River, the portage route (6 km) of river-river type to the Peza River started. Boats bound to Kolguyev Island or to Novaya Zemlya – traditional Pomor hunting and fishing regions – could follow two routes. They could either sail around Cape Kanin Nos or use the Kanin portage crossing the Kanin Peninsula via the Chizga and Chesha rivers and reaching Cheshskaya Bay (Fig. 1; 3).

All of the above portages were intended for transporting cargos overland using horses, reindeer or manual traction. Along the portages, crosses and other route markers were installed.

115

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 3. Pezhskij Portage.

Fig. 4 a. Portage between the Mytnoj and Zelenoj Rivers.

Fig. 4 b. The Jamal portages of the Kara Sea – Ob system. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

116

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN centuries, or occasionally in the second half of the 12th century.

Genesis – hoards, graveyards and sanctuaries The genesis of portage systems in Northern Russia in the Iron Age and Medieval Period, and their initial phase of development are not easy to trace. Archaeological records from Kayanskaya Zemlya are not numerous and are mostly fortuitous. They are dated predominantly from the first half of the 10th century and have widely distributed parallels from the south-eastern Ladoga region and the Karelian Isthmus.

The difference of the Varzuga neck rings from the common Russian grivnas regarding their locks is not fortuitous and reflects some peculiar northern trends. These may be traced by the materials from part of the Novgorod Land, being clearly observable in Finland and dominating in Scandinavia, Gotland, Denmark and other sites in Europe where Scandinavian hoards with neck rings have been recorded.

The route across the Kayan Land was important for providing northern territories with iron from the western White Sea area. Finnish archaeologists suppose that in the end of the Iron Age, the Kayan Land was a junction where populations travelling between Ladoga and Lapland met those who made their way from the Gulf of Bothnia to the White Sea. At one end of this portage route, in the region of the western White Sea coast area, a number of hoards were discovered at the end of the 19th century. These hoards consisted of silver jewellery of different periods. It is quite uncertain what was the actual connection between deposition of hoards and the system of portages. However, the existence of hoards at least indicates that significant social processes were taking place in the area during this period.

The third group: in the second half of the 12th century multiple neck rings twisted of double darts replaced the two-dart ones, while retaining the previous form of the ends and lock. Their tips are flat and narrow with a spirally-coiled tube at the end. The technique of manufacturing the ends changed in the late 11th century when the ends were welded by forging. In the 12th and beginning of the 13th centuries, sleeved plate-like tips were soldered to the ends of the braids of the neck rings. The chronology of the Varzuga hoard is fairly broad: from the end of the 10th to the beginning of the 11th century, up to the end of the 12th to the beginning of the 13th century. The three typological groups identified correspond to three chronological blocks, with its own technology of manufacturing the grivnas (1 – casting and torquing; 2 – casting and forge-welding, filigree; 3 – casting, forge-welding later replaced by soldering, engraving, and filigree). This fact allows us to conjecture about the original territories where the techniques mentioned above predominated. For the torqued grivnas with a faceted head and a hook, the most probable original territory seems to have been the Ladoga Lake area and southern Finland. This type of neck ring is a good chronological indicator of the start of occupation of the western and northern coasts of the White Sea.

The Kem Hoard The so-called Kem Hoard discovered at the mouth of the Kem River included a braided, flat-ended necklet (grivna), two flat bracelets with ends twisted together and four fragments belonging to at least two silver, knobended necklets. A. M. Tallgren who published the Kem Hoard wrote: “East of Finmark, in the Kola Peninsula, scarcely any finds of the last Iron Age have been made, but there is no reason to doubt that they would be found not to differ appreciably from the contemporary antiquities of Finmark, the White Sea and the mouth of the Dvina.” (Tallgren 1931:106; Fig. 1).

This conclusion is confirmed directly by another complex recorded on the western coast of the White Sea – a silver hoard from the lower Kem River. The earliest among its composition are fragmentary neck rings of the type under discussion. Another parallel to the Varzuga grivnas is defined by the shape of their ends and locks, which is very common in north European sites from a fairly early period beginning with the first half of the 10th century. Finally, the third group of parallels comes from a nearer area – the Novgorod-Finnish territories of the late 12th and early 13th centuries. These are represented by multiple neck rings to which sleeved rhomboid riveted tips and S-hooks are soldered.

The Varzuga Hoard The hoard discovered at the Varzuga River (Fig. 1) demonstrates a typical situation with hoards containing artefacts of the late 11th – 13th centuries with several groups of artefacts. The first group: neck rings or grivnas of a dart type with torqued ends and smooth middle part. Their chronological frame is fairly broad: from the end of the migrations period (the upper limit – 800 A.D.) until the Vikings’ raids.

The Arkhangelsk Hoard The second group: consists of neck rings twisted of two darts, including those with filigree wire and forged ends of various shapes. The locks of these grivnas were made in the form of either two hooks (simple or S-shaped) or a hook and a hole in the flattened tip (rare archaic form of lock). These grivnas were used in the 11th and early 12th

In the autumn of 1989, in the vicinity of the city of Arkhangelsk (in the flood-lands of the Northern Dvina River) a hoard of silver coins and jewellery was uncovered during earthworks (Fig. 1; 5). The numismatic constituent of the hoard was represented by three 117

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

that left them. An influence of certain Karelian elements in this region may be presumed (the sites were situated within the area of the Karelian ‘pogost in Varzuga’).

Samanid coins of the 8th-9th centuries and almost 2,000 west European denarii, of which the latest were struck in the 1130s. Other artefacts of the hoard included a twisted lamellar bracelet with inserts of glass of Middle East provenance, an earring of the so-called Volyn type, a lunate adornment decorated with grain-filigree and a multi-bladed temple-ring of an early type. The artefacts undoubtedly belong to the classic old Russian adornments, which were used within a rather broad chronological frame: from the turn of the 10th and 11th centuries until the mid-12th century. Another group of finds – a cruciform pendant, a trapezoid pendant, lobed wire pendants, and ‘points’ of multi-threaded chains are widespread mostly in the territory of northern Europe, but are also recorded in north Russian territories. In general, the hoard may be considered as a kind of ‘treasure’ amassed and prepared to trade with the north-eastern lands, but buried in the moment of danger in the Dvina flood-lands – the very starting point of the trade route to the regions rich of fur animal hunting.

Sanctuaries of the Vaygach Island The complex of sanctuaries on Vaygach Island (Fig. 1) is an extremely expressive cultural phenomenon of the medieval Arctic zone. Situated at the border of Europe and Asia, the complex reflects a fairly long time-span of ethno-cultural contacts between tribes of the extreme northeast of Europe and the north of western Siberia. It is possible to identify three broad historic periods: the 6th10th centuries of which the finds typical to the local Pechora tribes are characteristic; the next period of the 11th-13th centuries is characterised by the presence of ancient Russian imports and those of possibly Bulgarian provenance; and, finally, the last period – the Nenetsian (Samoyed) is represented only in some of the Vaygach sanctuaries. Such ‘longevity’ of sacrificial sites often is not related to any particular ethno-cultural continuity, reflecting exclusively the extraordinary appearance or location of the natural object, or phenomenon. This was also the case with the Vaygach complex of sanctuaries. The sacrificial site at the Pechora River The site is situated on a promontory – on the second terrace of the Gnilka River, which connected Lake Gorodetskoe with a channel of the Pechora River – the Gorodetsky Shar (Fig. 1). The finds from the site (over 2,000 artefacts) – intentionally damaged axes, knives, arrowheads, fire-steels, as well as fragmentary copper cauldrons and bronze adornments (coin-shaped and oblique-grid pendants with suspension loops, and glass beads: three-part spheroid or oval of different colours) – indicate the sacral character of the site. This is confirmed also by finds of copper boxes with animal bones. The dating of the site spans a lengthy period, the finds from it belonging to quite different epochs. A bronze-cast anthropomorphic idol, a fragment of a plate with a representation of an animal, a bird of prey and other objects are of a clear provenance: the Ural and trans-Ural regions (the Perm animal style), and are dated to the 6th10th centuries.

Fig. 5. The Arkhangels hoard. Photo Pavel Ivanov.

Kola Peninsula Graveyards Studies of graveyards on the Kola Peninsula (Fig. 1; 2) allow us to suggest the possibility of the formation of a medieval community in the territory of the peninsula. In 1969-82, two cemeteries with flat graves of the 11th-13th centuries were discovered and excavated in the southern part of the peninsula (Tersky Bereg). The earliest burial site (Kuzomen-I) was disturbed and yielded only single finds of the late 11th and 12th centuries. Of these, the most important in terms of chronology was a West European silver denarius (Albert II, 1018-1064). The cemetery of Kuzomen-II consisted of 4 graves in ground pits with some elements of timber construction. The bodies were wrapped in birch-bark sheets and laid with their heads to the northeast or southeast. Burial sets from the two cemeteries indicate the Finno-Ugrian population

The second (and the more important for us) chronological group of finds from this sacrificial site suggests a distinct influence of the northern regions of ancient Rus on the local population. These finds are dated to the 11th-13th centuries. Most of the axes are working tools characteristic of the northern regions of Russia in the 11th-13th centuries. Among the iron arrowheads there are several two-horned cutting points shaped like a shovel blade and rhomboid tanged arrowheads. These belonged mostly to hunting outfit of the 11th-14th centuries. The bronze adornments included coin-shaped and obliquegrid pendants characteristic of the regions of the northern part of Eastern Europe, pendants of the 12th-13th 118

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Fig. 6. Miniature from “Old Russian illuminated Manuscripts”. Russian soldiers rowing down the Oka River to Moskov in 1445.

centuries with a cross, and pendants representing a rider. This entire inventory has parallels from northern parts of Ancient Rus and is dated to the 12th-14th centuries. When considered together this data suggests that an interethnic trade route between the Baltic and White Seas regions and the northern Trans-Ural area became established along the coasts of the Arctic Ocean in the Middle Ages. North Russian boat and ship building The main research subject of the present paper regards the formation and development of traditional boatbuilding as being vitally important for the maritime way of live style in the north of Eastern Europe, and the development and utilisation of portage systems. The problem is complicated by the fact that our main information sources are various written documents, which do not always characterise in detail the specific features of different types of boats. Moreover, there are numerous documents mentioning purchase or construction of certain vessels, but which were actually used in boats of other types. Many boat elements, including details of the hull, steering, sail rigging etc., were widely interchangeable. Therefore, the main attention will be focused on the most important and general tendencies and

Fig. 7. Copy of a document from the 17th Century describing construction of a kotsh in the Pinezhskij portage area. Russian National Library, St. Petersburg.

patterns of development of traditional boatbuilding in northern Russia. Another complicating fact is the lack of archaeological records and rather rare iconographical sources from the earliest phases of the period i.e. from the Iron Age and Medieval Period, while archaeological records from the next phase i.e. up to 17th century are also very rare (Fig. 6; 7).

119

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

planking mentioned above may have matched with these thin arches. The details of the keel construction allow us to assess the type of the vessel – these were remains of a doshchanik (the term derived from the Russian “doska” or board). This type of vessel was used widely on rivers in Russia. They usually had a length of 12-25 m, width of up to 6 m, and height of the boards of 2 m, with a water draught of 1.5 m. The capacities of doshchaniks amounted to 5 thousand puds.

Recent Archaeological records from the mouth of the Northern Dvina Some new archaeological data were discovered in the spring of 1991 in the urochishche (isolated woods) of Pyranikha on the coast of the Nikolsky Bay (the Nikolsky branch of the Northern Dvina near the former NikolaKorelsky Monastery). The objects were washed out from the edge of a coastal dune and represented an almost complete keel part and four other details, supposedly of the ribs. The keel part is 15 m long, 1.2 m wide in the middle section, and the thickness of the entire structure is about 40 cm. It is not the keel timber proper (the vessel was flat-bottomed), but rather a large-bottom construction that was fairly peculiar to North-Russia. Judging by the remains discovered, it differed from the European design of keels (keel-keelson) representing a thick platform, in the given case made from four “keel” timbers (or “kolodas” in the terminology of Russian written sources of the 16th-17th centuries). It is from this structure that the board planking was raised upwards, supported in its mortises. Such a construction was strong enough to fix the stems in to it.

On the Northern Dvina, doshchaniks were used for shipping goods from Vologda and Veliky Ustyug to Kholmogory and Arkhangelsk and carried mostly salt while returning. We may suppose that in northern Russia this was a vessel of the river-sea type. They were also used for loading and unloading cargos aboard large merchant ships in Arkhangelsk. Doshchaniks carried salt, fish, hunted sea mammals, and wheat between Arkhangelsk, Solovets islands, Kem, and Kandalaksha. In the central part of a doshchanik there was usually a cargo hold, and in the prow and stern crew quarters and the skipper’s or kormshchik’s cabin. Originally, doshchaniks were rigged with a square sail, later with a fore-and-aft railed sail. In the North, the term “doshchanik” had been in use until the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th century characterising a definite type of vessel (Fig; 8; Fig. 9; Fig 10). About the middle of the 19th century, vessels of a similar type began to be called barka (barge) or polubarka (semi-barge). The find under discussion may be dated preliminarily to the end of the 18th or the very beginning of the 19th century on the basis of the fact

The remains discovered give us a better idea regarding the character of “sewing” of the board planking. Discernible are the mortises for the withes and the interval between these mortises. As to the ribs found nearby, they possibly belonged to some other smaller vessel, since it is hardly conceivable how the board

Fig. 8. A sewn boat of the 17th/18th Century near Nikolo-Karelskij Monastery. Photo: Sentr Kompleksnych Podvodnych Isledovanij.

120

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Fig. 9. Details of the boat recorded near the Nikolo-Karelskij Monastery. Photo: Sentr Kompleksnych Podvodnych Isledovanij.

Fig. 10. Details of the sewing technique of the boat reordered near the Nikolo-Karelskij Monastery. After Jasinski and Ovsyannikov 1998.

121

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

In 1695, at the order of the Archbishop Afanasiy of Kholmogory and Vaga, “a peasant Elfimka son of Feodor Tarasov, from the Sompal’skaya Village at the Penega portage, made for the Archbishop’s hunting on Novaya Zemlya a kotsh from his own dry pine timber in a proper way and conveyed it to the Eparch’s house in Kholmogory. And that kotsh was measuring nine sazhens and an ell in length along the koloda (keel timber), the measure of one sazhen being equal to two vershoks (1 vershok = 4.45 cm) short of two and a half arshins (1 arshin = 0.711 m). And across the materye naboi (i.e. the main construction set) it was three sazhens and an ell wide, and one and a half arshins deep, and from above; there were kuritsy (rafters?) in 8 places and the pereshva (beams). As to the caulking material and tar, and shackles, and skaly (shingles?) for the decking, and matting – all this was taken from the Eparch’s house. For the work and timber, 12 rubles were given to this Elfimka according to the ryada (contract)” (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 107, sheets 117 verso – 118).

that in the construction of boat set, an age-old technique of “sewing” with withe, traditional in Pomorye, was applied while any metal fixtures characteristic of the later period were absent. It is especially noteworthy that the traditions of the northern boatbuilding connected with “sewn” sewn boats proved to be extremely tenacious. 17th century boatbuilding – kotsh, lod’ya and karbas 1. Kotsh Vessels of the kotsch type are still somewhat mysterious in the history of Russian boat and shipbuilding. The reason is that in the modern literature on the topic, fairly contradictory and occasionally even eccentric opinions have appeared. In 1980, M. Belov repeated his previous supposition about the “collective” meaning of the term “kotsh”: “In the Pomorie region, where the sea boatbuilding first appeared (if one does not take into account building of ancient Slavonic boats) and then moved to Siberia, the same kotshas and lod’yas were made as in northern Europe. Their builders were the Pomors. Possibly there was diversity of types of the sea ships built, for in written documents, which until recently have remained our main source of information, kotsh is present as a collective type of craft” (Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980: 121; Fig. 11).

In 1696, “on the order of the Archbishop, for the Eparch’s fisheries peasants from the Nicholas parish of Penega, Timoshka and Ignashka, sons of Feodor Kulakov, made according to a contract a Novaya-Zemlya hunting kotsh from their own dry pine timber in a proper way and conveyed it together to Kholmogory; and that kotsh was measuring nine sazhens along the koloda (keel timber) and three sazhens across; in height from the koloda there were 20 main timbers at each side; and in that kotsh, the uprugi (ribs) were laid in 13 places, and 2 koryaniks (parts from the hard root section of a tree) in the prow, and the parts of the stem and ten kuritsy (rafters?). In addition they, Timoshka with his brother, got 2 tesnitsy (beams) for the pereshva (deck beams) and a soptsovyi koren’ (root timber for the rudder), and a beam for the mast. As to the caulking materials and tar, and shackles, and skaly for the roof, and matting – all this was taken from the Eparch’s house (the shipbuilders received 9 rubles)”, (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 108, sheets 48 verso – 49). All the “leaves” i.e. permission for voyages both of newly built and old kotshas were reflected fairly completely in the documents, giving us an idea of the organisation of the Novaya Zemlya walrus hunting and, of special value, naming personally both kormshchiks (skippers) and ordinary pokruchenniks (hands). The latter were as a rule peasants from stans (divisions of an uyezd) of the Eparch’s house, however, pokruchenniks from other northern uyezds (cantons) and volosts (districts) are also mentioned. Some of the surviving documents inform us about five kotshas having been sent to Novaya Zemlya with the exhaustive enumeration of their crews.

Fig. 11. The first of Belov’s reconstructions of Pomor Kots. After Belov 1969.

The brief quotation cited above contains quite a number of statements which seem arguable, but we are now concerned with the question whether the Pomors really may have meant different types of vessels existing under kotsh term? There exist documents of the 17th century (well-known to Belov) that, in our opinion, give the exhaustive and unambiguous answer to this question.

During summer of 1696 “a kotsh of the Eparch’s house was sent to sea bound for Novaya Zemlya for hunting walruses”. The kormshchik in that kotsh was Nikita

122

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN materials are of great significance and they allow us to draw one more interesting conclusion. Let us consider the set of related documents of 1683 alone, which include records of the tseloval’nik (tax-collector) of the UstPinega custom-house: the Pinega inhabitant Prokopiy son of Yakov Afonas’yev conveyed a Novaya-Zemlya kotsh “owned by the Kurostrov inhabitant Yevdokim son of Afonasiy Vereshchagin without trade-goods”. An inspection of “new kotshas without trade-goods” making their way to Kholmogory was carried out, and a new kotsh of a Kuzonem inhabitant was inspected. These documents include some other similar records (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 149, inv. 2, files 1956, 1964, 1970, 1972, 2006, 2015, 2045, 2046). Undoubtedly, we are dealing here with a boat-building centre situated somewhere near the beginning of the middle reaches of the Pinega River. In addition, the same records of 1683 contain information on the new lod’yas that were conveyed to the Northern Dvina (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 149, inv. 2, files 2001, 2008), and on a “new soyma” (ibid., file 2027).

Tushin with his son and twelve hunters. The second kotsh bound for Novaya Zemlya was headed by kormshchiks Maksimko Dyakonov and Luchka Rakhov with thirteen hunters. The latter kotsh – a new hunting vessel – was unfortunate on its way to the hunting area: “And that kotsh was wrecked in the sea at the Kanin Nos (Kanin Peninsula) during a storm, and the equipment and stores were all lost without exception, only the hunters saved themselves having reached the land in a karbas” (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 108, sheets 48 verso – 49). Another document of 1696 mentions three kotshas fitted out by the Eparch’s house had already left for walrus hunting at Novaya Zemlya. The kormshchik in the first kotsh was a peasant from Bystrokurskaya volost (district in the vicinity of Kholmogory) Kirilko son of Roman Gur’yev; there were fifteen pokruchenniks (it is not specified of which volosts the peasants were the natives); the second kotsh had as the kormshchik a Kholmogorian from Nizhny Posad – Mishka son of Ivan Kishkin, and fourteen pokruchenniks; the kormshchik of the third kotsh was Nikiforko son of Yevdokim Sobinin sailing with fourteen pokruchenniks).

The places where lod’yas and kotshas were constructed situated in the same Pinega volost, also indicate that our supposition is realistic. There, where the Pinega – the largest of the eastern tributaries of the Dvina River – changes its latitudinal flow for the meridian one and comes closest to the Kuloy River, from ancient times a portage connecting the two rivers had existed. This portage linked the Northern Dvina with the Mezen River, and by means of some other portages, these two rivers were joining the far Pechora River (Fig. 1). It is exactly at the junction of the water routes in the region of hunting grounds of the Pechora, and later of the Novaya Zemlya, that the above-mentioned shipbuilding centre of the Pinega Portage was functioning in the Lower Dvina area.

The documents presented above are important because they give us an idea about sizes of hunting artels (cooperative associations) recruited by a powerful economic centre (the Archbishop’s house) among inhabitants of the Archbishop’s lands. The Novaya Zemlya sea-hunting enterprise was part of a large and well-organized maritime economy. Undoubtedly, the population of Dvina uyezds took active part in the Novaya Zemlya business. In the 16th-17th centuries, due to the rising demand for products of sea hunting (hides and fat of sea mammals, walrus tusks), the Novaya Zemlya hunting came to be of considerable importance. Large transports with “fish tusks” (i.e. walrus tasks) had already been delivered from Mezen to the Sovereign’s Treasury by the beginning of the 17th century. In 1614 alone, collected from sea hunters “of bone of fish teeth of large size were 3 puds (1 pud or pood = 16.38 kg), and of middle size – 20 grivenkas, and of small size – 28 grivenkas”, and all this was assessed in Moscow as 57 rubles 2 altyns and 5 dengas (RIB. Vol. 28. 1912:205209). Peasants from Pustozersky Ostrog wrote to the tsar in 1666, asking to be exempted from hunting voyages to Vaygach Island:

Thus a special type of hunting vessel – kotsh – was peculiar to the hunting area of the Pechora and Novaya Zemlya. This type, as may be judged from written documents, was not used at fisheries of the White Sea and Murmansk coast in the 16th-17th centuries. In literature, the opinion is firmly introduced that the kotsh was a vessel with an “anti-ice lining” and of a specific design enabling it to navigate under the hard Arctic conditions. M. Belov was confident that he had succeeded in establishing the following: “The term for this vessel derives from the concept of ‘kotsa’ which meant in the Novgorod Land any protection against ice including that on sleighs, skis and vessels. ‘Kotsh’ on the vessels of Novgorod-Pomorian provenance – was an ‘ice fur-coat’ as it was called by a Kholmogory hunter Panteley Orlov in his petition on the occasion of the ‘destruction of the kotsha’ or ‘ice furcoat’ of his ship when it arrived to Novaya Zemlya. Panteley Orlov was not able even to imagine how he would return to Kholmogory without that “ice fur-coat” (Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980: 121).

“In summers, Mezenians sail in large vessels by the sea to Novaya Zemlya and to sea islands for hunting walruses, while Pinega inhabitants go to Yugorsky Shar (Yugorsky Strait) and Vaygach Island, so that they know all of the sea islands” (DAI, Vol. V. 1853: 172). Several years ago, M. Belov published in brief the evidence on a considerable number of kotshas (belonging to inhabitants of Kholmogory, Kurostrov, and Pinega) which returned in 1682-1683 from the Novaya Zemlya hunting (Belov 1956: 50). In our opinion, these archive 123

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Thus it seems that these researchers have united porubni and “kotsa” placing the entire construction below the water line. Belov correctly determined that porubni are one and the same as stringers, but he also would place them along the water line.

proved to be able to reach the shore owing to its having been coated with ice. When this peculiar icy “plaster” melted, it naturally became impossible or at least very difficult for the ship to put out. The Pomors got into a unique situation, and that is why their figurative expression for the icy coating – “icy kotsa” – is never encountered in any other written sources. Furthermore, it would have been impossible to drag a ship with two outer linings (be they partial or continuous) over any portages. Kotsh was defined in a Pomorian written source of the late 19th century as: “Kotsha, kotshas – an age-old, now almost out of use, sea-going decked vessel with a single mast. In former times, such vessels set off from Arkhangelsk for Novaya Zemlya and the Gulf of Ob … It is also in kotshas that streltsy sailed from Arkhangelsk to the Solovets Monastery (Fig. 12; 13) during its siege in 1674” (Slovar’ oblastnogo Arkhangel’skogo narechiya v ego bytovom i etnograficheskom primenenii -Dictionary of the Arkhangelsk oblast dialect in its everyday and ethnographic use. 1885: 73). No design features are specified in this definition. In the Russian–English dictionary of Richard James, compiled during his stay in Arkhangelsk in 1618-1619, koths is defined as follows: “kotshas are small sea vessels in which they go from Arkhangelsk to Mangazeya across numerous lakes and rivers, dragging in places these vessels over the land.” (Larin1959: 147). It is noteworthy that rowlock is defined as “kotshitsa” in that dictionary.

To us it seems that Belov’s idea about the “ice fur-coat” as the second lining of a boat derives from a simple misunderstanding of the tale of the Kholmogory hunter Panteley Orlov about the “ice fur-coat” on his ship. The vessel got a breach in the hull, and perhaps it nevertheless

In the above-presented documents concerning lod’ya and kotsh, along with other parts of their construction, uprugi are mentioned. As may be judged from these descriptions, an upruga is a northern term for rib. The identification of kekora (kokora) as a rib is undoubtedly a

This is actually the single piece of evidence on the “kotsa” or “ice fur-coat” in written sources, that made Belov believe that the “ice fur-coat” was some feature of construction, a “second anti-ice lining, located somewhere near the water-line”, and that exactly this appliance was peculiar to vessels of the kotsh type (Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980: 121). This quotation resembles much the famous “to put to death impossible to pardon”, i.e. should we understand from it that the first lining of kotshas was also of the anti-ice purpose or only the second one? V. Odintsov and V. Starkov suppose that the function of kotsa or “furcoat” was realized by means of porubni (broad beams belting the vessel around the water-line): “To the boarding below the water-line, rows of porubni – trunks sawn longitudinally – were fastened abutting upon the stem post and sternpost by their ends. The porubni functioned as a belt protecting the hull against the pressure of ice. This belt (in the Pomors’ dialect ‘kotsa’) was the second important element of the construction of a ship” (Odintsov, Starkov 1985:159).

Fig. 12. The Solovetskij Monastery from the West. Topograficzeskaja opisanije Arkhangelogorodskiej Guberni 1797.

124

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

13. Boats in the harbour of Solovetskij Monastery at the end of the 18th Century. After Dosifiej 1836.

(workers) and hunting outfit was permitted to go on a soyma (type of vessel) to the sea to Grumant (Spitsbergen) for hunting”. 2. On a petition of a Kholmogorian Vasiliy Dudin it was permitted “to a kormshchik and 14 rabotnye lyudi with bread stores and hunting outfit to go to Grumant (Russian name of Spitsbergen archipelago) on a soyma for hunting walruses”. 3. On a petition of Feodor Bazhenin from Arkhangelsk a permit was given for a lad’ya bound for the Grunland for hunting”.

confusion. The term kekora was introduced by M. Belov who invariably used it implying a rib (Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980: 125). This opinion is shared by V. Odintsov and V. Starkov: “…in order to strengthen the boards, transversal kokoryribs were fastened to the keel beam” (Odintsov, Starkov 1985: 159). The “Dictionary of the regional Arkhangelsk dialect…” unambiguously distinguishes between two terms –”kokora” and “kekora”: “kokora” is a root of a tree with the root-trunk, whereas “kekora” is a knisa (or knitsa – i.e. kneepiece) by which the deck beams were fastened to the ribs and then fixed with pins or bolts (Slovar’ oblastnogo Arkhangel’skogo narechiya: 68).

Ancient Mangazeya in Siberia was a seaport, to which the kotshas from the Arkhangelsk Pomorye came having travelled a long way – from the White Sea or the mouth of the Pechora River (Fig. 1). At the same time, it is in Mangazeya that the river-sea-river route (the Ob – Gulf of Ob – the Taz River) ended. No wonder therefore that in the Mangazeya inlet, a considerable number of seagoing boats crowded every year. During four seasons of archaeological excavations, hundreds of fragments of boat planking have been collected from all the areas excavated including fragments “sewn” together. Unfortunately, the boards were not preserved to their original length due to their secondary use as floor planking of izbas (log huts), and the length of the boards corresponded to the dimensions of the huts amounting to not more than 6 m. The original width and thickness remained intact – about 30 cm in width and 7.5 cm thick (Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980; Fig. 14; 15).

Written sources show quite manifestly that vessels of the kotsh type did not and could not play any role in maritime occupations in Spitsbergen - these ships were intended mainly for the Novaya Zemlya hunting and for a certain period (second half of the 16th and first quarter of the 17th century) for voyages to Mangazeya (Jasinski and Ovsyannikov 1993). We may cite here the earliest statements thus far known from written sources on hunting expeditions of Pomors to Spitsbergen. This evidence is dated from the very beginning of the 18th century (Archives of SPb. RAN, manuscript group 10, inv.3, file 553, sheets 3–14): 1. On a petition of a citizen of Arkhangelsk city Ivan Zvyagin “a kormshchik (skipper) with rabotnye lyudi 125

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

14. Boat planking used in floors in Mangazeya. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

126

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Fig. 15. Boat planking used in floors in Arkhangelsk in the 16th Century. After Jasinski and Ovsyannikov 1998.

Fig. 16. Rudder discovered in Mangazeya. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980

127

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 17. Sewing techniques of boat fragments discovered in Mangazeya. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

128

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Fig. 18. Sewing techniques of boat fragments discovered in Mangazeya. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

129

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

the technique of “sewing” vessels had survived until the beginning of the 18th century. Of course, this phenomenon may be regarded as a certain conservatism or backwardness of the Russian Arctic shipbuilding. However, let us remember, where the Pomors sailed to aboard these ships, what quantities of goods they transported and what their crews numbered! This is another aspect of the problem – the Pomors navigated to their fishing or hunting grounds and the crews amounted to the number of hands who could be most efficiently used during the hunting, while it was always possible to carry their catches back in their vessels. Thus we come to the conclusion that Pomor vessels took a definite place in the overall system of the fishing and sea hunting economy of northern Russia, and at a given stage they corresponded entirely to all the demands of these occupations and to the general hunting tradition of the medieval period.

Fragments of keels and of a sternpost and part of a rudder from kotshas have been discovered in Mangazeya, probably for the first time (Fig. 16). Junctions of the board planks were sewn together by twisted vitsa (withe), and in order that the latter would not move inside the mortises, the holes with the withe were tightly “riveted” with thick wooden plugs. Undoubtedly, the plankings found were the main ones – the board linings, of which the planks were assembled overlapped. Inside one of the living and household complexes, a fragment of a rudder was discovered. The assembled planks of the rudder blade were fixed tightly in the mortises of a kokora (a curvilinear piece of a tree root). In written documents, for the definition of the base of the rudder blade the term “soptsovyi koren’“ or the rudder root was used, the rudder itself being called “sopets” (Fig. 17; 18). Artefacts from Mangazeya first gave us the possibility to elucidate in what way the slots between the naboys or overlapping planks of the boarding were stopped up from inside a ship. It is of importance since various documents, including those presented above, mention hundreds and thousands of iron boat shackles. However, in our case, as it has proved, rather small shackles were implied, 3-4 cm long, which were unfit to “sew” throughout a thick board lining (even one plank thick!). In Mangazeya, it was possible to establish exactly the purpose of iron shackles in the board planking of kotshas – they were used for fixing thin triangular laths that covered the slots between the board planks from inside. All the fastenings – those of the ribs, main planks and deck planks – were made by means of wooden “nails” or pins. Thus we may assert that Pomor vessels belonged to the kind of boats designated as “sewn” in the history of world shipbuilding. For even now, the term “to sew” – “to sew a boat” or “to sew a karbas” – is in use among the population connected closely with riverboats or small sea vessels.

These fairly small fragments of pine boards were discovered lying on the floor of one of the destroyed houses in Mangazeya. They were placed among the other planks that covered the damaged floor of the dwelling. Here was a small piece of board on which some resident of Mangazeya had carved with a knife – a clear silhouette of a ship: bow and sternpost are raised, the planking of the board is rendered in smooth, deeply carved lines reproducing distinctly the oval contour of the hull. The rudder on the stern is placed far behind and apparently is a strong and well-adjusted structure – it is to the rudder that people entrust the destiny of their ship, cargo and the crew. The single mast is tightly guyed. From the bow of the vessel, an anchor is cast. It seems that in the bow part of the kotsh there are several reserve anchors. It is perhaps the most realistic representation of a vessel of the “kotsh” type; it bears a strong resemblance to those graphic representations of Russian vessels that West Europeans made in the 16th century. Most striking is the ratio between the length of the vessel and its width: it is approximately three to one, i.e. the ship may indeed be called “round” as N. Vitsen did call it in his time (Fig. 19; 20).

Boats constructed in that manner are called “sewn” in the Russian language, but this was exactly the original literal meaning of the word in far antiquity or ethnology of some peoples – i.e. to “stitch” the leather or bark base of a boat. Later this expression was adopted by wooden shipbuilding because the assemblage of the boards resembled “sewing” together leather or textiles: well steamed withes was put through drilled holes, and the joints were wedged by means of wooden plugs in such a way that the play of the wooden “thread” would not tear asunder the “stitches”. Naturally, such a technique may have been effective only for ships of a certain length. A metal fixture of the construction would have increased the total weight of a ship, but at the same time enabled its dimensions to increase considerably making it more effective in far voyages. The Pomors’ kotshas and lod’yas needed no metal fastenings – their fairly small total weight (for kotshas also the possibility to be dragged over portages by the force of their small crews) was of greater value. While in Northern Europe, as some western researchers of boatbuilding suppose, few “sewn” ships had been used until the 15th century, in northern Russia

A few words must be devoted to masts. In written sources, both lod’ya and kotsh are represented as onemasted vessels – in the contracts only one “derevo” (i.e. a tree – in the 16th-17th centuries this word meant a mast in Pomorye) is mentioned each time. In our opinion, there is no reason to consider the kotsh as a two-mast vessel as for example M. Belov stated it “in any case, on Mangazeyan kotshas there were two masts – the mainsail and foremast; also a system of managing sails by means of “nogi” or guys and “vozzhi” or sheets was developed” (Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980: 122; Fig. 21). This opinion is shared by a number of researchers (see Odintsov, Starkov 1985: 159). Some of Belov’s other statements (e.g. about the transom stern of kotshas, etc.) are probably also arguable but they are beyond our consideration here.

130

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN Documentary sources of the house of the Kholmogory Eparch give us a description of a lod′ya of the 17th century: “Building of the first hunting lod’ya of the house… A peasant Antoshka Pykhunov from Penega of the Valdokursky pogost (a parish centre) of the Kholmogor uyezd built for the Eparch’s house, for the Murman hunting, a new lod’ya-dvinyanka properly on three kolodas (“keel” timbers) from his own dry pine timber, and sent it to this Eparch’s house in Kholmogory. And the size of that lod’ya from korg to korg (i.e. between the stems) is eleven sazhens and one ell. And in cross-section in materye naboi (i.e. across the basic construction set) it is four sazhens, – where the sazhens are the shchepyanaya measure (i.e. carpenter’s? measure) equal to two and a half of an arshin (1 arshin = 0.711 m), – and two and a quarter of arshins in depth. He laid the uprugas (ribs) and kuritsas (rafters?) properly as is usual, and made everything ready for use. As to the caulk and tar, and shackles and nails and skaly (shingles), and matting for this lod’ya, this was all taken from the House. And for building this lod’ya and for the timber, 25 rubles were given to this Antoshka for his work and for bread and food”. (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 107, sheets 116 verso – 117).

Fig. 19. Wooden planks from Mangazeya with representations of boats. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

2. Lod′ya

The source gives a portrait of a sea lod’ya which used to sail from the Dvina Bay to the Murman coasts in the region of Kola. The vessel was slightly longer than 18 metres, the height of the boards – about 1.5 m. The shipwright constructed it “on three kolodas (logs)”, i.e. the keel beam was composed of three parts. Another document concerns constructing a lod’ya for transporting salt. Mikhalka son of Nikita Durnin together with his son Semka “was hired in 1623 to build a “lod’ya from his own pine timber” for transporting salt from Nenoksa to Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery:

It is generally recognized that a vessel of the “lod′ya” type was a seagoing (river-sea) transport vessel (Fig. 22). In Pomorye it continued the old Russian boat-building traditions (Jasinski 1994). In written sources, the term lod’ya is often accompanied by place names like “Onega lod’ya, lod’ya korelka” (Karelian lod’ya), “lod’ya dvinyanka” (the Dvina lod’ya), or a “Murman lod’ya”. In order to avoid confusion, we propose to distinguish the terms connected with the place of building of a ship and the type of a lod’ya (“korelka”, “dvinyanka”, “lod’ya of the Onega making” etc.) from those pertaining to this or that hunting ground (“onezhskaya”, “letnostoronskaya”, “murmanskaya” etc.). Regrettably, until now, for Pomor vessels (and for all other vessels) these differences have not been recorded. So far, we cannot assert with any certainty whether the above-mentioned types of lod’yas had any significant construction peculiarities (aside from their dimensions), nor can we say what was the nature of these differences.

“…and he was to build this lod’ya with two sails on two trees (i.e. masts) taking as the pattern the one made by the elder Theophil from the Saviour’s Monastery”. (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 47, inv. 2, file 75, sost. 1-2). In the Middle Ages, producing an object or construction “on the pattern” was a very widespread practice – “after

Fig. 20. Wooden plank from Mangazeya with representations of boats. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

131

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

the Murman hunting regions) by lod’yas and fish in turn was brought back. But it is necessary to emphasise that lod’yas took part in fishing only as transporting vessels. This is clearly demonstrated in various documents. The role of lod’yas in the structure of the White Sea occupations is distinctly outlined in written sources: aboard each lod’ya there were three fishing karbases (a type of auxiliary boats). The crew of a lod’ya included the lod’ya kormshchik (helmsman/skipper), two karbasniks (karbasmen or helmsmen of karbases) and pokruchenniks or workers, which automatically made up the crews of the three fishing karbases. Each of these crews included three pokruchenniks and a karbasnik (four men in total). The karbasnik in one of the three karbases was the lod’ya’s kormshchik. Probably, such a stable structure had developed gradually throughout a period of time and been recognized as the most efficient.

Fig. 21. The second reconstruction of a kotsh by Belov. After Belov, Ovsyannikov, Starkov 1980.

As evidenced by documentary sources of the 16th-17th centuries, the regions where lod’yas sailed, included the areas from the White Sea, not further than Pustozersk to the east (Jasinski & Ovsyannikov 1998), as well as the entire Murmansk coast of the Barents Sea (Jasinski & Ovsyannikov 1998), and perhaps Norwegian coast. Was a lod’ya fit for navigation under Arctic conditions? We suppose that a vessel of that type had no special appliances against ice pressure, nor any additional construction parts for Arctic voyages mounted on it. However, M. Belov has published a contrary opinion concerning the “Polar” features of lod’yas: “Another Arctic vessel was lod’ya. In many aspects of its design and rigging it resembled kotsh. In addition, lod’ya had a special lining against ice. However, there were also essential differences between lod’ya and kotsh, especially in the construction of their upper works” (Belov 1956: 213).

Fig. 22. Russian lod’ya met by Dutch Polar Expedition of 1594-1597. After Prins 1986.

patterns”, wooden and stone churches and houses were built, various blacksmith’s articles forged and jewellery cast. The Kholmogorians Durnins for some reason proved to be unable to fulfil the monastery’s order, but certain details of that sea vessel are noteworthy. Firstly, the customers stipulated its dimensions – the lod’ya was to be built “on three kolodas (logs)” thus determining the total length of the keel girder, and with two sails on two masts (on two “derevos” or trees).

Such differences “in the construction of their upper works” according to Belov were as follows: lod’ya was two times longer than kotsh, its board was higher and it had “a two-decked construction…, that is quite explainable by the use of several keel girders” (Belov 1956: 214). Even after consideration of the arguments presented above, we continue to adhere to our opinion that the lod’ya mentioned in written sources of the 16th-17th centuries was a standard sea vessel of large tonnage, designed for covering considerable sea distances with large cargos.

It seems that in the 16th-17th centuries, a lod’ya as a type of sea-going craft in the north, was never confused with any other type of ship, and hardly could have been called a “kotsh” contrary to M. Belov’s supposition (Belov 1956). It is the lod’ya that during several centuries remained the predominant type of vessel throughout the entire White Sea area. Can we call lod’ya a fishing vessel? Since the lod’ya played an essential part in the fishing and hunting processes, naturally we may call it a fishing or hunting vessel and include it in the structure of maritime occupations: hunters, food stores and equipment were transported to the fishing or hunting areas (e.g. to

So far, any voyages of lod’yas to the east of Arkhangelsk are little known. For example, in July 1691, three lod’yas with the family of the prince in disgrace, Vasily Golitsyn, and the guards accompanying them left Arkhangelsk bound for Pustozersk. Almost at once they were

132

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN In 1690, the Siya Monastery bought from a monastery’s peasant “Feodor Shestakov a new decked karbas” (Ibid., file 74, sheet 44 verso). In Kekhta on the Dvina, in 1692, “a new Novaya Zemlya karbas was bought for one ruble one altyn and 4 dengas” from Makar Cherepanov” (Ibid., file 82, sheet 49 verso). Yet another type of karbas is specified in 1683 – “a large karbas zavoznya” was bought (Ibid., file 56, sheet 63), (the term “zavoznya” for such karbases was derived from the verb “zavozit’“ or “to deliver” because they were used to set and deliver fishing nets to the sea and for hauling lod’yas). In 1695, for the Eparch’s house, were bought from a Kholmogorian spinner from Nizhniy Posad Grigoriy Varsin “a zavoz metnyi” (thrown fishing net) with the weight of 14 puds and 39 pounds and “zavoz tyaglyi” (sweep-net) with the weight of 8 puds and 30 pounds (see: Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 107, sheet 137 verso).

overtaken by a heavy storm. The prince’s lod’ya was wrecked near the island of Morzhovets: “…we were beaten near the island of Morzhovets, and the lod’ya was thrown onto the sand and smashed to pieces…” (Razysknye dela o Feodore Shaklovitom i ego soobshchnikakh; Quest files on Feodor Shaklovityi and his accomplices. 1888: 5). Probably, a more usual way to Pustozersk was from Mezen. It is by this route that in 1666, priest Lazar – a comrade of the archpriest Avvakum – was conveyed there (Subbotin 1874: 439). Thus written documents of the 16th-17th centuries suggest that in the White-Sea and Murmansk coast fishing and hunting regions, vessels of the lod’ya type were predominantly used.

The evidence presented above, in our opinion, places karbas in the same series of sea vessels as Pomor kotshas and lod’yas. The dimensions of some of the hunting karbases were only two times smaller than those of a lod’ya or a kotsh. Probably, hunting karbases of such size got to the hunting regions by their own drive and not on board of bigger vessels.

3. Karbas Along with large sea-going boats, vessels of the “small fleet” were also widespread in the Arctic by the 16th-17th centuries. A characteristic specimen of this type was karbas used practically in every sphere of the Pomors’ life (fishing and sea hunting, transportation of food, building materials and people). Even a brief enumeration of the evidences on this vessel is of importance.

The documents cited above give us reason to consider the Pomor vessels of the lod’ya type as ships fit for far voyages and transportation of cargo by sea. These vessels, differing probably in their size and the type of decking, were built according to the same construction scheme. Undoubtedly, they could not, and did not have any anti-ice lining. In the 16th-17th centuries this onemasted and one-decked sewn craft was a direct continuation of Russian lod’yas of the Novgorod-Baltic region of the previous period. It is undoubted that along with large sea lod’yas there were also vessels that plied both the sea and various northern rivers. The regions where Pomor lod’yas were used included (according to written sources of the 16th-17th centuries) the basin of the White and Barents Seas in the west, Spitsbergen in the north and Mezen and occasionally Pustozersk on the Pechora River in the east (see Jasinski 1993, 1994).

In September, 1694, for the house of the Kholmogory Archbishop: “A peasant Ignashka son of Grigoriy Nosovs from the village of Pinezhska of the Shenkurskaya chetvert’ of the Bogoslovsky Monastery, was contracted to make a karbas for the Novaya Zemlya kotsh-hunting from good-quality pine timber, with the length of 3 sazhens along the koloda (keel timber)…[here part of the text has not survived] …the kolodas have seven naboys (planks of the board) on each side, the upper naboy is 4 sazhens and one arshin from korg to korg (i.e. from the stempost to the sternpost), a sazhen being a measure of two and a half of arshins and 2 vershoks (1 vershok = 4.45 cm); and to make in that karbas 9 uprugs (ribs) and to make the porubni (beams belting the hull) knee-deep; and to tar the both sides with his own, contractor’s tar, as well as to lay his own caulking; and that karbas is to be driven to Kholmogory… by the date of the Nicholas day of the spring of this current year of 203” (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 107, sheets 9 – 9 verso).

Pomor vessels of the kotsh type had a single mast, a single deck and smooth “rounded” contour (certainly not transom-sterned), as well as their own regions of use. Firstly, it was the region of the sea-hunting grounds near Novaya Zemlya (mostly the western coasts of the archipelago), and later (in the second half of the 16th – first quarter of the 17th century) along the route which came to be known as the “Mangazeya Sea Route”. We may suppose that the above-mentioned Pomor hunting vessels, which actually were of the “river-sea” type, were successfully employed by the Pomors to bypass the second part of the “Mangazeya Sea Route” – the section of the route near Mangazeya itself: from Yugorsky Shar Strait to the mouth of the Taz River. The relatively small dimensions and weight of these ships were favourable for

“In 1691, for the business of Anthony of the Siya Monastery, Filat son of Ivan Vaymugin from Khorobritskaya volost with a companion made, for monastery use, a decked carrying karbas, seven beregovaya sazhens long, and the sopets (rudder) and the sailing derevo or tree (i.e. mast); also they made four oars; and they were given 5 rubles for that.” (Ibid., manuscript group 5, inv. 2, file 77, sheet 79 verso). 133

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

their transportation via portages. The aptly designed proportions of the hull and configuration of its contour enabled a kotsh to bypass open sea areas and at the same time to withstand the ice pressure in case of unfavourable arctic conditions. Kotsh never had any second anti-ice protective lining, which would have been of little help.

Starostin, for the Eparch’s house, eight tyagas were bought for sopetses of “doshchaniks and lod’yas” (Ibid., sheet 62 verso). We may suppose that wooden tyagas (drives) were fixed to the rudder by means of hinges. In one case, an “ogloblya (shaft) of the sopets” is mentioned (Ibid., sheet 62 verso).

This triad of vessels was completed by karbas – a vessel that was widely used in sea hunting and fishing and transportation of cargo and people.

Written evidence presents some details on ship masts, which in documents of the period were called “derevo” (tree). In 1686, a spitsa was bought from Mikhail Starostin – “six dengas were paid for a bone spitsa for the tree of the doshchanik” (Ibid., sheet 14). A spitsa (lit. spoke) is an axle, used also in windlasses (e.g. “onto two doshchaniks – for the windlasses, two korenevye, i.e. made from hard root wood, blocks have been bought… for the spitsa of that wheel” (Ibid., sheet 63). Even then “for the tree of the doshchanik two korenevye blocks were bought…” (Ibid., sheet 70). Probably, it was possible to put the mast from one ship into another, for “the tree from a lod’ya was bought for the doshchanik” (Ibid., sheet 6 verso). Also karbases taken from other ships were used: in 1685, e.g., from a Kholmogorian Ivan Sobakin, a lod’ya’s karbas has been bought for pripasnaya vozka or shipping of provisions from the Arkhangelsk-city”. The dimensions of a doshchanik have been specified in a purchase act of 1686: from a Vologda citizen “a new doshchanik has been bought, 13 sazhens and one arshin long, and together with that doshchanik an anchor was bought” (Ibid., sheet 55). Of mention is one other curious ship detail – in 1686, a Kholmogorian strelets Aleshka Galashev was paid 2 altyns for a “doshchanik’s rayna” (crosspiece of the mast) (Ibid., sheet 63).

Our predominant use of the evidence of the 17th century with regard to the vessels that belonged to certain economically significant institutions is explained only by the present state of the documentary base (in the account books of the Archbishop’s house and various monasteries, an enormous store of annual information on their economic life is preserved). Private acts of purchase and sale are extremely few. However, even on the basis of this scanty and occasionally fragmentary evidence, we may suppose that the population of posads (settlements) took part in the economic activities, mostly sea hunting, in their own vessels. Usually the owner of a boat gathered a hunting artel (co-operative) “on shares”. A few words must be added concerning repairs. Although the amount of evidence on repairs is brief, references are fairly numerous and important presenting many interesting details. Probably, it was masts and rudders that were damaged most often. In April 1695, a Kholmogorian Elizarko Vaygachev “made two sopetses (rudders) and a tree (mast) for two doshchaniks. And he skobil (fastened with shackles) those two doshchaniks and on one doshchanik of the two he stained the decks” (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 11, book 103, sheet 62). The same year, he “made the sopets and the tree for the pavoska for carrying bricks (a bricktransporting boat)” (Ibid., sheet 12). For the sopets made by him, four wooden tyagas (wooden drives) were bought”, (Ibid., sheet 12), then he additionally “repaired, on a doshchanik of the house,… the deck and the sopets, and caulked that doshchanik and set the tree on that doshchanik, and then he “inserted a koleso (wooden block) into the tree of the doshchanik” (Ibid., sheets 66 verso, 68 verso). In 1695, Kholmogorians Elizarko Vaygachev and Sten’ka Beloryas, “made the trees and sopetses” for a lod’ya and a small kotsh (Ibid., book 107, sheets 124 verso – 125). There are fairly numerous records on making or purchase of rudders for doshchaniks (“the sopets for the doshchanik was purchased”, “the sopets has been made”, “two sopetses and two trees have been made”), (Ibid., sheets 12 verso – 13 verso).

There is a great deal of information on purchases of sails. Not only new sails, but mostly “second-hand ones (from lod’yas)” were bought (Ibid., sheets 6 verso, 7). There is also a record that in 1696, “for sewing sails, 20 faceted needles were bought” (Ibid., book 107, sheet 30 verso). In 1696 a very interesting item appeared in the Eparch’s house, suggesting that already by the 17th century, a peculiar system of sea warning had existed: “From Kholmogorian Ivan Sbakin, two rokovye lifting balls (distress signal balls) were bought” (Ibid., sheet 12 verso). In account books of the Archbishop’s house there are numerous records about purchases of anchors with the weights of 3 puds and 19 pounds, 3 puds and 7 pounds, 2 puds and 7 pounds (Ibid., sheets 7 – 7 verso). In April and May of 1695, a large order was fulfilled by a Kholmogorian blacksmith Afon’ka son of Osip Nagibin: “…for sea and river vessels, in order to supplement the old anchors and instead of the lost and broken ones, he made in the house’s smithy with the help of the house’s hands” seven new anchors: 4 puds and 30 pounds, 3 puds and 22 pounds, 3 puds and 1 pound, 2 puds and 13 pounds, 2 puds, 1 pud and 18 pounds, 1 pud and 13 pounds (Ibid., sheets 123 verso – 124).

Of significance are also certain details concerned with steering: in 1686, hinges were bought “for attaching rudder tyagas (drives) to the sopets (rudder)” (Ibid., book 103, sheet 13). Sometimes tyagas for sopetses were bought separately (Ibid., sheet 13 verso). The same year, from a resident of Glinsky posad in Kholmogory Mikhail 134

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN Excavations in Russian medieval towns, particularly those situated by important rivers and sea routes, have shown that ship wood was often used in house construction as beams (mostly for floors) and occasionally for making diverse wooden articles.

during the last years of the previous century; however, the tendencies of the new times were beginning to tell upon every aspect of the life of the Pomors. An increase in population, the rising demand for all products of sea hunting and fishing and the involvement of the population of new northern regions in these occupations – those were only some of the features, though very significant ones, of that period. If, earlier, it was predominantly the population of the northern regions directly adjoining the sea coasts which took part in sea hunting and fishing, now, this hunting population began to appear more frequently as kormshchiks (helmsmen) and contractors, while the ordinary pokruchenniks (workers) were recruited among peasants of Onega, Vaga, or even Vychegda, as well as among various urban residents (Fig. 23).

In 1686, “to a peasant Geraska Potanin, was sold the bottom of a doshchanik from the Eparch’s house, which had been driven away by high water” (Ibid., sheet 84) and in 1688, “near the Kholmogory Spassky Cathedral, Mitroshka Yakovlev with companions “broke” barks of the Eparch’s house” (Ibid., book 106, sheet 170 verso). The details described above were characteristic of all types of Pomor sea and river vessels during the period under consideration. For us, of primary importance is the fact that each fishing and sea-hunting region mentioned in the written documents of the 16th-17th centuries (White Sea/Murmansk and Novaya Zemlya) had its own peculiar type of the main hunting/transporting ships – lod’ya and kotsh. We consider this fact as certain indication of stability of tradition in Pomor boatbuilding and a reflection of the specifics of hunting and fishing regions of the East European Arctic in the 16th-17th centuries.

During the 18th century, the structure of the enterprise was continuously changing. As early as the 19th century, some researchers already noted a significant transformation in the organisation of the northern sea fishing, hunting and whaling, in which one reform was followed by another during almost the entire century (Kaydanov 1884: 297-299). Before Peter I, the fishing and hunting in the White Sea (where there were quitrent and private fisheries, and customs duties additionally paid after fishing ended) and in the region of Novaya Zemlya (where there were no quitrent and private fisheries, but the customs duties were also paid after hunting) were carried out “freely”. But as early as 1703, whaling, cod and herring fishing, as well as other enterprises in the White and Arctic seas were given to the company of Prince Menshikov and brothers Shafirovs. This

18th Century boatbuilding The 18th century undoubtedly was not any sharp line that divided “the present age from that which had passed” in the history and economy of Pomorye. In the beginning of the 18th century, the population continued to live, construct their boats, and sail in the same manner as

Fig. 23. Boats in the harbour of Onega. Topograficzeskaja opisanije Arkhangelogorodskiej Guberni 1797.

135

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

reorganisation brought no special profits to the Treasury, neither did it result in any increase in the volume of the enterprises themselves, because the company mostly bought the products from petty merchants and resold them in monopoly conditions.

for hunting in their kotshas and lod’yas, that instead of such vessels they should build galliots, kraers, or fleytas – any they wish,… they are allowed to navigate in old vessels only for two years, or, in case of extremity, three years, but after the expiry of that term to rebuild all the old vessels without exception”. Those who were disobedient were subjected to a series of punishments: “…those who will not make the ships enumerated above must be condemned to penal servitude and their ships hacked to pieces” (GAAO, manuscript group 831, inv 1, file 1483, 1558, sheets 1 – 1 verso). The decree ordered that “on these newly built ships there should be an inscription telling about the place where it was built and its name, and in the course of preparation for its launching, all circumstances connected with this ship must be declared and recorded in the City Hall, namely: the number of its lasts, its depth and width and the height of the mast, different marks on it, the name of the shipwright who built it etc., and according to these records, certifying letters must be drawn up, signed and stamped with the seal of the city in order that when such a ship is sold, the above-mentioned letter should be kept in that ship by the new owner” (Ibid., manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 4160, sheet 4 verso). In 1728, the decree was repeated: “…it is ordered to Pomor inhabitants of the regions of the White and Murman (Barents) Seas to make galliots, gukors (hookers), kraers and everses in order to go by the small sea from Solovki (the Solovets Islands) to the city of Arkhangelsk and by the Dvina River, and for sea fishing and hunting to make sherboats large and small… like those that are made in St. Petersburg” (Ibid., sheet 4).

Peter’s decree of February 21, 1721, moved rights to sea fishing and hunting “into the company” of Arkhangelsk merchant Yevreinov who got the rights to deliver products of these enterprises both to the internal Russian market and abroad. However, this initiative failed as well, and soon the state of the business returned to that before 1721. An attempt was made to organise whaling, for which purpose special ships were built near the city of Arkhangelsk. According to a decree of the empress, the Senate ordered “to the ships made near the city of Arkhangelsk for whaling: to send commanders and ordinary steersmen and seamen from Pomor settlements of the Arkhangelsk Province, about 30 persons who had already been at sea fishing and hunting, and send them to the City of Arkhangelsk” (RGA VMF, manuscript group 212, section III, Decrees, file II, sheets 71 – 71 verso). By the same decree it was directed “to make lines for that whaling on the pattern of the Admiralty’s ones, and to make the instruments at the Sestroretsk factories, and when ready – to send them to Kola Ostrog (fort) via the beginning winter-way on hired carts in order that already the next spring there would be no impediments to the whaling”. Nevertheless, the experiments were continued: in 1731, whaling, unprofitable for the Treasury, was moved “into the company” of the Arkhangelsk merchant Yevreinov in order that he would carry out whaling and recover losses in this trade at the expense of the other ones – fishing and hunting. However, whaling continued to incur losses to the Treasury, and soon it was handed over, first to Baron Shafirov and later to General-Berg Baron Shemberg. All these reforms helped little to improve the situation and therefore these enterprises were returned to the government. With that end in view, a Commerce Office was established in Arkhangelsk under the control of the Commerce Collegium.

However, the government’s attempts to improve the situation in the Pomor sea fishing and hunting by reorganisation of the fishing and hunting fleets at the expense of the peasantry were blocked by various reasons – mainly by the peasants themselves (see Jasinski 1994). Below, let us trace some stages of this opposition on the basis of documentary evidence. The imperial decree of December 28, 1715, was received in Arkhangelsk on January 19, 1716. That decree ordered “to declare to all hunters who go to the sea for hunting in their kotshas and lod’yas, that instead of such vessels they should make galliots, gukors, kats, or fleytas – any they would wish, and (while they are not yet provided with the new ships) they are given the term of only two years for sailing in old ships, or, in case of extremity, three years, but no new kotshas and lod’yas should be made under the penalty of fines” (Ibid., file 74, sheets 48, 128 – 128 verso). But already the next decree of March 1719 allowed certain indulgence “to make galliots, gukors, kraers and everses for seafaring only by the small sea from Solovki to the city of Arkhangelsk and by the Dvina River, and for that purpose it is ordered that their old vessels: lod’yas, karbases, soymas and kotshas would be re-registered, and to allow them to use these re-registered ships to the end, but no new ones should be made, and if someone after this decree makes them, he should be condemned to penal

A new reform burst forth in June 1748, when the Pomor fishing and hunting were let for 29 years “into the maintenance” of Count Shuvalov: “…all-gracefully granted to him and his heirs are the state fat-trade for its better conduct and increase of Her Imperial Majesty’s interest” (Ibid., section II, Decrees, file XIX, sheet 15). The solution to the question of advisability of further whaling was left “to his discretion”. In 1768, after the expiry of the term of the monopoly, the business was returned to private traders and remained “free” until the beginning of the 19th century. In the first quarter of the 18th century, the centuries-old Pomor tradition of boat and shipbuilding was subjected to a very hard revision: the tsar’s decrees of 1715-1726 “ordered to declare to all the hunters who go to the sea 136

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN servitude and his ships hacked to pieces” (Ibid., sheet 48 verso).

vessels in the new fashion” (Ibid., manuscript group 233, inv. 1, file 32, sheet 5). Similar shipbuilding practices seem to have been initiated not infrequently, therefore the Arkhangelsk Chancellery wrote repeated inquiries to the Senate in 1722, 1723, and 1728 – regarding what to do with such hybrid vessels “which are called gukors but actually are sewn” (GAAO, manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 74, sheet 93). The Senate, however, kept silence and, therefore, the Arkhangelsk Provincial Chancellery had to issue its own decision on such vessels: “The sea vessels which having been earlier prohibited were not registered in the year of 1719, as well as the other, newly built ones called gukors but actually sewn, are to be recorded and marked by penalty stamps with an indication of the year of 1722” (Ibid., sheet 96 verso).

The strict regulations of the imperial decrees meant in essence the complete replacement, and in as short span of time as possible, of the entire hunting and cabotage fleet in Pomorye. This, in fact, was hardly possible at all. On September 20, 1728, a new decree was sent to Arkhangelsk: “It is ordered to Pomor inhabitants, for seafaring in the White and Murman seas from Solovki to the city of Arkhangelsk by the small sea and by the Dvina River… to make galliots, gukors, kraers and everses, while the others, especially fishers and hunters, for fishing and shipping provisions are allowed to make sherboats large and small like those made in St. Petersburg” (Ibid., sheet 49).

Thus the group of new mannered ships included vessels that had not passed registration during the preceding six years and those newly built without accordance with the new-fashioned patterns.

Pomorye was no exception – Peter’s plan about the fundamental transformation of Russian shipbuilding concerned all regions of Russia: in Astrakhan and Nizhny Novgorod, the authorities were guessing whether it was allowed to provide cargos by river in vessels of a prohibited type, since it was stated in the received decrees that “beginning with this year of 1724, it is forbidden to go by any vessel of the old type without exception” (“whereas no vessels of the new type were yet available by that year”) (RGA VMF, manuscript group 233, inv. 1, file 32, sheet 4 verso). In reply, the instruction was added “by his majesty’s own hand” – “to postpone for one year” (RGA VMF, manuscript group 233, inv. 1, file 32, sheet 4 verso).

All Pomor vessels had to pass “inspection” in the Arkhangelsk City Hall resulting in a document called an “Inspection Letter” which contained a detailed description of the vessel, the place and date of its building, the name of the master who built it, the name of the ship’s owner, the date of the inspection, the characteristics and the place of the stamp on the ship. The ship-owner was required to obtain such a document every time he applied for permission to put his ship to sea with cargo or for hunting (RGA VMF, manuscript group 212, section I, Decrees, file 19. This document contains four complete copies of inspection letters – sheets 104, 115, 19, 143).

The Vice-Governor of the city of Arkhangelsk, Lodyzhenskiy, wrote about the calamitous condition of the Pomors due to the prohibition to build vessels of the old type: on the Dvina “those masters who built these gukors have in fact never learnt the craftsmanship of shipbuilding in the new fashion; therefore it is necessary to send some masters to the city of Arkhangelsk for teaching and training to build these vessels of the new type” (Ibid., sheet 5). To this document two resolutions were added, one – from the St. Petersburg dockyard: “it is impossible to send any masters from the particular dockyard for this purpose since all the masters available have been sent to Novgorod and other uyezds”; the second resolution was the imperial: “Order you yourselves masters from Holland” (Ibid., sheet 5). Meanwhile, the Pomor shipwrights, who had practically nothing to look upon as a pattern, tried on their own to master the new-fashioned construction. They attempted also to design some kind of a hybrid vessel combining the traditional old-fashioned features with the new-fashioned ones. Nevertheless, it proved impossible to beguile the vigilance of the local Arkhangelsk authorities, who denounced to St.-Petersburg that “…whereas examination and attestation showed these vessels to be of the gukor type, but actually they are sewn with withe to the height of cargo stacking, because the masters who built these gukors, never in fact had been taught the craft of building

In this context, of interest is the fairly extensive document named “Petition of ship-owners for permission to build ships and put them out to sea”. This document is concerned with only a single period of navigation in 1729, from June 19 until September 19, and contains information on probably all, or almost all the vessels that intended to set off or were returning from the sea during that period. It is also possible, however, that only some of the supposed “leaves” to the sea have been reflected in this document. Nevertheless, it presents a number of unique pieces of evidence on the state of Pomor shipbuilding and the situation in the sea fishing and hunting before the events of 1749. What was the matter? It appears that “in beast hunting and hide trades, not only obstacles are put but also considerable losses are caused because this decree forbids building of vessels in the old manner” (Ibid., sheet 15 verso). To this effect, the Archimandrite of the Solovets Monastery and Mezen hunting organisers wrote in their petitions that “because of the shallow water in the Upper Dvina and in the coastal sea waters and in the river mouths, as well as in many other places, it is impossible to go there in vessels of the new type, and besides, they, Mezenians, are unable to build these new-fashioned 137

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

vessels because of their poverty” (Ibid., sheet 15 verso). The Governing Senate pronounced its decisions on these petitions only in 1749:

mannered” ships with “new-mannered” ones had been dragged out for a considerably longer span. The largest merchant dockyards in Pomorye and the Solombala Admiralty in Arkhangelsk started to solve the circle of problems concerned with overseas trade.

1) On the petition of 1730 of the Archimandrite of the Solovets Monastery – “to permit this monastery to build vessels in the old manner for monastery’s and peasants’ needs”; 2) On the petition of 1731 of Mezenians, “it is ordered to them, Mezenians, to build vessels of the old type for transportation of wheat and for beast-hunting” (Ibid., section II, Decrees, file 19, 1749, sheets 16 – 16 verso) 3) The third decree concerned the residents of Arkhangelsk and Kholmogory, as well as hunters of the Dvina and Olonets uyezds: similar to Mezenians and the Solovets Monastery “to permit building of vessels in the old manner”, but on the condition that they would deliver “the blubber lard and hides and other goods pertaining to that trade” to Count Shuvalov’s company.

The entire fishing and hunting fleet became some kind of a “small fleet” in relation to large Russian trade and war ships. Certainly, building of hunting and fishing vessels of the new types called galliots, buers etc. did begin, but Pomor shipwrights were far from giving up their traditional techniques of making vessels for these purposes – the more so as the fishing and hunting business itself, with its regulations and tools, was practically unable to change in a moment and neither did it change. Moreover, according to documentary evidence, the previous Pomor boat types were not actually rejected but lod’yas had been used in the White Sea and Murman areas during almost the entire 18th century. “An account of the lod’ya and its rigging of the Kholmogory Archbishop’s house, and the wheat and food provisions, salt and hunting tools sent on it.

Thus the Senate’s decrees of 1749 alleviated considerably the severe requirements of the original decrees of Peter The Great, and of the post-Peter period, on the newfashioned shipbuilding in Pomorye.

Description of the lod’ya and lod’ya’s appliances and tackle. Lod’ya dvinyanka (i.e. of the Dvina type) of the largest size has been in the previous year of 1703 caulked against leakage. On it there are icons: Transfiguration of the Saviour, Our Lady, and St John painted on separate plates, and folding icons on three plates, copper-mounted; a pyadnishny (in quarter) painted image of the Almighty with the crown of the framework made basmyanoy (in a thin framework) from gilded silver. Three compasses in cases including one large on dugas (arcs). Two lamps with two mica walls and the other two of wooden planks. The lod’ya is equipped with tackle as follows: large anchor 80 puds in weight, anchor 5 puds in weight, anchor 8.5 puds in weight, anchor 3 puds in weight, anchor 2 puds and 10 pounds in weight. Large zavoz (fish-net) and a zavoz metnyi (net for throwing) – both almost unworn; a third fish-net (zavoz pod metnym). And those four zavozes are all worn in use. Vozzhi (sheets), 81 nogi (guys) with peremets and in six nogi there are 13 iron vekoshi (trays). The sail is worn out, therefore pieces of new canvas have been given for the sail, the number of the pieces and their dimensions and their price are specified below. Two axes, a khrap (a stop for a windlass), a chisel, two scrapers, two napar’i (large drills), two oaken barrels for kvass and water. Lod’ya’s karbas. Copper ware: 3 cauldrons of red copper with iron bows, 20 pounds in weight; 2 iron spitsas (axles) with rashivalni; 3 buckets with handles, new; 2 hunting hooks; a spare veksha kalitnaja; 2 tyagi sobtsovye (rudder drives), new. And of the lod’ya described above with its tackle and household appliances, officials do not know how to evaluate the price, because these tackles and appliances were bought in different years” (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 255, inv. 2, file 1, sheets 4 – 5 verso).

There were, however, certain reservations stipulated in these Senate’s decrees: “besides these blubber hunting and beast-catching and transportation of the blubber lard, hides and other goods pertaining to this hunting, no goods of other kinds should be transported by vessels of the old type but instead such vessels of the new type must be available for that latter purpose as are allowed by the decrees” (Ibid., sheet 17). However, these stipulations, it seems, never had any practical significance. Nevertheless, the written documents of the first half of the 18th century, particularly of its first decades, are important primarily as a source of evidence on the new tendencies in the traditional Pomor shipbuilding. It is unlikely that after 1749 the Pomor shipbuilding returned entirely to the practices of the late 17th century. Undoubtedly, the period of introduction of new-fashioned ships did influence the Pomor shipbuilding traditions. The document on the permission granted to ships for the hunting season of 1729 presents a fairly extensive list of Pomor vessels, from which a group of the traditional oldfashioned ones stands out – lod’ya, kotshmara, karbas, and soyma. The second group is represented by such vessels as gukor (hooker), galliot, buer (ice-yacht), donshkot, sherbot (skerboat), shkuta, and yacht. This are described in detail below: 1. Lod’ya Peter’s decrees gave to fishers and hunters a brief respite, permitting them to use old types of vessels for a few more years. Naturally, the process of the replacement of “old-

138

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN vessel” was leaving for Murman coast, Spitsbergen or Novaya Zemlya: each vessel had already been “stamped”, i.e. had its registration certificate which specified its dimensions, capacity, and the place and time of its construction.

In November of 1784, a peasant of Terpilovsky Stan (stan was a division of an uyezd) near Arkhangelsk, Mikhaylo son of Ivan Vologdin submitted a petition: “Named above, I have a wish to build for the needs of hunting a sea-going vessel – lod’ya, by peasants in Zaostrovskaya volost in Arkhangelsk okruga (district) from timber unfit for construction of [large] ships, with the length along the keel of forty-seven feet, and eighteen feet wide; but I do not dare to build this vessel without the permission of the Governor’s Office and ask… to allow me to build it…” (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 3, file 24, sheet 1). The Arkhangelsk Governor’s Office permitted Vologdin to build the lod’ya “but on the condition that, for this construction, he would buy timber from free people who have the lawful permission to fell and sell trees, and would not fell trees on public dachas (grounds) without the permission of the Arkhangelsk State Chamber…” (Ibid., sheet 1 verso).

In our opinion, such a conclusion follows from a report of 1801: “1 – particular merchants, bourgeois and peasants in cities of that province – Arkhangelsk, Kholmogory, Mezen, Onega, Kem and Kola, and their surroundings – have sea-going vessels for fishing and hunting; the lengths of these vessels along the keel are from 33 to 85 feet, [their capacity amounting to] from 14 to 60 lasts, and the width and depth corresponding to this length; the crews of these ships during hunting periods and in the interims vary in their number in vessels of equal size, depending on the distance of the voyage and peculiarities of the hunting business, so that to Greenland, Novaya Zemlya and Spitsbergen, 6 to 10 persons depart in light vessels, and 12 to 40 in larger ones; to the Murman Russian coast, such vessels go with 4, 6 and 8 workers for transportation of wheat to local hunters and fishers and conveying them back to the ports of Arkhangelsk and Onega” (Ibid., file 89, sheet 57a).

In September 1784, an Arkhangelsk merchant Sergey Zhebelev submitted a petition to the Arkhangelsk Governor’s Office: “Named above, I have a wish to build for my merchant needs a sea-going vessel lod’ya in Kuzonemskaya volost in Pinega okruga by peasants of the village of Ostrovskaya, Alexey Ikonnikov with companions, from timber unfit for ship construction, with the length along the keel of fifty-four feet; but I do not dare to build this vessel without the permission of the Governor’s Office” (Ibid., file 25, sheet 1). In the same degree as this petition corresponded to the standard style (cf. the previous document), did the answer correspond to the standard pattern: “By virtue of the laws currently in force, to permit the above-mentioned merchant Zhebelev to build a lod’ya in Pinega okruga, whereof to give him a licence with the deduction of legal expenses, but on condition that, for this construction, he would buy timber from free people who have lawful permission to fell and sell trees…” (Ibid., sheet 1 verso; Ovsyannikov 1985:71-72).

According to this report, large hunting vessels and ships intended for voyages abroad were built at merchants’ dockyards. The information in reports from different cities of Arkhangelsk province was summarized and sent to the State Commerce Collegium. It informed that “The merchants accustomed to this enterprises, each in his own name, and in their own large sea-going vessels called briks (brigs) and lod’yas, send hired hunters both to the Murman coast and to various islands in remote parts of the Ice Sea and Arctic Ocean, of which the main and remotest in the Ice Sea are considered Grumant (Spitsbergen) and Novaya Zemlya” (Ibid., sheets 196 verso – 197; see also Jasinski 1993). Undoubtedly, in the second half of the 18th century, a contradictory situation arose in the Pomor sea hunting and fishing fleet – building of “sea-going vessels” (lod’yas and smaller crafts) continued at peasants’ dockyards, whereas warships, ships for voyages abroad and for whaling, and perhaps even certain large lod’yas, were built at regular dockyards. It is worth noting that slightly earlier – in the first half of the 18th century, the situation had been different. This is true mainly regarding the repertoire of types of vessels – Peter’s decree on building buyars, kraers, galliots, and everses, while allowing ship-owners to chose themselves the type, introduced, to some degree artificially, certain elements of the West European maritime culture into the established Russian national shipbuilding traditions.

Thus lod’ya, it seems, had surmounted all the obstacles of the new regulations and remained a large sea vessel as before. Arkhangelsk merchants Okonnishnikov and Plotnikov stated in their reports of 1801: Okonnishnikov “I am sending a sea-going vessel lod’ya to Novaya Zemlya and, in the interim, perhaps to Spitsbergen” (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 9, file 89, sheet 152 verso). Plotnikov - “We are sending a sea-going vessel lod’ya to Novaya Zemlya and to Spitsbergen” (Ibid., sheet 158). It is noteworthy that in the 1780-90s, owners as a rule did not specify the type of the departing vessels but wrote simply “a sea-going vessel”. Only occasional statements concerning the types of vessels sent to Novaya Zemlya and Spitsbergen are known: in 1797 two vessels were sent from Vygoretsk county – a decked sealer “Svyatoy Nikola” under no. 174 and lod’ya “Svyatoy Nikolay” no. 307148. Probably, it was already of no importance by that time what type of hunting “sea-going

A small archive file concerned with the departure of three vessels of the Vygoretsk Old-Believers’ community to 139

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Sorotskaya, Shueretskaya and Onega volosts, and from Kola. Unfortunately, the documents of 1728-29 give us no idea about the exact parameters of this vessel. Peter I liked soymas so much during his visit to Arkhangelsk that when preparing his military operations in the Baltic areas he proposed to Prince Menshikov “to make for about ten thousand men, preferably more, such soymas as go to Murmansk (similar to those which convoyed us from the Solovets Islands), and to make them now as good and strong as possible, adding some features in our own manner to them”. The total of 300 soymas were constructed (RGA VMF, manuscript group 233, inv. 1, file 112, sheet 72).

Grumant (Spitsbergen) in the first half of the 18th century gives an interesting information: buyar (buer) “Lebed’“ (Swan), sherboat “Glikeriya” and galliot “Morzh” (Walrus) (Ibid., manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 4160, sheets 1 – 9 verso). This file contains a description of the main dimensions of the vessels – they differed in their length, width of the hull and the height of the single mast. The dimensions of the “new-fashioned vessel buyar” built in 1755 in Dvina uyezd on the Pinega River by a peasant Ivan Ikonnikov resemble those of the above-mentioned galliot “Morzh” (Ibid., file 5126, sheets 1 – 3 verso). The “Atlas of the Arkhangelsk Province” of 1797 enumerates all the vessels which returned that year from hunting and fishing voyages: 124 lod’yas, 97 kotshmaras, 2 briks (brigs), 2 boats, 1 galliot, 74 vesnoval’nye karbases (for vesnoval’nyi promysel or hunting seals or walruses on ice) and 15 shnyakas (the total number of the crew members in all those ships amounted to 2082 persons Ovsyannikov 1988: 85; see also Jasinski & Ovsyannikov 1998). Thus the most of the “new-mannered” vessels seem to have been “dissolved” by the end of the 18th century among traditional lod’yas and karbases, although the same encyclopaedia stated that “for hunting on Grumant and Novaya Zemlya, large sea-going vessels were sent, namely: gukors, galliots and lod’yas” (Ovsyannikov 1988: 80)

4. Shnyakas The problem with obtaining proper building materials for vessel construction was especially critical in northern regions lacking even “unsuitable wood”. Thus in 1798, “a Kola bourgeois Filipp son of Alexey Golodnoy” submitted “a very loyal petition” in the name of Kola citizens: residents of Kola asked for pine timber “to build 35 new hunting boats called shnyakas which would be able to carry about 150 puds of cargo”(Golubtsov 1910: 19-20). Kola residents needed timber also for repairing their houses: “Pomors occupied with sea hunting provide themselves with timber from their places”, whereas Kola residents go for timber a distance of over 60 versts. Noteworthy is the information that “in the city of Kola there has never been any lod’ya-building, but residents have small boats called kotshmaras which are bought in the city of Arkhangelsk”. About shnyakas: “… these boats are built by cutting with axes, each from twelve trees (i.e. planks) … while it is completely impossible to saw these trees (planks), of which always curved ones have been used, they are hewn to a shneka pattern” (Golubtsov 1910. 20). It was necessary for the Kola inhabitants to build new vessels because every year, Pomors arrived in March to the fishery in 400 boats, whereas “Kola residents only in 60”. The Citizens’ Book of 1786 of the city of Kola also indicates the high importance of fishing for Kola inhabitants: most of the population “are fed by sea fishing” (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 9, file 1, sheet 3).

It is important to stress that in the 18th century lod’ya continued to be in use as a major sea-going vessel practically in all fishing and hunting regions of the European Arctic – the Pechora/Novaya Zemlya and Murman areas, and it is reported also from Spitsbergen (in documents of the 17th century, Spitsbergen is not mentioned at all among the hunting regions of inhabitants of Pomorye). 2. Kotshmara In the document on the “leave” of ships in the season of 1729 this term is mentioned only twice: a “kotshmara” and a “kotshmarka” or small kotshmara; on both occasions, kotshmara was used for shipping wheat provisions from Arkhangelsk to the Solovets Monastery and Kemsky Gorodok (gorodok - a small town; GAAO, manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 74, sheets 92, 102 verso). The etymology of the term kotshmara is not quite clear, but possibly is related to kotsh .The dimensions of the vessel probably varied.

We may suppose that vessels of the shnyaka type actually took, in the structure of sea fishing and hunting occupations, the place of the karbas that in the 18th century was gradually becoming an independent fishing and hunting vessel (Fig. 24). Not by chance, during the navigation season of 1800-01 the majority of hunting and fishing vessels owned by peasants of the Summer and Winter coasts of the White Sea were karbases (Ibid., file 87, sheet 3). Noteworthy is the following nuance: karbas became an independent type of vessel mostly in the inner White Sea basin and at the Novaya Zemlya hunting grounds. In the Murman area, karbas disappeared almost completely from the structure of the fishing and hunting

3. Soyma In general, it was a large transport vessel traditional and quite widespread in the White Sea region. In the document soyma is mentioned 16 times and is described as “large old-fashioned, of the old construction” (Ibid., sheets 39 verso – 40, 58–59, 86 – 87 verso, 91, 92, 96– 97, 118, 126, 131, 156, 179 – 180 verso). It is noteworthy that only 4 out of 16 soymas belonged to residents of the Dvina volost, the others being from the western White Sea coast - Kemsky Gorodok and Sumsky Gorodok, 140

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN

Fig. 24. Fishing shnyaka. Russian postcard of the early 20th century.

5. Karbas

of Kola Ostrog (RGA VMF, manuscript group 233, inv. 1, file 112, sheets 80–82). Karbases were called “oldmannered, of the old design” transporting vessels (Ibid., sheets 23 verso, 46, 161, 112, 141, 5, 147 verso). They were used for shipping cereal provisions via the White Sea, for loading larger merchant vessels, or conveying pilgrims from Arkhangelsk to the Solovets Monastery (different karbases took 29-42 or 52-57 passengers aboard – Ibid., sheets 82, 100). Karbases called “a sea karbas” and “a large sea karbas” are mentioned: these also were intended for transporting wheat provisions from the city of Akhangelsk to various Pomor volosts (Ibid., sheet 82). The same karbases were used for sea fishing (Ibid., sheet 139 verso). The crew of these karbases may have amounted up to 9 persons – the kormshchik (helmsman) and workmen (Ibid., sheet 139 verso). We may assume quite reliably that some of the karbases had decks as is mentioned in our document: e.g. Matvey Balukov’s karbas was registered by “an eagle stamp in the prow where the deck is fixed”, the karbas of Alexey Banev from the Dvina “was stamped with an eagle mark in the prow at the level of the deck” (Ibid., sheet 14 verso).

In the document under consideration, karbas is mentioned 16 times. As a rule, karbases belonged to residents of the Lower Dvina regions – Kholmogory and the city of Arkhangelsk. In one case, a karbas belonged to a resident

The use of karbas type of vessel continued during the 18th century, but certain changes took place as compared with the preceding period. An important trend in these changes was an increase in the size of hunting karbases

occupations, and it is here that it was replaced by a smaller vessel – shnyaka. Reports and declarations of some Arkhangelsk merchants inform us: Mikhail Kunitsyn sending via Kola 26 fishermen to “the Murman Russian coast” mentioned “five small vessels called shnyakas” in which fishermen went to the sea – four persons in each shnyaka (Ibid., file 89, sheets 156 – 156 verso). Fishermen returned to Arkhangelsk with their catches in Kunitsyn’s ship or aboard one rented by him. Plotnikov and son sent to the Murman coast 36 fishermen who went to sea in nine “small vessels called there shnyakas” – four persons in each shnyaka (Ibid., sheet 158). Peotr Bolotnyi had three small vessels “called there shnyakas” which were manned by twelve persons at sea (Ibid., sheet 154 verso). Vasiliy Okonnishnikov had eight fishermen in two vessels “called there shnyakas” (Ibid., sheet 152). Noteworthy is the repeating expression “called there shnyakas”. This can be seen as an indication that this type of craft appeared first in the western part of the “Murman Russian coast” and was connected with the influence of shipbuilding traditions of the neighbours.

141

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

vessel) and all other necessary duties – these should be paid from the treasury of the Archbishop’s house.

and their transformation into independent hunting vessels. One of the most interesting documents concerned is presented below.

By June 9, 1711, the aforementioned contractors Ivan Mikhaylov Batakov and Timofey Ivanov Karmakulov have made that sea karbas according to the contract as described above and conveyed it to Kholmogory, to the Eparch’s house, intact and proper, as is written in this record above. And according to this contract, the rest of the money – 10 rubles – has been paid to these contractors from the treasury of the Archbishop’s house. In the names of Ivan Batakov and Timofey Karmakulov and by their wish signed by Yakop Popov from Nizhnie Koydokury.

“1710, November 20. His Grace Raphail, the Archbishop of Kholmogory and Vaga, ordered to hire for Murman fisheries of his Eparch’s house good masters to build a vessel suitable for seafaring and which would take cargo of about two thousand or two and a half thousand puds in weight. And according to this order of His Grace Archbishop, called and hired for building this sea-going vessel were peasants Ivan son of Mikhail Batakov and Timofey son of Ivan Karmakulov from Ostrovskaya Village of Kusonemsky Stan in Dvina uyezd. They were ordered to make for Murman fisheries of the Eparch’s house a sea karbas with a deck along the length of the koloda (keel timber), i.e. eight and a half sazhens and one ell long, and three sazhens and one ell across, and to make the proper width corresponding to the length. And the stern of that karbas was to be made with a rozvod like on ships and with a kazenka (deck-cabin); and to take for this construction the best and strongest timber without rot, cracks or boughs; and to sew this karbas by the best and strongest with. And to make the entire karbas properly and with the best skill. And to give out all the necessary materials for this construction from the House: konopat’ (oakum), shackles, iron nails, tar, and skaly (shingles), whereas the timber should be taken by the contractors from their own. The contractors are to make this karbas completely finished and to convey it on their own to Kholmogory in the spring of the year before the next 1711, via the first water way opened from ice in the first days of June, and to moor it in the place that His Grace Archbishop specifies. Those men, Ivan and Timofey, are to make this karbas by their own efforts with their own bread and food, and to use their own horses for transportation of the timber. For making this karbas it is promised to pay Ivan and Timofey, for the timber and work specified above, twenty rubles from the Eparch’s house treasury; and from that stipulated money, ten rubles have been paid in advance; as to the rest of the sum, it will be received by the contractors according to this record from the Eparch’s house treasury when they have completed the karbas and moored it in the specified place in Kholmogory. And in the case, those contractors, Ivan and Timofey, make that karbas not in accordance with this contract and agreement, or have not delivered it in the terms specified, and thus it is not ready for hunting, then double the money paid to the contractors should be returned and, in addition, damages without any mercy. And the contractors should provide a sound root wood for the sopets (rudder) as it is proper, as well as other wood for the sopets and the rudder ogloblya (shaft) of good birchen wood, and to bring this all in the same karbas. The guarantor of building this karbas, conveying it to Kholmogory, and of the money paid in advance to Ivan and Timofey, is the deacon of the Trinity Church of Glinsky Posad in Kholmogory – Feodor son of Semeon Bezshchochkin; as to the prival’noe and otval’noe (or the duties paid respectively for mooring and unmooring of a

For the same new Murman karbas, Zenon Khudoshubnik from Chyukhtenema made a new derevo (or “tree” i.e. the mast) completely and the sopets (rudder). And he mounted that derevo … and the boat, and several other petty appliances for all of which he, Zinon, is given one ruble. And for the same karbas, the Kholmogorian smith Ivan Vostronosov welded the fluke on the anchor. For that work he was given 16 altyns and 4 dengas. Also for that derevo, a sandal-tree spitsa (axle) was bought for 6 altyns. Also a new water bucket was bought for that karbas from a Kholmogorian from Kurtsevsky Posad, Vasiley son of Peotr Povarovykh, and paid for that bucket were 10 altyns”. (Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN, manuscript group 255, inv. 2, file 32, sheets 12–18). The document presented above contains some details uncommon by the 18th century and gives an idea regarding the construction of a sea-hunting karbas as a type of large sea-going vessel. Bershtam’s suggestion that karbas was a small dugout vessel with planking added to the sides seems highly unlikely (Bershtam 1987: 110). It is undoubted that in the hierarchy of Pomor hunting vessels, karbas which in the 17th century had been only an auxiliary vessel, joined the group of hunting vessels in terms of its dimensions and importance. The new-fashioned vessels of the 18th century The new-fashioned vessels of the 18th century comprised of Gukor or Hooker, Galliot, Buer, Yacht, Sherboat, Shkuts, and Donshkot. These are described in details below: Gukor. Hookers (gukors or gukars) were a major type among the new-fashioned vessels, building of which started in Pomorye according to Peter’s new decrees. The documents of 1728-29 mention a total of 15 ships of this type, of which 5 had detailed descriptions, registered in the “Inspection letters”. 1. Hooker “Svyatoy Nikolay” (Saint Nicholas): carrying capacity 25 lasts; length 53 ft; width 18 ft, depth 7 ft; two masts: the first – mainmast 43 ft, topmast – 26 ft; mizenmast – 30 Dutch ft. Built in 1724 in Nizhnyaya

142

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN lasts; length 44.5 ft; width 11 ft; depth 7 ft; one mast 44 English ft high; built in Siyskaya volost on the Siya River. 12. Hooker “Svyatoy Apostol Pavel” (Saint Apostle Paul): capacity 30 lasts; length 50 ft; width 19 ft; depth 10 ft; two masts: mainmast with the top – 57 ft, topmast – 34 ft, mizenmast – 40 ft, cross-topmast – 16 English feet. The vessel was built in 1727 in Mezen uyezd by a master from Rovdogorskaya volost of Dvina uyezd Osip Karlukov and registered in 1728. 13. Hooker “Sankt Abas Savvatiy Solovetskiy”: capacity 33 lasts; length along the keel 52 ft; width 17 ft; depth 8 ft; two masts: mainmast with the top – 81 ft, the other – mizenmast 43 Dutch feet. Built in 1729 on the island of Solovets by master Kirik Pleshchukov, a native of Ladoga.

Zolotitskaya volost by a master from Kureyskaya volost of Dvina uyezd Vasiliy son of Osip Plotnikov. 2. Hooker “Svyatoy Nikolay Chudotvorets” (Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker): carrying capacity 8 lasts; length along the deck 34.5 ft; width 10 ft, depth 5 ft; single mast 34 ft high. Built in 1727 in Kemsky Gorodok by master Sava Martynov. 3. Hooker “Svyatoy Andrey Pervozvannyi” (St Andrew the First Called): carrying capacity 28 lasts; length along the keel 50 ft; width 17.5 ft, depth 7.5 ft; two masts: the first – mainmast 41 ft high, topmast – 30 ft; mizenmast – 29 English ft. Built in 1727 at Sumskoy Ostrog. 4. Hooker “Svyatoy Mikhail” (St Michael): carrying capacity 45 lasts; length along the keel 51 ft; width 17 ft, depth 8 ft; single mast with a krug (cross-tree), the height of the mast – 48 ft. Built in 1727. 5. Hooker “Ioann Predtecha” (John the Baptist): carrying capacity – 10 lasts; length 41 ft; width across the deck 12.5 ft, height 7 ft and 2 fingers; two masts: the mainmast 45 ft high, foremast – 18 English ft. Built in 1727 in Kemsky Gorodok by a master from Olonets uyezd, peasant Afanasiy son of Antip Korel’skiy. 6. Hooker “Svyatoy Nikolay” (Saint Nicholas): carrying capacity – 19 lasts; length along the deck 43 ft and 3 fingers; width across the deck 15 ft and 4 fingers, depth from the keel up to the decks 7 Dutch ft and 10 fingers. Built in 1728 in Kuzonemsky Stan on the island in the Pinega River in Dvina uyezd by master Feodor Karmakulov; the ship “will go to the sea for walrus hunting; of the hands there are 11 persons”. 7. Hooker “Zosima”: carrying capacity 11 lasts; length 49 ft along the deck; width 13 ft, height 7 English ft; built in 1728 in the lands of the Solovets Monastery in Olonets uyezd by master Sava Martynov; “it will transport wheat and go to fisheries and beast hunting”. 8. Hooker “Svyatoy Andrey Stratilat” (Saint Andrew Stratilat): carrying capacity 28 lasts; length along the keel 50 ft, and 60 ft along the decks; width 7.5 ft, depth 7.5 ft; two masts: the first – mainmast 41 ft long; topmast – 30 ft, mizenmast – 29 English feet; built in 1728 at Sumskoy ostrog by master Kirik Nikonov, a native of Ladoga. 9. Hooker “Zosima”: carrying capacity 11 lasts; length along the decks 43 ft; width across the decks 13 ft, depth from the keel to the decks 7 Dutch ft; built in 1728 in Kemsky Gorodok by Makariy Vtorygin; it had 10 hands. 10. Hooker “Sophiya”: capacity 12 lasts; the length along the deck 49 ft; width 13 ft; depth 7 ft; two masts: the first – mainmast 47 ft long, the other – mizenmast 24 English ft. Built in 1729 in the lands of the Solovets monastery in Kemsky Gorodok by a master from the same Gorodok, Sava son of Yakov Martynov; “and it will go to the sea to the Kola and Pustozersk ostrogs and other maritime places with wheat, or to fisheries and beast hunting”. 11. Hooker “Svyatoy Prepodobnyi Antoniy Siyskiy” (Saint Reverend Anthony of the Siya): capacity 10

The above-mentioned hookers were built by local northern shipwrights: ships for residents of the western White Sea region were built by their own masters, whereas those of the Dvina residents were built by shipwrights from the Dvina volosts. This fact indicates that in the 18th century, the local shipbuilding centres, which had formed probably as early as the 17th century, continued to develop. Along with hookers, peculiar hybrids also appeared, in the construction of which both old and new techniques were used. Thus the gukor of the Dvina resident Nikifor Belyaev, built in 1718-20 by Boris Plotnikov, a peasant of Kuzonemsky Stan (stan – division of an uyezd), was stamped on the stempost in the prow by a penalty stamp of 1722 because the ship was found to be sewn (GAAO, manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 74, sheet 50). Boris Plotnikov was later taken to St.-Petersburg “for constant living” as a carpenter The Archbishop’s gukor intended for fishing was judged to be of the same type: “…it proved to be of the old-time design having been built and rigged like vessels of the new type in the same way as gukors are built, but actually it is sewn with withe and nails; and it was stamped with the penalty stamp issued in 722, which means 1722” (Ibid., sheet 8). A curious occurrence was related with a gukor donated by a Dvina resident Ivan Uskikh to the Istra Monastery: the gukor proved to have been “built like a gukor with the edges jointed with petniki (wooden pins for fixing adjoining upright board planks) and nails, and it was girded with barkoty (i.e. ship wales, from the Dutch barghout), but the mast and rigging on that gukor were of the old fashion”. The vessel was rigged anew and examined once more: according to a decision of the Arkhangelsk City Province Chancellery “sent for the inspection were Osip Bazhenin’s former ship masters: peasants Vasiley Plotnikov and Yegor Uskikh from Kureyskaya volost, and Larion Treskin from Chyukhnemskaya volost. And their examination showed that this gukor was rigged as a gukor should be – like similar gukors are rigged according to foreign customs” (Ibid., sheets 129 – 129 verso). 143

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Pinega River by Sava Kulakov, a shipwright from the same village. 5. Buer “Svyatoy Apostol Peotr” (Saint Apostle Peter): capacity 5 lasts; length 29 ft; width 8 ft; depth 4 ft and a half; the height of the mast 34 English ft (Ibid., sheet 158). “The buyar is built and rigged in 1726, in the new way as such buyars should be built”, by a master from the village of Tetrinskaya, Dmitriy Tarabarin who was also the owner of this ship.

Galliot. In the document of the 1729 there are three statements on galliots. 1. Galliot “Sokol” (Falcon): capacity – 35 lasts; the length along the keel 48 ft; width 15 ft; depth 7 ft and 3 inches; a single mast 8 ft long; the gaff was 26 ft long; the topmast was 15 ft high. The vessel belonged to the Vygoretsk Old-Believers’ commune and was intended for sea hunting and fishing; it was “sent to the Danish land” (Ibid., sheets 30 – 31 verso). 2. New-fashioned galliot “Svyatoy Nikolay” (Saint Nicholas): capacity – 35 lasts; length 40 English feet (Ibid., sheets 35 – 35 verso). The vessel belonged to a resident of the city of Arkhangelsk, Ivan son of Andrey Zvyagin; it was built in 1724 in Chugozerskaya volost of Dvina uyezd on the Pinega River by a peasant, Ivan son of Ivan Karlukov. Registered in 1725, the galliot was intended for sea fisheries. 3. Galliot “Svyatoy Mikhail” (Saint Michael): capacity – 15 lasts; length 40 ft, width 13 ft, depth 7.5 ft; a single mast 40 English ft long; built in 1724 in Chugozerskaya volost of Dvina Uyezd on the Pinega River by a peasant Ivan, son of Ivan Karlukov (Ibid., sheets 35 – 35 verso).

Yachts. For sea hunting and fishing, vessels of the yacht type were also built: there is information available on construction of two such vessels in 1754 and 1758. Undoubtedly, yachts were already built in the first half of the 18th century as is indicated by the yacht “Nikolay” built probably in c. 1730 (GAAO, manuscript group 191, inv. 1, file 1835, sheets 1–7 verso). Information on the building of one of the first yachts in the Dvina region is dated from 1693, when according to Peter’s decree, Dutch shipwrights, Pieter Baas and Gerbrant Jansens, built in Arkhangelsk the yacht “Svyatoy Peotr” or St Peter, 60 Dutch feet long and 20 Dutch feet wide Bryzgalov, Popov 1992: 16-18). We have at our disposal descriptions of some yachts:

Buer. A curious group of vessels was represented by buers or buyars iceboats mentioned five times in the documents of 1728-29. These statements are of importance because they contain detailed descriptions of the vessels.

1. Yacht “Svyatoy Nikolay”: capacity 27 lasts; length 60 ft; depth 7.5 ft; a single mast 56 English ft high. Built in 1723 in Zaostrovskaya volost of Dvina uyezd by a master from the same uyezd, peasant Ivan Kurlukov. 2. Yacht “Svyatoy Nikolay”: capacity 27 lasts; length 60 ft; width 18 ft, depth 7.5 ft; a single mast 56 English ft high (GAAO, manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 74, sheets 153 – 153 verso). Built in 1726 in Zaostrovskaya volost of Dvina uyezd by a master from the same uyezd, peasant Ivan Kurlukov 3. Yacht “Svyatoy Nikolay”: capacity 23 lasts; length along the decks 40 ft and 9 fingers; width 14 ft; depth 7 ft; a single mast 48 English ft high (Ibid., sheets 107–108). Built in the Nikola-Korelsky Monastery by a master from Rovdogorskaya volost (near Kholmogory), peasant Peotr Dolin, and registered probably soon after – in 1727. The ship was used for transportation of wheat to monastery fisheries. A fairly detailed description of the yacht “Svyatoy Nikolay” is dated to 1731 (Ibid., manuscript group 191, inv. 1, file 1835, sheets 1–3). 4. Yacht “Svyataya Mariya” (Saint Mary): capacity 20 lasts; length 53 ft; width 15 ft; depth 8 ft; a single mast 59 English ft high (GAAO, manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 74, sheets 113–114). This yacht of the new type was intended for sea fishing and shipping of wheat; it belonged to the Monastery of Anthony of the Siya. The yacht was built in 1724 at Vachyuzhskaya merchant dockyard in Dvina uyezd by a master Nikifor, son of Feodor Bazhenin. 5. Yacht: capacity 50 lasts; length along the keel 50 ft; from stem to stem 60 ft, width 19 ft 6 fingers; depth

1. Buer “Svyataya Troitsa” (The Saint Trinity): capacity 8 lasts; length 40 ft; width 15 ft; the depth from the deck 6 ft; a single mast 42 English ft high. Built in 1724 in the village of Gbacha in Kuzonemsky Stan in Dvina uyezd on the Pinega River by master Sava Kulakov, a peasant of the same village (Ibid., sheets 16 – 16 verso). 2. Buer “Lebed’“ (Swan): capacity 8 lasts; length 34 ft; width 12 ft; the depth from the deck 6 ft; a single mast was 38 English ft high (Ibid., sheet 42). Built in 1726 in the village of Vozhdorminskaya by shipwrights from Bystrokurskaya volost, Trofim Medvedev and Vasiley Filipov. 3. Buer “Gorlitsa” (Turtle-dove): capacity 8 lasts; length 33 ft; width 12 ft; the depth from the decks 6 ft; a single mast 36 English ft high (Ibid., sheets 1 – 2 verso). Built in 1726 on the Dvina River in the village of Vozhdorminskaya in Dvina uyezd, not far from Kholmogory, by masters from Bystrokurskaya volost, Trofim Medvedev and Vasiley Filipov. 4. Buer “Svyatoy Feodor Stratilat” (Saint Theodore Stratilat): capacity 8 lasts; length along the decks 38 ft and 11 fingers; width 12 ft and 11 fingers; depth 5 ft and 9 fingers; the height of the single mast 38 English ft (Ibid., sheets 133 verso, 139 verso). This ship was built in 1729 in Dvina uyezd, in Kuzonemsky Stan, the village of Gbacha on the

144

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN Pinega River in Kuzonemsky Stan by master peasant Feodor Karmakulov (Ibid., sheet 36). 2. Donshkot “Andrey Pervozvannyi” (St Andrew the First Called): capacity 9 lasts; length 36 ft; width 12 ft, height 7 ft; a single mast 40 English feet; built in Dvina uyezd on the Siya River at the Monastery mill by Kiril Nikonov, a shipwright from Ladoga. “This donshkot is intended to go to sea for fishing semga (salmon) for the Monastery; it has a 5-person crew” (Ibid., sheet 25).

9 ft; a single mast 60 ft long; built in 1726 on the Vashka River in Mezen uyezd (Ibid., sheet 133). It is not quite clear why such vessels as sherboats, shkuts and donshkots were built predominantly in the western White Sea area. Sherboat. Sherboat “Glikeriya”: capacity 8 lasts; length along the decks 42 ft and 10 fingers; width 15 ft and 10 fingers; the depth from the keel up to the decks – 6 ft and 4 fingers; a single mast 42 ft and 9 fingers high (Ibid., sheet 68). Built in 1729 “in the votchina (allodial land) of the Solovets Monastery in the village of Poduzhemskaya by a master from the same village, Matfey son of Ivan Demidovykh, and it will go by sea to Kola Ostrog and other maritime places with wheat and for fishing and hunting” as it was written by its owner, Ivan son of Ignatiy Korel, a peasant from Lisestrovskaya volost near Arkhangelsk, in his petition for “leave” for the sherboat to go to sea. There is as yet no such information available on the sherboat “Nikolay” which belonged to Afanasiy son of Foma Ratmanov (Ibid., sheet 18).

How may we estimate Peter’s aspiration to raise the Pomor shipbuilding to a new level in terms of quality, which in many respects would have corresponded to the European experience? Undoubtedly, the local Pomor shipbuilding was oriented predominantly towards fishing and hunting, and as an element of the traditional economic culture of this Arctic region it responded entirely to the needs of these occupations. However, in the 18th century it was already “a new age outdoors” – the state faced problems that had never arisen earlier, and to solve these problems it needed new trade and hunting fleets.

Shkuts (also shkots, shkhouts – flat-bottomed vessels, from the Dutch schuit) are mentioned several times in the document of 1728-29. Three of the descriptions are fairly detailed.

Conclusions The objective of the present paper was in no way to present a history of the Pomor boat and shipbuilding, but rather to trace the role of transport vessels of different types in the social and economic practice in diverse regions of the East European north and their role in utilisation of the portage system of this vast region. No such studies have, in fact, been carried out before except perhaps for those of the end of the 18th century carried out probably by Arkhangelsk historian V.V. Krestinin We suppose that historical research of Fomin, as well as of many other scholars, are based on V.V. Krestinin’s researches.

1. Shkut “Prepodobnyi Savvatiy” (Reverend Sabbatius): capacity 55 lasts; length along the keel 56 ft; width across the deck 18 ft and 6 inches; three masts: mainsail 70 ft, topsail 70 ft, foresail 38 English ft. 2. Shkut (shkuta) “Svyatoy Zosima” (St Zosima): capacity 20 lasts; length 30 ft; width 13 ft; depth up to the deck 7 ft; a single mast 42 English ft high (Ibid., sheets 88–90). This shkut of the new type belonged to Konstantin Stepanovykh from Lopsky Padonsky Pogost (pogost – the centre of a rural commune) of Sadal’skaya village. The ship was built in the votchina (allodial land) of the Solovets Monastery in Kemsky Gorodok by a master from Panozerskaya volost of Olonetsky uyezd, Afanasiy Antipin. The vessel received the inspection letter in 1726. 3. Shkuta “Avva Zosima Chudotvorets” (Abba Zosima the Wonderworker): capacity 100 lasts; length 78 ft; width 23 ft; depth 10 ft; it had three masts and a krug (cross-tree): the first mast 53 ft high from the keel up to the top, the second – foremast 47 ft, the third – stern-mast 45 English ft. This shkut was built in 1725 in the Solovets Monastery by a master from Olonets uyezd, peasant Terentiy, son of Sava Lokhmanov (Ibid., sheet 121).

From the sources/evidence described following conclusions are presented:

above,

the

In principle, the general scheme of organisation of the maritime economy was essentially the same in each fishing and sea hunting region: a large sea-going (transporting) vessel conveyed an artel (a group of hired workers or workmen’s cooperative association) of fishermen or hunters, the fishing and hunting equipment and food supplies to the region of their occupations; there the artel was divided into several crews and in smaller vessels (fishing and hunting ones in the proper sense) they carried out fishing or sea hunting, after which they returned home with the catch. It is within the framework of this scheme that certain specific changes were taking place in each particular region during a fairly long chronological span.

Donshkot. In the documents of 1728-29, two vessels of the donshkot type are also mentioned: 1. Donshkot “Svyatoy Mikhail Arkhangel” (St Archangel Michael): capacity 7 lasts; length 35 ft along the decks; width 7.5 ft, depth 5 ft; a single mast 36 English ft high; built in 1727 in Dvina uyezd at the

The earliest was the White Sea/Murmansk region, that since the 17th century may have been considered as two independent regions. The development of that region 145

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

The poorest information available on the hunting fleet is concerned with the region of the Spitsbergen archipelago. Mainly, this is due to the fact that we have at our disposal no written sources of the 16th-17th centuries on the practice of Russian Spitsbergen hunting in general and about the types of hunting craft in particular (see Jasinski 1993). The remains of hunting vessels found during archaeological excavations of Russian hunting stations in Spitsbergen give us no idea about their types. It is natural, since firstly, these remains were in a poor fragmentary state; secondly, the construction parts and techniques are similar and may be distinguished only in some exceptional cases; and thirdly, during a single hunting season, there must have been at least three types of hunting vessel in a station.

began fairly early – directly from the time of the appearance of the Russian population on the shores of the White Sea. Characteristic of the Murman region in the 17th century was the use of large sea-going vessels of the “lod’ya” type for transporting cargos and crews. In the hunting or fishing area itself, an auxiliary vessel of the “karbas” type was used (the artel-crew of one lod’ya made up three hunting/fishing crews in three karbases each headed by a karbasnik with three other fishermen/hunters). In the 18th century, fishing and hunting artels departed from Arkhangelsk, Kem or Onega by foot to Kola where their hunting karbases “called there shnyakas” usually wintered. Sometimes, when smooth ice was lying in the Kola Gulf, “special pomochi (runners) called krens from a tarry wood were inserted” under the keels of shnyakas, and having put a sail on them they reached the open water in the sea. In each shnyaka-karbas there were four workers “including a kormshchik, a tyaglets (puller) who pulled the fishing tackle from the water, the third – an oarsman, and the fourth – a bait-man who pins worms or some other bait on the fish-hooks” (Ovsyannikov 1988: 76). During this entire period, the main transporting vessel remained lod’ya; however in the 18th century lod’ya was a large (30-40 feet along the keel) and already three-mast vessel.

In addition, it is logical to suppose that only a lod’ya might have been the large transporting vessel capable of reaching this hunting region in the second half of the 17th century. Their presence at the hunting was necessary since a transporting vessel was the only means of returning to the mainland and therefore such vessels must have been “cherished like the apple of one’s eye”. It is not certain which types of smaller hunting vessels were used during that period in Spitsbergen, but probably, these were mostly karbases.

In the Pechora/Novaya Zemlya hunting region, the main transporting vessel in the 16th-17th centuries was kotsh (according to the region of its use, its specific name was a “Novaya Zemlya hunting kotsh”) while the “beasthunting” itself was carried out by means of karbases. The crew-artel of each kotsh included as a rule 15 members. In written sources, no strict regulation of the number of karbases for a kotsh is found. The large transporting vessels sent during the 18th century to Novaya Zemlya were hookers (gukors), galliots and lod’yas; “their size along the keel sometimes is equal to that of a Murman lod’ya and they are of different structures…” (Ovsyannikov 1988: 80). “In each vessel there were one or two karbases, and in addition one or two small and light boats for short trips for shooting sea beasts, such as could be easily drawn out by two men from the water onto the ice and be dragged over it” (Ovsyannikov 1988:80). The appearance of large sea transporting vessels in the Novaya Zemlya hunting naturally made the hunters change their routes: earlier, in the 16th-17th centuries, hunters from Kholmogory and Pinega reached the hunting region via the system of river portages (Northern Dvina – Pinega – Kuloy – Mezen). Moreover, the very composition of the hunting artels was also changed – mostly, only residents of Mezen went to the region of Novaya Zemlya “afoot”, while the large ships sent from Arkhangelsk by prominent merchants reached the hunting grounds by the open sea. Besides, the Mezenians considerably expanded the area of sea hunting and in addition to the lod’yas bound for Novaya Zemlya they sent to the Kanin Nos “large sea-going” or otherwise called “hunting karbases carrying from 150 to 200 puds of cargo and a crew of 10 to 12 members” (Ovsyannikov 1988:80).

In the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, the already well-established structure of hunting business in the archipelago appears as follows: transporting sea vessels – hookers, galliots and lod’yas (with a capacity of up to 10 thousand puds), each vessel carrying one or two karbases and one or two light boats. In the Atlas of 1797 it is directly stated that small and light boats were intended for “short trips” (Ovsyannikov 1988: 80), and from “declarations” of Arkhangelsk merchants we know that hunting karbases were capable of covering a distance of up to 150 versts and more from the coast (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 9, file 89, sheets 150 ff.). Written sources of the 17th century enable us to form only the most general ideas about the technical aspects of boat and shipbuilding. Nevertheless, it is quite clear that the so-called “sewn” vessels with the main naboys (overlapped planks) assembled in the clinker technique were sewn with a twisted withe through round mortises, and these mortises in the overlapped planks were wedged by means of large wooden pins. Metal parts were used during caulking of the joints of the main naboys – these were the “caulking shackles” by which the triangular planks covering the joints of the board planks were fixed. With wooden pins not only the naboys were fixed to each other but also the entire board planking was fastened to the uprugas (ribs). Such were the basic principles of the Pomor peasant shipbuilding up to the end of the 18th century. In the 18th century, particularly after Peter’s decrees on building “new-mannered vessels”, the situation became more complicated: while at the state and merchant 146

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN continued in the middle reaches of the Pinega River. Thus in 1710, “a sea decked karbas” was constructed for the fisheries of the Kuzonemsky stan by peasants Ivan, son of Mikhail Batakov, and Timofey, son of Ivan Karmakulov. The Pinega shipwright Ivan Batakov, as we have succeeded in ascertaining, was father of Vasiliy Ivanov Batakov. The latter was a well-known shipbuilding master at the Solombala dockyard. Supposedly, he was born in 1703 in St. Petersburg, had a sound schooling and at the age of 24 became an apprentice and assistant of a prominent Russian shipwright, Englishman Richard Koshchents (Bykhovskiy 1988: 58-59). We suppose, however, that Vasiliy Batakov actually was born in his homeland on the Pinega, since as we have mentioned above, in 1710 his father still was occupied with building a karbas for the Archbishop’s house in Kholmogory. Nevertheless, the fact itself that a peasant shipwright’s son became, after a good training, a master at the sovereign’s dockyard is noteworthy since it demonstrates well in a personal example the continuity of Pomor vernacular traditions of shipbuilding. It may be supposed that his father among some other Pomor workmen was mobilized to St. Petersburg. During 1708-1710 several thousand smiths, joiners, carpenters, masons, and other workmen were mobilized from Arkhangelsk Province, including the Pinega volosts, “for constant living” in the capital (see: Kolesnikov 1976: 249), which fact determined the fortune of the son – a future shipwright.

dockyards, ships undoubtedly corresponding to European standards were built, the fishing and hunting shipbuilding, which in its essence was a peasant one, widely continued to use the previous experience, but at the same time it began to be influenced by the “big” regular shipbuilding (in terms of the designs, technologies and terminology). Probably, the higher the class of a vessel, the more pronounced was that influence. In the first instance, this is true of the large sea transporting vessels of the 18th century that conveyed fishers and hunters, food stores and fishing tools to the fishing and hunting grounds – i.e. gukors, galliots and lod’yas. Respectively, the greater adherence to the old traditions must have been demonstrated by vessels of the “small” fleet – karbases, shnyakas and soymas. Naturally, we may discuss the “ratio” between these two traditions in the northern shipbuilding only if we know the character of the entire production of the dockyards, particularly the merchant ones, in Pomorye and the importance of their contribution to the northern fishing and hunting fleet. As yet, we may just suppose that this contribution was insignificant, the most part of the hunting and fishing fleet being products of peasant shipbuilding. Nevertheless at the dockyard, for example, of merchants Bazhenins (who themselves were shipwrights) in Vavchyuga, large seagoing ships of a European class were successfully built: in 1748 - the fleyt “Svyatoy Apostol Peotr” (St Apostle Peter) (Ibid., manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 4160, sheet 37a), in 1757 – the frigate “Sankt-Andrey” (St Andrew), in 1758 – the pink “Denorman” (Ibid., file 5126, sheet 5), and the fleyt “Defru Magdalena” sold to a Dutch merchant Jakob Pul (Ibid., file 5126, sheet 5), etc.

In the 18th century, another group of peasants united by the family name of Ikonnikovs was working in Volokopinezhskaya volost. In 1755, a peasant Ivan Ikonnikov built two buyars (buers) for Kholmogory fishers “with the purpose of going by the Dvina and other rivers and in the coastal waters” (GAAO, manuscript group 1, inv. 1, file 5126, sheets 1 – 1 verso). In 1771, he built the lod’ya “Svyatoy Nikolay” for an Arkhangelsk merchant Feodor Shul’gin. In 1794, a peasant of Kuzonemskaya volost of the Pinega okruga, Alexey Ikonnikov “so tovarishchi” (with companions), built a vessel for an Arkhangelsk merchant Sergey Zhebelev (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 3, file 25, sheet 1).

The ratio between the traditions of Pomor shipbuilding and the influence of the European navigation culture, which for a certain period was forcibly engrafted in the North, is a special subject. In this respect, of great importance are studies devoted to the local regional centres of shipbuilding in northern Pomorye. In the first instance, this concerns the Pinega shipbuilding region or centre that, in our opinion, demonstrated itself quite manifestly as early as the 17th century. It is hardly fortuitous that in 1610, the Dvina voevode (military governor) wrote to the Verkhoturye voevode that according to the tsar’s decree he was sending to Verkhoturye a carpenter, “an expert in constructing seagoing kotshas”. That carpenter was Selivan Melent’yev from Pinega (Andreev 1929: 271), In 1675, the Siya Monastery “ordered a lod’ya master” Timofey Ortem’yev from Pinega “to sew a new lod’ya dvinyanka (i.e. of the Dvina type)” In 1695, a peasant Elfimka, son of Feodor Tarasovykh from Volokopinezhskaya volost, built a kotsh. In 1696, a kotsh was built by Pinega residents Timoshka and Ignashka, sons of Kulakov. Let us also remember that a Pinega peasant Antoshka Pykhunov constructed a lod’ya dvinyanka in 1695.

The Drawing Book of Semeon Remezov contains a mapdrawing with a representation of the coasts of the Kola Peninsula, White Sea and the lower course of the Pinega River; in the place where the Pinega turns to the southeast, a portage on the Kuloy River is marked and on the drawing there is an inscription: “here kotshas are made” (Fig. 25). Thus the traditional business of peasants of that region was registered on a map of the 18th century. It is quite probable that in future, some other similar microregions of peasant shipbuilding in the northern Pomorye and particular peasant shipbuilding dynasties will be identified. We are convinced that by the middle of the 17th- and in the 18th century, the remotest maritime hunting region – the archipelago of Spitsbergen was opened up with the use of large sea-going vessels: lod’yas and later sealers,

In the 18th century, building of seagoing vessels 147

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 25. 18th Century chart-drawing of the Kola Peninsula, White Sea and the lower course of the Pinega River with an inscription: “here kotshas are made”. After Semeon Remezov.

148

MAREK E. JASINSKI AND OLEG V. OVSYANNIKOV: ROUTES TO THE ARCTIC OCEAN galliots and yachts (see Jasinski 1993). Nevertheless, we have succeeded in finding a single recorded example of using a kotsh in the Spitsbergen area: in 1799, Semeon Pushkov sent ships from the Vygoretsk Old-Believers’ commune – he dispatched 13 workers aboard the vessel “Svyatoy Ioann Krestitel” (St John the Baptist) under no. 379, which he called a kotsh (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 9, file 77, sheets 10, 14 – 14 verso). The number of this vessel proved to be a kind of a “clue” for tracing other departures of “Svyatoy Ioann Krestitel” to hunting: in 1797, headed by kormshchik (skipper) Fedot Rakhmaninov to Novaya Zemlya with a crew of 9 members (GAAO, manuscript group 4, inv. 9, file 70, sheet 11). In 1798 the ship went again to Novaya Zemlya with a crew of 11 hunters for “beast-hunting and for fat” (Ibid., file 91, sheet 62). In 1802, Semeon Pushkov intended to send six vessels (including no. 379) to “Grumant and Novaya Zemlya for fat-hunting and whaling” (Ibid., sheet 2). It seems unlikely that we are dealing here really with an old kotsh that had “survived” until the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, but rather it was a manifestation of the tenacity of certain traditions in shipbuilding: possibly the old traditions were demonstrated most exactly in this vessel and for that reason it was registered under the archaic term kotsh. We have highlighted this unusual case because it undoubtedly stands out from the general trend in the development of the Pomor hunting shipbuilding.

Abbreviations DAI

Dopolnenie k aktam istoricheskim (Supplement to the historical acts) GAAO Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Arkhangel’skoy oblasti (State Archives of Arkhangelsk oblast) IAOIRS Izvestiya Arkhangel’skogo obshchestva izucheniya Russkogo Severa (Proceedings of the Arkhangelsk Society for Studies of Northern Russia) LZAK Letopis’ zanyatiy arkheograficheskoy komissii (The chronicle of proceedings of the Archaeographic Commission) RGA VMF Rossiyskiy gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Voenno-Morskogo Flota (Russian State Archives of the Navy) RIB Rossiyskaya istoricheskaya biblioteka (Russian Historical Library) SPb. FIRI RAN St.-Petersburg Branch of the Institute of Russian History, Russian Academy of Sciences. References Andreev A. 1929. Opisanie aktov, khranyashchikhsya v Arkheograficheskoy komissii AN SSSR (Description of the acts preserved in the Archaeographic Commission of the AS USSR) // LZAK (1927–1928). Issue XXXV. Leningrad. Archives of SPb. FIRI RAN Belov M.I. 1956. Arkticheskoe moreplavanie s drevneyshikh vremen do serediny XIX v. (Arctic navigation from the earliest times until the middle of the 19th century). Istoriya otkrytiya i osvoeniya severnogo morskogo puti (The history of the discovery and establishment of the Northern Sea Route). Vol. I. Moscow Belov, M.I., Ovsyannikov, O.V., Starkov, V.F. 1980. Mangazeya: Mangazeyskiy morskoy khod (Mangazeya: the Mangazeya sea route). Part I. Leningrad. Bershtam T.A. 1987. Pomory: Formirovanie gruppy i sistemy khozyaystva (Pomors: the formation of the group and economic system). Leningrad. Bryzgalov V.V., Popov G.P. 1992. Yakhta “Svyatoy Peotr” (Yacht “St Peter”). All-Russian Scientific Conference “Kogda Rossiya molodaya muzhala s geniem Petra” (“When young Russia was growing up keeping pace with Peter’s genius”), theses of the papers. Pereslavl-Zaleski. Bykhovskiy I.A. 1988. Arkhangelogorodskie korabely (Shipwrights of the city of Arkhangelsk). Arkhangelsk, 1988. Cederlund, C.O. 1986. Ett Fartyg byggt med sytekmik. En studie I marinarkeologisk dokumentation. Statens Sjøhistoriska Museum. Rapport 7, 1978, Stockholm. DAI. Dopolnenie k aktam istoricheskim (Supplement to the historical acts). Vol. V. St. Petersburg, 1853.

In this context it is worth mentioning the remains of a vessel found on Spitsbergen, which V. Starkov identified as a kotsh “resembling kotshas of the Novaya Zemlya type” (Starkov 1988: 215). It must be noted that the document – “The act on acceptance of the ship – to which he referred, is actually dated not to 1595 but to 1695 (Starkov 1988: 213). Moreover, in the excerpt presented by that author, certain places are cited mistakenly from M. Belov’s original text (Starkov 1988: 213). In 1985, Christer Westerdahl put forward the following idea as a tentative supposition: “The White Sea area and Carelia, both in Finland and the Soviet Union must be considered as one of the core regions of sewn boats in historical times. It may be that this tradition can be followed well back into history and even prehistory, but our knowledge is limited” (Westerdahl 1985). By that time, however, the scientific evidence available on sewn craft was extensive enough to regard Westerdahl’s idea not as a mere supposition or just a hypothesis (see, e.g. Cederlund 1986; Prins 1986). The information presented above on sewn vessels of various types and dimensions (long-distance transporting, portage and fishing and hunting ones) suggests a larger area of their constructing and use that stretched from the Baltic regions to Siberia, as well as an extremely wide chronological range of the continuation of that early shipbuilding tradition that was on of the crucial functional elements of the four major portage systems of the vast area along the coasts of the Artic Ocean between Nothern Botnia in the west and the Siberian Ob river in the east. 149

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

RGA VMF. RGA VMF – Rossiyskiy gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Vojenno-Morskogo Flota (Russian State Archives of the Navy) RIB. Rossiyskaya Istoricheskaya Biblioteka (Russian Historical Library). Vol. 28. Moscow, 1912. Starkov V. 1988. Kotsh - sudno ledovoe (Kotsh – an Arctic vessel). Polyarnyi krug (Polar Circle), 1988. Moscow, 1988. p. 215. Subbotin, N.I. 1874. Materialy dlya istorii raskola za pervoe vremya ego sushchestvovaniya (The evidence on the history of the Schism during the first period of its existence). Vol. I. Moscow. Slovar’ oblastnogo Arkhangel’skogo narechiya v ego bytovom i etnograficheskom primenenii (Dictionary of the Arkhangelsk oblast dialect in its everyday and ethnographic use). St.-Petersburg, 1885. Tallgren, A.M. 1931. Biarmia. ESA, v.1, Helsinki. Topograficzeskaja opisanije Arkhangelogorodskiej Guberni 1797. Westerdahl, Chr. 1985. Sewn boats of Sweden. Sewn plank boats. Archaeological and Ethnographical papers based on those presented to a conference of Greenwich in November, 1924. National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, Archaeological series, № 10, BAR, international series.

Dosifiej. 1836. Geograficzeskoje, istericzeskoje i statisticzeskoje opisanije Solovetskovo Monastyrja. Moskva 1836. GAAO. Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv Arkhangel’skoy oblasti (State Archives of Arkhangelsk oblast). Geograficzeskoje, istericzeskoje i statisticzeskoje opisanije Solovetskovo Monastyrja. Moskva 1836. Golubtsov N. 1910. Vsepoddanneyshee khodataystvo meshchan gor. Koly v 1798 g. (Humble petition of citizens of the town of Kola). IAOIRS. No. 7. Arkhangelsk. Jasinski, M.E. 1994. Tracing crossroads of shipbuildings traditions in the European Arctic. In: Crossroads in Ancient shipbuilding. Oxbow Monograph 40:195-202. Jasinski, M.E. 1993. Pomors in Grumant. Archaeological studies of Russian hunting stations in Svalbard. Dr. art thesis, University of Tromsø. Jasinski, M.E., Ovsyannikov, O.V. 1998. Vzgljad na evropeijsku arktiku. Arkhangelskij Sever: Problemy i istotsiki. Marek E. Jasinski and Oleg V. Ovsyannikov Vol I-II. Arheologika Petropolitana. St. Petersburg. Kaydanov N. 1884. Sistematicheskiy katalog delam Gosudarstvennoy kommerts-kollegii (A systematic catalogue of the files of the State CommerceCollegium). St.-Petersburg. Kolesnikov P.A. 1976. Severnaya derevnja v XV-pervoy polovine XIX veka (Northern village in the 15th - first half of 19th centuries). Vologda. Larin B.A. 1959. Russian-English dictionary of Richard James (1618-1619). Leningrad. Odintsov V.A., Starkov V.F. 1985. Nekotorye problemy arkticheskogo moreplavaniya i pokhody russkikh na arkhipelag Shpitsbergen (Some problems of the Arctic navigation and cruises of Russians to the archipelago of Spitsbergen). Letopis’ Severa (Chronicle of the North). Vol. II. Moscow, 1985. Ovsyannikov O.V. 1985. Novye dannye o promyslovom osvoenii pomorskim krest’yanstvom basseyna Arktiki (New evidence on fishing and hunting development of the Arctic basin by the Pomor peasantry). Zemledel’cheskoe proizvodstvo i sel’skokhozyaystvennyi opyt na Evropeyskom Severe (dooktyabr’skiy period; eng. The agriculture and agricultural experience in Northern Europe in the pre-Revolutionary period): Inter-College collection of scientific papers. Ovsyannikov O.V. 1988. Pomorskaya Promyslovaya “Entsiklopediya” kontsa XVII v. (Pomor hunting and fishing “encyclopaedia” of the late 17th century). Kul’tura Russkogo Severa (The Culture of Northern Russia). Leningrad. Prins, A.H.J. 1986. A Handbook of Sewn Boats. Maritime Monographs and Reports, № 59 Greenwich, London. Razysknye dela o Feodore Shaklovitom i ego soobshchnikakh (Quest files on Feodor Shaklovityi and his accomplices). Vol. 3. St.-Petersburg, 1888. P. 5. Remezov, Semeon. Drawing Book. Russian National Library, St. Petersburg. 150

An Ethnoarchaeological Approach to the Problem of Portages Gunilla Larsson The question is, are there any other sources or analyses that indicate that the hauling of ships was an appropriate solution in some circumstances and therefore occurred?

An introduction to the problem In Sweden the discussion about portages has been intense over the last decade. The debate has mainly concerned whether or not ships and boats in the late Iron Age, and especially the Viking Age, were drawn along portages between river systems or beside rapids in rivers (Edberg 1994, 1995a, 1995b; Westerdahl 1994a, 1994b, 1996). The issue became actualised when trial journeys with Viking ship replicas began in the 1980s on the waterways that were used by the Vikings in Poland, the Baltic countries and Russia on their way to the Mediterranean (Nylén 1983, 1987; Edberg 1998, 1999).

The earlier results are based on very little material, and the experiments are not based on available knowledge of the ships’ construction, on adaptations of the ships for portages as seen in ethnographic and archaeological material, on knowledge of how portages were constructed, or on how ships were transported along portages in historically documented cases. In this article I will first shed light on this neglected documentation, and then show that, by using this knowledge as a basis for the experiments, other results can be obtained.

Did they leave the boats at the portage and take another boat at the next river? Or did they bring their boats across the portage, pulling or carrying them, and launch them when they reached water again? Was this possible at all? The debate has focused on the experiments and a few early written sources, and has never touched on other available material such as what the solution was in historical time in the parts of Scandinavia where roadless land dominated until the 19th century. Based on his experiences with hauling the Viking ship reconstructions Krampmacken and Aifur on land beside rivers and in special experiments, Edberg concludes:

The methods The premises for the experiments This paper will begin with an ethnohistorical and archaeological analysis that serves as a background for the experiments with replicas of Iron Age ships presented here. My opinion is that the results of earlier experiments are largely due to the fact that they were not performed on the basis of available information on ships, hauling and portages. In contrast the knowledge and the premises that have served as a basis for my own experiments with the hauling of boats include:

“As I have shown, the ideas about the Viking Age shiphaulings between the rivers in Russia are not only unproven but also rather improbable” (Edberg 2002: 85 my transl.).

* Archaeologically investigated and documented portages. * Historical sources. * Analogies with the construction of ethnographically documented portages. * Analogies with ethnographically documented methods for hauling of ships on land. * Analysis of adaptations for hauling on preserved boat finds. * The same types of boats that were used in the Iron Age. * Boats that were built with the same methods as in the Iron Age.

Edberg then reduces this phenomenon to an idea that flourishes in our society, and he concentrates on how an idea like this could have originated. His conclusion is that the idea comes from “legends, sagas, myths and shippers’ stories, some with roots in antiquity” (Edberg 2002: 85 my transl.). But is the hauling of ships between the rivers really unproven? And is it really improbable? Edberg has based his conclusions on experiments using either boats built with modern methods (Krampmacken, Aifur, Havörn) or ships that were considerably larger than those used in eastern Sweden and Russia (Havörn, Helge Ask) (Edberg 1999). This affects the weight of the ships and consequently also the results, as will be shown. The way in which the hauling was carried out, by moving the logs used as rollers, is not documented anywhere, neither archaeologically nor ethnographically. The written sources that once dominated the discussion comprise the accounts by Constantin Porphyrrogennetos about the Scandinavian journeys as well as the Nestor Chronicle, both of which can be seen as ambiguous regarding whether ships were hauled, so they will not be used here.

The ethnohistorical analysis is a combination of different methods and source materials used in ethnological, archaeological, anthropological and historical research and is mainly inspired by what Stig Welinder calls “historical ethnoarchaeology” (1992). Ethnoarchaeology is the study of things and physical environments among living humans, for which oral accounts and participant observation are also used. Historical archaeology is the archeological study of dead humans, which can also be studied by means of historical documents. Stig Welinder has combined the terms into “historical ethnoarchaeology”, which he defines as “an ethno151

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

establishment of some settlements along the portage coincides with the beginning of Scandinavian journeys to the East. A cemetery nearby, at Nefedievo, has yielded Scandinavian objects such as an animal-head brooch, a round pendant in Borre style, and part of an oval brooch, but also Baltic, Finno-Ugrian and Russian artefact types. Makarov has interpreted these objects as showing that the Slavensky volok formed an important meeting point for trading routes between the Baltic Sea, old Russia, and the area round the Northern Dvina (1994, p. 20). Unfortunately all remains along the way and any possible structures built to facilitate the land transport of ships have probably disappeared under a new road now found in this area.

archaeological study of a historically documented society” (1992: 7, my transl.). The historical knowledge of this society has the same role as the participant observation in ethnoarchaeological fieldwork, and the archaeological excavation of the remains of ancient monuments of the historical society has the same role as the ethnoarchaeological study of the material culture of a living society, according to Welinder. The ethnohistorical approach is an ethnological study of a historically known society, which can shed light on the relation between man and artefacts, in this case between people and boats. The source material and studies chosen here are only examples, and are used because they have not figured in the discussion earlier. The archaeological material does not reflect the real distribution of preserved portages, but instead shows where archaeologists interested in these issues have been working.

In some places the hauling of ships and goods was so frequent that this became a source of income for the people living beside the portages, as in the case of the Kensky portage. This portage is mentioned in the Land Cadastre Book of 1563, a valuable piece of information that underlines the economic importance for the inhabitants:

Some glimpses from the historical material On land and water in the East

“…it is via this portage that merchants from the Novgorod Land travel to the Zavolotskaya Land, from the Zavolotskava Land to the Novgorod Land in boats along the water route. And peasants of the Great Prince from the Nastasia volost’ on the Myshye Chereva carry goods through this portage, charging a denga for each load…And now this portage is abandoned and merchants do not use this way, they travel by a new way” (Makarov 1994: 22).

Neither in Scandinavia, nor in early Russia is there a lack of information on the hauling or carrying of ships across portages. Several surveys have been made, and the discussion has focused on a few sparsely-worded written sources which describe the travels of the Svear to Byzantium. Analyses of these have been compared to the results of archaeological experiments, and it was subsequently concluded that it is not possible to find definite evidence for people having hauled their own ships over the long portages known as volocher, which are common in Russia (Edberg 1996; Westerdahl 1996). Edberg himself has shown by archaeological experiments that such hauls are possible with small ships and short stretches (Edberg 2002). Studies have not yet been made, on the other hand, of the remains of boats and ships found adjacent to the waterways leading to the Black Sea. There are, however, interesting Russian studies that penetrate the historical sources for some Russian portages.

The conditions for preservation at the Kensky portage are better than at Slavensky volok, and here Malakov mentions a ditch at the side of the road, which he interprets as having been intended for drainage. In the boggier sections of the portage, planks are also laid down. After his analysis of some of the portages in northern Russia, Makarov writes that, “In all probability, the role of the local residents was to construct a road across the portage, to maintain it, and to keep horses for the moving of boats and cargo. These innovations completely changed the conditions of portage transport, and saved the travelers’ time, prevented risks and reduced the need for physical labour” (Makarov 1994: 26).

Beginning with the Russian case, when the historical sources first shed light on the places with portages, the hauling of both ships and goods occurs in many places. They are known in Russia by the name voloch. Makarov has studied six portages in northern Russia and concludes that: “There is no doubt that all six portages were ‘dry’ sites where cargo was transported along roads by horses” (1994, p. 15). This, however, does not mean that ships could not also be hauled over them. In certain sources which Makarov quotes, there is direct evidence that ships were also hauled across these land passages. For instance in the case of the Slavensky volok, he quotes from the Land Cadastre Books of 1585 which inform us that, “boats and goods were transported by horses across the portage along a dry road” (1994, p. 18). This portage was used on the travel route from Beloozero to the Northern Dvina. Nearby settlements existed between the tenth and thirteenth centuries. Makarov has shown that the

Dry roads on portages in Scandinavia? Dry roads have been used in many places where ships were hauled. In Listeid, Norway, there is information that the keel was placed in a runner when the ship was pulled over. In the trial experiments in 2003 before the Vittfarne expedition to Caucasus initiated by Mats G. Larsson, Lund, and led by Håkan Altrock, a runner was used under the keel of a log with a rabbet in which the keel was placed. The crew pulled the ship very easily on a dry road at a speed of 60 m/minute. The boat used, Himingläva, was a replica of the Gokstad small boat that was 9.8 m 152

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1. The Russians on their way to the market in Torneå. After Olaus Magnus 1555.

In an opening between the cliffs there was softer ground. They went ashore there. Ingvar ordered trees to be felled and spades to be made. The crews then dug a channel for the ships, a project that, according to the saga, took several months to complete before the ships could pass.

long, and weighed c. 500 kg. On the subsequent expedition in the summer of 2004 over the Lichti mountains in Georgia between the rivers Tscheremila and Kura a similar runner was used, now with four oxen as pulling force and the crew keeping the ship upright. This journey on dry roads and hollowed-out mountain trails covered a distance of approx. 37 km in four days beside the shallowest mountain river and over the mountain pass at 1152 m a s l.

Carrying boats in the north From the north of Scandinavia there is historical information from the 10th to the 19th century on the use of boats that were so light that they could be, and also were, carried across portages. The earliest information is found in Ottar’s description (c. AD 900) concerning the raids made by the people called kväner on the Norwegians. This discussed ethnical Finnish-speaking group has, according to linguistic studies of place names, lived east of the mountains along the northern shores of the Gulf of Bothnia in present-day eastern Norrbotten and Österbotten (Julku 1986). Ottar writes:

The solutions of Ingvar the far-traveller according to the saga The journey recreated by Expedition Vittfarne in 2004 was based on a reconstruction by Mats G. Larsson (1997) of the route travelled by one of the more well-known explorers in the 11th century, namely Ingvar the fartraveller. His journey to the Caucasus and probably to the Caspian Sea has been commemorated in more than 30 runic inscriptions, in Byzantine, Georgian and Arabic sources, as well as in a travel account 200 years later in a saga of its own. Here there is also information about places and situations where the ships were hauled on land, and where other solutions are mentioned:

“Sometimes the kväner make raids on the Norwegians across the mountains and sometimes the Norwegians on them. There are many sweet-water lakes throughout these mountains and the kväner carry their boats over land to the lakes and raid the Norwegians. They are very small and light boats” (Ottar after Lund 1983: 23 my transl.).

“…He then continued until he came to a big rapid and a narrow mountain gorge. At that place there were high rocks, so they pulled up their ships in ropes, and after that they pulled them down to the river again.” (Larsson 1997: 110 my transl.).

Northern Sweden was without roads, except for the coastal road, for a very long time until the last century. It was natural to come to the big markets by boat. According to Olaus Magnus, to reach the market in Torneå in 1519, the Russians used boats that were so light they could be carried between the rivers (fig. 1):

On one occasion when coming to a rapid, the rocks by the side were too high even for this solution:

“…by the time of the summer solstice they use to arrive there, and they sometimes carry their boats on their shoulders over the strips of land that separate the water routes.” (Magnus 20: 2 my transl.).

“At that place there were such high rocks that they could not pull the ships ashore with ropes” (Larsson 1997: 112 my transl.).

153

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

He took the boat up the river Glomma, past the rapids at Sarpsborg, to the lake of Mjøsa where he kept his estate at Ottestad in Hedmark. The karv was a name for one of the light ship types used on portages with 5-15 pairs of oars (Larsson 2004). Falk, who has studied most of the ancient Norse material, the sagas and the Skaldic corpus, makes the following reflection about the karv and ship haulings: “Though the number of oars was like that of the smaller longships, the karv ought to have been of lower draught and lighter built. Their crew was a lot smaller and did not exceed what was necessary. Several times it is mentioned that these ships were hauled over land from one lake to the other.” (Falk 1995: 94 my transl.).

Many accounts continue to mention the carrying of boats. On Linnés journey upstream the Umeå river in1732, both the peasant and the Sami carried the boats on the portages (see below). The same procedure was used for Sami boat transports during Ehrenmalm’s journey to Åsele lappmark in 1743 (1743: 96). In Högström’s description of 1745, the boats of the fishing Sami are “of such shape and construction that he takes them with oars, bulkheads and scoop, and also takes his food provisions on his head and back and carries his boat wherever he wants to” (1746: 111-114 my trans.). Besides these small boats he mentions that also longer boats, 7-11 m, were used along the rivers in northern Lapland. That these ships were also brought up on land beside the rapids is evident from the travel account from the Muonio river in 1909, where the same type of long and narrow boat was still in use (see below).

In the beginning of the 13th century we have many accounts of how kings and aristocrats brings their ships when they travel to the interior, despite the many and long land transports. In 1218 the king Håkon Håkonsson pulled 14 ships to Øyeren, according to Håkon Håkonssons saga. In the same saga there are other examples: in 1222 ribbungene moved several ships from Drammensfjorden to Tyrifjorden, then up to Randsfjord. In 1226 Håkon, like his father Sverre, moved ships also up to Mjøsa, but this time a total of 34 ships were taken from Oslo instead. In the same year, 1226, his men moved 13 ships from Sarpsborg by Glomma to Öyeren. In 1227 King Håkon carried 35 ships from Oslo to Glomma.

Daniel Tilas wrote a diary from the Swedish-Norwegian border commission in the 18th century, which was published in 1966. On the way from Umeå to Lycksele lappmark he wrote: “We now had to use small miserable boats, which were not bigger than that an 18-year-old stableman could carry it upside down on his head together with the oars and an axe. The planks were not more than 2 decimallineers thickness [0.4 cm]” (1966: 181 my transl.). The boats of the north have been analysed thoroughly by Westerdahl, and he has especially studied the sewn boats of the Sami (1987). Most of the finds are from small and light boats. The boats brought by the Russian merchants might have been the small expanded logboats with extremely thin hulls that are known from Russian historical finds. Such boats were also common in central Sweden in the Iron Age (Larsson 2004), but remained in Scandinavia into the historical period only in Finland the so-called äsping (Koivusalo 2004).

The construction of the portages: hlunnr In the Skaldic poetry and the sagas, when the hauling of boats is mentioned and information is also sometimes given about the constructions, logs as rollers occur. The special logs for facilitating the pulling of boats on land are well known in the Old Norse material as lunar and collectively as hlunnr, also used in for instance Ir. lonn and Gael. lonn (Falk 1995: 37). This word is still applied to the long logs used in the launching of boats: No. lunn, Swe. luna. In the boat they could be put as support while rowing fótalunnar. In Iceland also bones of whales were used, as is also mentioned in Havard Isfirdings saga (ch. 10). In order to secure them firmly in place, a shallow groove was made: “Þar eigu þeir at grafa fyrir hlunnu” (Jónsbók fm. 5). The related word lunnar is sometimes used even today for logs as rollers.

Scandinavian fleets and boats over land in the sagas What was the situation in south Scandinavia? Although the topic here is the Swedish material, the meagre historical sources might be illuminated by the neighbouring country of Norway and foremost by the sagas where land transports are mentioned several times. Sverres saga tells us that, as late as in the 1170s, the Norwegian king Sverre took several ships in Randsfjord. He then moved them to Mjøsa. This journey meant that the ships were moved along a route from Randsfjord 124 m a s l, then past Høykorset - a mountain passage 676 m a s l - to Einavann 399 m a s l, and then by the river Hunnselven with many rapids 20 km down to Mjøsa 124 m a s l. King Sverre made other, similar journeys, as when he pulled ships past the river Sarpsfossen to get to the village of Glomma.

Lunnar were also used when ships were launched and landed, and in both the skaldic corpus and the sagas these occasions are described in connection with the launching of the royal fleet for an expedition, as expressed by Magnus in the 11th century: vannt geyst herskip af harða stinnum hlunni,’you caused the warship(s) to move swiftly down the very stiff slipway’ (Arn II, 4). Arnorr reminds Magnus that when he started his Wendish campaign drótt hélug borð af sléttu hlunni ‘you dragged icy hulls from the smooth slipway’ (Arn II, 1 1, after Jesch 2001: 173). Here land passages probably also were involved. Arnorr tells first that Magnús ýtti flota milum

Snorre tells us in Olav den heliges saga (ch. 52), that Ketil from Ringanäs was given a karv with 15 rooms by King Olav in gratitude for his help at the battle of Nesjar. 154

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES oarlocks on each side and pulled the boat up into the groove, then father took the stem and mother the stern and the boat got speed over the rollers so it whistled through the bushes. Easy and handy was also the little boat” (1939: 124 my transl.)

surd med ladi ‘showed a great fleet southward along the coast’. Journeys on lunnar may lie behind the following expression as a kenning for a leader: hleypimeiðr hlunnviggja ‘tree [man] that causes roller-horses [ships] to run’ in Hfr II, 5 (Jesch 2001: 173). The ethnographical material The ethnographical material is an excellent source for information about communication in a roadless land, especially in north Sweden where the road network was very limited until the 20th century. Here information is given about when, where and how portages were used and not least how they were constructed. This source material has not been recognised earlier as a basis for experiments, a fact that has deeply affected the results of the experiments. The Sami portages The Sami of northern Scandinavia have drawn and carried their extremely light boats along and between river systems and lakes, as well as beside rapids. Ethnographic accounts and travel journeys illuminate this. There were fixed water communication systems for the journeys from the sea to the mountain areas, used by the Samis themselves as well as by visiting officials, explorers and scientists. The land transport parts were called mårkor. They have not been registered systematically in the National Survey for Ancient Monuments and occur only occasionally. No such place has been thoroughly investigated and documented. There exist, however, occasional early photographs that show how they looked. As can be seen from the photo, wooden logs were positioned at the portage as rollers to facilitate the passage (fig. 2). A good picture of the communication system is acquired from the early travel accounts, which will be discussed below.

Fig. 2. The Sami Sjulsson and his wife Anna Sara pull the boat over an old hauling place with logs placed as rollers in south Lapland. Photo Ernst Manker.

The Sami boats were built to be very light. The hull was very thin, just like in the Iron Age boats of central Sweden. To make them as light as possible, spruce was used as material; it was also found in the 6th-century burial from Valsgärde. In earlier times the seam between the strakes was sewn with for instance roots, instead of using iron nails that further reduced the weight.

Portaging the boats between rivers and lakes as well as beside rapids was seen as natural in earlier times in north Sweden, before roads and new boat types entered. In remote areas this could still be done in the 20th century. The ethnographer Ernst Manker informs us about his journeys among the Sami of southern Lapland, and at the same time gives us information on the construction of the portage:

Sami water communication system It is important to note that it is typical for the Sami communication system that they didn’t have a boat in each lake or river, but instead brought their boats with them. This was also the case in connection with fishing. Carl Johansson, Sami and teacher of the nomadic Sami children, remembers:

“Once I had company with both Sjulsson and his wife Anna Sara, mother of eight grown-up children and still like in her best years. This time we steered from Setsele to the old mother camp by Koppsele. And on the way up we took the opportunity to try an old hauling-place over a tongue of land between the lake and Malå river. Earlier it was usual – and sometimes still is – to haul the boat over here in order to avoid rowing around the long isthmus. In a worn groove through the bushes a number of logs were placed transverse. Father and mother took hold of the

“In the spring, after the lakes around Varfoluokta had opened, the fishing took place. Common for all these lakes is that one had one fishing boat, that was taken across muorke, the land ridge between the lakes, depending on in which lake one was fishing” (1989: 90). 155

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

applied between S Lingan and Iskan by the Lingheds stream. Then it was possible to row down Hökviksån and Svärdssjön and land by the Prostparken.”

Some of the land passages have been preserved to the 20th century thanks to the fact that they became useful to the forest industry in the 19th century and onwards for the floating boats. They were constantly reinforced. Several of these have not yet deteriorated and can still be studied. They are continually registered and recorded by the National Survey for Ancient Monuments.

The neighbouring Tänger village inhabitants in Svärdssjö parish instead had a boat in each lake and exchanged boats. They rowed across Vågen and left the boats by N. Lingan at a landing place called “Tänger lännstan” (cf. länn- used in place names for old landing sites for boats, such as in the Länna parish- and village-name, Roslagen, Uppland). They brought food for dinner that they left in one of the farms they passed and ate on their way home in the evening when the housewife at the farm offered small beer (an old Swedish beer type).

Portages on the way to church among the inhabitants of Enviken, Dalarna Albert Eskeröd (1973) has done research on the use of church-boats, based on ethnographic questionnaires to local informants in the beginning of the 20th century. In the inner parts of the north of Sweden where the road network was not developed until the last century, the route to church was along the waterways, both on land and in water. This was also the case in east Dalarna.

On land and water to Arjeplogs church In northernmost Sweden, in Lapland, the inhabitants of the villages around the shores of Naustajaure had a 50 km route to Arjeplogs church involving both land and water transport of the boats by the lakes Storavan and Uddjaure to Hornavan where the church was situated (see map). It was especially the rapids beside Naustajaure and Storavan that were so forceful that they had to pull up the boats on land beside them. The currents at Kasker between Storavan and Uddjaure were also strong, but here it was possible to pole small boats upstream. This was half the distance to the church, and it was the place where people from Naustajaure used to spend the night on their long journeys to the church and back.

Albert Eskeröd writes about the people in the village of Enviken, Svärdsjö parish, in Dalarna: “It has been told that most of the Enviken people, at least during the later part of these journeys, used the same boat all the way down to Svärdsjö Church. But since there was not an open water route all the way, they had to pull the boat from one lake to the other, beside the rapids and streams. Between N and S Lingan they hauled the boat across the lowest passage of the ridge between the lakes that was called Hedhuven. The same procedure was

To make journeys in a roadless land: the main communication route in the 17th century from the port at Luleå to the silver mines above Kvikkjokk. Samuel Rheen wrote a description of how to make the journey from Luleå to the silver mines in the mountain: Ifrån Luleå kyrckia till Seweste byhn Der ifrån till Sandh Eeden Öfwer heeden til Hedeby Der ifrån till breedhÅker Der ifrån till Swartla Ifrån Swartla til Haras Der ifrån till Lappholmen Sedan öfwer Lax Eede Der ifrån til Stoor backan Ifrån Stoorbackan till Lappkyrckian Iochmoch Der ifrån till Porki jaur Öfwer Porki jaur Sedan öfwer Mokan till Rande jaur Öfwer Randi jaur är Öfwer Moctkan till Parcki jaur Öfwer Parcki Jaur Öfwer Motkan till Skalkjaur icke fyllest Öfwer Skalckjaur och Kiommitz jaur Öfwer Motkan till Saggat Öfwer Saggat är Navigabelt Der ifrån till Sölfwer Malm streeket

2 ¼ 5/8 1½ 2 1¼ 1¾ ¼ 2 4½ 1¾ 3/4 1/3 1¼ 1/15 ¾ 1/8 4¼

Navigabelt “ Navigabelt “ “ “ Navigabelt Navigabelt der och finnes en Stoorjunckare Navigabelt Navigabelt der och finnes een Stoorjunckare Navigabelt der finnes Iullewaarij Stoor Junckar. Och Kerkelij Stoor junckare

¼ 2 5 (Rheen 1897:50 XVII.I) 156

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES back and turns around the håp, putting the oars transverse, so that each is on each arm, and runs like that across hills and valleys so that not even the wolf almost could manage to follow. One of these rapids is called Tukenforsen” (Linne 1969: 41).

Rheen gives a description of the communication route for people and transports between the coastal port at Luleå and the inland mine in the mountain W of Kvikkjock. That this is a waterborne communication as in most of roadless Europe is something contemporaneous readers are expected to know. Important information in this itinerary for the traveller is the distances where it is possible to sail and row, and the length of the portages between them. An interesting aspect is which words are used to designate a land passage along a communication route, as well as how and where the different words are used. Notable is that, among the 8 land passages, 2 of the 3 outside Lapland are called Eed, while in Lapland where Sami people still completely dominate the population, the last 4 land passages to lake Saggat by Kvikkjock are called Motkan, that is the word mårkan, the corresponding Sami name for the place where boats were carried and drawn between lakes and rivers. It has been discussed whether the term ed solely means a natural feature as ‘a piece of land between two waters’, or if it should be interpreted as ‘a piece of land along a water communication route where boats are hauled on land’. Based on the use of the word, my opinion is that the word should be interpreted from a communications point of view. Although few investigations have been made, archaeological remains have been found in places named ed for facilitating the land transport of boats and ships, which support this interpretation. Of course, these might be suitable places used secondarily as portages, but they only seem to occur along ancient communication routes, while on the other hand the synonymous nor occurs when land is situated between lakes in the forests.

Fig.3. Linné’s own drawing of the peasant carrying the boat.

On 30 May he arrived at the home of Vicar Ola Gran in Lycksele, and then continued upstream the 31 May and the following night before resting; thereafter he travelled upstream to Jukta River until he was landed on the wrong side of this river on the 2 June, since the guide appointed was sick. He did not find the intended trail to Sorsele, but instead got lost in a large wetland area called Lycksamyren with deep and dangerous rivers crossing it. Linné was so tired that he decided to turn around, a decision that is of interest since he explained it like this: “I, who already felt sick of so big hardships, over mårkor that were many and that were long, by the carrying of my own things, because the lapp carried the boat….”

Linnés journey In the early 18th century, the famous botanist Carl von Linné made a journey to Lapland to collect material. The description of how the communication was organised between the coastal and inland towns and settlements has not changed considerably since Rheen’s days. Still, most of north Sweden is roadless land and the river systems constitute the main communication routes. When Linné travelled from Umeå to Lycksele and to Sorsele, mainly boat transport along the Ume river was chosen.

As an itinerary he summarises the route to Lapland from a clearly waterborne point of view: “The river is divided into sel, id est spatial navigabilia inter the rapids or angustias; begin by Granön and with the length counted in ¼ mil (ca 2.5 km): 4. Hemsele. 4. Ängssele. 3. Trångsele.

The journey started with a shorter distance on horseback from Umeå to Åbacken on 27 May. From there he continued in a small Lappish boat to Teknäs, 28 May to Granön and 29 May in a håp manned by a farmer who had both nets and hunting-ground in the area. The first 30 km were navigable, then came three rapids, of which Tukenforsen was one, that could only be passed by carrying the boat as well as the luggage (fig. 3):

Flottafors (rapid) Snarefors. (rapid) ½ Tuckensele. Tuckenfors (rapid) 2 Lilla Tansele.

“…we came to three rapids, some distance apart, that were impossible to sail upstream. The peasant leaves to me his things, puts his bag with food provision on the

Kroken (rapid) 157

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

third man took the boat by a rope securely tied to the stern, and with great effort tried to slow it and keep it from being taken by the river.

Vargstrupen (rapid) 4. Stora Tansele.

At the rapid of Pättikökuorkio, both passengers and boat had to be taken up on land beside it, and this was done in a quite unusual way. The boats were put into carriages, specially built for the purpose, with boat-shaped bottoms of ribs for the boats. On the larger lake Kellotijärvi it was possible to sail the whole way. All in all the rivers amounted to 81, of which 78 had been navigated by the boats and three passed on land (Hvass 1910: 346-406).

Tallforsen (rapid) 2 Lycksele. ½ Beselefors. 1 ½ Besele. Övre Beselefors (rapid) Fläsksele Fläskhällafors (rapid) Bolforsen (rapid) Granseleforsen (rapid)

To travel in a roadless land As can be seen from the historical and ethnographical material, the main way of travelling in a roadless land was by boat, and not least, the boats were brought all the way on land and on water. Many solutions could be chosen for the arrangement of the portages. Where lunnar were used permanent logs were placed on the portage at such localities where land transports were frequent and facilitated communication. This had not been observed when the earlier experiments were made. Instead much energy and effort were put into moving the logs that were brought with the replicas, further reinforcing the impression of the heavy and difficult hauling given by the use of stiff and heavy boats, and contradicting the experiences shared by Manker from hauling boats in the “real” world.

4. Gransele. 2 Reseleforsen (rapid) 2 Rusele. Pausele (Linné 1969: 45). Portage places still used in the 20th century In the early 20th century large areas of north and inland Sweden were still without good roads, and to a great extent boat journeys along the rivers were still the main form of transportation. In 1909 the treasurer of STF, together with three doctors, boarded a boat for a trip from Lyngen to Skibotten across the mountains to Kilpisjaure, the source of the Köngämä and Muonio rivers which they were going to follow. The boat journey was described by one of the doctors, Thorbjörn Hwass (1910: 346 pp). The boats for the passengers were 9 m long and only 1.25 m wide, with the gunwhale empty only 0.2 m above the waterline. An additional strake was inserted between the oarlocks to protect against the rapid’s waves. The passengers were sitting in pairs in the boat. Each boat had two rowers, one close to the stem, and one close to the stern. One man was also the helmsman; he had a short oar with a long and wide blade, held in place with a withie of birch at starboard side. At the first rapid by Kilpisluspa, the boats had to be taken up and pulled on land beside the rapid. First went the travellers, after them the luggage was carried, and last came the boat on wooden rollers. After the rapids came the northernmost Swedish settler farmstead of Kummavuopio. Along the rivers as here, there were settler farmsteads where the state provided the house if settlers in turn provided help and lodging for the travellers. Along several rapids, 28 on the way to Karesuando, the boat was punted downstream with great skill by the Finnish crew on board, though there were plenty of rocks of different sizes all around. In some rapids, such as Peräkoski and the wildest rapid of them all Lammakoski, the boats were emptied of luggage and passengers, then poled by two men on board, while a

Some preserved portages in the archaeological material of Sweden The Survey for Ancient Monuments in Sweden by the National Board of Antiquites (RAÄ), as well as the authorities of provincial museums in the ongoing project Skog och Historia, a survey begun in 1997 by Skogsvårdsstyrelsen in cooperation with the National Board of Antiquities, has resulted in several registered portages. One district in particular should be specially thanked for being observant of this type of cultural remains, namely Malå in Lapland; the representative of the authorities Rickard Vesterlund and the local worker in the field Inga-Britt Hultman who found most of the sites mentioned here from SVS in Lapland. Most of the better preserved arrangements have been subject to restoration since coming into use for floating boat journeys after the period when the old waterborne communication routes were replaced by roads. It is therefore only the youngest portage arrangements with logs that are visible today and possible to find during the survey. Ditches are more easy to detect and can be found also in areas where portages have not been in use for several hundred years, such as in central Sweden. No attention has been given to this type of remains. When they have been registered, it has been by coincidence often thanks to the interest of those conducting the survey. Here I will present only a random selection of portages 158

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES registered as ancient monuments in Sweden. It is neither a complete nor a statistically chosen sample, but it is presented to give examples of the different types of arrangements made on portages in Sweden. 1. Skidberget 1, by Skellefte River, Malå parish, Lapland 1) 100 m long portage beside rapids in the old river route (fig. 4). Built with logs as rollers 0.2-0.3 m thick, spaced at approx. 1 m distance. The site was found and registered by Skog och Historia 1998, a survey by Skogsvårdsstyrelsen in cooperation with the National Board of Antiquities. Site no. SVS 919: 3 Parallell to no. 1 2) 60 m long portage with logs as rollers 0.2-0.3 m thick. This site was also found and registered by Skog och Historia 2002. Site no. SVS 919: 4.

Fig. 4. Portage by Skidberget. Photo by Inga-Britt Hultmar, Malå.

2. Västra Lainejaur, Malå parish, Lapland Portage in plain ground between lakes, 120 m long consisting of logs as rollers 1.5-2.0 m long and 0.05-0.1 m thick, placed with an internal distance of 0.45-1.0 m. The site was found and registered by Skog och Historia 2002. Site no. SVS 1974. 3. Skidberget 2, Malå parish, Lapland Portage road beside Skellefte River, with remains of specially built carriages (figs. 5 and 6) and with log-built portages on both sides. The road is 300 m long and 2 m wide. The log portage in NW is 35 m long and 4 m wide. The log portage in SE is 20 m long and 2.5 m wide, situated on a cliff. The site was found and registered by Skog och Historia 1998. Site no. SVS 920.

Figs. 5-6 Portage road with carriage beside Skellefteå old river-route. Photo by Inga-Britt Hultmar, Malå.

4. Sandfors, Malå parish, Lapland Remains of a portage that was once about 200 m long of which 18 m in SE are largely intact (fig. 7). The site was found and registered by Skog och Historia 1998. Site no. SVS 921.

159

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 7 Portage beside Malå River. Photo by Gunilla Larsson.

Fig. 9. Drawing of the portage found during the construction of road E18.

5. Skäppträskåheden, Malå parish, Lapland Portage on a flat rock, 28 m long and 2 m wide. The site was found and registered by Skog och Historia 1998. Site no. SVS 860.

8. Fållnäs, Södermanland The ditch by Draget in Kalmar parish is well known. A similar, deep, strategically positioned ditch at Fållnäs, Södermanland (fig. 10) opens a route to the interior of the peninsula Lisö beside the Södertälje river-route connecting Fållnäs Bay with Grimsta Bay (Deckel 2002). The ends open at 5 and 10 m a s l respectively. The ditch was investigated in 2000 by Michael Olausson (Deckel 2002), and revealed closely spaced logs positioned in a similar way along the sides transverse to the bottom of the ditch, as is illustrated in the drawing from Draget in Kalmar parish (oral information). A 14C date from charcoal below the walls of the ditch on the original ground level gave a date to the 6th century (Deckel 2002), while wooden material from the trench in the bottom of the ditch is preliminarily dated to the 16th century.

6. Gargån, Sorsele parish, Lapland A portage beside the rapids of Trollforsen in Gargån. Logs as runners built up on a wooden construction among the stones (fig. 8). The portage was used until the 20th century for the floating boats. Registered by Skog och Historia 2002.

Fig. 8 The portage by Gargån. Photo Gunilla Larsson.

7. Draget, Kalmar parish, Uppland The most well-known but least investigated site, often occurring in the discussions of Swedish portages, is the construction found and drawn by road builders for E18 by Draget in Kalmar parish. Visible in the drawing (fig. 9) is a deep ditch with the sides covered by closely spaced logs transverse to the ditch.

Fig. 10 The deep ditch at Fållnäs. Photo by Per Deckel.

160

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES

The strategic position between two important river systems makes Damell’s interpretation of the ditches as portage arrangements very likely. Of the 14C datings that were made, one was recent (St 11140), while the other gave 65 + 90 BC (St 11139).

9. The ditches at Sjöås from Halmsjön to Sigridsholmssjön, Lunda parish, Uppland Two ditches have been registered by the Survey for Ancient Monuments at Sjöås between Halmsjön, which is linked to the Lake Mälar water system, and Sigridsholmssjön, linked to the so-called Långhundra river route, which in the Iron Age ran between Uppsala and the Baltic Sea. The ditches were found in 1996 and recorded in the register of the National Survey for Ancient Monuments as no. 233 in Lunda parish, Uppland. Both ditches run transverse across the ridge from the lake Halmsjön in the west to the bog with a small water flow in the east. Both ditches had been cut by the road that runs along the ridge, which shows that they are older than the road. The south ditch measures 50-60 m in length, 3 m in width and approx. 0.5 m in depth. The north ditch (fig. 11) is longer, approx. 90-100 m long, and is 3 m wide and 0.5 m deep.

Fig. 12 The test-pit in one of the ditches between Halmsjön and Sigridsholmssjön. The ditch might have been used for boats. Photo by David Damell, ATA.

The area around Sigridsholms Lake has, at least since the Bronze Age and up to the end of the Viking Age, been a central cultic site of high rank, probably of regional importance. In the northern part of Sigridsholms Lake, in an area approx. 200 x 200 m, several sacrificial deposits had been made. Here bones of horse, swine and sheep were found (report Claes Varenius, ATA, Lunda parish), as well as two boats (ATA Dnr 3508/63, 5047/63 and oral information from present landowner); jewellery from the Bronze Age and earliest Iron Age were found either by plowing or during a small investigation at the find site (Report RAÄ UV Birgitta Sander 3915/86, RAÄ Lunda parish, nr 232). In this deposit were artefacts such as a socalled wendelring with traces of gold cover, armrings, footring, and needles, but also tools such as bronze celts (1 of ordinary size and 2 miniatures). From the same area, in the 19th century, remains of weapons were found, including a well-preserved late Iron Age sword of unusual type with inlays of copper and silver on the handle (SHM 6742). The parish name Lunda, ‘(sacred) grove’, reveals that here there also had been a holy grove.

Fig. 11. The north ditch at Sjöås towards Halmsjön. Photo by Gunilla Larsson.

A smaller investigation and the context of the ditches by Sjöås, Halmsjön The ditches found in the survey were inspected by David Damell at the National Board of Antiquities. He also did a small trial excavation in the N ditch, which showed that the width was 3 m and the original depth 0.5 m (report by David Damell, ATA Dnr 4063/86). Lengthwise in the ditch, situated in the deepest part, was a charcoaled plank, 0.3-0.4 m wide (fig. 12). Here and there were also visible charcoaled traces of transverse timbers. An investigation close to the lower end of the ditch showed that also here the width was 3 m; charcoaled wood lay in the bottom as well as transverse wood in a fishbone pattern. The ditch continued a few metres into the bog east of the ridge, which at least in the beginning of the Iron Age was part of Sigridsholmssjön. The ditch was covered by 0.7-0.8 m mud and peat and in the bottom was a great deal of wooden material, some of which had cut-marks.

As with many other central cultic sites, the gatherings for religious rituals were performed in combination with the summoning up of a regional court, in this case Folklandsting, the court for Attundaland. At an early date this gave rise to a market-place or town, Folklandstingsstad, which was forbidden by the king in 161

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

the 14th century in favour of the nearby situated town of Sigtuna. The exact location has not been established, but in several places by the eastern side of the lake and in the vicinity of Lunda Church, remains from houses and early medieval artefacts of an urban character have been found. It is hardly surprising that there has been a need for facilities to ease the communications to this place of regional religious, juridical and commercial activities. The portage ditches at Sjöås enabled the people from the western part of Attundaland and Seminghundra härad to arrive by boat from Lake Mälar and the western water routes. Observations on the constructions of preserved portages Fig. 13. A strake 10-11 mm thick made of radially split log is tested for Embla. Photo by Gunilla Larsson.

Contrary to most of the earlier experiments performed with hauling ships, the preserved portages that have logs as runners have permanently placed logs, partly sunken in to the ground, or where there are many stones and rocks, on a built-up trail. The logs had not been brought in by the ships and moved. The logs are between 0.05 and 0.3 m thick and most of the logs seem to be 0.1-0.2 m in size (Skidberget, Lainejaur, Skäppträskåheden, Malån, Gargnäs, Sandträsk).

1994, 1997) have recently been found in the excavation of the settlement layer at Gnezdovo under the direction of Tamara Puschkina. These have the same shaft shape as in the boat burials of central Sweden (Larsson 2000, 2004). Since no remains of boat-building have been found, the ships were probably brought there.

Roads occur in some places, and at one location (Skidberget 1) also a special carriage had been constructed.

The ships

In south Sweden the communication system with portages had been abandoned so early that logs as runners are not preserved or visible. Instead during the survey of some places special ditches were observed (Sjöås, Draget, Fållnäs), which in one case has the name Draget ‘the pulling’, revealing a possible portage function. Remains of wooden constructions have been found (Sjöås, Fållnäs) or noted (Draget) that might have facilitated the boat transport. Ditches might have been suitable when the gunwale was higher and it was possible to grip at a comfortable level. This was the case for larger ships, especially the merchant vessels. This interpretation fits well with the occurrence of the ditches by Sjöås leading to Sigridsholmsjön with the regional marketplace, thing and town of Folklandstingsstad.

The importance of the boat-building methods for the function of the replicas and the results of experiments, has been observed earlier by some scholars (Westerdahl 1994a, Crumlin-Pedersen), but not taken into consideration during the earlier hauling experiments in Sweden. The big innovation in boat-building technology in the 6th to 7th centuries was the introduction of the radial splitting method, allowing thinner strakes to be cut and lighter ships to be built. The method meant that the log was split into several parts, not straight after a line as earlier but instead following the direction of the fibres in the wood, and it was a crucial point not to cut the fibres. The quality of the wood, which probably is the most important result of the use of the radial splitting method in the building process, has been revealed in experiments; it has strength and extremely good resistance to tension. A thin strake of the same size as in the original boat in burial no. 3 at Prästgården, Old Uppsala, that was only 10-12 mm and made of a radially split plank, was laid between two supports and loaded with a weight of approx.150 kg (fig. 13). The plank bent down 35 cm but did not break. With this method the split follows the natural grain of the tree wood and the fibre remains intact, as when wooden sleeves are made today, which gives a very strong and flexible plank. This made it possible to make the planking very thin and light and at the same time increase the softness and pliability of the hull at sea. The methods used resulted in light boats with shallow draught well suited for river traffic and hauling. They became seaworthy and fast and endured the waves

The significance of the boat-building methods

Remains of portages in Russia? Dry roads, ditches and logs have been noted by Makarov at some of the Russian portages (1994). Indirectly, however, some of the best evidence that the Scandinavians brought their ships across these portages are the remains of Scandinavian ships in cultural layers and burials, which are found in many places along the river routes in Russia (Stalsberg 1998) and which I have earlier analysed (Larsson 2000, 2004b). The boats in the burials are of the same type as in central Sweden, and remains are found for instance south of the portage from Lovat to Dnepr at the Gnezdovo burial site. Rivets that are connected with Scandinavian ships in Russia (Sorokin 162

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES material these are the most common, and large ships are rare exceptions.

and movements of a rough sea, as well as when hitting stones in the rivers. Most of the boats in the east Swedish late Iron Age burials as well as wreck finds that are built with the radial splitting method, have very thin planking, in general 10-15 mm thick. In the case of the large Riddarholmen ship, one of the last to be built in this way, the dimensions of the strakes – 15-20 mm – are according to boat builder Axel Lindberg less than half the dimension necessary in a ship of that size if built with sawn planking. Replicas built with this method are thus considerably lighter than if built with sawn planking.

The results are shown in a table. The material consists of 51 boat-graves and 24 wrecks.

Light ships The weight of the boats is crucial for the results of the experiments with hauling. Radial splitting as a building method has almost never been used when building the Swedish replicas in the earlier experiments, and the thickness of the sawn planking has had to be increased to compensate, resulting in heavier boats. The use of the building method has clearly influenced the results, since boats built with modern methods have often turned out to be so heavy that a wagon or other aids have been needed. This was the case with Krampmacken, which was supposed to be a reconstruction of the “Bulverket boat” and which in 1985 made a journey from Gotland through East Europe to the Black Sea (Nylén 1987; Edberg 1999). This boat, built in a modern way, was only 8 m long but had a total weight of almost 1000 kg. For the heavy land transports a cart was brought. As a comparison, Tälja, which is 9.6 m long and built with the radial splitting method as a reconstruction of the 11th-century Viksboat, weighs only approx. 500 kg. In 1996 the present author had a replica, Embla, built of the boat in grave 3, Prästgården, Old Uppsala parish. Embla is a 7.2 m long reconstruction built with original methods and the same thickness of the planking as the original, that is, only 1012 mm. This boat weighs only 250 kg. Both Tälja and Embla were used in the experiments that will be presented in this article.

Length

Total number

Boatgraves

Wrecks

0-9 m 9-14 m 15-19 m 20-25 m 26-30 m

53 18 1 2 1

33 17 1 -

20 1 1 1 1

Embla and Tälja, used in my experiments, are good examples of the most common category of boats, as is my smallest boat, Smia, which is a reconstruction of the expanded and extended logboat in the burial no. 75 at Tuna cemetery in Badelunda parish (Schönbäck 1994a, b). Smia has not been weighed, but is possible to pull easily by one person even without any special arrangements on the trail. The initiators of the earlier experiments had often not studied and applied the knowledge about the ships used by ordinary people in the Iron Age. Often some of the largest ships found have been reconstructed and used in experiments, such as the Norwegian burial ships from Oseberg and Gokstad. The latter were aristocratic prestige boats built to represent the power and glory of chieftains; they were constructed as floating symbols, to be used primarily on open sea. Havørn, a 2/3 version of the Gokstad ship, was used in a Norwegian expedition from Riga by the Baltic Sea upstream Dyna heading for the Black Sea. The big ship, 16 m long and with a hull weight of 3 ½ tons (Edberg 1999), was almost impossible even to bring up from the water (fig.14). It took a whole day with the use of tackles to get her on land, and then a tractor and truck with crane was the only way to transport the ship the 500 km to Dnepr (Edberg 1999).

The thin planking used in the boats can be illustrated by the runic stone from Altuna Church. It depicts a mythological scene, described in the Edda poem Hymiskvida, in which the thunder god Tor is fishing and gets the Midgård’s snake on the hook. In the struggle to get the snake, Tor happens to tramp one foot through the hull of the boat. This is a good illustration of how thin the hull of a fishing boat could be, just like the light Sami boats in historical time (see Westerdahl 1987). Small ships What did the actual ships used in the Iron Age look like? What do we know about their size and construction? To answer this question, I have earlier made a comparative analysis of the approximately 75 finds known from central Sweden in the late Iron Age that I had recorded (Larsson 2004). The archaeological material shows that the small ships dominated. In the central Swedish

Fig. 14. After a great effort Havørn is brought up from the river. Photo: Håkan Altrock (after Edberg 1999).

163

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

A heavy ship is also very heavy to row. It cuts deep into the water, which increases the resistance in the water and thus reduces the distance that is possible to row upstream the shallow rivers. The Havørn expedition had to stop already before the Russian border where the river was too shallow. The Gokstad ship has also a V-shaped bottom, in contrast to the boats of the Swedish burial finds at Valsgärde, Tuna in Alsike and others, which like the Viksboat are flat-bottomed with shallow draught.

Time for experimental archaeology: ship replicas on a reconstructed portage of the type with lunnar Place of trials and participants In 2001 the present author organised an experiment in Roslagen together with Lennart Widerberg of the Viksbåten association. On the 19th of September all who were interested gathered in the beautiful surroundings of the reconstructed Viking settlement of Storholmen, by Svanberga in Uppland, situated on the eastern shore of Lake Erken. For the experiments we used two replicas of boats used in central Sweden in the late Iron Age, and a reconstruction of the type of portage documented ethnologically and archaeologically where logs, so-called lunnar, were positioned. The boats, unlike those in earlier experiments, were built with the same methods as the original boats. This means that the same dimensions of the material could be used, and no extra reinforcments adding weight were needed. Participants also included Rune Edberg, a researcher of Marine Archaeology at Södertörn University College; Mirja Arnshav, Niklas Eriksson and Nicklas Sundervall, students in Maritime Archaeology; a class of students from the primary school Svanbergaskolan; a class from the Media program at the secondary school Rodengymnasiet; as well as the local enthusiasts Peter Geschwind, Bertil Otterman, Petter Hallegren, Ingela Jansson, Vanja Schubert, Per Erici, Krister Pettersson and Carina Andersson. Everyone gathered at the prepared track which ran beside Lake Erken and through the large Iron Age cemetery beside the village of Svanberga.

Special technological adaptions to the boats for portages The false keel The ships had to be prepared in several way for the repeatedly occurring land passages beside rapids and portages between river systems. Ethnographic documentation from north Scandinavia where portages were still in use for ship transports on land until the 20th century, shows that the ships were equipped with an additional false keel of birch, treenailed in place to protect the original keel from wear; the false keel could then be easily replaced when it was worn. The archaeological ship remains tell us that the ships, especially in the Late Iron Age, were often equipped with a false keel, as evidenced by the Bårset boat (Gjessing 1941), the Årby boat and the Viksboat (Larsson 1997, 2000). These ships often have holes made in the stems for ropes in connection with different types of transports, such as pulling from land or hauling on portages. Thus, the ships were constructed specially for the purpose of tackling the portages.

The reconstructed portage “Drag” The trail prepared with lunnar logs inspired by the portages of Lapland, was 900 m long, with curves and a height difference of c. 10 m. The ground consisted of both even grass and uneven meadow ground with tussocks, as well as a bog and a riding trail. The prepared portage began and ended by the shore of Lake Erken.

The Old Norse word for the false keel added as a protection under the original keel is the word drag ‘pull’, revealing the purpose of this extra keel (Falk 1995: 45). In the old literature drag as a name for the false keel is preserved in the expression “leggja drag undir (einhvers) ofmetnad” to ‘add fuel to someone’s arrogance’. Both the false keel and the word drag for it are still used in Norway and in Iceland, but nowadays mostly iron is used to protect the original keel. The word drag is also used for the portage itself. The Swedish name for this construction detail today is still slitköl, or dragköl.

The logs, mostly of aspen and maple, varied between 3 and 15 cm in diameter, and between 0.6 and 1.2 m in length. They were placed at an internal distance of 0.51.5 m. In the wet, boggy part the ground was partway covered with thin branches.

Stems with holes for pulling ropes

The reconstructed boats used

The Viksboat 1 has three multifunctional holes made in the stem and two in the preserved part of the stern. These could have been used for ropes as an aid when hauling boats on land, or perhaps for attaching to some kind of runner, but also for pulling the boat upstream from the shore in shallow waters. Similar holes are not found in younger boats or contemporaneous heavy merchant vessels.

The reconstructed late Iron Age boats used for the experiments were Tälja and Embla, which like the originals were built with the contemporary radial splitting method, resulting in light and pliable boats. Tälja is a replica of the Viksboat 1, Söderby-Karl parish, Uppland. The original was reconstructed by the present author 1985-94 (see Larsson 1997, 2000a) and has a

164

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES The first part of the following 100 m was uneven, and here the boat ran easiest when the logs were thickest, up to 15 cm, since it touched the tussocks otherwise. Here the track turned a bit, and the boat steered off the track of logs and stopped again briefly. This part continued with more even ground, mostly covered with meadow grass that had been grazed. The distance was passed in approx. 5 minutes. The young team from Svanberga school had pulled the boat over various conditions for about 250 m and now had to continue with their next lesson in school and therefore left the scene. They were followed by seven 17-year-old boys from Rodengymnasiet senior school, the Media program, who together with two teachers took Tälja along the whole trail in approx. 1 hour (fig. 15). During this time there were several stops caused by someone who stumbled into dog roses, stinging nettles or just by lactic acid, as when the slope to the upper part of the track was passed. The final downward slope was not covered with logs the whole way, but with green fresh grass. The boat was moved with quite good speed, but almost too fast against the stones at the lower end where the riverbank was reached. At this point it was good to have the keel protected by a false keel, which got most of the wear at this place. The reward for the teenagers was not beer, but a 4 km long trip on the lake.

preliminary dendrodate to the 11th century (Braathen). It is the only find of a boat of the type found in the Swedish boat burials with most of the wooden hull preserved. Tälja was built in Norrtälje, Uppland, and is 9.5 m in length, 2.2 m wide and 0.54 m high. Midship, the strakes of the Viksboat have an average thickness of approx. 1517 mm, reduced to approx. 10 mm closer to the stems. The dimensions of the material had been reduced as much as possible to minimize weight, for example the frames are only 5-6 cm wide and high. The remains of a contemporaneous merchant vessel from the same place, Viksboat 2, has twice that dimension on the ribs: 11-12 cm. Viksboat 1 has been equipped for portages: it has a false keel, 7 cm high, secured with treenails to the original keel, and three drilled holes in the stems for ropes. Without equipment inside, the weight is approx. 500 kg. Embla was built as a replica of a boat in a burial beside Prästgården, Old Uppsala parish, Uppland. The boat burial was found in 1973 and excavated by Else Nordahl in 1974 (Nordahl 2001). Here only the rivets were preserved. The boat was reconstructed in Microstation after the position of the rivets in the grave by the present author together with Helena Victor, Dept. of Archaeology, Uppsala. In 1996 the replica, 7.2 m long and 1.5 m wide, was built by the shore of the river Fyrisån (Larsson 1998). The dimensions of the rivets revealed that the strakes were only 10-12 mm. The building method used permitted this thickness for the strakes of the replica as well, resulting in a boat with a weight of only 250 kg. In analogue with the Viksboat, since no wood was preserved, Embla was also equipped with a false keel, here approx. 4 cm. Results of the experiments Tälja was the first boat to be used, and the first participants at the experiments were 16 school kids, 15year-olds from the class at the last year of primary school in Svanberga. Under the direction of Lennart Widerberg, they took on the task of bringing Tälja up and along the portage after a short trip on the lake. The taking up of the boats involved a 90 degree turn that caused some problems before the boats were safely on the prepared track, and took up to 5 minutes. A straight trail with similar size of logs as on the Sami portages, approx. 10 cm, commenced thereafter for 100 m, and with the maximum speed of the trial it was passed smoothly in only 2 minutes. The trail continued with the bog, which for 40 m was covered with branches instead of logs, a part of the trail that caused an immediate stop, and several problems suddenly arose. Some thinner logs of 34 cm were broken. Here the shoes of the team got stuck in the mud, as did the boat. After short moves of 1 m at a time in more than 10 minutes, thicker logs and not so muddy ground were reached and the trial could accelerate again.

Fig 15. Tälja on the rollers. Photo by Mediagymnasiet, Norrtälje.

165

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Conclusions and comparison with earlier experiments

The turn had now come to Embla. Only five of the senior school students took Embla around the same track (fig. 16), at such speed that their classmates who were trying to do photographic documentation had a difficult time following. In 15 minutes they had made the round of 900 m, sometimes aided by their teacher. They launched the boat and disappeared on the lake for a long time.

A prepared trail on a portage with the logs secured partly by sinking them into the ground or in a shallow depression with no sharp turns, will easily be passed 100 m in a maximum of 3 minutes, and 1 km in 30 minutes, using half of the possible crew for the Viksboat and exchanging them regularly for the other half of the crew to permit rest. This is possible if a similar size of logs and similar construction of the portage as in the archaeological documented cases are used. The logs should be approx. 10 cm thick. On a correctly prepared trail, the boats run smoothly without any greater effort. It is also necessary, as in documented portages, to have a portage with logs prepared in advance. Earlier experiments with the replica Aifur, a boat built with consideration for the type and size of boats used, but not with the construction of portage that is documented from several places, has shown that bringing and moving logs on a trail that has not been prepared, constituted a great part of the effort in the experiment (Edberg 1995, 1999). There are other experiments, as when a block from Stonehenge was transported on a sleigh on rollers, and in a similar way the moving of the rollers occupied 12 of the 24 persons in the labour force (Coles 1973: 87). Also, when Helge Ask, the reconstruction of Skuldelev 5, in 1996 in an experiment was moved 300 m over an isthmus, 30-33 men were engaged but 6-8 men were needed to move the logs (Hale 1998). It is not probable aside from on exploration journeys, that other than prepared tracks were used on the well-travelled communication routes, such as those in the parts of Scandinavia where this communication system has survived. In one of the experiments with Helge Ask, four horses were used as a pulling force, stumbling on the rollers. It seems probable that when horses or oxen were needed and used as a pulling force, they were used on a dry road as in the Russian examples shown by Makarov. In those cases a runner probably has been used, as is known from Listeid, and which has also been tried with positive results with Himingläva in 2003 and 2004.

Fig. 16. Embla pulled at speed along the prepared trail. Photo by Mediagymnasiet, Norrtälje.

Fig.17. The team pulling Tälja along the trail of rollers through the Iron Age cemetery beside Svanberga.

The false keel is needed to protect the keel. The wear on the false keel was approx. 1 cm, mostly caused when stones were passed over at the end of the trail before the boats were launched again. The false keel was easily replaced with another one after the experiments.

Later in the day it was time for a second round for Tälja, and for the adult team with teachers and students of Marine Archaeology at Södertörn University College to perform the experiment. On this occasion seven adults took Tälja around the whole trail in approx. 1 hour and 15 minutes (fig. 17). The stops were quite often caused by either lactic acid or because the boat had slipped off the rollers in the curves. As with the first team, the highest speed was achieved when the boat was going straight on logs approx. 10 cm. At these places, 100 m were covered in 2 minutes. It was also an advantage if the logs were sunken into the ground so that they were not so easily moved to the sides. The exhausted pulling team ended the trials of the day with a journey of 3 NM on Lake Erken with both rowing and sailing in the late summer evening.

It must also be stressed that it was especially the boats for personal transport and the warships which were constructed to be as light as possible and which equipped for portages by the use of drag and holes for ropes. Merchant vessels are usually more heavily built, and reaching a port meant changing to smaller boats or other means of transport. This does not, however, apply to the Russian merchants of the north, who with their light cargo of furs preferred light, easily transported boats that could be used in the river systems to reach the markets of north Scandinavia. 166

GUNILLA LARSSON: AN ETHNOARCHAEOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM OF PORTAGES smaller vessels and even more for large ships like the Riddarholmen ship, according to naval engineers. The transition from a soft to a stiff hull also created a need for a solid internal structure of ribs and for the skeleton technique to replace the shell technique. The portages in the south of Sweden then lost their importance, and are now only preserved as memories in place names such as –ed and –bor. In the north, the lack of roads made the rivers central to communication and necessitated a continuous use of both light boats and portages until the last century.

On logs and grass In May 2003 some experiments were also done with the replica Embla on and beside the trail at Storholmen, in connection with a visit by Håkan Altrock, Mats G. Larsson, Holger Eliasson, and Rune Edberg, together with the present author. The logs, of about 8-12 cm in thickness, were lying on the ground, not in a shallow depression. A hundred metres took 5 minutes; but of these, in the part where the logs did not move too much, 30 m were passed in 1 minute! At the suggestion of Mats G. Larsson, the same distance was tried directly on the grass and flowers on fairly even ground, and it resulted in the same speed 30 m beside the prepared trail covered in 1 minute.

The main results of the ethnohistorical analysis and the experiments can be summarised as follows: “As I have shown, the Viking Age ship hauling between rivers and lake systems is not only probable, but also possible to prove”.

A solution to the problem of portages? Not surprisingly, the solutions chosen when arriving at a portage seem to have varied both in time and space. They have also been dependent on the type of vessel used, the type of cargo and the purpose of the journey. The larger merchant vessel has probably never, with few exceptions, been drawn on land. The main exception might be at the portage by Halmsjön. Here in the Middle Ages, a special construction to haul the ship along the ditch across the ridge has probably existed for ships on their way from Lake Mälar to the marketplace of Folklandstingsstad in Lunda parish by the shore of Lake Sigridsholmssjön. The construction was probably also used in earlier times, to enable access to this special lake that was used as a central sacrificial site since the Bronze Age.

References Coles, J., 1973. Archaeology by Experiment. London Edberg, R., 1995a. Låt det gunga om båtarkeologin. Några erfarenheter från expedition Holmgård. Fornvännen 90. Stockholm. Coles, J., 1995b. Vikingabåt på rullar – rapport från ett experiment. Marinarkeologisk Tidskrift 3/1995. Stockholm. Coles, J., 1996. Vikingar mot strömmen. Några synpunkter på möjliga och omöjliga skepp vid färder i hemmavattnen och i österled. Fornvännen 91. Coles, J., (red.).1998 En vikingafärd genom Ryssland och Ukraina. Expedition Holmgård – ett arkeologiskt äventyr. Sigtuna Museers skriftserie 8. Sigtuna. Coles, J., 1999. Askeladden i österviking. Saga och verklighet på de ryska floderna. Aktuell Arkeologi VII. Red. Patrik Nordstöm & Marie Svedin. Stockholm Archaeological reports. Nr 36. pp 25-37. Ehrenmalm, A., 1743. Resa genom Vesternorrland til Åsehle lappmark. Stockholm. Falk, Hj., 1995. Fornnordisk sjöfart. Skärhamn. Frykman, J., 1973. Transport till lands. Arbete och redskap.Stockholm. Gjessing, G., 1941. Båtfunnene fra Bårset og Øksnes. Tromsø museums årshefter nr 8, vol. 58 (1935). Tromsø. Hale, J.R. 1998. The Viking Longships. Scientific American, February 1998., complementary information from the film and the homepage http://www.iau.dtu.dk/-lh/helge/helgeexp.html (981215). Hwass, T., 1910. En forsfärd utför Köngämä och Muonio älfvar. Svenska Turistföreningens Årsskrift 1910. Stockholm. Jesch, J., 2001. Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age. The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Scaldic Verse. Woodbridge. Johansson, C., 1989. Mujto. Minnen från jägar- och fiskartiden och den gamla renkonstens dagar. Skrifter utgivna av dialekt- och folkminnesarkivet i Umeå.

Pulling ships along portages has occurred in many places as is evident from the archaeological, historical and ethnographical material, but it has only continued as long as the light ships were built and used. It was part of a communication system belonging to the time before a road network was established that permitted carriages with two axles to be used. In south Sweden the main roads were improved by Queen Kristina (1632-1654), while in north Sweden in many places roads did not exist at all until the 19th century. The river systems were used as the main communication routes both in summer and winter. The towns were established where the rivers met the Bothnian Sea along the coast, and here the coastal road was built early. Experiments have shown that when the same kinds of constructions and boats known from the archaeological material are also used in the experiments, this facilitates the hauling considerably. It is also evident that the boatbuilding technology of the late Iron Age and early Middle Ages has been a significant factor for the possibility to reduce the weight of the ships, without losing strength and elasticity of the hull. The thin hulls that we find in boat-graves with only 10-15 mm thick strakes, can only be obtained by the radial splitting method that leaves the fibre intact. The sawing of planking, introduced in the late Middle Ages, necessitates double dimensions for the 167

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

International Journal of Nautical Archaeology. Nr 23:2. s. 129-139. Sorokin, P., 1997. Vodnie pyti i sydostronie na severeosapade Rysi i v srednevekove. St. Petersburg. Stalsberg, A., 1995. Skip over land og vann. SPOR/1995. Trondheim. Stalsberg, A., 1998. O skandinavskih pogrebenijah s lodkami eposhi vikingov na territorii drevnei Rosi. Istoritjeskaja archeologija. Moskva. Tilas, D., 1966 (1745). Curriculum vitae. Red. Holger Wichman. Stockholm. Varenius, B. 1979. Bulverketbåten. Ett gammalt fynd i ny belysning. Stockholm. Welinder, S., 1992. Människor och landskap. Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis. Uppsala. Westerdahl, C., 1994a. Synpunkter på nybyggen av gamla fartyg. Fornvännen 89. Stockholm. Westerdahl, C., 1987.”Et sätt som liknar them uti theras öfriga lefnadsart.” Om äldre samiskt båtbyggeri och samisk båthantering. Skrifter utgivna av Johan Nordlander-sällskapet nr 11. Örnsköldsvik/Umeå. Westerdahl, C., 1994b. Vikingatidens transportteknik i Ryssland. Elvte tværfaglige vikingesymposium. Århus. Westerdahl, C., 1996. Maritim arkeologi – båtarkeologi – i gungning? Kommentar till Rune Edbergs artikel “Låt det gunga om båtarkeologin” i Fornvännen 1995. Fornvännen 91. Stockholm.

Serie C. Folkminnen och folkliv nr 5. Julku, Kyösti, 1986. Kvenland-Kainuunmaa. Oulu. 3:e nordiska symposiet om Nordskandinaviens historia och kultur. Rovaniemi. Larsson, G. 1997. Viksbåten. En kort beskrivning av båtfyndet från Söderby-Karl. Norrtälje. Larsson, G. 1998. Embla – a vikingship has been reconstructed. Viking Heritage Newsletter. Nr 4/1998. Larsson, G. 2000a. The reconstruction of the Viksboat. Proceedings of the Eight International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology. Gdansk 1997. Larsson, G. 2000b. Contacts between Central Sweden and Russia indicated by ship remains. Study of the Marine Archaeology. Vol. 4. Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of the History of Material Culture. pp. 102-114. Larsson, G. 2004a. Skepp och sjöfart i Mellansverige under yngre järnålder. Bottnisk Kontakt XI. Länsmuséet Västernorrland. Härnösand. Larsson, G. 2004b. The Ships and Seafaring of Central Sweden In Late Iron Age: Myth and Reality. By the Water. Archaeological Perspectives on Human Strategies around the Baltic Sea. Ed. by Johan Rönnby. Det marinarkeologiska forskningsprojektet vid Södertörns Högskola 1999-2001. Larsson, M.G., 1997. Ett ödesdigert vikingatåg. Ingvar den vittfarnes resa 1036-1041. Vikingar i österled. En samlingsutgåva. Atlantis. Stockholm. Linné, C.v. Lappländska resa. Stockholm 1969 (1732). Magnus, Olaus (1555), 1976. Historia om de nordiska folken I-IV, nytryck sedan 1951 års upplaga, med kommentarer av Nils Granlund, Östervåla. s. 181. Makarov, N.A., 1994. Portages of the Russian North. Fennoscandia Archaeologica XI. Helsingfors. Manker, E., 1939. Under samma himmel. Strövtåg och studier bland samer söderut. Stockholm. Nestorskrönikan. Övers. Gabriella Oxenstierna. Stockholm/Stehaeg 1998. Nordahl, E., 2001. Båtgravar i Gamla Uppsala. Spår av en vikingatida högreståndsmiljö. Uppsala. Nylén, E., 1987. Vikingaskepp mot Miklagård. Krampmacken i Österled. Stockholm. Nylén, E., & Schönbäck, B., 1994. Tuna i Badelunda. Guld, kvinnor, båtar. 1. Västereås Kulturnämnds skriftserie 27. Västerås. Nylén, E., & Schönbäck, B., 1994. Tuna i Badelunda. Guld, kvinnor, båtar. 2. Västerås kulturnämnds skriftserie 30. Västerås. Rheen, S., 1897. En kortt Relation om Lapparnes Lefwarne och Sedher, wijd-Skiepellsser. Sampt i många Stycken Grofwe wildfarellsser. Bidrag till kännedom om de Svenska landsmålen ock Svenskt folkliv XVII.I. Uppsala. Berättelser om Samerna i 1600-talets Sverige. Kungl. Skytteanska Samfundets Handlingar. Nr 27. 1983. Schönbäck, B., 1994. Se Nylén, E., & Schönbäck, B., 1994. Sorokin, P., 1994. Some results of the study of medieval boatbuilding traditions in north-west Russia. The 168

Words for ‘portage’ in the Scandinavian languages, and place-names indicating old portages Eva Nyman

Man has always formed words and phrases to refer to phenomena that he often needs to talk about. On the other hand, words and phrases denoting things, that man does not need to talk about any longer, tend to disappear. In olden times, when waterways were of much greater importance than today, and when the carrying of both boats and their cargo over stretches of land formed a natural part of man’s voyages not only along the coasts but also on inland waterways – then man needed words to refer to the places where stretches of land divided the trafficable waters or where rapids and falls interrupted the river voyage. Travelling by land was sometimes a necessity, and sometimes it was an opportunity – by dragging or carrying one’s boat over a stretch of land one could sometimes take a short cut instead of going the long way, or – perhaps more importantly – avoid an exposed, harbourless coast. Thus man needed, and formed, words denoting places where he had to travel by land or where he could travel by land.

used to refer to portages signify the three activities connected with transport of boats and/or cargoes over land: walking, carrying and dragging. A word that has been known in all Scandinavian speaking countries is OWScand eið, OSw eþ neutr. (with a somewhat questionable, extended form OWScand *eiði, OSw *eþe neutr.; cf. Icelandic, Faeroese eiði); a corresponding ODan *eth is not recorded but can be reconstructed on the basis of place-names. The noun eið (PrGmc *aiða-) is formed out of an obsolete verb meaning ‘to walk’, answering to Latin ire ‘to walk’, eo ‘(I) walk’. The basic meaning of eið is ‘walking; walk’, out of which the sense ‘place where you walk; footpath; road (in general)’ can easily have developed. The meaning ‘path, road’ appears in a few ancient Scandinavian place-names (see below), but the word eið has much more often been used in a more special sense, namely about passages over land between two trafficable waters. The word can refer to a passage between two lakes or rivers or to a passage along rapids or falls in a river. The passage, the eið, might also lead across a narrow and/or low part of an island or a peninsula. In any case it concerns places where one can walk or where one must walk.4

To distinguish and point out important points in the landscape, man uses place-names. We can be certain that places more or less regularly used as portages have had names. Many of those names have now been forgotten, because the portages are no longer in use. When the main function of a place is gone, there is often no longer a need for a place-name, and the name falls into disuse and gradually sinks into oblivion. But many portage names are still in use, mainly because they have come to denote something else, mostly a habitation – e.g. a farm, a village, a parish and so on, or a natural object – e.g. a stretch of land, a wood, a peninsula. These old placenames are like ancient monuments in the linguistic landscape, ancient remains that can yield information about times long past.

Place-names containing eið (and corresponding forms) and referring to portages are very frequent all over Norway and – in the form -eiði – in the Faeroes and in Iceland. In Sweden these names occur particularly frequently in the central and northern parts of the country. In the formerly Danish provinces of Skåne, Blekinge and Halland no place-names in eið have been found.5 An old place-name in eið is the Norwegian parish name Eidskog, which preserves the name of a border wood, ONorw Eiðaskógr ‘the wood with (many) portages’, situated on the old road between southern Norway and Sweden. On the Swedish side of the border, in the province of Värmland, we find the parish Eda (in parochia Eedha 1355, copy).6

In the Germanic speaking parts of Scandinavia1 we find a small number of words denoting portages.2 The words in question have been used about places where boats were dragged between trafficable waters or where cargo was carried over land.3 Naturally enough, the words that were

Another portage name is preserved in the Swedish parish name Ed in the central province of Uppland. Ed is

1

The linguistic term Scandinavian languages refers to the Germanic languages of Scandinavia, the Faeroe Islands and Iceland. The term not only refers to the modern languages, Danish, Faeroese, Icelandic, Norwegian and Swedish, but also to the older stages of the languages mentioned. Old West Scandinavian (“Old Norse”), the language out of which Faeroese, Icelandic and Norwegian developed, is particularly important because it is fairly well recorded. 2 See in general RGA s.v. Schleppstrecken. Skandinavien. Sprachliches. 3 In this context I use the word portage in a general sense and I do not take into account the question of whether boats were actually carried or dragged between trafficable waters or whether only the cargo was transported.

4 Hellquist 1948:173 s.v. ed 1., Modéer 1936:90 f., Ståhl 1960:72, Elmevik 1978:35 ff., Magnússon 1989:146 s.v. eið, eiði, Nyman 1990:104 ff., SOL:65, 74 s.v. Edsvära, Finnveden, RGA s.v. Länderund Landschaftsnamen:563; for other senses of the place-name element see Modéer 1936:90 ff., SOL:83 s.v. Fullerö 1. 5 Modéer 1936:96, Widmark 1957:85 f. with a map, NSL:129 f. s.v. eid with literature, SOL:63 s.v. ed with literature. 6 NSL:130, SOL:63.

169

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

attested in runic script, probably from the 11th century, as i aiþi, i.e. Runic Swedish i [‘in’] Æidhi, dative singular.7

probably dates from the first half of the first century after Christ. It seems, however, as if the local wealth of names in -bor in Central Sweden could have been a rather late development – during the Middle Ages or even later – and related to the increased communication associated with the development of mining industry in the region of Bergslagen.14

The place-name element in its Swedish form ed is also frequent in the Swedish speaking parts of Finland, but many of the place-names in -ed in Finland seem to be fairly young and to contain ed in the sense ‘neck of land; tongue of land’ rather than ‘portage’ (see below). However, there are a few early recorded names. The village name Hangö (i [‘in’] Hangethe ca. 1270), now the name of a town, may contain the place-name element in question, but this has been much debated. The same goes for the Swedish name of the Estonian island Hiiumaa, Dagö (Dageithi ca. 1270).8

The place-name element drag, meaning ‘portage’, can be found all over Scandinavia, including the Swedish speaking parts of Finland, while in the Faeroes and in Iceland it has not been found. In Denmark drag (with the variant form ODan *drægh > Modern Dan drej) was the normal word for ‘portage’. The word drag is an abstract formation of the strong verb OWScand draga, OSw dragha ‘draw; pull; drag’ with the original meaning ‘pulling’, and hence ‘pulling-place’, ‘place where boats are dragged’.15

Portage names in -bor are characteristic for a part of central Sweden, especially the old iron manufacturing region of Bergslagen. Here the names in -eið (OSw eþ, Sw ed) are not very frequent.9 Apart from the place-name evidence, bor is only preserved dialectally, with meanings like ‘hilly, stony and rough ridge (?) between waters’ and ‘stony height’. The word bor, PrGmc *buri-, is an ancient formation of the strong verb OWScand bera, OSw bæra ‘carry’ (cf. English bear, bore, borne) and its original sense is ‘carrying’, out of which the meanings ‘carrying-place (between waters or along a river)’; ‘distance where one carries (boats or goods)’ and later ‘road between waters’ have developed. Judging from the meanings still alive in dialects, the bor seems to have been looked upon as an obstacle on the route.10

Another term for ‘portage’ can be found in the compound Sw draged ‘portage along a stretch of rapids, etc.’; in Norway there are a number of places called Drageid and in Swedish speaking Finland we find the place-name Dragedet (with the definite article).16 In some dialects of northern Sweden a word mårk, mårka, etc meaning ‘portage’ occurs. This is a borrowing from Sami (Lappish) muotke, muorke17 and it is an indication of contact over the language border. Both eið and bor are ancient word-formations, and the word drag may also be old, although it is difficult to date on linguistic grounds. The place-names that are formed from the aforementioned appellatives are certainly of very different ages. The oldest names may be very ancient, like the non-proprial words, but on the other hand portage names in eið, bor, drag etc may have been formed as long as the appellatives have been in use and there has been need for portages; this may even put the formation of a few of the portage names as late as in our own time.

The Uppland village name Burunge (in burunge 1312) seems to be a derivation in OSw -ungi (< *-ungia) from this word. The village is situated at rapids in the river Fyrisån.11 A compound in -bor can be found in the Swedish town name Borlänge (i Borlængio 1390). The second element of the name is OSw længia, Sw länga ‘something long, e.g. a long stretch of road’. The name originally referred to a path or a road along a series of rapids in the river Dalälven, where the river traffic was forced ashore.12

When place-name material is used as a base for research concerning old portage sites, it is important to note that not all such places bear names that characterise them explicitly as portages: not all of them bear names in -eið, -bor or -drag etc. Moreover, as mentioned above, hardly any portages are now in use, and many portage names have been forgotten. But it is also important to remember that the coastline has not been constant over time in

The place name element bor is common only in part of central Sweden, but it seems to have been known in a wider area. In the province of Småland in southern Sweden we find a village called Bor (i Boor 1446, copy), situated on a stretch of land between two lakes.13 The linguistically isolated Bor in Småland is probably a very old name. As a derivation in -ungi, Burunge 7

Jansson 1984:46 f., SOL:63. Modéer 1936:96 with literature, Ståhl 1960:72, Zilliacus 1989:26, 137 ff. 9 Widmark 1957:85 f. with map, SOL:43. 10 Hesselman 1935:154–166, Widmark 1957:82 ff., SOL:43 s.v. bor with literature. 11 Hesselman 1935:160 f., Widmark 1957:76. 12 SAOB:L 1640, Widmark 1957:70, SOL:44. 13 Widmark 1957:81, 90; concerning Danish examples of a place-name element ODan *bur/*bor see Albøge 1976–84:297 f., 554 f. with literature. 8

14

See Widmark 1957:89. Widmark 1957:85, Dalberg & Kousgård Sørensen 1979:109 f., Zilliacus 1989:137, 208, SOL:61 s.v. Dragby, Dragsmark. For further examples see Ohlsson 1971:50 s.v. Dragsö with literature, Weise 1975:53 s.v. Dragholm, 228 s.v. Draget with literature, Nes 1989:75 s.v. Dragsund. 16 Modéer 1936:90 with note; concerning Danish place-names indicating dragging of ships see also Dalberg & Kousgård Sørensen 1979:110. 17 SAOB:M 1878. 15

170

EVA NYMAN: WORDS FOR ‘PORTAGE’ IN THE SCANDINAVIAN LANGUAGES denotation of the name has widened to become the name of the district through which the road ran.22 Finnveden was one of the small lands, which constituted Småland, a plural name meaning ‘the small lands’.23 The Danish island name Masnedø (Masnæth 1231, copy) seems to be a compound in eið, ODa *eth; the first element is probably an older name of the island, *Masn, and possibly the compound Masnæth originally referred to a road. The place-name element eið, ODa *eth, is otherwise not recorded in Denmark.24 Presumably *Masn-æth is a very old name with eið used in a very old sense.

Scandinavia. In parts of Denmark the land is slowly subsiding into the sea, while in large parts of Norway and even more so in Sweden and Finland, there is a considerable land rise, and many former waterways are now dry land. Sometimes we find portage names that illustrate the postglacial land rise, as for example the district name Sunded in the Swedish province of Hälsingland. Sunded (in sundædhi 1312, dative) is a compound of OSw sund neutr. ‘sound, strait’ and OSw eþ ‘portage’, and formerly it probably referred to the surroundings of a drying channel, now called Arnösundet ‘the sound of Arnö’ or – reflecting more recent conditions – Arnöviken ‘the bay of Arnö’. In our times the place-name Arnöviken (or alternatively Arnösundet) refers to a bay between the Hälsingland mainland and a large peninsula, called Hornslandet, a rather newly coined name. The bay is the remains of the old channel, and Hornslandet was formerly a large island called Arnö (younger Arnön). The eastern coast of the island was (and remains) rocky and dangerous, exposed to the wind and the waves of the Baltic Sea. The western coast faced the sound, a waterway of about four kilometres, perhaps with a harbour site, all sheltered by the high island. Thus the sound was a communication artery of great importance, and when it began to go dry in the shallowest parts, doubtless a portage, an eþ, soon was established. This portage has probably been called Sunded ‘the portage in the sound’. Historically, Sunded is only recorded as the name of one of Hälsingland’s three main districts, but it must once have signified something that could be called an eþ, and by far the most important eþ was the one situated in Arnösundet/Arnöviken.18

In the names discussed above, there is no sense of compulsion in eið – these names do not refer to places where you had to walk but to places where it was possible to walk. These old names, where eið means ‘road (in general)’ are not many, but they usually denote quite large or important places, able to retain their names for a very long time. The place-name element eið can also be used about fords – here too the word refers to places where you can walk – in this case through water. The Swedish village name Fullerö (de [‘from’] fuldrethum 1299, dative plural) in the province of Uppland is probably an example where eið refers to a ford. Fullerö is situated where the little river of Fyrisån could be traversed on foot.25 In Swedish place-names, OSw eþ, Sw ed very often occurs in the sense ‘isthmus, neck of land, narrow portion of land connecting two larger bodies of land’. Nowadays, the word ed is hardly in use, but in the nineteenth century it was used to refer, for example, to the Isthmus of Corinth.26 The meaning ‘isthmus, neck of land’ is usually regarded as secondary to the meaning ‘portage’. After having initially referred to a passage across a neck of land, a passage that connects two trafficable waters, the denotation widened to comprise the land surrounding the passage. Later, the ed became considered the narrow portion of land that joins two wider territories.27 The viewpoint of the landsman replaced that of the sailor.

As mentioned above, not all portages bear names that explicitly characterise them as portages. However, it is more important for the study of portages that not all the place-names in -eið, -bor or -drag refer to portage sites: a name in -eið, -bor or -drag does not prove the existence of an old portage. Especially eið (Norw eid, Sw ed) and drag (and Dan drej) quite often appear in place-names with other references. As mentioned above, eið occurs in the sense ‘path, road’ in a small number of place-names in Scandinavia. Swedish names belonging to this little and ancient group are, for example, the parish names Edsvära in the province of Västergötland19 and Edsberg in the province of Närke;20 the old Swedish province name Finnveden possibly belongs to this group. Finnveden (attested in runic script, probably from ca. 1000, as ą finhiþi, ą finaiþi i.e. Runic Swedish a [‘on’] Finnhæidhi, a [‘on’] Finnæidhi, dative singular)21 has been considered the name of an old road, now Lagastigen (‘the path along the river Lagan’). In such case the

In the Swedish speaking parts of Finland ed is a common place-name element among the islands and skerries of the Baltic archipelago. It often refers to quite narrow, low portions of land that join higher parts of islands and peninsulas. These necks of land are old sounds gone dry as a consequence of land elevation.28 In many places, boats were probably dragged over land to avoid long detours or dangerous coastal areas. Today these necks of land are seldom considered old portage sites – but instead as places where you can walk out to a former island.

22

Cf. SOL:74. SOL:285. Hald 1965:209, Hald 1990:663, cf Jørgensen 1994:194. 25 SOL:83; for further examples, see Modéer 1936:91 ff. 26 See SAOB:E 27. 27 Nyman 1990:106 ff., SOL:63. 28 Zilliacus 1989:137 ff.

18

23

See Hagåsen 2001:69 ff., especially 84 ff. 19 SOL:63, 65. 20 SOL:64. 21 Finnveden, cf. Runic Swedish a [‘on’] Finnhæidhi, could alternatively be a name in Sw hed, OWScand heiðr fem., ‘wood’;see SOL:74. The consonant v in the modern form is an addition.

24

171

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

A similar change of meaning can be found in the placename element drag. In Danish, drag with the variant form drej (< ODan *dræg) has come to mean ‘neck of land; tongue of land’, especially a narrow, winding sandbank.29 It is often difficult to know in which sense the word is used in a given place-name.30

Hesselman, B., 1935: Från Marathon till Långheden. Studier över växtnamn och naturnamn. Stockholm & Köpenhamn. (Nordiska texter och undersökningar 7.) Holmberg, B., 1989: Atlas over Fyns kyst 0–1500 e.Kr. Et tværfagligt forskningsprojekt. In: Stadnamn i kystkulturen. Rapport frå NORNAs fjortande symposium i Volda 4. – 6. mai 1987. Redigert av P. Hallaråker, A. Kruse & T. Aarset. Uppsala. (NORNA-rapporter 41.). Pp. 117–131. Jansson, S. B. F., 1984: Runinskrifter i Sverige. Tredje upplagan. Stockholm. Jørgensen, B., 1994: Stednavneordbog. 2. udgave. Copenhagen. (Gyldendals små røde ordbøger.) Magnússon, Ásgeir Blöndal, 1989: Íslensk orðsifjabók. 2. prentun með leiðréttingum. Reykjavík. Modéer, I., 1936: Färdvägar och sjömärken vid Nordens kuster. Namntolkningar. Uppsala, Leipzig, Haag & Cambridge. (Arbeten utgivna med understöd av Vilhelm Ekmans universitetsfond, Uppsala 45.) Namn och bygd. Tidskrift för nordisk ortnamnsforskning 1–. 1913 ff. neutr. = neuter Nes, O., 1989: Stadnamn på strekkja Volda – Runde. In: Stadnamn i kystkulturen. Rapport frå NORNAs fjortande symposium i Volda 4. – 6. mai 1987. Redigert av P. Hallaråker, A. Kruse & T. Aarset. Uppsala. (NORNA-rapporter 41.). Pp. 63–76. Norw = Norwegian NSL = Norsk stadnamnleksikon. Redigert av J. Sandnes & O. Stemshaug. Redaksjonssekretær: B. Sandnes. 4. utgåva 1997. Oslo. Nyman, E., 1990: Det västgötska sockennamnet Undenäs. In: Allan Rostvik den 22 mars 1990. En hyllningsskrift. Redaktion: E. Brylla, S. Strandberg & M. Wahlberg. Uppsala. Pp. 101–111. ODan = Old Danish Ohlsson, B., 1971: Ortnamnen i Blekinge län 2. Bräkne härad, Territoriella namn. (Sveriges ortnamn.) ONorw = Old Norwegian OSw = Old Swedish OWScand = Old West Scandinavian (= Old Norse) PrGmc = Proto Germanic RGA = Reallexikon der germanischen Altertumskunde von Johannes Hoops. 2., völlig neu bearbeitete und stark erweiterte Auflage unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgelehrter herausgegeben von H. Beck & al. 1–. 1973 ff. Berlin & New York. SAOB = Ordbok över svenska språket utgiven av Svenska akademien. 1898 ff. Lund. SOL = Svenskt ortnamnslexikon. Utarbetat inom Språkoch folkminnesinstitutet och Institutionen för nordiska språk vid Uppsala universitet. Redaktör: M. Wahlberg. 2003. Uppsala. Ståhl, H., 1960: Färdvägsnamn. In: Kulturhistoriskt lexikon för nordisk medeltid från vikingatid till reformationstid 5. Malmö. Pp. 68–73. Sw = Swedish Weise, L., 1975: Danmarks Stednavne 16. Stednavne i Præstø Amt. København.

In place-names, the element drag occurs with even more meanings. It may refer to places that are exposed to the wind and waves; a debated example is the Swedish placename Långedrag in Gothenburg.31 Consequently, we cannot rely on the place-names in ed or drag to always show us the location of old portage sites; these place-names might show us something quite different. A place-name in -eið could refer to a neck of land, a tongue of land, or possibly to an old road or a ford. A place-name in -drag could denote a tongue of land, especially in Denmark, or describe a place exposed to the wind and waves. These possible meanings of the place-name elements eið and drag must be borne in mind when we use place-name material as a historic source to locate old portage sites. If we do not think of those other possible meanings, the place-name material may lead us astray. However, if we approach the place-names with respect and handle the delicate linguistic material with care, we will find that place-names offer rich material for the study of portages. References and abbreviations Albøge, G., 1976–84: Danmarks Stednavne 17. Stednavne i Ringkøbing Amt. København. Dalberg, V. & Kousgård Sørensen, J., 1979: Stednavneforskning 2. Udnyttelsesmuligheder. København. Dan = Danish. Elmevik, L., 1978: Utvecklingen av urnord. ai i icke huvudtonig ställning. Ett ljudhistoriskt problem i ny belysning. In: Meijerbergs arkiv för nordisk ordforskning. Utgivet av styrelsen för Meijerbergs institut i Göteborg 15. Göteborg. Pp. 5–85. Hagåsen, L., 2001: *Hals i Hälsingland och Sunded – två namn i samma farled? In: Namn och bygd 89. Pp. 69– 94. Hald, K., 1965: Vore Stednavne. 2. reviderede og forøgede Udgave. København. — 1990: Masnedø. In: Politikens Nudansk ordbog. 14. udgave. 1990. København. P. 663. Hellquist, E., 1948: Svensk etymologisk ordbok. 3 upplagan. Lund.

29

See Holmberg 1989:125, Jørgensen 1994:61 f. Holmberg 1989:125 with literature; for an illuminating example, see SAOB:D 2008. 31 Modéer 1936:97 f. with literature. 30

172

EVA NYMAN: WORDS FOR ‘PORTAGE’ IN THE SCANDINAVIAN LANGUAGES Widmark, G., 1957: Ordet bor som appellativ och ortnamnselement. In: Namn och bygd 45. Pp. 43–99. Zilliacus, K., 1989: Skärgårdsnamn. Helsingfors. (Skrifter utgivna av Svenska litteratursällskapet i Finland 588.)

173

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

174

On the use of portages and boat-hauling in Greenland H. C. Petersen

to live in such places in Greenland without some kind of sea-going boats.

It is well-known that Greenland is a huge and sparsely populated country, where the interior is covered by 3 km of inland ice. At several places along the coast the inland ice reaches the sea itself. But the west coast of the country has got more than 1600 kms of continuous icefree land. The largest distance from the shore to the inland ice on the west coast is appx 200 kms, situated south for Disko Bay. The longest fiords are about 200 kms as well. Thus the west coast is not really a continuous land, but a longish ice-free coastland intersected by deep fiords dividing the landscape into several regions. Traces of Man Before I was confirmed I started to walk with the reindeer hunters in the hinterland of one of the deep fiords. As a grown-up I was occupied with investigations on the fauna and the exploitation of animals by generations of people from both coastal and inland areas. These are some of my experiences. The first humans populating the country came from the west. In West Greenland this occurred ca. 4300 years ago. Traces of them can be followed along the coast from the Thule district in the north to the southern tip of the country and from the islands farthest out to the inland ice. These traces can also be followed back west to the Bering Straits and even older traces could be found in the interior of Siberia, where at the end of the last Ice Age was living a large part of the people of the northern hemisphere. The consequences of the discontinuous structure of the Greenland coasts is that the travel routes on water sometimes include long detours. Apart from this bad weather and drift-ice could make the journey both timeconsuming and dangerous. In particular at the east coast and in the south part of the west coast the drift-ice can be very cumbersome even in summer time, and it will then force travellers to a slow pace. In such situations overland passages will be made with the boat. If these passages are only 5-6 kms the large umiaq or women’s boat can still be carried. The alternative is to walk across. The kajak can be carried over larger distances, in particular if there are lakes on the way.

Fig. 1

The remains of the Norse The so-called East Settlement of the Norse was situated in the southernmost part of the west coast, in connection with the Julianehåb fiord systems and their hinterlands, up to the edge of the inland ice. The same type of movements can be discerned in the Godthåb fiord and Ameralik, which was called Lysefjord by the Norse. The transition between those two fiords, Itinnera, at the present settlement of Kapisillit, is only 3 kms wide. This was the most important passage between the two Norse regions in the so-called West Settlement. The two settlements can be seen on Fig. 1.

The traces of such crossings are so many that it is necessary to choose some examples. The oldest traces are of a group we call the Saqqaq culture, arriving at the west coast about 4000 years ago. Their remains will be met from the outer coast to the fiords and their hinterland. It is obvious that they used sea-going vessels. It is impossible

The exploitation of the Greenlanders The Greenlanders lived most of the year by hunting sea mammals filled in by fishing at the coast and in the

175

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 2

the ice. From one of the camps, Umiiveralak, the family crews carried 3-4 umiaqs, along a route which was followed from the end of the Norse period, appx. 15th century up to about 1940. The families first had to reach the lake called Tasersuaq Aallaartagaq, and from there they went further up to different inland camps. Inside the fiords the terrain of the slopes facing north or east are covered with a thick layer of vegetation which yields at every step. It is very tiring to ascend such a slop, particularly if you have heavy things to carry. But it is much more comfortable to walk on the harder slopes facing south or west. This stretch where the travellers had to bring their boats, their luggage and their small children, is sloping terrain for 4-5 kms up to a height of 400 m a s l. Early in the morning the ascent started. The men turned the boat upside down and put it onto their shoulders with the stem at the fore. The women took the painter in front of the boat and pulled at it, and so they went. Apart from the boat crews the train consisted of mothers on the sides carrying luggage on their backs and small children on their chests, with the older children wakling beside. The men carried the boat with a steadily shifting distribution of weight on their shoulders according to the unevenness of the ground. Now and then they had to rest, and the boat was put down. After a while

fiords. During summer many families went into the fiords and their hinterland to hunt reindeer and to fish trout. During these travels the shortest routes were used. In the following we will have a look at the routes used during these summer tours in two areas. The period chosen is the 19th and the first half of the 20th century. The travelling in the hinterlands of the fiords Kangerlussuaq/Søndre Strømfjord The length of the fiord of Kangerlussuaq is 165 kms. Long before the time of the leading Danish colonizer Hans Egede families among the Greenlanders were moving south and north from the settlements on both sides of the mouth of the fiord. In addition some of the families as far south at Point Kap Farvel joined them to hunt in the fiord. These people travelled in their umiaqs and spread out to various camps. Most of the landing sites were on the south side of the fiord, shown on Fig. 2. Some of the families spent the whole summer at these sites, while other went further into the hinterland. They would carry their boats, umiaqs as well as kajaks from the shore up to rivers and lakes inland. The most distant camps were at the very edge of 176

H. C. PETERSEN: ON THE USE OF PORTAGES AND BOAT-HAULING IN GREENLAND

Fig. 3

This opening was put exactly at the point of equilibrium, leaving the carriers free hands.

they had to get down to the fiord to bring the next umiaq, the kajaks and the remaining luggage, which would be taken to the camps together with the small children. The older children were helping the grown-ups, some carrying light luggage.

The paths were well-used during centuries, leading them to the traditional inland camps situated in rows of 30-40 kms further inland, 15-20 kms from the edge of the ice. This is where the rest of the summer was spent, about one month and a half. Then they left to go back to sea carrying the dried meat from the hunt, their luggage and their good memories. The walk was now downhill and less trying, and the last soft slope was just a small part of the way. At the end of August the boats and their crews were assembled in the camp of Angujaartorfik, where was awaited the last umiaq crew from inland. When it finally had arrived the whole train left next morning. So they left Søndre Strømfjord.

Finally late in the afternoon they arrived at the shore of the lake. The umiaq was put down as it had been carried, upside down. The remainder of the luggage and the kajaks were fetched. Mothers cared for their small ones and older women lighted fires to make food. In the evening the people crawled under the boat and went to sleep there. Next morning the boat was turned to its keel and launched, women, children and luggage went onboard and the women pushed off with their oars. The men went along in their kajaks. Having rowed 15 kms they reached the mouth of a river and continued upstream. In the evening the train arrived at a particular place appx. another 15 kms upriver. Here they would stay overnight and part company. One of the two teams would depart upriver with one or two boats to go to a camp where the families used to spend the rest of the summer. The other families would leave their umiaqs here put upside down and well moored to the bushes. Luggage and small children put on their shoulders, they left, perhaps even with light things in their hands. The men turned their kajaks and put their heads into the seat opening.

The travelling to the uplands of Nassuttooq This area is 150 kms further to the north, belonging to the fiord complexes of the present commune of Kangaatsiaq. It belonged to a part, Greipar, of the Norse hunting grounds, called Nordre Setur. Greipar is supposed to mean the distance between fingers, and thereby refer to the geographical situation. This is told in Grønlands Historiske Mindesmærker, the saga of Skjald- Helge, the lagman of Greenland (GHM 2: 493, 1838, 3: 881, 1845). 177

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Route No 5.

Here we find long narrow fiords separated from each other by long narrow isthmuses and peninsulas. The local population tell stories of Norse remains. Here we have collected tradition and observations of the Greenlanders.

This route was taken by families, who wanted to get to thee innermost hunting sites of Nassuttooq. They rowed inside the Arfersiorfik fiord until they arrived at a portage of the south shore of the fiord but far inside. Here the boat was hauled up and would now be carried across for 2-3 kms (Route No 5a) to the side branch Nuersorfik, of the Nassuttooq. Those who sent this way were dispersed to various hunting sites in this large fiord.

The area was also utilized much by the Greenlanders after the Norse period. I have myself followed the ancient routes and made a survey of the remains. Fig 3 shows the area. The registered traces were those of Greenlanders hunting here during the last 150 years.

Route No 5b.

The large fiord system of Nassuttooq and Nordre Strømfjord extend 175 kms to the north, the other of Arfersiorfik 157 kms to the north. Both facilitate coastal traffic very much, then including interjacent fiords. As an example could be taken route No 4. By taking it you save a rowing tour of 125 kms.

This route follows route 5 to 5a and goes further into the fiord, almost all the way to the bottom of the Arfersiorfik. Less than 10 kms from the very bottom there is a short bay at the flank. This is where you found the portage. It is quite comfortable. The whole of the valley bottom is flat, covered with sand overgrown with grasses and marram (lyme grass?), where only a few people could drag the umiaq for some hundred meters.

Routes to inland camps Routes No 1 & 2.

At the end you are in the innermost basin of Nassuttooq, and only 10 kms from the edge of the inland ice. The hinterland may not be as large as elsewhere, but it is still possible to find trout in the rivers and to hunt reindeer on the slopes.

This route was used by families from the Sisimiut region. They sailed into Ndr Isortoq fiord and continued upstream a river called Isortup Kuussua. 20 kms from the mouth of this river they arrived at a deposit site for umiaqs on the north shore of the river. Here the boat was left and the remainder of the tour meant walking on land. Spending half a day they reached the camp. This was people coming from the south.

The great reindeer hunting-grounds were those that were reached by way of the routes 1,2,4 and 5a to the south side of the Nassuttooq fiord. The inland camps found here and used during the 20th century are marked. There are also remains of other old camps spread out inland, which were deserted many generations ago.

Other families came from camps closer to the mouth of the fiord. The route they followed is marked as route No 2. Mostly, they belonged to the commune of Kangaatsiaq. They were bound for various camps inside the fiord. Route 3 was exclusively used by kajak travellers. Route 4 lead the travellers into the Ataneq fiord, where the passage to Nassuttooq is further inside. It is 4-5 kms wide, and includes a few small lakes, where you could row. Otherwise everything must be carried. After that the route forked into two directions. No 4a went south of the peninsula Qeqertaasaq and further on to the camp Aasiviit or to other camps. No 4b bent sharply east to a short portage of only 10-20 ms at the root of the peninsula. So far they were at Nuersorfik, a ramification of the main ridge of Nassuttooq. From there they continued to the main ridge, where is found a high and conspicuous neck of land. This is the place where four currents meet. For most of the time they are reinforced by strong winds. The boat crews wanted to avoid these troubled waters and so they rowed on to a portage of 200 ms behind this neck of land. The journey then continued to the camps located at the river Kuuk and its hinterlands.

178

The Greenland portages as meeting sites Robert Petersen A defile between two fiords is called itilleq. In the dog sledge area, itilleq is also a similar defile used as a sledge route. In the southern part of Greenland, an itilleq was used for carrying a skin boat.1

Introduction Greenlandic travellers with skin boats may carry their boat over land from one fiord to the next. Normally it was a way of taking a short cut. In south Greenland, it might be necessary to bring the boat over land when a fiord was barred by ice floes. In the northern part of the continent, it might be necessary to drive a dog sledge overland to avoid holes on the sea ice. This eventuality will not be dealt with here, except as a note. I will basically speak about the land transport of kayaks and umiaks.

The use of the portages for carrying the umiaks ceased about 1945. But even today transport on land of kayaks and small, light boats like those of glass-fibre, can still be experienced. We lack information about the use of portages for transport of boats from East Greenland. But since sounds and fiords in the Ammassalik area may be blocked by ice floes for many days, the portages must play an important role as alternative travel routes. The same word, ilitteq, or ‘itilleq’ in East Greenlandic, is also a rather common place name, and between Kuummiit and Sermiligaaq the Ilittiartik (map 2) may be used for transport of umiaks. It is a few hundred metres wide. But many valleys with the name of ‘ilitteq’ are too long for this purpose, up to 30 kms, and are also passed with dog sledges.2 The kayak is balanced so that one may stick one’s arm through the cockpit and carry it, resting on one’s hip, to the beach, or up to the kayak rack (fig. 1: a). For longer distances, up to one day’s walk, one takes it, the stern in front, and resting on one’s shoulders it may be carried several kilometres (fig. 1: b).3 Portages for carrying an umiak from fiord to another are low defiles, normally less than ten kilometres long. The umiak is carried with its keel up. If there are shrubs, an experienced person may ride upon it, and direct the transport (fig.1: c). Both kayak and umiak have very little draught, and both may sail in a very shallow water. The boat skin may get slack in water, and it must be dried on land, in fact each night. None of them needs regular harbours.4 A brief characteristics of the community The Greenland hunting community on which we set the focus here, has its foundation in the hunt for marine mammals, and to a smaller degree, land animals. This was a pure natural economy.5 Lacking a money economy, 1

H.C.Petersen 1986: 187. R.Petersen, 2003: 44. 3 Normally the route direction is not mentioned by using a portage, but often, the side turning to the closest settlements is called ‘itilleq’, while the opposite side is called itinneq, like Itinnera in Godthaabfjorden (map 5), as people came via Ameralik when Kapisillit then was uninhabited. 4 R. Petersen 2003: 48. 5 R. Petersen 1996: 231 ff. 2

Map 1. Greenland, position of detailed small maps 2-7.

179

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig 1. How to carry a kajak and an umiak.

Map 2. Ilittiarfik in the Ammassalik fiord, east Greenland.

any exchange occurred with natural products and / or work. With an uneven distribution of the resources, markets and trade were necessary. Some of the local exchange contributed heavily to good social relations. The distribution of food between families should rather be interpreted as an insurance system,6 in case the family may lose its provider. Another kind of exchange was 6

balanced, a kind of barter. It is difficult to speak about the actual wealth of a family, but we may express its degree of economic security, e.g. in a ratio as 5:1, i.e. a family with five members, one of them being provider. The same relation may be 10:2, and we may expect that a family with the ratio as 10:3 would have greater security. Even without an economy based on money, it is possible to speak about ‘costs’. If a short hunting trip gives the

R. Petersen 1996: 281-296.

180

ROBERT PETERSEN: THE GREENLAND PORTAGES AS MEETING SITES same benefit as a long one, then a short trip had lower costs. In 18th century, many West Greenlandic families gathered together at Taseralik market (map 7) at 67o N. Some of them came from Disko Bay, others from Cape Farewel area. The South Greenlanders bought soapstone lamps and soapstone pots from they inhabitants of the Godthåb Fiord, even if they passed the mouth of the fiord under way.7 In this way they saved an extra trip on appx. 300 kilometres to the soap stone deposits. In this perspective, portages that foreshortened a journey, must have meant less costs, and in other areas they might allow traffic if the normal route was blocked by ice floes.

South Greenland waters. One of the best known places for portage was used when the ice floes blocked the normal routes in the archipelago. The portage was a narrow, sandy isthmus, Itilliatsiaq (map 4). When people began to use wooden boats for this kind of travels, they were too heavy to be carried on land, and a Danish engineer Nyeboe, dug a channel11 across the isthmus which was possible to pass at high tide. To the south, in the Prins Christian Sund complex there are several places, among others Tannera (map 3) and Itillikasik, where an umiak might be carried over land, if the sound was barred by ice floes.12 Or you might wait for passage for days.

In this way, combined with other factors, portages also played an important role for contacts between different isolated groups, so that uniform norms might be maintained. This will be exemplified below.

The regular transport overland of the kayak meant a much longer stretch of land, may be many kilometres.13 The boat turned upside down with the keel up, and the stern forward. It rested on one’s shoulders, one’s head inside the cockpit. You could peep out under the cockpit edge. It was even possible for you to carry other things with your hands and arms. This kind of transport did not depend on flat terrain. From Itilleq in Prins Christian Sund (map 3) the kayak was often carried across the island to a place near Cape Farewell.

Travels in boats and dog sledges If we define ‘land’ as something on which one may walk, the sea ice prolongs land in the Arctic winter. In the first decades of the 20th century, many hunting trips started in April or May. In the northern part of West Greenland the ice cover was still solid till once in June. But there were scattered holes in the ice. On such spring travels, the umiak was transported across on a sledge.8 But the holes were crossed by the umiak – both persons, sledges, dogs and equipment being on board – and put back on to the sledge when the hole was passed. Such an intermittent way of travel was common in the Upernavik District before 1950. But as far as Disco Bay, people from Aasiaat/Egedesminde and Ilulissat/Jakobshavn areas went in this way to Kitsissunnguit/Grønne Ejlande (map 7).9 The reason was that people may only return to their settlements after the break-up of the ice. According to my knowledge, portages on land were not used when people travelled on ice with holes. The sea ice corresponded in this way to land.

Mid West Greenland Even in the uneven valley of Qooruluk in Sdr. Strømfjord/Kangerlussuaq14 and Majoqqaq Qiterleq south of Qeqertarsuatsiaat/Fiskenæsset kayaks were carried on one’s shoulders. Even without kayak both stretches are difficult to pass. But the terrain would be rather unpleasant. A lot of lakes, some of them appx. 75 km from the shore, were crossed in kayak.15 Such lakes are called Qajartoriaq, ‘lake to be crossed in kayak’. If one would cross a river during such a walk, two kayaks were bound together and used as a ferry. In this way kayaks were brought during caribou (reindeer) hunting right up to the very rim of the ice cap. Collective camps at conclusion of hunting season In these dispersed and isolated local communities, caribou hunting played an important role, in historic times especially in Mid-Greenland. People from different regions came together in the best caribou areas. Caribou meat was sought after as delicious food, and besides, its antlers, skin and sinews were valuable things.16 So, many families gathered together from different regions, and shared camps and kept company. They would spend several weeks drying meat and preparing other products of the season. They used to stay scattered at several small

Some of the camp outfit, like the skin tent with its skin covers and wooden poles, were too unhandy for walkers. They were only suitable for umiak and sledge transport.10 On travels in the South Greenland ice floe area The enormous mass of ice floes from the Polar Basin, ‘sikorsuit’, the Great Ice, would block the shoreline round Cape Farewell in the springtime and the early summer. It made boat travelling very difficult, normally up to 62o N, and in some years up to 64o – 65o N. It brought about a serious hindrance for the travel routes anywhere in the

11 Nyeboes Kanal is situated close to Alanngorsuaq, a little south of Ivittuut, at 61,53oN, 46,57o W. 12 R.Petersen 2003:42; Brodbech 1882:82 f. 13 Amdrup et.al. 1921: 418. 14 Tobias Moritsen, NES 2, Nationalnuseet, Copenhagen, Questionnaries 2; Hans Petersen 1980: tape recording 2, a-b. 15 Inge Kleivan 1985: 83. 16 From caribou skin, warm garments are made (cf Hansen 1971:75). Sinews form good sewing threads, and from antlers, solid harpoon heads or suchlike implements were made.

7

Dalager 1915: 15. R.Petersen 2003: 48; Holm & Petersen 1921: 623. 9 H.C. Petersen et. al. 1991: 64. The hunting trip, however, took place in February. Before ice breaks, the umiak was fetched, and brought to the island on a sledge. 10 R. Petersen, 2003: 48. 8

181

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Map 3. Itilliatsiaq, south Greenland (Bay of Julianehåb).

Map 4. The area of Cape Farewell, south Greenland.

camps, some of them close to the ice cap, others closer to the sea. At the end of the season, all of them went to the shore, and they sailed to a certain meeting place. There they waited for the last families. In the Sdr. Strømfiord area they gathered together at Angujaartorfik (map 6), and in the Nordre Strømfiord area there were several places, among others Itillersuaq and Itilliarsuk (map 7) were best known.17 There was no portage close to

Angujaartorfik, while Itillersuaq and Itilliarsuk were at a portage each of them. Angujaartorfik was situated close to places with land transport. Across it there is a stretch with a series of lakes, which allowed transport intermittently by feet and kayaks to the fiords by Sisimiut. The dried caribou meat was carried on one’s back before the trip to the umiaks. But while the families waited for the others, they hunted to acquire fresh meat, both for having fresh meat at the return to the settlement, but also

17 NES 2: Angujaartorfik is without a portage. Itillersuaq and Itilliarsuk form portages.

182

ROBERT PETERSEN: THE GREENLAND PORTAGES AS MEETING SITES

Map 5. Itinnera near Nuuk, the capital of Greenland, west Greenland.

for the last banquets. So, for the last gathering a place was also chosen for its easily available resources.

one’s own resource area. In this way, both trade partners had a benefit from the barter. They might buy material for implements, or partly processed things like skin ropes. From some barter places well manufactured goods were also mentioned.18 On such places there might be found

When the last families reached the place, some festivities began with banquets, some sport challenges, song duels, shaman seances, trade, and other activities which were in conformity with the common norms. One sold products from home, and bought things which were lacking in

18 Rosing 1984. Rosing mentions products like stone for weapon points, skin ropes, and neatly made kayak implements.

183

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Map 6. Angujaartorfik, Søndre Strømfjord, west Greenland.

individuals outside the regular households. They might act as servants for different families, and besides, they brought news to the different families. We have heard a little of shaman seances, but without details. Ball play and other sport competitions were always mentioned. That some found a spouse on such places was also reported. These places played an important role for contacts between the isolated communities.19 In this way, the uniform social norms were maintained.

Tasiusaq (map 7b). In the winter time this portage was crossed by way of dog sledges.21 Conclusion Even in communities without money economy the profit of one’s work must be related to security and effort. Also the time used may be related to the profit. The length of a travel and other aspects must be considered when one should survive and form a regional community, also in the arctic. In some part of Greenland it might be a question of foreshortening the travel, and in some cases even to reach one’s goal at all. At Itilliarsuk portage the travel was foreshortened just by 30-50 km, depending on the location of one’s home. In south Greenland you might avoid to be delayed for days by using portages. In Northwest Greenland the umiak on a sledge on sea ice made it possible to return to one’s settlement by boat.

As mentioned, some barter sites had no relation to the portages for boats. Some of the best known places, like Taseralik (map 7) at the mouth of Nordre Strømfiord,20 and Aluk near Cape Farewell lacked such portages in their vicinity. But in the big fiords there were different kinds of portages. Outside Angujaartorfik, a portage with a long, narrow lake was used for transport of umiaks towards Itilleq. South of Disko Bay, between the big fiords, the portages are less that one kilometre wide, and the terrain is fairly flat.

References

I mentioned that portages were used if the great ice floes barred the route. This often happened at Kangia/ Jakobshavn Ice fiord. This fiord was filled with icebergs and ice floes all the way to Isfjeldsbanken at the mouth of the fiord. The route to the mouth of Tasiusaq, a side fiord to Kangia, may be barred entirely. People from Ilimanaq/Claushavn used the portage to Itillip Ilua, where a long lake made it easier to cross on this portage to

Amdrup et.al, 1921: Grønland I 200-Aaret for Hans Egedes Landing II. Meddelelser om Grønland vol. 61. København. Brodbech, J. 1882: Nach Osten. Nietzky. Dalager 1915: Grønlandske Relationer. Ed. L. Bobé. Det grønlandske Selskabs Skrifter 2. København. Giesecke, 1878: Gieseckes mineralogiske Reise i Grønland. Ed. F. Johnstrup. Kjöbenhavn.

19

21

20

Petersen 1989, unpubl. Ilisimatusarfik. O. Rosing 1984; Kramer 1992.

184

Ole Sandgreen: Caribou hunting from Ilimanaq. Hand written. NES 2.

ROBERT PETERSEN: THE GREENLAND PORTAGES AS MEETING SITES

Map 7a. Arfersiorfik, Nordre Strømfjord area, west Greenland. Tasseralik is at the mouth of the fiord.

Map 7b. Disko Bay, west Greenland, with Itillip Ilua. Kangia and part of Tasiusaq is to be seen east of Ilimanaq.

185

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Hansen, Keld, 1971: Grønlandske fangere fortæller. København. Holm, Gustav & Johan Petersen: Angmagssalik Distrikt. In: Amdrup et.al. 1921: 560-661. København. Kleivan, Inge, 1986: De grønlandaske stednavnes vidnesbyrd om vandringer og forskellige aktiviteter. In: Petersem & Rischel (ed.) Vort sprog – vor kultur. Nuuk. P.77-90. Kramer, Finn, 1992: ’Om at udleede sig blandt mange Skjønheder en Brud’. Tidsskriftet ‘Grønland’, p. 77 ff. NES 2: Nationalmuseets etnologiske Spørgelister fra Grønland. Booklet 2: On caribou Hunting. Ethnographical Collections, Copenhagen. mong other things. Tobias Moritsen 1965: On caríbou hunting in Sdr. Strømfjord (cf. also Ole Sandgreen). Petersen, Hans Qeqertarsuatsiaat, 1980. Tape recording 2, a-b. Ilisimatusarfik, Nuuk. Petersen, H.C. 1986: Skinboats of Greenland. Roskilde. Petersen, R. 1989: Om grønlandsk organisering i traditionelt samfund. Ilisimatusarfik. Unpublished. Petersen, R. 1996: Om værdiforøgelse i traditionelt, grønlandsk fangersamfund. In: B. Nyboe Andersen et al.: Festskrift til Anders Ølgaard.Tillægsnummer til Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift. København. Petersen, R. 1999: Grønlandske hushold og deres opgaver i gamle dage. Tidsskriftet ‘Grønland’, København: 213-232. Petersen, R. 2003: Settlements, kinship and hunting grounds in traditional Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland. Man and Society 27. Copenhagen. Rosing, Otto, 1984: Taseralik, 1984 (1st ed. 1955. Qeqertarsuaq). Nuuk. Sandgreen, Ole: On caribou hunting from Ilimanaq, manusscript. NES 2. Thorhallesen, Eigil 1914: Beskrivelse af Missionerne I Grønlands Søndre Distrikt. Ed. L. Bobé. Det grønlandske Selskabs Skrifter 1. København.

186

The Dnieper rapids in “De administrando imperio”: the trade route and its sacrificial rites Vladimir Ja. Petrukhin

Slavonic to Russian and somewhat corrupted in the process. The informer of Constantine has been in Constantinople and knew for himself the width of its polo-ground. He gave a detailed description of this section of the rapids:

The description of the Dnieper rapids in De administrando imperio, abbreviated DAI, chapter 9, composed by the emperor Constantine (VII) Porphyrogenitus around 950, was based on the oral information of a person who used parallel Russian, i.e. Scandinavian – Old Norse, and Slavonic names for these rapids. This individual was apparently also acquainted with Constantinople and knew the Greek language. It is natural that these place names were interesting, first of all, to the philologists. Their treatment started with the classical work by V. Thomsen, and continued with the works by K.-O. Falk, R. Ekblom, G. Shevelov etc. They were all of particular interest in the context of the “Normanist controversy” on the origins of the Russian state. The significance of the rapids still exercises a special interest as a potential source to the inception of Russian history. New scientific comments, under preparation by Gennadij Litavrin, Elena Melnikova and the author of this paper on the basis of the brilliant work by Dimitry Obolensky, will once more revive the actuality of this significance (cf. the previous Russian edition by Litavrin 1991).

“There are high rocks set in the middle, standing out like islands. The water strikes against these and wells up and rushes down the other side with a great and terrible roar. Theretofore the Russians dare not pass between them, but put to the bank nearby and let the men go ashore, but leave the goods on board of the boats, then they strip and feel their way with their feet, to avoid striking the rock… some at the prow, some amidships, while others push along with poles at the stern, and by dint of this careful effort they get past the first cataract, bringing the boat along close to the bank”. Another two rapids were passed in the same way. They were called Ulvorsi, obviously from Scandinavian Hólmfors, ‘the stream with an islet’, and Gelandri, cf. Old Norse gællandi, “the yelling one”, in Russian. The informer of Constantine gives the corresponding Slavonic name of the rapid Ulvorsi, which was Ostrovuniprah – ‘the island nearby the rapid’, which indicates that the Scandinavian version has borrowed the meaning. The Slavonic meaning of the name Gelandri is indeed ‘the roar of the rapid’. Thus the Rus’ name appears also to be a translation from Slavonic, although the proper name in this sphere is not given (cf. the suppositions of Ekblom and Shevelov).

The rapids were the most dangerous part of the route from Russia (Kiev) to Constantinople because of the Pechenegs who attacked Russian boats carried ashore for portage. The journey began in June, monoxyles from all the Russia (‘Ρωςια) having been gathered in the fortress of Vitichev to the south of Kiev. It took ten days to reach the rapids, one day or two to pass them. The largest rapids were seven at this time. Now there are submerged in the water of Dneproges reservoir between Dnepropetrovsk and Zaporozhje. Zaporozhje is the name of the town and region. It means “behind the rapids”, porog meaning rapids. The length is commonly given at 75 km and the total height at 40 m. It is obvious that the best time to pass them was the time of high water in May. However, the Russians (‘Ρως) according to the source, had to wait for the boats from Novgorod, Smolensk, Chernigov and other northern regions of Russia until June.

The largest and most dangerous rapid is the fourth one, called Aifor in Russian: The Scandinavian meaning is unclear, but the name Aifur is mentioned in one of the runic inscriptions on Gotland (Melnikova 2001:296-297) and presumably as well in one of the inscriptions of Uppland, Sweden (Melnikova op.cit.: 337-338). The first inscription from Pilgårds in the parish of Boge is dated from the second half of the 10th century and mentions the people who have got to Aifor. They have erected the runic stone in memory of their companion Hravn who perished “to the south of Rivstein (ryfstain)”.

According to Constantine, “the first rapid, called Essupi which means in Russian and Slavonic ‘do not sleep’; the width of the cataract is no more than that of the pologround (τζυκανιστηρίον) in Constantinople. This is the only rapid that has a common Russian and Slavonic name in De administrando imperio. The meaning of the name is clearly taken from Slavonic ‘не спи’, but much less from a Scandinavian point of view. Supposedly, therefore, the name of the first rapid was borrowed from

The Slavonic name of this rapid was Neasyt. Constantine interpreted the Slavonic name as the place, where pelicans (old Slavonic Nejasyt’) nest in the rocks, but the latest Slavonic name of the rapid was Nenasytets, ‘the insatiable’, and it corresponds closely to Neasyt of Constantine. It is interesting that the interpretation, based on a popular etymology, might be borrowed by Constantine from the Bulgarian Slavonic. It is remarkable 187

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

centuries and found in 1928 nearby the island of Khoritsa may be considered as evidence of this fight.

that the first ledge of Nenasytets has the name Rvany kamen’ – ‘lacerated stone’, corresponding to the Scandinavian toponym Rivstein, mentioned in the inscription from Pilgård. The detailed description in the sources of this rapid is not accidental. This is the passage which was not only dangerous for its hazards of nature. The crews had to split. One part of the crew passing Aifor had to keep a close watch against the Pechenegs, while the other part unloaded the boats and led the slaves in their chains for six miles. Some boats were dragged along the shore, others were carried on the shoulders of the men. Another close description is known from Yngvars saga Viđforla. In it the great river of Eastern Europe is said to run through a deep ravine with cataracts, so travelers had to pull boats along by ropes (cf. EllisDavidson 1976: 87). This saga is considered to be a partly fantastic romance, but the memory of cataracts as well as ideas concerning the different languages spread in the eastern way appear to be current in a genuine saga fashion (Glasyrina 2002: 306, 333 ff.). The length of the Aifor portage, volok, was enormous – about 9 km, although the length of the rapid proper was only 2,5 km (cf. Litavrin 1991: 324), so the tactics of the Russians should be concerned with the organization of a truly wide front against the attacks of the Pechenegs.

What was the origin of the informer of Constantine Porphyrogenitus? The problem is rather difficult to solve. It appears natural that the informer was one of the Russian merchants who knew Slavonic, but in some cases the meaning of the Slavonic names of the rapids are more clear from a philological point of view than the Scandinavian names. Obolensky supposed that the informer might be a member of the Greek embassy, who visited Kiev to conclude the treaty with Rus’ in 944. He would have been able to present the Greek transcription of the place names. On the other hand M. Levchenko supposed that he was a Bulgarian from the Balkans. The last supposition is interesting, because some Slavonic place names of the rapids are connected with the SouthSlavonic interpretation. The Bulgarians were interested greatly in information concerning the movement of the Russian retinue, because the Russians could safely reach the Black sea and Bulgarian coast after having passed the rapids. Moreover the Bulgarians evidently participated in the negotiations between the Russians and the Greeks. The Old Russian (Slavonic) texts of the treaties of 911 and 944 contains some Bulgarian influences. Anyway, the international nomenclature of the Dnieper place names reveals the interests of different countries in information on events annually recurring on the rapids in the early summer. But the further description of Constantine shows that his informer must have been a member, or fellow-traveler, of the Russian retinue, because he was able to observe and understand the rituals of the Russians.

The fifth rapid was called Baruforos in Russian and Vulniprah in Slavonic. It opened the way to a great backwater. Thus it was much less dangerous in itself. The same went for the sixth rapid – Leanti, indicated by the etymological meaning, obviously found in ON /h/leiandi, ‘the laughing or smiling one’, however with a Slavonic version of quite a different meaning, Veruchi, ‘the boiling water.’ At last, but not least, the seventh rapid – Russian Strukun and Slavonic Naprezi – gave access to a ‘stream,’ OSl strežen’. Constantine’s interpretation – ‘the small rapid’ – appears to be uncertain in its application to the Slavonic version. On the other hand Scandinavian parallels, e.g. in present-day usage, strycka in Swedish, means a stretch of water in a river with a current producing some foam but not very much a of an actual rapid. If Constantine’s adjective ‘small’ would rather mean ‘trifling’ the parallelity is obvious. Here the Russians could get to the ford of Krarion, now the ford of Kichkas ford where the people from Cherson crossed from Russia to Crimea and the Pechenegs followed their way to Cherson from the east bank of the Dnieper to the west. Once again the informer of Constantine shows his acquaintance with Constantinople when he compares the ford with the width of the Hippodrome in the capital of Byzantium. Near this ford the Russian had to fight against the Pechenegs, and Pecheneg arrows could reach the end of the last rapid. They were dangerous. The fight with the Pechenegs was fatal for the Rus prince Svjatoslav on his way back from the Balkans in 972. He had to spend the winter in the mouth of the Dnieper and tried to pass the rapids in spring, but was killed with most of his men by the Pechenegs. Scandinavian swords dated from the second half of the 10th – beginning of the 11th

After passing the last rapid and ford the Russians need not be afraid of the Pechenegs anymore. They reached the island of St Gregory on the Dnieper. It is known as Khortitsa in the modern tradition and situated near Zaporozhje in the Ukraine. The island was mentioned as Khortichev ostrov in the Primary chronicle of the 12th century. It is interesting that in the Voskresenskaja chronicle of the 16th century the island is called Varjazhskij ostrov – ‘Varangian island’ in the description of the battle of Kalka. This locality was the traditional place for the gathering of the Russian troops in their campaigns against the nomads, such as the Polovtsians and the Mongols up to the Russian–Turkish war in 173539. Two Old Russian sites and numerous archaeological finds from the early Medieval period to 18th century were discovered during excavations starting in the 1920’s and carried on up to the 1990’s, the most remarkable finds (exept the mentioned swords) being monoxyle boats, Arabian coins, Byzantine ceramics, including amphoras, etc. The same kind of pottery has been found at the above-mentioned Krarion (Kichkas) ford. On the St Gregory island near a great oak-tree the Russians sacrificed cocks drawing lots if they would slaughter them, eat, or leave them alive. Litavrin noted

188

VLADIMIR JA. PETRUKHIN: THE DNIEPER RAPIDS IN “DE ADMINISTRANDO IMPERIO”. It is also essential that after the Conversion of Russians in Kiev in AD 988 prince Vladimir ordered the floating of the idol of Perun to the rapids to expel it from the Russian land. The chronicler reported that the idol passed the rapids and the wind drove it to a sandbank duly to be called Perunja ren’, ‘the bank of Perun’ So the rapids marked the natural and symbolic border of the Russian lands.

that the cocks were not only sacrificial objects, but also the most comfortable food for the long journey. The Russians also used to peg in a ring of arrows round the oak and offered some bread, meat and other food according to their customs. It is the only description of Russian sacrificial rituals in the DAI. This ritual was evidently a central one on the route from the Varangians to the Greeks. The rapids represented the passage of the most important borderline. The oak “marked” this border. It is remarkable that the tradition was alive until 18th century, and the oak was the meeting-place for Zaporog Koccaks, as mentioned by a traveler in 1876. But there were obviously other sacrifical sites along the river valley. Trunks of two sacral oaks with the jaws of boars driven into them has been found upstream in the Dnieper near Desna mouth. They may mark the sacral site on the way from Cheringov to Kiev.

Literature Ellis-Davidson. H. 1976: The Viking road to Byzantium.London. Glasyrina, G.V. 2002: Galina V. Glasyrina. Saga ob Yngvare Puteshestvennike. Vostochnaja literatura, Moscow. Litavrin, G.G. (ed.) 1991: Constantin Bagrjanorodnij. Ob upravlenii imperijej. Nauka, Moscow. Melnikova. E.A. 2001: Scandinavskije runicheskije nadpisi. Vostochnaja literatura. Moscow.

The arguments used during the polemics concerning the ethnical attribution of this ritual seem to be unreliable. There have been attempts to prove either a Scandinavian or a Slavonic origin of the rites by B. Rybakov, I. Dujchev and others. An oak as a sacral tree, cocks as sacrificial birds as well as the magical custom of driving weapons or other sharp tools into the earth or into a tree are known to all European folk traditions, including Slavonic and Scandinavian one. But it is essential that in the historical perspective the oak-tree as well as arrows were connected with the cult of Thunder god Perun in the Slavonic tradition, the protector of the Russian princely retinue: members of this retinue, who had the Scandinavian names, took their oaths on the name of Perun during their trade and military expedition. This happened at the treaties with the Greeks in 911, 944, 971 according the Primary chronicle. Thus the Scandinavian or Russian retinue very soon were assimilated in their new Slavonic lands. They accepted the use of the Slavonic language, including the cited names of rapids, and Slavonic customs.

Editor’s comments The standard edition of DAI: Jenkins/Moravcsik: 1955 (1967). Constantine Porphyrogennitus De administrando imperio. Greek text edited by Gy. Moravcsik, English translation by R. H. J. Jenkins. Dumbarton Oaks. A recent article in Swedish on sacrificial finds of Scandinavian swords in the rapids: Androschuk, Fedir: 2002. Har gotländska vikingar offrat vapen i Dnepr-forsarna? In: Fornvännen 97 (2002): 914.

As I have already said, the custom to stick weapons into trees or into the earth characterized both Slavonic and Scandinavian folklore. It was connected with the protection from the evil spirits. This must have been of particularly current interest for travelers leaving the Russian lands. Offerings of food seems to be specific for the rituals of the Russian merchants. According to Ibn Fadlan’s report in AD 921/922 they offered pieces of food for their wooden idols in the harbour of Bulgar at the shore of the Volga. Finally the different methods of slaughtering the cocks correspond to fortune-telling before a long route. One can compare the Russian ritual described by Leo the Deacon: before the council of prince Svjatoslav with his retinue in AD 971 The issue was if they would fight the Greeks or flee. They completed the ritual by drowning infants and cocks in the Danube. As a whole the Russian rituals in DAI seems to demonstrate the synthesis of the Scandinavian and Slavonic traditions.

189

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

190

Portages in Early Medieval Scotland The Great Glen route and the Forth-Clyde Isthmus* Christine Phillips where there is evidence for a Portage.5 These site are shown in table 1, and Fig 2. Place name indicators prove to be the most effective way of identifying possible portages. The primary place name is a variation of Tairm-bert a Gallic name meaning over-bringing.6 In Orkney and Shetland many place names incorporate Norse elements, Aith a deviation of Eid and is found at 6 sites around Orkney and Shetland. Two portages in Mainland Scotland factor into Norse Saga’s, Tarbert on the Mull of Kintyre is mentioned in the Orkneyinga Saga with Magnus Barelegs having his boat dragged across this narrow isthmus.7 The second portage mentioned is the Tarbet linking Loch Long with Loch Lomond, which was used by King Hakon in 1263.8 While these portages, from their occurrence in sagas are shown to be important in the Norse Period, the portage sites would have been significant in the Early Medieval period, preceding the Norse invasion.

Scotland’s geography is one of high mountains cut through with sea and fresh water lochs. Although there are numerous rivers in Scotland, not many of them are navigable, yet the numerous lochs provide an alternative to the rivers.1 In these conditions water travel could have been the most convenient method of travelling. In Argyll this is particularly apparent as there is no place more than 30km from the sea.2 In modern times the inefficiency of the sea is often assumed as we have faster transportation on land in the form of cars and trains, but until recently the sea was the fastest method of travel. When looking at a distances between locations, a maritime perspective can often drastically change who your nearest neighbours.3 Within any maritime landscape, different zones can be identified. Those proposed by Westerdahl are directly related to the method of travel, and the type of vessel used. These are the Waterfront, Coastal and Inland zones.4 They all exist in close proximity to each other in the Scottish landscape with the long sea lochs, fresh water lochs, rivers and extensive archipelago of islands. The highlands effectively divide Scotland into two distinct areas, the western island region which is typified by a varied coastline with numerous islands and the eastern region which has more rivers that extend to Firths and a more regular coastline as well as most of the good agricultural land. Much of Scotland is over 150m above sea level, further concentrating the good agricultural land (Fig 1). The eastern side of Scotland is further divided by the mountain range known as The Mounth, effectively dividing eastern Scotland into north and south. These mountain ranges are very difficult to cross and therefore concentrate movement to certain passes, the Great Glen being the most obvious. Even today this landscape restricts where roads can be built, with some communities on the mainland still only accessible by sea. It is no surprise with such a landscape the people of Scotland have often relied on water transport. Portages were important in many of these transport systems, and are found frequently in Argyll, the western Islands, Orkney and Shetland. An earlier study of Portages in Scotland identified 33 sites around present day Scotland

Table 1

At the beginning of the Early Medieval period Scotland was the home of at least four named groups, the Scots, Picts, Britons and Angles. Bede records the addition of the Scots saying “Britian received a third race, after the Britons and the Picts” only neglecting to mention his race

* This paper is based on work done for an MA dissertation at the University of York, 2004 under the supervision of Prof. Martin Carver. I am greatly indebted to Martin Carver, but all fault in this paper are my own. The complete dissertation is available at the University of York Library under the name “ Route-ways and History: Portages in Early Medieval Scotland” C.E Phillips, 2004 Department of Archaeology. 1 MacNeill & MacQueen 1996: 5 2 Sutherland 1997: 10. 3 Carver 1990 4 Westerdahl, 1995

5

MacCullough 2000 Crawford 1987: 24 Crawford 1987: 25; Pálsson & Edwards 1978: 80-1 8 Crawford 1987: 25 6 7

191

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig 1. The Landscape of Scotland. Map: Author

Fig 2. Portage Sites. Map: Author

192

CHRISTINE PHILLIPS: PORTAGES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL SCOTLAND The Portages in the west of Scotland used by the Scots included the Tarbert on the Mull of Kintyre, mentioned above as the site of Magnus Barelegs portage, as well as a group of 5 Portages on the mainland further north. The Mull of Kintyre would have been a significant element in the Dál Riadan landscape. It was chosen as the location of Dunadd, thought to be the capital of Dál Riada. The Tarbert on Jura when used in conjunction with the Tarbert on the Mull of Kintyre would have provided an important link between Iona and Dunadd and the further eastern reaches of Dál Riada. A further five Tarbert sites are present further north near the long sea lochs of Sunart and Linnie. Two of these, at Loch Morar and Loch Moidart would have only been minor portages, yet the three remaining portages would have allowed for eased movement around the region (Fig 4). The Portages at Glen Tarbert and Lochan Dubh Torr an Tairbert are long portages, over 10,000 meters, but would have been extremely significant for travelling from the outer Atlantic sea to the inner protected Lochs. The extreme length of these portages would severely limit the type of boats that could be used. While it is possible to portage wooden planked vessels over long distances, it would also have required a significant amount of labour.

Fig 3. Distribution of Brochs, Duns and Forts in Scotland. Source: Ewan Campbell, 1999, 10

the Angles.9 While these peoples have not always occupied the same geographical positions, a very definitive divide between Atlantic influences and North Sea influences is present at this time. A distribution of Iron Age vitrified forts, Souterrains and Brochs show a propensity for Souterrains in the east, Brochs in the west and north (Fig 3).10 The Scots display traits of the Atlantic and the Picts have a more North Sea orientation. This most likely extended to their types of boats used. The Scots likely followed their Irish neighbours in using skin boats. The tradition of the early British and Irish using skin boats goes back to at least the 3rd century BC with an account by Timaeus that the Britons used boats with a “Withy framework covered with sewn hides”,11 and continued to the Early Medieval period with references to currach’s in the life of Columba.12 The Picts likely used the same wooden clinker built boats known on the North Sea in the Early Medieval period from the finds at Nydam, Kvalsund and Sutton Hoo.13These different traditions will have significant implications for their ability to use portages in Scotland.

Fig 4. Five-portages site near Loch Sunart and Loch Sheil

In contrast the skin boats used by the Scots were much lighter and could have been effectively carried over the rocky terrain between these lochs. On the east side of Scotland the landscape does not provide places for Portages to be used widely. Instead of the many sea and inland lochs of western Scotland, eastern Scotland has more rivers that extent to Firths. Yet there is one location in the east of Scotland that provides for a Portage, that of Tarbat Ness. This site was first singled out for its use of the Tarbert place name, but was discounted by McCullough as the site of a Portage as he believed it would be of no advantage to portage across the point of Tarbat Ness.14 This has recently been

9

Anderson 1990: 2 Carver 1999: 12; Campbell 1999: 10 11 McGrail 1990: 36 12 Cunliffe 2001: 67 13 Haywood 1991, 65 10

14

193

McCullough 2000: 274

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

countered by a research project led by Martin Carver focusing on the Pictish period of the Tarbat peninsula15 Using early maps and hypothesizing a higher sea level and less well drained land, Carver hypothesizes a narrowed isthmus in Early Medieval times than exists today (Carver forthcoming). Carver places the portage a few kilometers from the promontory of Tarbat Ness, which would have allowed for the use of a lake in the middle of the portage to ease the passage (fig 5) (Carver forthcoming). The Portage would not have been at the actual point of the peninsula, but rather a few miles further inland, allowing it to connect the Cromarty Firth and the Dornoch Firth. In the course of the project at Tarbat Ness, excavations have revealed what it thought to be a Monastic Community in the Columban tradition (Carver forthcoming). This association is made from the dating of burials and the style of sculpture found at the site. The town of Portmahomack, where this monastic community it located is derived from “the Port of Colman” and Colman is a diminutive of Columba providing an additional link to St Columba.16 This monastery could have been founded by St Columba on his trip to North Pictland in 565AD. The route used by Columba to travel from Iona to Portmahomack was said by his biographer Adamnan to have been by boat along the Great Glen. If this was in regular use as a thoroughfare between Scotland and Pictland it would have required several land crossings and if so was possibly the most important Portage network in Scotland.

Columba on his journey to Pictland, strangely Columba encountered a great beast in Loch Ness, providing the first sighting of the infamous Loch Ness Monster.20 Alcock has suggested that Urquhart Castle on Loch Ness may have been the location of Brude’s munitio where Columba visited21 (Fig 6). Although excavations have not yet been undertaken at this site to confirm its status as an early historic site, a terminal from a silver penannular brooch in the Pictish tradition was found near the site, providing more credence to this possibility.

The route from Loch Linnie to Loch Ness to the Moray Firth eliminated a 540 km trip around the north of Scotland. The Great Glen is approximately 90km long with less than 30 km requiring the use of land.17 This route has long been thought to have been a Viking route,18 but there is significant evidence that this route was used in the Pictish period. Studying the movements of the saints and missionaries of the early church in the early medieval period provides a tentative view of possible movements in the landscape. Bowen provides a good synthesis of many previous studies of saints’ movement. Studying the dedications of churches to certain saints can provide a reasonable idea of where they travelled. By this token it can be seen that St Donnan travelled almost exclusively by sea, with his only non coastal dedication being directly on the Great Glen.19 This suggests that sea travel was the most prevalent form of communication, and it is likely that the Great Glen was, or became part of this maritime landscape. Two foundations of St Donnan on the east coast of Scotland, near Helmsdale in Sutherland and near Hunty in Strathbogie suggests that he did not sail around the tip of Scotland but instead travelled from the Great Glen to these locations. The Great Glen also was used by

Fig 5. Tarbat Ness Portage. Source: Carver 2004

But should the Great Glen be considered a portage? As it has distinct areas where boats cannot be sailed on, if one was travelling by boat they would at these locations have the choice to drag the boats to the next navigable water body, or leave the boats and carry any cargo to a new boat on the next loch. The second option would require a significant amount of organisation to allow for a system of boats to be waiting at the next loch, whereas the first

15

www.york.ac.uk/depts/arch/staff/sites/tarbat/ Carver 2004 17 McCullough 2000: 310 18 Crawford 1987, 19 Bowen 1969: 74 16

20 21

194

Anderson 1990: 51 Alcock 1981: 159-161

CHRISTINE PHILLIPS: PORTAGES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL SCOTLAND Lochy and the River Ness were likely navigable, and only mild river portaging of small craft would have been necessary, but for the stretch between Loch Lochy and Loch Ness the ground is significantly higher and varied creating more rapids and places too shallow to manoeuvre a boat. None of these rivers were navigable for their complete length, leading to the building of the Caledonian canal, but neither would one have to carry a boat for all of the distances the rivers cover. Columba, the one person who certainly made the journey would have used a leather boat, as hypothesised from many other itinerant Irish saints.24 In this case the ability to portage between the lochs of the Great Glen can be taken as plausible, since the passages are comparable to the other western named portage sites, such as Glen Tarbert and Lochan Dubh Torr an Tairbert. Carver has suggested that the heavy rivet and timber clinker built traditions made the journey westward from the North sea much more difficult.25 In the later medieval period ocean going ships increased in size rapidly thus precluding most portaging.26 This route was revived in the early 19th Century with the building of the Caledonian Canal.27 This canal was built to accommodate large sea going vessels and was a government construction project. It is still not possible to say for certain what tradition of boat building would have been more active in the region, but both skin boat and clinker boat technology would have been available, and could have been adapted to be effectively used in the Great Glen. Yet the Scots with skin boats would have had an advantage over the Picts with wooden boats.

Fig 6. Early Medieval Hill Forts. Map: Author

would allow each travelling group to be relatively selfsufficient. If the network of boats was used one would have expected some form of settlement to form around these transition points. This has happened at locations such as the Diolkus in Greece, the city of Corinth developed around this portage point and exploited its profitability. Along the Great Glen there does not appear to be any such activity, with only a few indications of any actual habitation. When looking at the RCAHMS records for the Great Glen area, the evidence for Early Medieval habitation is slim. There are a number of possible settlement, but many of these are undated clearance and field systems. There is some evidence that the Romans may have used this passage way from a Roman Sculpted slab,22 and a coin hoard,23 found near Ft. Augustus at the transition point from Loch Oich to Loch Ness. The few indications of Early Medieval occupation are from the Pictish cemeteries at Garbeg and Whitebridge and Symbol Stones found at Drumbuie and Dores near Inverness and the possibility of Urquhart Castle being the site of an earlier fortification. If there were way stations along the Great Glen during the Early Medieval period, the area around Ft Augustus would be the most likely. It is at this location that the Portaging would be most difficult. Although there are rivers linking all of these lochs, the rivers linking Loch Oich to the two other Lochs are the smallest and rockiest, making for the most difficult transitions. A significant amount of the River

The Great Glen could thus be considered an extension of Irish and Dál Riadan, but not necessarily Pictish, maritime routes in the Early Medieval Period. The primary form of long distance transportation at the time was by sea, this route provides a significant link between the Scots and the Picts which was not readily available by land. Many historians and archaeologists have commented that physical barriers of the DruimAlban mountain range would have effectively cut off the Dál Riadians from the rest of Pictland, yet this passage through the Great Glen would have provided an effective means of transport and communication between these two zones. As this route is limited to a distinct path it would have been easy to regulate traffic along this route. This is seen from the 18th century military constructions along the Great Glen. The English found their garrisons in the 17th Century along the Great Glen too expensive to maintain.28 They corrected this in the 18th century with a road system built along the Great Glen linking the garrisons at Ft Augustus to their existing garrisons at Ft William. Wade comments that until proper road were

24

Bowen 1969 Carver pers comm. 26 Crumlin-Pederson 1991 27 Ransom 1999, 27 28 Aldridge 1992:77 25

22 23

RCAHMS.org site #NH30NE3 RCAHMS.org site #NH30NE4

195

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES built in this area no firm control could be maintained.29 But once a defined route of communication was established control was easily established.

most likely a portage that would involve transporting any goods and passengers by land to a waiting boat on the other side. A later drove road was also established at this crossing. The most revealing evidence of this route between the Clyde and the Forth being an extension of a sea route comes from the 1250 map drawn by Matthew Paris. This is one of the earliest cartographic representations of Britain, with the first being a map drawn by Ptolemy in the 2nd century AD.33 This map of Britain (Fig 7) can by no means be seen as an accurate geographical map of England, but it demonstrates how the people of the time saw their surrounding landscape. This map shows the main cities and rivers of the time. The striking feature is the location where the map shows the east and west coasts of Scotland meeting at a point marked Pont (Fig 7), for bridge. This has been widely recognized as Stirling which was the point on the Forth where the river ceased to be navigable. Stirling Bridge was a key location in later Medieval history as the location of a battle in 1297 between William Wallace and Earl Warenne.34 This perception of the North sea and the Atlantic meeting at Stirling, even at a point 500 year after the period in question, makes it reasonably to see this passage as an extension of sea routes in the Early Medieval period.

The lack of evidence of permanent settlement leads to the hypothesis that this route of communication may not have been exploited to its fullest potential during the Early Medieval period. There is evidence that they were used sporadically from accounts of Columba using the Great Glen, and the influence of western religious art at eastern sites such as Tarbat Ness. McCullough states that “If used to their full potential these routes drastically change the maritime landscape of Viking Age Scotland”.30 It is questionable if the Vikings did use the Great Glen route. This route would have been beneficial to reach Viking territory in Ireland, but permanent settlements would most likely be needed to retain control of this route. Yet there is little evidence of Viking or Pictish settlements along the Great Glen west of Urquart. Norse place names are found in the Northern and western Islands and along the northern mainland, suggesting that the Vikings went around the north of Scotland to reach Ireland.31 The only route across Scotland that the Vikings took advantage of was that at the Forth-Clyde isthmus. The second major internal route from east to west Scotland is the isthmus where the Firth of Forth and the Firth of Clyde meet. This route has obvious strategic possibilities, but the extent to which it was maritime is not as readily evident. One indication at the importance of this route is the line of Roman forts which were built along the Forth-Clyde. The Forth-Clyde isthmus became the route of the Antonine wall, which for a short period was the Roman empire’s northernmost border in Britain. This border also became the effective boundary of the Pictish kingdom with the Northumbrian kingdom to the south. While both were able to make short term land gains on either side, they would normally revert to the Forth-Clyde isthmus. When using this passage a boat can sail up the Firth of Clyde, make a 20 mile land journey across relatively lowlands, and then return to the Firth of Forth and continue in a boat. This passage way is protected by numerous Hill forts identified by Alcock (Fig 6). These forts include Alt Clut at Dumbarton, Eperpuill at Aberfoyle and Giudi at Stirling.32 Din Eidyn at Edinburgh would also have been able to guard the eastern approach to this passage. The importance of this route is bourn out by the fact that the two present day largest cities in Scotland, Glasgow and Edinburgh are situated at either end of this passage way. While this location should still be considered a portage as it was instrumental in maritime transport from one side of the country to the other, it seems highly unlikely that many people would have gone through the effort of actually transporting their boat across 20 miles. This location is

Fig 7. Matthew Paris Map of England 1250. Source: British Library

29

Taylor 1979: 169 McCullough 2000, 311 Crawford 1987: 93 32 Alcock 1981, 158 30 31

33 34

196

Lynch 1992: 5 Lynch 1992: 119

CHRISTINE PHILLIPS: PORTAGES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL SCOTLAND monastery would have required an even greater deal of communication providing evidence of sustained contact between the east and the west of Scotland. The Columban church began to have power struggles with the Northumbrian church in the later 7th century and early 8th. These struggles were primarily political and related to who controlled the church. According to Bede, the Pictish king Nechtán in 710AD asked for advice from the Northumbrians on converting from the Columban practices to the English.42 This led to the conversion of Pictland largely to the new Roman faith. While after 710 Iona lost much of its influence in Pictland, the presence of this monastery in Northern Pictland, which appears to have functioned until it was destroyed by possibly Viking raids in the 11th century,43 200 years after the expulsion of the familia of Iona.44 North of the Mounth and the highland areas were difficult to control from south of the Mounth from the lack of efficient routes across the Mounth, therefore the monastery at Tarbat Ness could have continued to maintain contact with Iona through the Great Glen with little hindrance from the southern Northumbrian church.

This route was important in the later Viking period, as it provided the most efficient way of connecting the Viking towns of Dublin and York.35 For this purpose the Vikings sought control of this area by attacking Dumbarton in 870, which controlled the western side of the isthmus.36 Just as the Great Glen was seen as a potentially important maritime route, the isthmus at the Forth and Clyde was the location of an canal built between 1765 and 1773.37 The Forth-Clyde Canal later linked up with the union canal allowing ships to travel from the Atlantic to the North Sea. This route was closed in 1935 as the numerous locks, as many as 12 at one point, made the canal inefficient next to the railroads. Yet a new link was built in 2002 with the Falkirk wheel re-linking the Forth-Clyde Canal and the Union Canal. During the Early Medieval period E-ware was imported to the west coast of Scotland. E-ware is thought to have been a container for an imported commodity, which has not yet been identified, although a few of the vessels have a reddish purple dye derived from dyer’s madder which is not a native plant of Britain.38 The trade of these vessels is clearly concentrated in the Irish sea area, with the highest proportion of vessels found at Dunadd the Dál Riadan capital. The few pieces found on the east coast of Scotland (Fig 6), are found distinctly close to the Great Glen and the Forth-Clyde passages. The one find spot in eastern Scotland not directly on these routes is that at Dundurn, which lies in the Strathearn, Alcock identifies Dundurn as being on a land route between the Scots and the Picts.39 Therefore these few shards of E-ware on the eastern coast of Scotland can be seen to be a direct result of contact between the Picts and the Scots, mostly likely through the political elite, as the find spots on either coast correspond to high status sites.

In the 6th and 7th century when Columba’s influence was at its height, the primary route would have been the Great Glen. The Picts show a clear sign of interest at the east end of the Great Glen, with 2 possible Pictish strongholds at Craig Phadrig and at Urquhart on Loch Ness. There are also a significant amount of Symbol stones at this eastern entrance to the Great Glen. There is clear evidence of communication stemming from the west, with E-ware finds near the eastern entrance to the Great Glen, and a Columban monastery at Tarbat Ness, but this contact does not seem to flow the other way. There are only a very few examples of Pictish Symbol stones in the west, and a few references to Pictish Exiles at Iona. Picts may not have been encouraged to travel to the Scots as one of the Pictish noblemen in exile in Dál Riada was murdered by the his host, even after Columba personally appealed for his welcome.45 The Great Glen also does not appear to have been significantly used by the Vikings. While archaeologists such as Crawford have suggested that the Vikings used this route,46 there is little evidence of Scandinavian influence in the area. The lack of Norse place names in the Great Glen, which instead are focused around the north of Scotland, suggests that the Vikings did not attempts to Portage through the Great Glen, but instead sailed around. If the Norse who where masters of the sea did not use this route, the Picts which show little sophistication in maritime transport, were unlikely to have used this route extensively. This the Great Glen is likely to have been a route pioneered by the Scots who had mastered the art of Portage, and went on the develop that at Tarbat Ness in Easter Ross.

Recent excavations at Tarbat Ness have produced evidence of additions contacts between the Picts and the Scots. The discovery of a possible Columban monastery at Portmahomack may be direct evidence of Columba’s trip through the Great Glen to minister to the Picts.40 In early medieval Scotland there were two forms of Christian allegiance which were both struggling for supremacy in Pictland. These were the Columban Church spearheaded by the monastery at Iona, and the Northumbrian Chruch, represented in Britain by Bede in Northumbria. Allegiance to either faiths in Pictland would have brought about close political ties as well, Thus this new discovery of a monastery in the Scottish tradition in the heart of Pictland shows the strong links between the Tarbat area and Iona through the Great Glen. Bowen cites the foundation of parish churches as evidence of contact through missionary priests,41 a 35

Crawford 1987: 26 Driscoll 2002: 31 Ransom 1999: 20 38 Campbell 1996: 92 39 Alcock 1981: 169 40 Carver 2004 41 Bowen 1969 36 37

42

Ralston & Armit 1997: 233 Carver 2004 44 Foster 1996: 90 45 Anderson 1990: 61 46 Crawford 1987 43

197

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Ranson, P.J.G., 1999, Scotland’s Inland Waterways, Edinburgh: NMS Publishing Limited Sutherland, D.G., 1997, The Environment of Argyll in G Ritchie (ed) The archaeology of Argyll, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University press. 10-24 Taylor, C.,1979, Roads and tracks of Britain. London: J.M Dent & Sons Ltd. Westerdahl, C., 1995, Traditional zones of transport geography in relation to ship-types in O. Olsen, J.S. Madsen & F Rieck (eds.) Shipshape: Essays for Ole Crumlin-Pedersen, Roskilde: The Viking Ship Museum. 213-230

References Alcock, L., 1981, Early historic fortifications in Scotland in G.Guilbert (ed) Hill-fort studies, Leicester: Leicester University Press. Aldridge, D., 1992, Jacobitism and Scottish Seas, 16891719 in TC Smout (ed) Scotland and the Sea, Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers LTD. 76-94 Anderson, A.O., 1990, Early Sources of Scottish History AD 500-1286, Stamford: Paul Watkins Bowen, E. G., 1969 Saints Seaways and Settlements in the Celtic Lands Cardiff: University of Wales press Campbell, E., 1996, The archaeological evidence for external contacts: imports, trade and economy in Celtic Britain A.D. 400-800 in K. R. Dark (ed) External contacts and the economy of Late Roman and Post-Roman Britain, Woodbridge: Boydell Press. 83-96 Campbell, E., 1999 Saints and Sea-Kings: The First Kingdom of the Scots, Edinburgh: Canongate Books. Carver, M.O.H., 1990 Pre-Viking traffic in the North Sea in S. McGrail (eds) Maritime Celts, Frisians and Saxons, London: Council for British Archaeology, 126-134 Carver, M.O.H., 1999 Surviving in Symbols: a visit to the Pictish Nation, Edinburgh: Canongate Books. Carver, M.O.H., 2004 An Iona of the East: The earlymedieval Monastery at Portmahomack, Tarbat Ness. Medieval Archaeology 48: 1-30 Crawford, B.E., 1987, Scandinavian Scotland, Leicester: Leicester University Press Driscoll, S. T., 2002, Alba: The Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland, Edinburgh: Birlinn Ltd. Foster, S.M., 1996 , Picts, Gaels and Scots, London: B. T. Batsford Ltd. Lynch, M., 1992, Scotland a New History London: Pimlico Haywood, J., 1991, Dark Age Naval Power. London: Routledge McGrail, S., 1990, Boats and boatmanship in the late prehistoric southern North Sea and Channel region in S. McGrail (eds) Maritime Celts, Frisians and Saxons, London: Council for British Archaeology, 32-48 McNeill, P.G.B & MacQueen, H.L (eds) 1996, Atlas of Scottish History to 1707, Edinburgh: The Scottish Medievalists and Department of Geography, University of Edinburgh MacCullough, D.A., 2000, Investigating Portages in the Norse Maritime Landscape of Scotland and the Isles, Unpublished Phd. University of Glasgow: Department of Archaeology Palsson H. & Edwards.P., 1978, Orkneyinga Saga. The History of the Earls of Orkney. London: Hogarth Press. Ralston, I.B.M and Armit, I., 1997, The Early Historic Period: An Archaeological Perspective in K. J. Edwards and I.B.M. Ralston Scotland: Environment and archaeology, 8000 BC-AD 1000, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons. 217-240 198

Early Medieval portages on the trade route between the Baltic and Black Sea: a case study from the Polish-Rus’ borderlands Katarzyna Skrzyńska-Jankowska he Dniepr basin and, what is especially important for us, description of its sources. The geographical coordinates given by the ancient writer seemed to be incorrect because it is impossible to correlate them with geographical reality. However, Jerzy Strzelczyk tried to fit ancient data to a modern map and arrived at the conclusion that Ptolemy described in his work the sources of the Pripiat’ – the main, right-bank tributary of the Dniepr (Strzelczyk 2000: 123–124). Was it a mistake of the ancient geographer? In my opinion, the Dniepr could have been perceived by ancient people in this shape if we accept this water-way was the main route of communication for that time. This perception could have originated at the end of the 4th and beginning of the 5th centuries, when the area between the Bug and Narew, which had been densely settled in the Roman Period (J. Jaskanis 1976: 219, fig. 1) by people archaeologically recognizable as the Wielbark culture and identified with Goths and Gepids – was deserted, probably as a result of the collapse of social, economic and trade systems (K. Godłowski 1985: 112–125, 153–157).

Podlasie lies in the modern Polish-Belorussian frontierzone. The archaeological evidence from the area indicate a specific, syncretic culture developed in this transition zone. Trade routes passing through the region were crucial for the formation of the early medieval borderland societies. The most important of them were the routes leading along the rivers of the region: (Western) Bug, Narew and Pripiat’. Their significance for trade are mentioned in written sources and confirmed by results of archaeological research. The Early Medieval Polish-Rus’ borderland zone embraced territory which is geographically defined by the extent of the basin of the river Bug. This specific land was a frontier not only in a political meaning, but also from a geographical, religious and ethnic points of view. Geographically, it is a border between Western and Eastern Europe; ethnically it is the frontier between the Eastern and Western Slavs and in the 11th century also the religious border started to form in this region, which was the consequence of the coming into contact of the yones of influence of the two main centres of European Christian cultureŁ Rome and Constantinople. Many aspects of the specific, eclectic borderland culture have been studied by historians and archaeologists (cf. Barford, Kobyliński, Krasnodębski 1991; Miśkiewicz 1981; Musianowicz 1960; Tyszkiewicz 1974; Nowakowski 1972; Wiśniewski 1977).

***

In Podlasie the oldest phase of the Early Middle Ages is dated from the 6th to the end of 8th century. The beginning of this period is clear because of the settlement hiatus, which started with the collapse of Late Roman cultures and ended with the immigration of the Slavs in the 6th century, when their first settlements appeared in the region (Kobyliński 1989). There is little firm evidence of the use of waterways in this period. We can only make an observation that the settlement of the early Slavs developed along the Bug River from the south-east, starting from Polesie and Wolhynia. There is little evidence for trade in the archaeological sources from this time. In Podlasie we know of only one settlement – the stronghold in Haćki where archaeological excavations have produced many items of foreign provenance. These artefacts have parallels in the Danubian area, the forestzone cultures from the East and the material culture of the West Balts (Kobyliński, Hensel 1993).

The communication route linking the Vistula, Bug, Pripiat’ and Dniepr Rivers was known from the time of the migration of the Goths, moved in the second century from the shore of Baltic Sea to the Ukraine. This “journey” had started from the mouth of the Vistula and continued along the Bug and Boh (Southern Bug). It is probable that the rivers Bug and Boh got their Germanic names in that time (Strzelczyk 2000: 114). The geographic description of Ptolemy dates also from that time. His work included some information about rivers in

Visible intensification of trade contacts has been noticed for the time when Scandinavians established their tradefactories along the Volchov, Western Dvina and Dniepr rivers, creating the famous route from the Varangians to the Greeks (Duczko 2004). Except these main waterways, other rivers were also used for barge-transport and communication. One of the main branches of the traderoute led along the Pripiat’ (western, main arm of Dniepr), and then divided in two directions. The first route led northwest – straight to the Baltic Sea along the

The Western Bug, acting as the main trade route formed the spine of the region. The Narew and Biebrza offered connections to the land of the Balts (especially the Jatviangians), the Pripiat’ linked the Bug basin to the Dniepr, which functioned as a major waterway “From the Varangians to the Greeks”, and secured connections to Black Sea. In the other direction, connections to Great Poland and the Baltic Sea was given by the Vistula (Fig. 1).

199

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1 Middle Bug Area in Early Mediaeval water-routes system

Niemen. The second one crossed Podlasie to the west, towards Mazovia and Great Poland, and along Vistula reached the shore of Baltic Sea, in the area of the harbour of Gdansk (Łosiński 2002: 188–189). Another branch of this route had the same importance, one going from Podlasie to the Sambian Peninsula, along the Narew and Biebrza. These trade routes are confirmed by silver hoards containing Islamic coins, which were found in the middle Bug area, along the Bug River and the other rivers mentioned above. These finds, generally dated from the end of the 9th to the second half of the 10th century (cf. Tyszkiewicz 1974: 124; Perhavko 1983: 10; Łosiński 1993: 30) reflect the beginning of the period of economic changes, connected with the development of interregional trade.

consequence of changes in the political dependence of the territory around Drohiczyn and Brześć, which took place in the second half of 12th century (Łysenko 2000: 193). Archaeological research conducted in these two main centres of the region has produced evidence of the intensity and scale of the exploitation of the waterways. The most spectacular is a collection of few thousand lead seals which were used to mark articles of trade, found in Drohiczyn. Many of them were stamped with the names of Rus’ princes (Lewicki 1956: 289–297). This indicates that at the time of thje medieval prosperity of the town, there was a custom-house controlling the Bug waterway (Rybakov 1948: 343–344). Also in Brześć – the second centre of the region, were found a lot of finds (including seals of so called “Drohiczyn type”), which confirm its function as a port on the river-route (Korobuškina 1999: 114–125). Apart from numerous finds of articles of foreign provenence, many artifacts made from organic materials are preserved in the culture layers of the stronghold. Especially interesting are elements of boats and oars of two types, for rowing and big, steering oars (Łysenko 2001: 198, fig. 70). They clearly indicate that the water transport involved several types of boats: small log-boats, flat-bottomed ferry-boats and also keeled ships with clinker planking, which were called “korabl” in Medieval Rus’ and could be used also for seafaring (Sorokin 2000).

The importance of the Bug as a waterway is confirmed by the written sources of the 1040s, when prince Jaroslav the Wise organized campaigns against the Mazovians and went to them on boats (PML 1999). The greatest importance of this waterway is dated to the period of the 12th and the 13th century, when the ports in Brześć and Drohiczyn were flourishing (Łysenko 1985; Musianowicz 1969). But the growth of trade and appearance of new centres connected with it (and the economic growth of which was dependent on the waterway) can be observed not only on the local scale. New ports were established also along the Vistula, Pripiat’ and Dniepr, marking a trade-route. At that time, the southern waterway connection between Podlasie and Wolhynian and Halicz Principalities had particular importance, which was the

According to the written sources, the Narew River was also navigable. In 1279, a Rus’ chronicler described the 200

KATARZYNA SKRZYŃSKA-JANKOWSKA: EARLY MEDIEVAL PORTAGES ON THE TRADE ROUTE onomastic validity a long time ago (Kowalczyk 1995: 491).

transport of corn, which was sent on boats from Wlodzimierz Wolynski to starving Jatvingians. Unfortunately, everything was stolen in Pułtusk. The only possible waterway from this stronghold to Jatvingian land was the Narew and Biebrza Rivers (PSRL 1964: 879). This Early Medieval trade-route system was disturbed as a result of Tartaro-Mongolian invasions and raids organized by the Jatvingians, which took place throughout the 13th century. *** Historical studies on medieval trade, waterways and the transport systems should include the problem of the special places, which were used to haul or drag boats and articles between different water-routes, serving as their places of connection. These places called tractura were known already in ancient times (Wędzki 1970: 390). In Medieval period, portages are very well testified for the Eastern Slavs, especially in written sources and onomastic materials (cf. PWL 1950: 11, 216, 264–265). In Polish two onomastic definitions are accepted. Firstly, the term “portage” (Przewłoka) means place on the bank of the river that could be seen as a port or landing place for boats (Ślaski 1930: 279). According to the second interpretation, the term “portage” means a place of defile between two lakes (Iwicki 1993: 89). Both definitions – historical and toponomastic – are very general and not well verified.

Fig. 2 Place-names onomastically connected to portages. 1. The name Przewłoka confirmed in Mediaeval and Early Modern Periods; 2. Contemporary confirmed name Wywłoka; 3. Contemporary confirmed name Przewłoka; 4. Contemporary confirmed name Zawołocze; 5. Borders of Polish State in the middle of the 12th century

Meanwhile, more precise studies have made definition more complex – as will be shown in the case of Podlasie. These special places – in Polish called przewłoka and in Russian provoloka – demand specialized, interdisciplinary studies, in order to combine written sources, onomastic evidence, archaeological data and the results of geomorphologic and hydrological researches. Unfortunately, we cannot include all necessary types of information, because usually the data-bases are not complete. From the territory of modern Poland we know of 31 such names. They concentrate in the eastern part of the country. In my opinion, this is not accidental and may reflect the fact that these lands belonged to Rus’ principalities in early medieval times. This hypothesis is strengthened when we mark recognized portage-places on a map showing the medieval borders of the Polish state (Fig. 2). It is easy to observe that the analyzed placenames are grouped clearly along the border of the country, on its eastern, ‘Russian’ side. Obviously, this hypothesis makes sense only if we assume the medieval origin of these names and accept the results of linguistic studies, which suggest that the appellatives from which they were constructed have not been used in a modern manner. They had been created in medieval period, and have changed their meaning as a result of cultural transformation. Therefore they lost their original

Fig. 3 Middle Bug Area place-names created from old-Slavic appellative “portage”

The greatest concentration of studied names is in Podlasie (Fig. 3). Up till now we have 17 names connected to the 201

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 4 Reconstruction of a portage-system near Drohiczyn indicated by the Early Mediaeval settlement pattern

such as the lead seals mentioned earlier, parts of balances and weights and many objects of foreign provenence, which show the connections of this centre to all Central Europe (cf. Skrzyńska-Jankowska 2004).

portage-function concentrated in the region. There is not only the name Przewłoka used here, but also few other names created from the same apellative, such as Przywłoka, Zawołocze and Wywłoka. Is this an accidental situation? Presumably not, if we take into consideration the position of this land in the system of medieval trade. In the analyzed territory we can distinguish two distinct concentrations of such names. The first is visible in the Middle Bug area, around the medieval settlement centre and main river-port of this territory – Drohiczyn. The centre, composed of a stronghold and few open settlements, played the main role in the inter-regional trade system, which is confirmed by archaeological finds

Three places of the type mentioned above and located northeast of Drohiczyn seem to be the most interesting (Fig. 4). Two of them are situated on the bank of the river Kamianka, a right tributary of Bug. The first name reads Przewłóczka (which means: “little portage”) and refers to a field in the middle part of the stream and the second one: Od Przewłoki (which means: “from the portage”), which is near the source of the same river and is 202

KATARZYNA SKRZYŃSKA-JANKOWSKA: EARLY MEDIEVAL PORTAGES ON THE TRADE ROUTE medieval prosperity of the area should be dated to the period between the 11th and the 13th centuries.

identified with the forest (Barszczewska, Głuszkowska, Jasińska and Smułkowa 1992: 322, 419). The third place called Pod Przewłokę (which means: “to the portage”) is in an interesting relationship to the two places described above, and especially to the last one. The name “to the portage” is given to a field lying close to the source of the stream Silna, which is a tributary of the Nurzec, and by this last river connected also – such as Kamianka – to Bug. The sources of the Kamianka and Silna lie at the same level (170 m a.s.l.) and 3km apart across a flat area, giving the easiest and the shortest possibility to connect these two streams. I think the proximity and siting of two places with analogical names is not accidental. A significant fact for their interpretation is the fact that these names were preceded by words “to” and “from” showing the direction, where the portage exactly was.

With reference to the analysed portage-system, the investigation of the relationships between onomastically recognized portage places and the closest cemeteries, especially burial mounds could be most interesting. These barrows would have been well visible in the area, and could have functioned as orientation points guiding travellers to the portage-place (we can observe an analogical situation in the area of Białowieża, where a line of barrows indicate a dry “bridge” between the Narewka and Hwoźna rivers – cf. Fig 5). This suggestion has to be checked by settlement studies on a microregional scale including mapping of single mounds, and comparing their localization to presumed portageplaces. For the future studies we have to leave the question what was the purpose of the creation of this undoubtedly local route? Its localization in the marginal zone of the settlement suggests two possibilities: firstly, we can suppose that the route using rivers Kamianka and Silna could be used as an alternative way to avoid the custom-house in Drohiczyn; secondly, analysis of the settlement arrangement allows us to predict the existence of another route, which led to the North – to the second important centre of the region – Brańsk. This is probable if we assume the route was used in local trade. It would not have been necessary to pay a customs duty in Drohiczyn, when a merchant’s goods were reserved for the local markets.

The presence of these three names in the same area gives us the possibility to reconstruct a fragment of the route which was contained this portage system. It is obvious that the route began the from Bug – at the mouth of the river Kamianka and was going up-stream to its source. Maybe the name Przewłóczka (“little portage”) in its middle part signified the place where it became impossible to sail, and people had to start hauling their boats? At the source of the Kamianka, where we have the place called “from the portage”, we can suppose that the journey could be continued in two different directions: to the West – to the spring of Silna – where is the placename: “to the portage”, or in a northerly direction, to the small unnamed stream, which connected with the river Pełchówka, and going up its stream, with the next river Czarna or Kukawka, which are also tributaries of the Nurzec.

The second area with a visible concentration of toponyms connected to portages may be termed the land between the rivers Narew and Biebrza (Fig. 3). Unfortunately, all these terms are only evidenced in modern written sources. However, their characteristic location allow us to suppose that they had some function connected to transport, if not in the Early Medieval period then in the Middle Ages. In that time, the swampy valley of the Biebrza created a natural border between the Baltic tribes and the Polish and Russian states expanding from the south-west and south-east. Their dynamic territorial development was stopped by this natural barrier. From the other side, the Biebrza has been used as a waterway connecting both Slavic states to the territories of the Balts and, what is of special importance, to the Sambian Peninsula and Baltic shore.

The main problem which has to be discussed is dating. There is no doubt that the route was used, together with its portage-part, though it is more difficult to say when this occurred. Onomastic evidence in the form of placenames is confirmed by the written sources only in modern times. For the early medieval period, we can only advance a hypothesis based on the analysis of settlement points registered in the area. Their distribution shows that the route and portages were situated in the marginal settlement zone, hardly connected to the centre in Drohiczyn and numerous open settlements surrounding it (Fig. 4). Cemeteries figure prominently in the list of registered sites. We can differentiate two types of burial places: the most numerous are barrow cemeteries, less frequent – cemeteries with stone-kerbed graves. There are only a few open settlements between them and only one stronghold, which could be interpreted as a control point on the water-land trade route with the portage system described above. Unfortunately, we can give only general dating for these sites, because the majority of them have never been excavated. Archaeological investigations conducted in the stronghold, a few burial places and one open settlements suggest, that the biggest growth of early

Grodno, the main, political and economic centre of this region (cf. Woronin 1954), situated on the bank of the other navigable river – the Niemen, developed very intensively from the second half of the 11th century and also needed a connection in the opposite direction – to the Biebrza–Narew–Vistula route, which secured trade contacts with Polish lands, and especially importantly, with the harbour in Gdansk. In this context, the importance of the portage system on the watershed of the Niemen and Narew is easy to understand. Confirmation of the portage system existing in this area may be found also in Medieval written sources. The earliest is Wigand’s 203

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

water-table is lower, and the Narewka cannot be regarded as navigable. The written sources describe a different situation (Kowalczyk 1995: 506). The first mention of the Narewka as a waterway comes from the Jan Długosz Chronicle. Under the year 1409 the chronicler describes preparations which king Jagiello made before the war with the Order of Teutonic Knights. A consignment of salt meat is described, which was transported from the town Białowieża located on the bank of the Narewka, along the Narew and Vistula to Płock. Surely, the Narewka was the first section of this journey. The second mention comes in a Government decision of 1613, which ordered the rivers Narew and Narewka to be regulated and kept clear to use as waterways for the transport of grain and forest products.

description of the campaign of the Teutonic Knights to Grodno in the year 1393 (after Kowalczyk 1995: 504, 506–507). They started the journey from the castle in Ryn, sailing by Masurian Lakes, down the Pisa and Narew rivers to the Biebrza, and the last part of the way (about 8 miles) they transported their boats on wagons to the Niemen. According to the chronicler’s description, this distance led through swampy areas. Elżbieta Kowalczyk has supposed that the Teutonic Knights had been moving along the Biebrza or its right tributary the Nurka to their sources, and after that along the rivers Pripilia and Łosośna to the mouth of the latter, which flows into the Niemen just before Grodno (1995: 508). A second document testifies to the use of the portage system of this area in the opposite direction. In 1414, the Lithuanian prince Witold went for a meeting with the Polish king Wladislaw Jagiello and journey had been along the rivers Biebrza and Narew (after Kowalczyk 1995: 507). Both accounts confirm that in the Middle Ages on the watershed of the Biebrza and Narew, was functioning a system of portages. But this written evidence only supports the evidence of the toponyms.

Archaeological evidence is very poorly studied, because the area is still strongly forested (Primeval Forest of Białowieża). The only visible traces are earthwork sites like barrows. Although many cemeteries have been already recorded, we may suppose many remain undiscovered. There are not any medieval sites along the Portage River. The closest vicinity of the stream is still surrounded by wide swamps. There is a different situation along the river Narewka and its tributaries. Only a few features from the many cemeteries registered along these rivers have been excavated, mostly before the Second World War (Götze 1929). The results of this research are difficult to interpret now, but allow us to classify them to the period between the 7th and the 13th centuries. Apart from cemeteries, we have no other archaeological evidence of Early Medieval settlement in the area. However, some evidence directly connected to described earlier water route is preserved in onomastic materials. In the area of the lower Narewka is a place called “Grodzisk” (“stronghold”). A second name of analogical meaning: “Gródek” is situated at the mouth of the same river, on the right bank of the Narew (cf. Fig. 5). Both places need to be archaeologically examined, because there is a high probability that remains of strongholds are still preserved in the vicinity. In my view their presence here is not accidental – probably strongholds were built on the route as control and defence points or simply as river ports. This last function seems to be confirmed especially in case of the place situated at the mouth of the Narewka, where in the closest neighbourhood of the place called “stronghold” is preserved the name “Bindziuga”, which means exactly “river port” or “the place of building boats/rafts”.

The problem of the river still called Przewłoka/ Perevoloka (the “Portage”), located in the Medieval Polish-Rus’ border zone close to the main water routes seems to be more interesting. This river flows through the Białowieża Forest to the Western Leśna River and by this last one is connected to the Bug (Fig. 5). As well as the river, two ranges of hills lying in the area of the source and the mouth of the river have the same names. The oldest account in written sources comes from 1559 (Wiśniewski 1968: 29). The name was recorded so late, possibly because of its localization deep in the forest, since the exploitation of the area on a larger scale started generally in the 16th century. The source of the “Portage” River, as in the case of the sources of other, neighbouring rivers is situated in the area of wide swamps or in an unnamed lake, clearly visible on maps of the 17th century, and designated as Sarmatica Palus/Lacus (Alexandrowicz 1989: 43, 71). These swamps allowed the linking of the water systems of the Bug, Narew, Prypiat’ and Niemen, and probably it was an area where the portages functioned (Fig. 3). Now the area has largely been drained and the only relic preserved is the name of the river which was probably used to haul transportation across from one river system to another. We can try to reconstruct the possible water link between the rivers Bug and Narew, a very important part of which was the river still called the “Portage”. The situation is clear in the southern direction, where Przewłoka as a tributary of Leśna had a good connection to the Bug. In the opposite direction, we can suggest it ran along the river Narewka – a left tributary of the Narew, which flows at a distance of 7 kilometres from the Middle Przewłoka. The connection between these two rivers is created by another small stream, the Piererovnica, which has its spring close to the mouth of the Przewłoka and flows into the Narewka. Now, after major post-war drainage, the level of the

The proposed interpretation is hypothetical, and in particular especially concerning the presumed period when the portage could have functioned. At the moment we can suggest that the “portage” could have been used from the second half of the 11th century as a part of the water route linking Vladimir the Great, Brześć and Grodno as well as in the 15th century, when it served as a local waterway used for communication and transport of provisions for the nearest stronghold in Kamieniec (Wiśniewski 1977: 13). 204

KATARZYNA SKRZYŃSKA-JANKOWSKA: EARLY MEDIEVAL PORTAGES ON THE TRADE ROUTE

Fig. 5 Location of the Przewłoka River against the background of the environmental and cultural circumstances

205

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Jaskanis J. 1976 Kurhany typu rostołckiego, [in:] Kultury archaeologiczne i strefy kulturowe w Europie Środkowej w okresie wpływów rzymskich, (ed.) K. Godłowski: 215–251, Kraków. Kobyliński Z. 1989 An ethnic change or a socioeconomic one? The 5th and 6th centuries AD in the Polish lands, [in:] Archaeological approaches to cultural identity, (ed.) S.J. Shennan, London: 303– 312. Kobyliński Z., Hensel W. 1993 Imports or local products? Trace element analysis of copper-alloy artefacts from Haćki, Białystok Province, Poland, “Archaeologia Polona”, vol. 31: 129–140. Korobuškina T.M. 1999 Nasel’nictva belarusskava Pabužža X–XIII st.st., Mińsk. Kowalczyk E. 1995 Powracający temat: „przewłoka”, “Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej”, no 4: 491– 510. Lewicki T. 1956 Znaczenie handlowe Drohiczyna nad Bugiem we wczesnym średniowieczu i zagadkowe plomby ołowiane znalezione w tej miejscowości, “Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialnej”, vol. 4: 2: 289–297. Łosiński W. 1993 Chronologia, skala I drogi napływu monet arabskich do krajów europejskich u schyłku IX I w X w., “Slavia Antiqua”, vol. 34: 1–41. Lewicki T. 2002 W sprawie „wschodniej drogi” dopływu monet arabskich do Wielkopolski w X wieku, [in:] Moneta Mediævalis, (ed.) B. Paszkiewicz, Warszawa: 185–192. Łysenko P.F. 1985 Berest’e, Mińsk. Łysenko P.F. 2000 Turavskaja zamla v XII–XIII stst., [in:] Gistoria Belarusi, vol. 1: Staražytnaja Belarus’, (eds) M. Čarniavski, G. Štychav, Mińsk: 190–195. Łysenko P.F. 2001 Turovskaja zemla IX–XIII vv., Mińsk. Miśkiewicz M. 1981 Mazowsze wschodnie we wczesnym średniowieczu, Warszawa. Musianowicz K. 1960 Granica mazowiecko-drehowicka na Podlasiu we wczesnym średniowieczu, “Materiały Wczesnośredniowieczne”, vol. 5: 187-230; Nowakowski A. 1972 Górne Pobuże w wiekach VIII–IX. Zagadnienia kultury, Łódź. Perhavko V.P. 1983 Opyt kompleksnovo ispol’zovanija pismennych I materialnych istočnikov dla rekonstrukcii istorii Pripiatsko-Bugskovo puti v IX– XIII vv., [in:] Problemy istoričeskoj geografii Rossii, vyp. IV: istočnikovedenie istoričeskoj geografii, Minsk. PSRL (Full Collection of Russian Chronicles) 1964 Polnoe Sobranije Russkich Letopisej, Leningrad. PML (The Tale of By-gone Years) 1999 Powieść minionych lat, (ed. and trans.) F. Sielicki, Wrocław. PWL (The Tale of By-gone Years) 1950 Povest’ vremennych let, (ed.) D.S. Lichačev, MoskwaLeningrad. Rybakov B.A. 1948 Targovlja i targovye puti, [in:] Istoria kul’tury drevnej Rusi, vol. 1, (ed.) B.A. Rybakov, Moskva-Leningrad: 315–369. Skrzyńska-Jankowska K. 2004 Gród w Drohiczynie– centrum organizacji przestrzeni kulturowej

*** Investigating portages in Podlasie I was trying to check which information is the most useful to localize these places and to reconstruct which rivers could have possibly been used as trade routes. Historical and onomastic evidence should be confronted with archaeological evidence. Archaeologists reconstruct early medieval waterways by mapping finds of some types, such as deposits of coins and jewellery or imported objects, which appear to concentrate along rivers. The second phase should be the mapping of settlement zones, especially with regard to the localization of strongholds as places created to protect and to control trade routes. It is important to follow up the possible connections between the fortified sites and the hypothetic portages, which are onomastically “visible” in the vicinity. The comparison of archaeologically reconstructed routes with the localization of historically and onomastically verified toponyms, suggests where portages could have existed. The next step should be the consideration of geomorphologic and hydrographic evidence. Specific geographical conditions were important when people had to decide the best place to organize a portage. First of all, they preferred smaller rivers and swamps, deep enough to haul their boats. Today, in an era of agricultural transformation we usually cannot recognize the original landscape. Sometimes, only geographical reconstructions may tell us the reason for the local names identified as or connected with transportation of boats on land. Unfortunately, this type of evidence has not been yet extensively used by historians and archaeologists. References Alexandrowicz S. 1989 Rozwój kartografii Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego od XV do połowy XVIII wieku, Poznań. Barford P., Kobyliński Z., Krasnodębski D. 1991 Between the Slavs, Balts and Germans: ethnic problems in the archaeology and history of Podlasie, “Archaeologia Polona”, vol. 29: 123–160. Barszczewska N., Głuszkowska J., Jasińska T., Smułkowa E., 1992 Słownik nazw terenowych północno-wschodniej Polski, part 2: O–Ż, Warszawa. Duczko W. 2004 Viking Rus. Studies on the Presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Europe, “The Northern World”, vol. 12, Leiden-Boston. Godłowski K. 1985 Przemiany kulturowe i osadnicze w południowej i środkowej Polsce w młodszym okresie przedrzymskim i w okresie rzymskim, Wrocław. Götze A. 1929 Archäologische Untersuchungen im Urwalde von Bialowies, [in:] Beiträge zur Natur- und Kulturgeschichte Lithauens und angrenzender Gebiete, München, s. 511–550. Iwicki W. 1993 Toponimia byłego powiatu słupskiego, Gdańsk.

206

KATARZYNA SKRZYŃSKA-JANKOWSKA: EARLY MEDIEVAL PORTAGES ON THE TRADE ROUTE wczesnośredniowiecznego pogranicza polskoruskiego, [in:] Stan i zmiany środowiska geograficznego wybranych regionów wschodniej Polski, (eds) R. Dobrowolski, S. Terpiłowski, Lublin: 289–297. Sorokin P. 2000 The medieval boatbuilding tradition of Russia, [in:] Down the river to the sea, (ed.) J. Litwin, Gdańsk: 37–44. Strzelczyk J. 2000 Odkrywanie Europy, Poznań. Ślaski B. 1930 Słownik rybacko-żeglarski i szkutniczy, “Slavia Occidentalis”, vol. 9. Tyszkiewicz J. 1974 Mazowsze północno-wschodnie we wczesnym średniowieczu, Warszawa. Wędzki A. 1970 Przewłoka, [in:] Słownik Starożytności Słowiańskich, vol. 4, part 1: 390. Woronin N.N. 1954 Drewnieje Grodno, Materiały i issledowanija po archaeologii SSSR, no 41, Moskva. Wiśniewski J. 1977 Osadnictwo wschodniej Białostocczyzny–geneza, rozwój oraz zróżnicowanie i przemiany etniczne, “Acta Baltico-Slavica”, vol. 11.

207

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

208

The myth of portages: On ancient portaging at the Trøndelag coast, Norway Kalle Sognnes

major agricultural regions and the city of Trondheim, which has been the political and economical centre in Trøndelag during the last millennium. To the south and north of the Trondheim Fjord numerous shorter fjords cut into the mainland. To the south are the large islands of Hitra and Frøya. A myriad of smaller islands, holms and skerries are found all along the coast; they are, however, not evenly distributed. Most remarkable are the Froan Islands to the north and northeast of Frøya, located parallel to but almost thirty kilometres off the mainland.

The Trøndelag coast Our ‘knowledge’ about coastal Norway – habitation, exploitation, economy, etc. – is based on a set of assumptions, which are not necessarily ‘correct’. One basic factor is landscape – topography and distribution of man-made elements: settlement sites, shrines, grave monuments, etc. To this must be added our knowledge of boats and shipbuilding technology, which mirrors the general technological development. This preunderstanding holds a firm grip on our interpretations but also on our research strategies. To a large extent we are still influenced by the evolutionism of the nineteenth century’s archaeology and historiography.

This coast has been exploited since the first settlers arrived more than ten thousand years ago during the Early Mesolithic (Pettersen 1999). The degree of exploitation has varied and sometimes very extensive; for instance at the Frøya archipelago we hardly find any island that has not been settled or otherwise exploited in prehistoric or historic times. Due to the Holocene land uplift the land/sea relationship has changed considerably, however, the present situation may still be used as basis for ‘reading’ and ‘interpreting’ the past.

Due to Holocene isostatic land uplift the land/sea relationship has changed continuously in the Trøndelag district, central Norway for the last thirteen thousand years (Møller 1995). Small holms emerge from the sea, grow larger and eventually merge with other holms into islands. Sounds come and go. A myriad of islands, holms and skerries form a coastal rim – a foreland often referred to as the ‘strandflat – with numerous sounds and channels, which make the travelling by boats and ships fairly safe. However, at some places no protecting foreland is found; at other places the sea is shallow with treacherous skerries and sunken rocks. At yet other places one sailing channel only exists.

Trans-shipment Iron Age transport in Norway frequently involved transshipment from sea to land and vice versa. At the coast people boats carrying animals and goods followed sounds and fjords; on land traffic routes followed valleys and lakes and mountain crossings were common. The Trondheim fjord is part of one of the shortest crossing of the Scandinavian Peninsula. The passes between of the Kjølen mountain ridge between Trøndelag and Jämtland in northern Sweden are no higher than around 600 metres, which makes traversing fairly easy.

This makes it possible for people with sufficient (military) power to control traffic at a number of places where boats, goods, and people have to pass or stop and wait for favourable winds and currents. The importance of such places varies according to contemporary technology. Sailing vessels may avoid them all, sailing utleia, that is, the outer route – off the coast (Steen 1934: 220); ships leaving or entering the fjords, must, however, cross the coastal rim. Paddled and rowed boats normally would seek protected waters. The size of the boats also was important.

Trans-shipment took place at the mouths of the Stjørdal or Verdal valleys.1 However, the roads from these valleys meet at the Swedish side of the mountain ridge leading through Jämtland to the Gulf of Bothnia. The modern roads follow the valleys, which on the Norwegian side are steep and narrow. Older paths and trails rather followed higher and more gently sloping land. Halfway between the two coasts is the large Lake Storsjön, around which a fairly large farming settlement from the Iron Age is located. In the Storsjön area it was possible to rest after or before the crossing of the mountain ridge.

The term Trøndelag today is used for the part of Norway that is located between around 62° 30’ and 65° Northern latitude, covering the present provinces Sør-Trøndelag and Nord-Trøndelag (Figure 1). The Trondheim Fjord constitutes the major geographical feature in this region. Here I focus on the coast of the Fosen Peninsula (SørTrøndelag), which separates the Trondheim Fjord from the Norwegian Sea. The mouth of the Trondheim Fjord may be seen as the centre of the Fosen area, leading into one of Norway’s

1 It has been suggested (Sognnes 1988) that this may actually be one of the reasons why the lower parts of these two valleys stand out in the Viking Period material.

209

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1 The investigation area in Central Norway, showing places and sites mentioned in the text.

Likely these knives, therefore, were produced in Trøndelag and some eventually brought back to the Baltic coast. Evidence for further long distance traffic is represented by pieces of Baltic amber, of which one is shaped like a bear, found at the Trøndelag coast (Petersen 1920: 28-29).

This route in many ways may be compared to major portages in central Europe. In the Middle Ages numerous pilgrims followed it to the shrine of St. Olav in Nidaros (Trondheim). This was also the route St. Olav himself took coming from Russia on his way to his final battle and martyrdom at Stiklestad in Verdal in 1030. Arabic coins and other artefacts of eastern origin were brought to Trøndelag from the Baltic during the Viking Period (cf. Sognnes 1987) and during the Iron Age goods was transported in both directions, as evidenced by brooches of Swedish and Finnish types in Trøndelag and Norwegian pottery types found in adjacent Swedish provinces (Hemmendorf 1995, cf. Slomann 1948). From the Bronze Age for instance celts of the Mälar type (cf. Bolin 1999) most likely were brought to Trøndelag this way, while South Scandinavian influences on the rock-art at Nämforsen in Ångermanland, Sweden may have come from Stjørdal, a much shorter distance than between Nämforsen and similar rock-art areas in Uppland, Sweden (Ramqvist 1992).

The controlling of trans-shipment at valley mouths, not only in Stjørdal and Verdal, may have been an important means for establishing and maintaining power, represented by ‘big men’ and/or local chieftains. High frequencies of Iron Age grave monuments and finds (often represented by ‘rich’ burials may support the relevance of this model (e.g. Farbregd 1979, 1986, Sognnes 1987). The distribution of these finds combined with the Holocene land uplift led O. Farbregd to formulate a model for replacement of trans-shipment ‘centres’, following the shift of the river mouth. This shift in due course made previous ‘centres’ obsolete. The places at which these sites were located lost their importance to farms further down the river. This was first formulated for the Namdal Valley (Farbregd 1979) but later presented as a general explanatory model (Farbregd 1986).

During the Late Stone Age artefacts, particularly knives made from slates found in central northern Sweden only, are found at the Norwegian coast. Many of these knives are shaped like whales, an animal that played an important symbolic role in Trøndelag at that time as evidenced by numerous rock carvings (Sognnes 1996). 210

KALLE SOGNNES: THE MYTH OF PORTAGES: ON ANCIENT PORTAGING AT THE TRØNDELAG COAST, NORWAY

M. Moe Henriksen (1997, 1999) argued in favour of portaging between the Hemne and Orkdal fjords. I do not claim that her interpretation is wrong but this crossing would be rather cumbersome and there are hardly any finds where the trail reaches the Orkdal Fjord. The lack of finds and monuments at the supposed eastern place of trans-shipment weakens the relevance of this model. It is, however, only fair to mention that the topography of the Orkdal Valley apparently has been much more altered by Holocene geological processes than any other valley in Trøndelag.

This model is, however, erroneous. It is based on one factor only, that is, the Holocene land uplift ignoring other geological processes, which have altered the topography, first and foremost landslides and river erosion. The Stjørdal Valley has been most thoroughly studied regarding this question (Sognnes 1983, Sveian 1995). Farbregd (1986) postulated that the mouth of the Stjørdal River during the Bronze Age was located at Hegra about ten kilometres to the east of the present mouth and hence ‘explained’ the occurrence of Bronze Age rock-art containing renderings of boats in this area. Detailed geological studies revealed, however, that the river mouth at that time was located no more than one kilometre to the east of the present mouth (Sveian 1995).

Minor portages Many narrow isthmuses exist along the Trøndelag coast, over which goods and boats can be portaged (Nymoen 1996) and place-names apparently indicate that portaging was frequent. I strongly suspect, however, that the role of portaging has been over-emphasised, particularly for long-distance coastal trade. I would claim that whether or not a boat was portaged depends not only on the shape and length of the isthmus and the length and danger of the sailing route around the actual headland but also on the size of the ship, cargo involved, manpower available, as well as on expected waiting time before sailing can continue. Portaging demands familiarity not only with the main sea route but also with the alternative routes.

Trans-shipment may shortcut travelling distances and time also between neighbour fjord and valley systems. This would, however, normally presuppose the existence of a certain level of social organisation – a system that makes it possible to obtain adequate means of transportation both on land and at sea. Boats must be available at both sides of a portage and help is needed for carrying goods, and the boat if that was necessary, between two fjords or between fjord and an interior lake, a situation that is quite common, particularly in southwestern Norway. The need for organisation of labour, I feel, is underestimated by both historians and archaeologists. However, during the Roman and Migration Periods (AD 1-400) a number of large-scale communal operations seem to have taken place, for instance iron production (e.g. Prestvold 1999, Stenvik 1997) but hunting in mountain plateaus too (Blehr 1973). Also the equipment and manning of boats must have been important communal projects. An important portage runs between the innermost Trondheim Fjord and the Namsen Fjord and the Namdal Valley to the north. During the Early Mesolithic this portage, called Namdalseid, was still a sound (Sveian 1995), which, however, due to the land uplift was turned into a continuously growing isthmus. The distribution of Late Iron Age (c. 600-1000 AD) finds in Trøndelag demonstrates the existence of several nuclei, which may be interpreted as representing local and/or regional centres (Sognnes 1987). The major nuclei are found at the central and inner parts of the Trondheim Fjord – in Verdal and Stjørdal – but some smaller nuclei are found at the coast. It should be no surprise that one of these is found at the mouth of the fjord. More surprising is a nucleus at the inner Hemne Fjord further southwest. If we se this distribution from a portaging perspective, people and goods may have been transported from the Hemne Fjord across the hills to the Orkdal Fjord, which is a tributary to the Trondheim Fjord. The narrow outlet of the Trondheim Fjord basin has strong tidal currents and small sailing or rowing vessels may find it difficult to pass, particularly if the current is combined with unfavourable winds.

Fig. 2 The sea route passing the Drageid portage in Osen (Sør-Trøndelag) and Flatanger (Nord-Trøndelag).

I focus here on three portages at the Fosen Peninsula. The northernmost is located at the border between SørTrøndelag and Nord-Trøndelag, that is, between the municipalities of Bjugn and Flatanger. Some small clusters of islands exist off the mainland but little shelter can be found; this is a setting where portaging would be preferable. At the narrow isthmus of the Sæter peninsula a farm called Drageid is located (Figure 2), the name of which, indicates that the place was a portage (drag- = pull, -eid = isthmus). However, at both sides of this peninsula, particularly at the northern side, off the Bøle Fjord, little shelter can be found. Neither grave monuments nor finds indicate that Drageid was a place of importance during Prehistory. 211

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 4 The sea route passing the Valseidet portage in Bjugn (Sør-Trøndelag).

Fig. 3 The sea route passing the Dragseid portage in Åfjord (Sør-Trøndelag).

This is, however, the case at Dragseid in the Åfjord municipality (Figure 3) further south, where boats were portaged until recently between the Å (Åfjorden) and Åst fjords (Åstfjorden). Around sixty grave mounds, some with standing stones, are known from this farm (Beverfjord 1996). The importance of this area during Early Iron Age is further emphasised by goods imported from the Roman Empire, which are known from several farms, among them Eid, which is the name of the farm where Dragseid is located (Marstrander 1954: 94). Dragseid is, however, located off the main coastal route, which here is fairly well protected. This portage was of importance for local traffic only. From the Åst Fjord boats also may be portaged across Tørrhoggeidet, avoiding the outer part of this fjord. Finds and monuments indicate that the southern part of Åfjord played some role in the Early Iron Age socio-economic system at the Trøndelag coast. This, however, was not due to portaging. Rather, we should emphasise the location of the islands Linesøya and Stokkøya, which provide sheltered harbours for ships waiting for favourable wind before crossing open and dangerous waters further north.

Fig. 5 Ingvald Undset’s sketch of Early Iron Age grave monuments at Valseidet (after Undset 1873).

‘myth’ that Valseidet at that time was an important portage. T. Herje (1984, 1986) identified Valseidet as a local centre, the seat of chieftains who controlled the portage and traffic along this part of the coast.2 The track identified by Undset, however, crosses a ring of short standing stones. This ring and the large cairns surrounding it (Figure 6), as I see it, do not invite to portaging; rather they signal that this was a place for other purposes – a place for the dead – a shrine where ancestors were worshipped. Thus, I find it difficult to imagine that more or less regular portaging with loading and reloading of goods, pulling of ships etc. would be acceptable at a place like this (Sognnes 2000).

A short distance to the southwest of Dragseid is another acclaimed portage, at Valseidet in the Bjugn municipality (Figure 4). At the Valsneset Peninsula open waters are found but to the south of this peninsula one may follow the short Val Fjord (Valsfjorden), portaging Valseidet and continue the journey along Koet, a narrow fjord, which has a narrow opening with strong tidal currents at Jøssund in the other end. Here, one either had to pull the ships against the current or wait for favourable tides. Much of the time gained by portaging the boats across Valseidet thus would be lost. At Valsneset a cluster of large Early Iron Age cairns were investigated by I. Undset in the early 1870s. Undset (1873) identified the old track across the isthmus (Figure 5), and it has since been part of the local archaeological

2 This actually is in opposition to her conclusions that the Early Iron Age cairns in the area were placed relatively to the sea and not to settled areas (Herje 1984:77, 111).

212

KALLE SOGNNES: THE MYTH OF PORTAGES: ON ANCIENT PORTAGING AT THE TRØNDELAG COAST, NORWAY

Fig. 6 Early Iron Age cairns at the Valsneset Istmus (photo by K. Sognnes, Vitenskapsmuseet).

open seas. Sea transport may, of course, be dangerous. But this fear of open waters was it real or are we dealing with fears imagined by archaeologists and historians of modern times?

Dangerous journeys As abovementioned the mouth of the Trondheim Fjord may be difficult to pass and there was a need for suitable harbour at both side of the Agdenes promontory in which boats could find safe havens while waiting for wind and tides to change. To the east of Agdenes the Selva Bay is a natural good harbour but to the west of this promontory the small Agdenes Bay had to be improved. According to written sources a breakwater was built during the reign of king Øystein Magnusson (1103-1123). The existence of this breakwater is confirmed by archaeological investigations (Jasinski 1995, Marstrander 1967, Sognnes 1985) but radiocarbon dates indicate that the construction work may have started some centuries earlier, that is, during the Viking Period (Sognnes 1985, but see Jasinski 1995: 98).

As stated by Shetelig (1938: 222-223) the outer coast with its open waters was preferred already when the first settlers reached Norway in the Early Mesolithic; these settlers clearly had boats suitable for frequent crossings of open waters. This was the case also in Trøndelag, as exemplified by Stone Age dwellings sites found at the outer Frøya islands, for instance at Mausundvær and Kvalværet. The latter has been partly investigated yielding a radiocarbon date from a house-site to 21201680 BC, uncalibrated 3520 ± 155 bp (T-10523). When these sites were used all islands in the area were smaller than today and even more remote from mainland Frøya, where many Stone Age sites are known (Marstrander 1954).

Places where only one channel exists frequently are considered as sites where local power and wealth were accumulated, like at the Karm Sound (Karmsundet) near Haugesund (Rogaland). Norway’s richest Early Iron Age burial is seen as support for this hypothesis (e.g. Hagen 1974, Slomann 1968). Portages may be interpreted in a similar way. The main argument for this is the ‘fact’ that no real alternatives existed, creating a situation that favoured control and execution of power. This thinking is based on a belief seldom expressed, that sea journeys are dangerous and that Iron Age seafarers if possible avoided

Here, however, I concentrate on the Dolm Sound (Dolmsundet) at Hitra (Figure 7). Along this narrow sound numerous Stone Age sites recently have been found (Pettersen 1996). Interestingly most Iron Age finds from Hitra come from the same area. These finds indicate that also during this period the northern side of Hitra was more important than the southern side, which faces Trondheimsleia, the major traffic route of today. The main route of the Iron Age may have passed to the north

213

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 7 Alternative sea routes around the Hitra Island.

few factors only, identifying superficial similarities and analogies before we quickly jump to conclusions.

of Hitra, through Dolmsundet, which in the eastern end leads towards the Froan Sea (Frohavet) between Hitra and Bjugn, that is, between Dolmsundet and Valsneset. The open sea off Valsneset, however, constitutes only a small part of this distance and having rowed or sailed this far, portaging at Valsneset was hardly worth the effort. The sailing/rowing distance was only a little longer to Vallersund further north, where sheltered waters were reached. In short, I see also this as an indication that Valseidet was no Iron Age portage. Actually, shortly before reaching Valsneset one could find sheltered waters at the Tarva archipelago.

The result is that we frequently ignore factors that may have been equally or even more important for our understanding and interpretation of the actual situations. Regarding portages and trans-shipment, studying the sites alone is not enough; we must study the sites in a wider geographical and socio-historical context – beyond the stage of mere plotting distributions of finds etc. on maps with inadequate scales. All actual trails and sailing routes should be thoroughly investigated. Likewise we must identify and separate elements belonging to different times and systems, whether local, regional, or wider. Sometimes these levels concur but sometimes portaging may show up to represent unnecessary detours.

The three rather small portages discussed here, contrary to what has been claimed, in my opinion, were not part of the major route for sea traffic along the Norwegian coast. They primarily filled local needs. Valseidet likely became a portage long after the Early Iron Age grave monuments had lost their original importance and meanings. During early post-medieval times extensive herring fisheries took place in the Bjugn Fjord (Bjugnfjorden), which may have increased the need for shortcuts across Valseidet for people living along and to the north of Koet.

Bibliography Beverfjord, A. 1996, Gravfeltet på Dragseidet – frem i lyset igjen. Spor 1996 (2): 45. Blehr, O. 1973, Traditional reindeer hunting and social change in local communities surrounding Hardangervidda. Norwegian Archaeological Review 6: 102-112. Bolin, H. 1999, Kulturlandskapets korsvägar: Mellersta Norrland under de två sista årtusendena f.Kr. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 19. Stockholm Farbregd, O. 1979, Perspektiv på Namdalens jernalder. Viking 42: 20-80. Farbregd, O. 1986, Elveosar – gamle sentra på vandring. Spor 1986 (2): 6-12.

Conclusions In this paper I have argued against some of the proposed interpretations and models claimed to be valid for the Trøndelag coast. This does not mean that I oppose these models at a general level. But, as I see it, they have been applied in cases, for which I question their relevance. This is a common error in archaeology, frequently being the result of reductionism. We tend to focus on one or a 214

KALLE SOGNNES: THE MYTH OF PORTAGES: ON ANCIENT PORTAGING AT THE TRØNDELAG COAST, NORWAY

Sognnes, K. 1983. Bergkunsten i Stjørdal: helleristningar og busetjing. Gunneria 45. Trondheim, DKNVS Museet. Sognnes, K. 1985, King Øystein’s Harbour at Agdenes, Norway. In A. Herteig (ed): Conference on Waterfront Archaeology in North European Towns 2, 59-65. Bergen, Historisk Museum. Sognnes, K. 1987, Sentrumsdannelser i Trøndelag: en kvantitativ analyse av gravmaterialet fra yngre jernalder. Fortiden i Trondheim bygrunn: folkebibliotekstomten, meddelelser 12. Trondheim, Riksantikvarens utgravningskontor. Sognnes, K. 1988, Stjørdal – vikingtidens sentrum i Uttrøndelag. In S. Indrelid, S. Kaland & B. Solberg (eds): Festskrift til Anders Hagen. Arkeologiske skrifter fra Historisk Museum, Universitetet i Bergen 4, 415425. Bergen Sognnes, K. 1996, Dyresymbolikk i midt-norsk yngre steinalder. Viking 59: 25-44. Sognnes, K. 2000, Det hellige landskapet: Religiøse og rituelle landskapselementer i et langtidsperspektiv. Viking 63: 87-121. Steen, S. 1934, Veiene og leden i Norge. Nordisk kultur 16. Copenhagen. Stenvik, L. F. 1977, Iron Production in Mid-Norway: An answer to local demand? Studien zu Sachsenforschung 10: 253-263. Oldenburg. Sveian, H. 1995, Sandsletten blir til: Stjørdal fra fjordbunn til tettsted. Norges geologiske undersøkelser skrifter 117. Trondheim, NGU. Undset, I. 1873, Indberetning om antikvariske Undersøgelser i 1872. Foreningen til norske Fortidsmindesmærkers Bevaring Aarsberetning 1872: 11-31.

Hagen, A. 1974, Norges oldtid, second edition. Oslo, Cappelen. Henriksen, M. Moe 1997, Nøkkelen til Trøndelag: Bosetning, kommunikasjon og kontroll: Agdenes og Snillfjord. Cand. philol. thesis in archaeology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim. Henriksen, M. Moe 1999, Snillfjord – porten til havet. Spor 1999 (2): 34-37. Hemmendorf. O. 1995, På den andre siden av Kjølen – jernalder- og middelalderarkeologi i Jämtland og Härjedalen. Spor 1995 (2): 12-15. Herje, T. 1984, Landskap og samfunn i endring. Bjugn og Ørlandet i jernalder: En analyse av økonomi og samfunnsorganisasjon. Mag. art. thesis in archaeology at the University of Oslo. Herje, T. 1986, Valseidet i Bjugn – et høvdingsete i eldre jernalder. Spor 1986 (2): 18-21. Jasinski, M. E. 1995, Kong Øysteins havn på Agdenes. Forskningsstatus og reviderte problemstillinger. Viking 58: 73-104. Marstrander, S. 1954, Trøndelag i Forhistorisk tid. Norges bebyggelse: fylkesbindet for Sør-Trøndelag, Nord-Trøndelag og Nordland fylker, s. 34-140. Oslo, Norsk faglitteratur G. Reinert. Marstrander, S. 1967, Kong Øysteins havn på Agdenes. Trondhjemske samlinger ny rekke 3 (2): 263-271. Møller, J. J. 1995, Isnedsmelting og strandforskyvning – metoderedskap i utforskningen av strandnær bosetning gjennom tidene. Spor 1995: 4-8. Nymoen, P. Aa. 1995, Sjøveien over land – om eid og båtdrag i Midt-Norge. Spor 1995 (1): 34-36. Ramqvist. P. H. 1992, Hällbilder som utgångspunkt vid tolkningar av jägarsamhället. Forntid i norr 3: 31-54. Umeå. Petersen, T. 1920, Meddelelser fra stenalderen i det nordenfjeldske Norge. Aarbøger for nordisk oldkyndighed 3 (10): 18-36. Pettersen, K. 1996, Dolmsundet i Hitra – et kulturhistorisk perlebånd. Spor 1996 (2): 46-48. Pettersen, K. 1999, The Mesolithic in southern Trøndelag. In J. Boaz (ed): The Mesolithic of Central Scandinavia. Universitetets oldsaksamling skrifter ny rekke 22: 153-166. Prestvold, K. 1999, Trøndelag i støpeskjeen: Jernproduksjon og sosial organisasjon i NordTrøndelag mellom 350 f.Kr. og 500 e.Kr. Gunneria 75. Trondheim, Vitenskapsmuseet. Shetelig, H. 1938, Et større Norge. In A. Bugge & S. Steen (eds): Norsk kulturhistorie: billeder av folkets dagligliv gjennem årtusener 1: 207-258. Oslo, Cappelen. Slomann, W. 1948, Medelpad og Jämtland i eldre jernalder. Årbok for Universitetet i Bergen, historiskantikvarisk rekke 1948 (2). Bergen. Slomann, W. 1968, The Avaldsnes find and the possible background for the Migration Period finds in Southwest and West Norway. Norwegian Archaeological Review 1: 76-79. 215

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

216

Portages in South Scandinavia – a typology Frans-Arne Stylegar Apart from the two main sea routes along the Norwegian coast – the inner and the outer ones – written sources and oral tradition both give testimony that a third, innermost route once existed. This innermost route, probably ancient in its origins, was in many cases still used for local transports in the 19th century, sometimes even later. This route exploits the inner fjord systems where these exist, and they often incorporates portages – stretches of land, that is, where cargo or even vessels were carried or hauled over land. In special cases parts of this innermost route were used by people who otherwise went by the inner or outer sea route, either to circumvent particularly dangerous sea stretches, or to avoid waiting for the right wind.

as a gateway between the North Sea coast of SW Norway and the Skagerack coast of SE Norway. Lindesnes – the gate of the Skagerrack “The awful sublimity of the coast fills the imagination with ideas of desolation and horror; the rocks dreadfully shattered by the impetous billows of the great Northern Ocean, which here rolls its vast watery mountains on the craggy shores, dashing and foaming over the sheers and desolate rocky islands, until it meets a proud defiance from the majestic frowning bulwarks of granite which form the barrier of the country…” This rather grim view of Cape Lindesnes, or the Naze, captured by a travelling Briton in 1812, is due not only to the romanticism of the era (fig 2). The Naze was really a feared and terrible landmark on a coast that to the outsider looked as a very inhospitable place indeed. Cape Lindesnes was considered the most dangerous point of passage on the Norwegian coast. On old sea maps The Naze is often shown way out of proportions, like in Olaus Magnus’ Carta Marina (fig 3).

There are a substantial number of portages known from various sources in South Norway (fig 1). Each of these portages obviously has its own, specific history. And while portages as a phenomenon is by no means uncommon in European history, and while it rings true that they were more important in South Scandinavia in the Iron Age and the Medieval period than later on, one would be hard pressed to find any evidence in written or archaeological sources for the innermost sea route at any time being the most important one, not to say the only one in existence (see, for instance, Steen 1941). This might have been the case in the Neolithic and the Bronze Age, but in the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval period, neither written sources nor archaeology indicate that the innermost sea route along the coast was used on a regular basis by long-distance travellers. Local, small-scale transports we know less about.

Christer Westerdahl points to the importance of the Lindesnes area as a transitional zone (Westerdahl 1995). According to him, the Naze was the transit point between two different zones of transportation – the West Norwegian North Sea coast and the East Norwegian Skagerrack coast. As such, Cape Lindesnes also functioned as a border zone between two different cultural regions. Many of the cultural traits believed to be particular to Western Norway have a pattern of distribution ending in the Lindesnes area. The same goes for many East Norwegian cultural traditions. For the topographical authors of the 18th and 19th centuries these differences were noteworthy. One source from the 1790s states that there were diverging traditions of boat building on either side of the Naze, with the vessels in the eastern area being shorter and wider than the ones in the West. The traditional border zone between the use of iron and wood for nails in shipbuilding is here, as well. Similar distribution patterns are known from fields as varied as agricultural methods, house types, and language. As for the archaeological source material, the Viking Age morturary customs seem to have been rather different on either side of Cape Lindesnes, and the distribution of East Norwegian artefact types from this period stops relatively abruptly at Lindesnes.

However, different kinds of sources, not least the Norse sagas, show us that portages were used, but probably not as systematically as suggested by some authors. Furthermore, it could be argued that the amphibious petty seafaring (‘allmogeseglation’) responsible for most of the references to portages in written sources from the early modern period, is in fact a rather new phenomenon, resulting from the break-down of medieval social systems and medieval systems of trade and seafaring. The entrepreneuring, small-holder slash fisherman slash sailor celebrated in a number of cultural historical works in the Scandinavian countries might, together with the portages used by him, thus be a rather modern phenomenon. Nonetheless, some portage localities still stand out. In South Scandinavia, this is the case first and foremost with the portage between the North Sea and the Baltic by way of the river Treene and the Schlei fjord in South Jutland (Brandt, this volume). On the Norwegian coast, the isthmus of Spangereid seems to have played a similar role

The pivotal role of Lindesnes for the traffic between the Vik area and the Baltic on the one hand, and the North Sea on the other, was pointed out by the scholar Peder Claussøn Friis more than 400 years ago. He wrote:

217

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig 1. Major portages in Vest-Agder county, South Norway.

Fig 2. “A View Near the Naze”, 1812.

218

FRANS-ARNE STYLEGAR: PORTAGES IN SOUTH SCANDINAVIA – A TYPOLOGY

Fig 3. Carta Marina, 1539 (detail).

winds are good for sailing, one often has to make halt at the Naze. Ships and boats stay for weeks and months in the harbours in the Lindesnes area, waiting for a chance to cross this point. Cargos go bad and travels fail because of the long stay at either side of the Naze’ (quoted from Stylegar 1999).

“That Naze is known by all seafarers in the Western Ocean, because there they make landfall in this land, and from there they set course on other lands (Friis 1881, my transl.).” This was hardly a new phenomenon at this time. In the German Seebuch, in a chapter which probably dates back to the 14th century, two direct routes from Walcheren to the South Norwegian coast are described – one goes to Lindesnes (Nese), the other one to Skudenes (Schutenessen) (Norse sagas also testifiy to the importance the Naze for seafarers (see Stylegar 2004).

These difficult conditions for sailing ships are caused by the combined forces in this area of the reigning winds and a strong current running along the Norwegian coast in a westward direction. The potential advantages of circumventing the Naze thus seem obvious.

In some periods the role of Lindesnes as a transitional zone seems to have had a political aspect, as well. In 1170 the Danish king Valdemar demanded overlordship in SE Norway, ‘all the land that lies between Lindesnes and Denmark’. His demand was but an echo of the Danish rule in the Vik area in the 10th and 11th centuries. There are a number of saga references indicating that the Danish rule in Skagerrack at times reached all the way to Lindesnes, and indeed that the Vik name itself was used for this extensive coastal area (Stylegar 2004).

The Spangereid canal The importance of the Spangereid isthmus in the late Prehistoric period is related to its position at the Naze. This goes for the major harbour site in Seleyjar immediately to the west of Cape Lindesnes, too. However, Seleyjar will not be dealt with here (see, however, Stylegar 2004). Many important archaeological monuments and finds are known from the area around Spangereid (Stylegar & Grimm in press; fig 4). The archaeologist O. Rygh excavated more than 40 burial mounds in Spangereid in 1879. In the 1970s a number of Viking period boat graves were excavated. Several of the monuments in the area – including a court site, many rich graves, eight huge boathouses and a number of less substantial ones, and an early Romanesque stone church – indicate that

We know from written sources that it was not uncommon in recent centuries for travellers to use the portage of Spangereid when sailing one of the routes along the South Norwegian coast. Cape Lindesnes was difficult to cross. ‘It is well known’, writes a keen observer back in 1810, ‘how difficult it is for those vessels that have to sail close to the coast to pass Cape Lindesnes! Even when the

219

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig 4. The archaeological Spangereid complex.

were not clearly distinguishable during the investigation. The bottom level of the canal seems to have been c. 0,90 m above the present sea level (fig 5).

Spangereid was a place of some importance in southernmost Norway, with indicators of centrality spanning the Iron Age, the Viking period and the Early Middle Ages. The clustering of big boat houses in Spangereid is surpassed only by the Hafrsfjord area further west.

So far, two radiocarbon datings are available, one from a later infilling in the canal (cal. AD 1040-1260), and another from a horizontal turf layer that seems to have built up in a freshwater environment after the canal had gone out of use (cal. AD 1010-1190). Judging from the stratigraphical situation, the canal predates the phases characterised by these datings. For topographical reasons (the bottom level of the canal relative to the land rising over the previous 2000 years) it was probably established in the late Roman and Migration period or somewhat later. At a sea level 2,5 m above today’s, not only the canal but also seven substantial Iron Age boathouses would be positioned at the sheltered harbour in Kjerkevågen.

According to late 16th century sources, a shallow depression in the shape of a trough was visible across the isthmus of Spangereid (in the following: Stylegar 1999; Stylegar & Grimm 2003). In 1591 some of the oldest men in Spangereid – one of them aged 110! – testified that this through, called “Groben”, had been dug a long time ago, “so that ships could go through here”. This they had been told by their parents and grandparents. Pictorial sources from the late 18th century clearly show that Groben covered a distance of c. 250 m from the Northern side of the isthmus and southwards.

The Spangereid canal has only two parallels in Middle and Northern Europe: the Kanhave Kanal in Samsø, Denmark, dendro-dated to AD726, and Fossa Carolina, Southern Germany, dated to AD 793.

In 2001 Vest-Agder county municipality carried out a trial excavation in the part of Groben that is still preserved in Spangereid. The shallow depression that characterizes the Groben of today was found to be the remains of a much more substantial trough, a later infilled structure that originally was 12 m wide and 1,5 m deep. Furthermore, the results of this small-scale excavation indicates that Groben was in fact built as a canal, effectively leading from a sheltered harbour immediately to the South of the isthmus and northwards to the fjord system on the inner side of the Lindesnes peninsula. At the bottom level, the structure may have been as wide as 7 m, but the side walls of the structure

The Kanhave Kanal on Samsø is considered to have been a royal naval base for controlling sea traffic in the Cattegat. As for the canal in Spangereid, it may have served a similar function for controlling the “highway” along the southern Norwegian coast. This hypothesis is further strengthened by the substantial number of big boathouses positioned at the coast in the immediate vicinity of the canal – in fact the second biggest cluster of 220

FRANS-ARNE STYLEGAR: PORTAGES IN SOUTH SCANDINAVIA – A TYPOLOGY

Fig 5. The Spangereid canal.

221

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

canal to be built across the isthmus. In his report, it is stated that smaller and relatively light boats were being transported on carts across Spangereid – but from Njervesfjord to Høllen, thus indicating a slightly different route than the one contested by the Stokka farmers in 1694 and later. This practice might have been something out of the ordinary, and caused by the difficult war time circumstances, with English man-of-wars guarding the waters on the South Norwegian coast, as the first real road in these parts was built in 1809 to facilitate the transportation of privateers across Spangereid. It is, however, likely that small vessels were transported over land well before this time.

such buildings in Scandinavia. Boathouses like these were used to shelter war ships of the Nydam type. It is likely that whoever was responsible for establishing a naval base at Spangereid, seeked to control this “gate” in the border zone between the Western and the Eastern Oceans. He might have been a SE Norwegian chieftain based in the Vik area, or he might have been a Danish (proto) king. Spangereid – the post-canal period Oral tradition in Spangereid tells that ‘the Vikings’ used to haul their ships across Spangereid. No other sources tell us if this is indeed the case. However, in this specific case we do know that a canal once existed, and that the rising land level made it useless around AD 1100 at the latest. It can’t be ruled out that the partly dried up canal was used for hauling ships into the medieval period. At least when dealing with ships of Nordic type, this would perhaps be a rather easily accomplished task for yet some generations after 1100.

Besides the cargo transports, special individuals could also be transported across Spangereid as part of a sea voyage. This, for instance, was the case with the Danish prime minister in 1811. He travelled by ship along the Norwegian coast that summer, but he did not wish to stay onboard while passing Cape Lindesnes. Therefore he was transported by a light boat to Spangereid, to a socalled ‘King’s pier’ at the Njervesfjord, on the southern end of the isthmus. There, he either walked or was driven by horse-and-carriage across the isthmus, to another ‘King’s pier’ on the north side, in Høllen, where another light boat was waiting to take him by the safe inner route to Farsund (fig 7).

Be that as it may, the mentioned testimony given by the local inhabitants in 1591 is the oldest documentary source dealing with traffic across the isthmus. It is perhaps noteworthy that although a couple of the local inhabitants at that time argued that ‘Groben’ was in fact dug as a canal in the old days, none of them mentioned any portage activity being carried out in their own time. Neither does Peder Claussøn Friis, who lived in this very area, refer to such activities in his writings – although portages as a phenomenon were in no way unknown to him, since he does mention that smaller vessels were being transported across Listeid, further to the west (Friis 1881). We do know from other sources, however, that cargos were transported over land in Spangereid at this time.

General observations To some extent one can, on a very general level, distinguish between three different, and only partially overlapping, phases in the history of Spangereid and other major portages in South Norway. These are:

The 1591 testimony was used in a legal dispute four years later. This dispute, involving the owners of two neighbouring farms in Spangereid, did not end until 1787 – almost 200 years later! – when the matter was finally settled by the High court of justice. At stake was, among other things, the income stemming from the transportation of cargos across the isthmus. These cargos were transported by the farmers, using carts. This we learn from a settlement in 1694, when the Stokka farmers demanded fifty percent of the cart transports carried out by the farmers themselves, and half the tolls payed by all those who came with textiles or other goods over Spangereid. The route used by the carts went from Båly to Høllen (see map, fig 6). However, we have no certain evidence for the transportation of vessels over land in Spangereid until the beginning of the 19th century. During the Napoleonic wars, a naval officer was stationed in the outport of Svinør, near Spangereid, and he wrote a voluminous report to the Admiralty in Copenhagen, arguing for a 222

1.

The non-systematic hauling of large ships over a lesser or larger strip of land. This phase seems to belong to the Late Iron Age and Early Medieval period, i.e. the centuries until new ship technology made it unpractical or impossible to transport large vessels on land. This ‘phase’ is the one we know less about, but neither saga sources nor oral tradition indicate that this was a very widespread practice. It is likely that only a proportionally small number of the portages known from the post-medieval period were ever used in this way.

2.

With the new types of ships in the Later Medieval period, the transporting of vessels over land came to a halt. People and cargo, however, could in some instances still be carried. The ships themselves went by sea to the other side, or one changed vessel on the other side of the portage. When this phase is recorded in written sources, it is to a large extent high ranking government officials or other prominent people that use the portage to avoid particularly dangerous sea stretches – ‘to avoid risking one’s soul’, as one source tells about Lindesnes in the 1790s. In the well-studied region of Agder the inner sea route along the coast, as it is known from 17th

FRANS-ARNE STYLEGAR: PORTAGES IN SOUTH SCANDINAVIA – A TYPOLOGY

Fig 6. 1784 map showing the route taken by carts transporting cargo across Spangereid.

and 18th century sources, might in more special circumstances involve the use of portages of this kind, but only a limited number of the localities were used in this way in a systematic fashion. In the Western part of Agder the portages in question seem to be distinguished by having so-called ‘King’s piers’, one on each side of the isthmus. In Vest-Agder ‘King’s piers’ are known from three sites – Spangereid, Lyngdal, and Framvaren/Listeid. 3.

The third phase involves local transport of small vessels and cargo in the post-medieval period. The majority of the portages were probably never used on a regular basis until this final phase. In the case of Spangereid we have evidence that the systems described here as phases 2 and 3 existed simultaneously in the 17th and 18th centuries.

In one case, and one case only, we know of a phase predating ‘phase 1’. But the canal in Spangereid was most likely established, whether this was in the Late Roman/Migration period or in the Late Iron Age, as a means to facilitate the use of Spangereid as a naval base. The canal can hardly have been established to accommodate civil traffic; in this early period, large scale building projects were probably initiated by royal powers for military, not ‘civil’, purposes. Whether the

Fig 7. Map from 1810 showing the two “King’s piers” in Spangereid.

223

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Spangereid canal was used for ordinary transports in the Iron Age, we do not know. If it was, however, this was probably a purely secondary use. To the extent that this did happen, and in so far as the practice of hauling ships then continued into the Medieval period, phases 2 and 3 can – in this particular case, that is – be interpreted as resulting from later reorganizations of the transport system specific to phase 1. Literature Friis, P. C. 1881. Samlede skrifter af Peder Claussøn Friis, udgivne for den norske historiske forening af Gustav Storm. Kristiania. Steen, S. 1941. Ferd og fest (2nd ed.). Oslo. Stylegar, F.-A. 1999. Spangereid – en sørlandsk saga. Kristiansand. Stylegar, F.-A. 2004. Åslaug-Kråka fra Spangereid og Ragnar lodbrok: om Lindesnesområdet som kulturell “melting pot” i vikingtid og tidlig middelalder. Karmøyseminaret 2002. Kopervik. Stylegar, F.-A. & Grimm, O. 2003. Ein spätkaiser- und völkerwanderungszeitlicher Kanal in Spangereid, Südnorwegen. Arch. Korrespondenzblatt 3-2003, pp 445-455. Mainz. Stylegar, F.-A. & Grimm, O. in press. Spangereid – ein maritimes Zentrum der Eisenzeit in Südnorwegen. Ein Deutungsversuch zur Funktion der ringförmigen Anlagen mit Verweis auf die dänischen Mooropfer um 200 n. Chr. (insbesondere Illerup Platz A). Offa. Westerdahl, Christer: 1995. Det maritima kulturlandskapet. Ett återseende. In: Marinarkeologi. Kunnskapsbehov. Rapport fra seminar 22.-25.sept 1993, Korshavn ved Lindesnes. Norges forskningsråd: 95-102. Oslo.

224

Drag and Eid in Harkmark, Vest-Agder, Norway Paul Sveinall ships were apt to put in at some harbour along it, including the Mandal area.

Harkmark and the out-harbours of the Mandal region The place name Mandal nowadays denotes a town in the fylke (county) of Vest-Agder, i.e. a specific locality. The name contains the element dal meaning valley and the name of the river at which the towns stands, Marna. In the past the name of Mandal in the form of Mannadal or Mannedal from AD 1223 and forward should be understood not as a particular place but rather as a region, which certainly even comprised a much larger area than what is nowadays known as the valley of Mandalen. Perhaps it was not even clearly defined. The implication is that according to tradition in several settlements in the district, it would rather have denoted the middle part of the province known as Agder in those days, which is not necessarily identical with the present-day fylken, the western and the eastern parts, of Vest-Agder and AustAgder.

The union king, Eric of Pomerania, gave the trading privileges of this area, “i mannadale” to the burghers of Landskrona in the Sound (Öresund) in AD 1413. This town was founded by him and he wanted to speed up its development. These privileges were confirmed by the Danish-Norwegian king Christan III in 1535 and they were still in force at the end of the 16th century. The reasonable assumption is that all the time the area referred to was actually the trading locality of tradition, i.e. what was called Harkmark Fiord. The financial records of the county administration clearly show the decline of this locality during the following period c. 1610-1650, either by way of the customs registers or records of fines. This decline seems to coincide with a number of changes, such as the establishment of a coastal navy with its base at Flekkerøy close to the present town Kristiansand. This must have reduced the need of a sheltered harbour of this kind so close to the naval base. Secondly, changes of the run of the river of present day Mandal makes it possible to establish the Danish trading booths at this spot. Thirdly, the recently established city of Kristiansand (1641) acquires a trading monopoly along the entire coast.

In this rather vaguely delimited district the maritime approaches for trade were found at so-called uthavner, out-harbours. All of the most important uthavner in the region are mentioned in documents of the High Middle Ages, such as Ny-Hellesund, Tregde, Skjernøysund and Hillesund. The latter is known as early as in the autumn of AD 1030 in connection with the travels of Sigvat the Skald (Minstrel). However, all of them were precariously sited at the very coastal sea route in the event of plunder by piracy or other maritime warfare. Such dangers were not unusual. The only protected harbour was an innerharbour at Harkmark. Its parish church is recorded for the first time in AD 1325. Otherwise, contemporary sources are scarce, particularly in connection with trade. Most of the sources are part of an oral tradition recorded much later. The unanimous conception of this tradition is that Harmark was the central market for the district, since it was the foremost meeting place for people from both the coast and the inland settlements. Apart from this, merchants were resident at the spot.

According to tradition another reason was another problem in Harkmark itself. Pirates had attacked the trading post and a large boulder was sunk by the defenders in the entrance to the fiord, which partly closed it to traffic. Such attacks in the area, if not specifically on Harkmark, have been recorded at least from the 1490’s, and from 1520 onward. The exploits in 1526 of Martin Pechlin in the service of the deposed king, Chrisian II, have been related in some detail. The sources give a fragmented picture of Harkmark. Prehistory is to some extent covered by important ancient monuments and graves, indicating something slightly out of the ordinary, which may form the basis of its role in the trading system of the High Middle Ages. The only thing that stands abundantly clear according to historical sources is in fact its decline.

If this is true it does not exclude trading in the outharbours or adjacent locations. Together with Harkmark they seem thus to have constituted a local system adapted to seafaring and trading of the late Middle Ages. To avoid the dangerous west coast of Jutland and the Skaw (Skagen) the sandy spit at the top of Jutland most sea traffic during this time and the following centuries, bound for the Baltic and the Kattegat, went by way of these coasts. The same went for the outward-bound traffic, to northwest Europe. In fact this was already one of the main sailing routes of Europe. This did not mean that any substantial part at all was bound for the Agder coast, but in case of contrary winds or bad weather the

The intention is now to switch attention to the two approaches presumably used by seafarers and traders, the drag and the eid. Draget The shallow and shallow entrance to the Harkmark Fiord is called Strømmen (lit. ‘the current’). The depth is c. 3 m.

225

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

During spring flood or low water it may appear as a surging river with strong currents. According to tradition a hill to the north was used by defenders. From it could be thrown boulders into intruding vessels. The dispatch of arrows and spears was also supposed to have been practised from this advantageous point. The author has relied on statements of a number of informants. One of them was Johan Strømmen. Certain of these statements agree with notes and articles of the late local historian Laurits Fuglevik (e.g. in Agder Historielag Årsskrift 1932). But the details of Strømmen’s information was more concrete and practical. He had lived at the entrance of the fiord all his life and knew all the old fishermen. He asserted that since times immemorial a rigid towing (drag) system had existed at the fiord that no foreigners could challenge. Vessels waiting to enter the fiord at Ytre Habne roads at Ås had to obey the fiord pilot and his seven assistants who were divided into two rowing boat crews. When high tide was on the pilot went onboard the vessel in question and took over command of it. All sails had to brought down. The steering boat was rowed by four men, and they towed the vessel with a short line made faat to the stem. Three men were in the warping boat with a very long line. One end of it was made fast to land and the other end was onboard the vessel so the crew could begin to tow that way. The fiord is narrow but long (c. 5 km) and there were several places where to tow, according to conditions of wind and current, as a rule always at Dostad. No one was permitted into the fiord without the fiord pilot and his crew. The towing system was, according to Johan Strømmen, in use up to the last half of the 19th century. Eidet An uncompounded place name like Eid is expected to be very old. In the lists of assessment units fronm the beginnings of the 17th century we find two separate farms, Vestre Eid at the Harkmark Fiord and Østre Eid at Komlefiord at the sea. Cecilie Eid, another informant of the author, stated that there was much traffic across the isthmus “in the really old days when there was trade at Harkmark”. This occurred in particular if the weather was bad along the promontory of Tånes.or diffuicult to enter by way of Strømmen. Then the goods were brought across land at Eidet either carried by people or drawn by horses which were placed at Eid during markets. From Vestre Eid the goods were taken by boat to the pier at Harkmark. Old people had seen remnants of poles jutting out of the lake bottom from this pier. The passages of the isthmus continued during the childhood of Cecilie Eid, but now in order to go to church at Harmark or generally to be able to go west across the land. She could not remember that any boats had been dragged across, but once there were remains of a large hollow road which could have been used as side support for a vessel if they wanted to. 226

A possible Roman time portage between the North Sea and Baltic Ulrike Teigelake

Introduction The subject of this presentation is a possible Roman era portage between the Baltic and the North Sea, running from the River Elbe to the Bay of Wismar in Germany. It is based on the results of a doctoral thesis about the archaeology of inland water transport in pre- and early historic Northern Germany handed in a year ago. The conditions when rounding the Jotland peninsula to sail into the Baltic Sea are rough and have always been so, especially in times before the invention of modern navigational aids. But there is plenty of archaeological and written evidence that people have sailed the Baltic to bring items of Roman import to the Baltic coast and to the Danish Isles. In Viking times there was a portage between the River Treene/Eider and the Schlei, a firth of the Baltic. This has led to the flourishing of the Viking Age settlement of Hedeby, where rich evidence of far running trade and exchange has been maintained. However, this trade route was only established with the beginning of the Frankish/Frisian trade towards Scandinavia. There is no sign for Roman import being transported this way (see Teigelake 2000: 122 ff.). But looking at the distribution of some groups of Roman import finds – the characteristics of which I am going to explain later – one can see an obvious concentration in another stretch between the North Sea and the Baltic; this is the area between the town of Lauenburg on the lower Elbe and the bay of Wismar. My suggestion is that this marks the Roman era portage.

Fig. 1: Distribution map of Roman imports

On the other hand, a map of pre-Roman and Roman Iron Age boat finds from the same area shows only a small number of finds, and no finds at all to the east of the River Elbe.

The idea of this portage is based on distribution patterns of characteristic import finds, which I have analysed in my Doctoral thesis. Therefore I will give a short introduction to the method used and to the results gained in this study.

This can only mirror the different states of research in these regions, not the real situation of boat traffic in prehistoric times. This is supported by the picture drawn by the antique written sources, too. Therefore I tried to find another way to trace inland water transport in the area of Northern Germany, by analysing the distribution of characteristic find categories, which I call “secondary sources”.

Secondary sources as indicators for inland water traffic A distribution map of dugouts1 from Neolithic up to Early Modern times shows that in Northern Germany and neighbouring areas there was plenty of inland water traffic.

This method of looking for routes of water transport and possible connecting land routes has been used by several scholars before. The reason is always the same: Experience shows that water transport is the most effective way of transporting large quantities of goods, as well as heavy or fragile items. But because (dated) ship

1 Ships other than dugouts have hardly been found from this period, though they are mentioned in written sources.

227

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 2: Map of characteristic Roman import finds. Teigelake 2003, Karte 3.16

Fig. 3: Pre-Roman and Roman boat finds (Teigelake 2003b, 3.23).

finds in rivers or lakes are very rare, the main source of ship archaeology hardly exists in this case.

The analysis of the location of chieftain settlements in the Western Hallstatt Culture, carried out by Ludwig Pauli (1993), has shown that a very important factor in their position of power and wealth was their location by navigable rivers or at important reloading places, like watersheds, in other words at key locations of a combined land water transport system. The settlements in question, from Mont Lassois in Central France to Heuneburg on

A couple of case studies from different areas of Europe have helped me to define the criteria by which routes of transport relying on a water way can be recognised.

228

ULRIKE TEIGELAKE: A POSSIBLE ROMAN TIME PORTAGE BETWEEN THE NORTH SEA AND BALTIC the upper Danube, are all situated on the main European watersheds, and such places, where transition from a land- to a waterway would have been possible, were efficient and easy to control.

If one wants to use this method for an investigation of one’s own, the first step is to define those items that can serve as “characteristic finds”, in other words as “secondary sources”.

According to Pauli, items of Mediterranean import accumulated at these places were not the object, but the spin-off of the trade, since apart from in the chieftain settlements themselves, they were hardly to be found elsewhere in this area. This means that with the wealth built up due to their geographical position, allowing the inhabitants to control the inner-Celtic trade, they were able to import wine, sets of drinking vessels and other valuable goods from the Mediterranean. This wealth was then also exposed in grave goods for the members of this elite. Pauli draws the following conclusion: We can in consequence also expect that other less well-known places of transition from land to water transport in the South and West might possibly be traced through their wealth.” (Pauli 1993, 136).

For the area of Northern Germany, I have analysed the archaeological and written sources concerning inter- and intra-cultural transport goods in general and those favourable for water transport in particular, which also had to be easy to recognise the archaeological record. The result was a list of Roman import goods that were either of a high weight, large, or very fragile (see Teigelake 2003a), e.g. bronze vessels, Samian ware and other fine Roman ware, glass vessels, silver vessels, Iron vessels and rotary querns from the Eifel-region. Based on the comparisons with other regions and periods (Pauli 1993; Salač 1998; Sorokin 1997), these find categories are supposed to function as an indicator for water transport. So their distribution has been mapped and viewed in relation to the river system of Northern Germany. To exclude any coincident, the general find distribution has also been mapped and has in most cases shown to be much different.

The importance of water transport, namely on the river Elbe, in the La Tène period has been shown by Vladimir Salàc (1998). Characteristic finds as well as the location of a fortification by the river underline the important role of the Elbe for the contacts between Bohemia and Saxony in this period. In this case it is not a specific wealth gathered by the control of the transport, but rather the fact that the region where the river runs through the mountains of the Elbsandstein is not at all favourable to settling. There had to be a reason for people settling there, and Salàc showed that the reason for living there was the involvement of this population in the organisation and logistics of the ship transport, the reloading, the resting places etc., required for a functioning transport system.

A few words have to be said about different opinions concerning Roman-Germanic trade. For a summary of the state of research before 1978 see Hedeager 1978. Most authors see the origin of Roman export into Germanic territory as a combination of war booty, tribute, gifts and real trade, with varying priorities. The most extreme positions are held by Kunow (1983, 41 ff.), who sees a real trade organised from Roman side, reaching far into North and East barbarian Germany, and Erdrich (1992), who denies a real trade more or less completely, interpreting the Roman imports found in these regions as traces of war booty, or politically motivated payment from the Roman side (for detailed information and literature see Teigelake 2003b). Especially Lund Hansen (1987, 219) and Carnap-Bornheim (1999, 30) point out the role in the redistribution between high ranking members of the Germanic society, played by prestige goods of Roman origin.

From these and other investigations I have created a list of criteria that, found in the archaeological evidence, might give a hint towards inland water transport that once took place in this area. Table 1: Criteria indicating inland water transport. After Teigelake 2003, 54, tbl.3:

-

A question of main interest for the present study is how and by whom the items were transported to the Germanic regions far away from the Roman border. However, so far neither archaeological nor written sources can lead to an answer of this question. But there were other “barbarian” countries having regular exchange with the Roman empire, for example Africa and Asia. Although the degree of organisation is varying, all these countries have in common that the trading goods are brought to the coast by the inhabitants. In the ports the goods are then exchanged for Roman and other items. While from the Red Sea coast and Arabia, up to India and China, the inhabitants of the country sail the ships themselves, for the East African coast this seems to have been done by Arabian interim traders (Wheeler 1965, 117 ff.).

Natural communication lines in the landscape Natural conditions for landing places Natural places for a good controlling position Evidence for fishing, hunting, etc. Raw material in original or worked shape (e.g. iron, copper, tin, etc.) Well-fortified settlements or forts Imported goods

In summary, characteristic items found in a certain area, combined with a favourable position in a traffic and transport system, could be there as a result of inland water trade and transport.

229

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

seamanship. We hear of “biremes” as well as ships propelled by only a single row of oars, both with sails, and on top of this of an enormous number of simpler boats, probably comparable with the English term “linter”, with a rigging like the Mediterranean “liburnia”, each carrying thirty to forty people. Even if it is not yet possible to give clear definitions of ship types from these descriptions, this Latin text is remarkable in that it shows a picture of Germanic people owning a big fleet of different kinds of ships, all propelled by sails, in other words, a people of seafarers (Tacitus, Hist.V. 23.1-4).

For the exchange with Britain, in the 1st century B.C. a “Barbarian” country, too, it was probably the Celtic tribes of the Gaulish coast, especially the Venety, who functioned as interim traders. The Roman traders, who were the only ones daring to visit these wild people from the Roman side, couldn’t tell anything about this country apart from the coast and the area lying opposite to the Gaulish coast (Caesar, B.G. IV.20.3). Obviously there is no sea dividing Germania from the Roman Empire, but there are rivers marking the frontier. For both of them (the Rhine and Danube) there is written evidence for the existence of shore markets. Following the example of Roman trade with other Barbarian countries I therefore assume that the exchange mainly took place at the border between the Empire and the Barbarian Germania, at most places marked by a river, or on the coast. Items of Roman import would then have been exchanged against Germanic trading goods. From the border or the coast they would then have been transported either by Germanic traders or by Celtic interim traders.

It is not possible to give a clear statement, of which people the boats belonged that brought trading goods to the coast and to the river mouths. But it seems very likely that at the place of reloading from the Elbe to the land way the cargo fell into German hands. The portage At this point we can return to the region between the three rivers Elbe, Schale and Sude. As shown in the case studies presented above, the crossing of the watersheds has always been a method favoured for inland water transport. The stretch of land under discussion is one of the shortest lines between the Elbe, which is connected to the North Sea, and the Baltic. The town of Lauenburg, where the imaginative line takes its start, has a long history as a place of reloading, i.e. for the transfer from water to a land route. Sprockhoff (1930) states a prehistoric river crossing at this place, which fits to a function as a reloading place.

For the sea transport along the Germanic North Sea coast and into the mouths of the rivers there are therefore three alternatives: It could have been carried out by: a) the Romans b) the Celts c) the Germans All three of them seem to have been good seafarers. About the Celtic tribe of the Veneti we find plenty of written (Caesar, B.G. III, 13), and some archaeological, evidence (Marsden 1967; Rule, 1990) that they were a people of seafarers, deeply involved in far-reaching sea trade.

In this area the distribution of Roman import finds that have been defined as indicators for water transport shows an interesting pattern. While Samian ware has been found near the water but only in the area west of the River Elbe, bronze, glass and silver vessels are spread to the east of this river, too. In the area between the Elbe and the Baltic coast, their distribution points towards a transport from the Baltic upwards along the small rivers (Fig. 2).

If one has a close look at the description of the revolt of the Batavi, a Germanic tribe living by the Rhine estuary, in the year 6 AD, a lot is said about Germanic boats and

Table 2: (Teigelake 2003, 2.6: p. 80) Indications for key points of inland water transport Indication Settlements with conspicuous wealth or fortifications near navigable rivers, at transitions from land to water routes or at a connecting route between two waterways Settlements near rivers, despite of infertile land or other bad settling conditions Exploiting, working and use of raw material near rivers Places near river deltas with evidence for the exchange of goods both inland and overseas Concentration of far distance import near rivers Concentration of heavy or large items near rivers

Possible conclusion Control of inland water or combined land-water communication lines Role in the organisation of water transport Use of water ways in exploiting and production Transition from inland water to sea transport Far distance trade on land water routes Transport of these items on the river

230

ULRIKE TEIGELAKE: A POSSIBLE ROMAN TIME PORTAGE BETWEEN THE NORTH SEA AND BALTIC

Fig. 4

are all warrior graves, and according to their equipment they had a leading position in their society. Apart from high quality Germanic equipment, the burials contain a large portion of high value Romanic import. This seems to indicate a connection to the Roman Empire. The common opinion is that the warriors buried there were the military leaders of Germanic auxiliary troops for the Roman Empire. So most scholars take the import finds as gifts or booty. But usually the leaders of a Germanic society would not only be in charge in war, but also control trade and exchange. The parallels in the grave goods are commonly interpreted as an indication for close contacts between the Germanic groups, or tribes, that the graves belonged to. They could also express lines of exchange and trade, not only of military activity. Further, the aspect of redistribution and gifts to confirm political connection must not be neglected.

Moreover, in the small stretch between the Schale and the Sude, defining a line between the Elbe and the Bay of Wismar by the Baltic Sea, finds of bronze, glass and silver vessels are lying like pearls in a row. Further their location corresponds well with the modern railway line leading from the Elbe to the town of Wismar, by the Baltic. Given the above case studies, this could represent an indication for a portage. Located at a connecting land route between two waterways we have here: 1. Rich settlements (in this case rich graves) => these could be indicating a control position. 2. A concentration of import finds => these could indicate a participation in long distance transport. As Pauli and others have shown, the long-distance import, representing status goods, are usually not the object, but the fruit of a trade with other goods. In this case it could, amongst others, be furs from north-eastern Europe, as documented in written sources (Tacitus, Germania, 17).

Quite a number of these rich graves are found by a waterway or near important land ways (Fig. 4). So the graves might well be those of war lords, but at the same time indicate the location of an elite controlling trade and exchange. In our case it would be the trade route from the North Sea to the Baltic, which by all means would lead to the gathering of wealth.

But there is another aspect to it. Most of the finds have been found in graves. A large part of it comes from the gravesite of Hagenow, and some of them belong to the so-called “Haßleben-Leuna-Gruppe”. This is a group of very rich Roman-era graves that are connected by a couple of very characteristic common grave goods. They

Of course the heads of society controlled trade and transport, while at the same time they were in charge during war. It must not have been the same person, but 231

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Rule, M., 1990, The Romano-Celtic Ship Excavated at Peter Port, Guernsey. In McGrail, S. (Hrsg.), Maritme Celts, Frisians and Saxons, 49-56. London. Salac, V., 1998, Die Bedeutung der Elbe für die Böhmisch-Sächsischen Kontakte in der Latènezeit. Germania, 76/ 2: 573-617. Teigelake, Ulrike, 2000, Indications of Trade on Rivers and Lakes in Schleswig-Holstein, Northern Germany. In P. Sorokin, O. Boruslawskii (Hrsg.), Study on the Maritime Archaeology, Bd. 4, 115-131. St. Petersburg. Teigelake, Ulrike, 2003, Boat on the River - Developing and Applying Alternative Methods of Tracing Shipping Traffic in Inland Waters. Stockholm. Teigelake, Ulrike, 2003b, Eisen- und kaiserzeitliche Binnenschiffahrt in Norddeutschland und ihre Rolle im regionalen und überregionalen Austausch, unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Kiel 2003. Sorokin, P., 1997, Waterways and Shipbuilding in northwestern Russia in the Middle Ages. St. Petersburg. v. Carnap-Bornheim, C., 1999, Rom zwischen Weser und Ems. In M. Fansa (Hrsg.), Über allen Fronten, 19-32. Oldenburg. Wheeler, M., 1965, Der Fernhandel des Römischen Reiches. München, Wien. Sprockhoff, E., 1930, Zur Handelsgeschichte der germanischen Bronzezeit, Vorgeschichtliche Forschungen 7. Berlin.

members of the same elite. From these there might have been a redistribution of status goods to other elites or to lower ranking persons of the same society. Conclusion and summary The stretch of land between the River Elbe near Lauenburg and the town of Wismar by the Baltic could indicate a portage, but not in the sense of carrying the ship, but reloading and transporting over land. The distance from the North Sea and its tributary rivers to the Baltic is geographically seen as one of the shortest possible in this area. The reason for this supposition is the distribution of Roman high value import finds that are nearly marking a line between Wismar and Lauenburg. The land way then would have been controlled by an elite that was represented in the rich graves of Hagenow and further northwards. The fact that the Hagenow graves belong to a number of rich warrior graves showing strong contacts to the Roman Empire does not oppose against this interpretation, given that control of military activity and control of trade is usually carried out by members of the same elite. So far this has only been a thesis that still needs to be supported by facts. Aims of a further investigation would be to have a deeper look into the archaeological finds made in this area, to investigate the navigability of the rivers Schale and Sude, regarding the possibility of a use of these rivers for transport further north up to a certain point, and finally to study the evidence for landing and reloading places in this river system as well as by the Baltic coast near Wismar. References Erdrich, M., Von Schnurbein, S., 1992, Das Projekt: Römische Funde im mitteleuropäischen Barbaricum, dargestellt am Beispiel Niedersachsen, Vortrag zur Jahressitzung 1992 der Römisch-Germanischen Kommission. Ber. RGK, 73: 5-27. Hedeager, L., 1979, A Quantitative Analysis of Roman Imports in Europe North of the Limes (0-400 A.D.) and the Question of Roman-Germanic Exchange. In K. Kristiansen (Hrsg.), New Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology. Studies in Scandinavian Prehistory and Early History 1. The National Museum of Danmark, 191-216. Kopenhagen. Kunow, J., 1983, Der römische Import in der Germania Libera bis zu den Markomannenkriegen, Studien zu Bronze- und Glasgefäßen. Neumünster. Lund Hansen, U., 1987, Römischer Import im Norden. Kopenhagen. Marsden, P., 1967, A Roman Ship from Blackfriars, London. London. Pauli, L., 1993, Hallstatt und Frühlatènezeit. In H. Bender, L. Pauli, I. Stork (Hrsg.), Der Münsterberg in Breisach II, Hallstatt- und Latènezeit, 21- 172. München.

232

Schemes for artificial sea-river waterways in 17th century Courland Juris Urtāns so there was a need to find a way for boats to reach the sea without sailing to the river mouth. The place where the Lielupe approaches closest to the seashore – the distance between the river and the sea being 2.2 km – is near Sloka and Duke James had plans to create a waterway connecting the Lielupe directly with the sea.

In the 17th century, the Duchy of Courland came to exercise considerable influence in the Baltic Sea area. Conflicts started developing between the Duchy of Courland and the city of Riga, which was situated at the end of an important trade route along the River Daugava. The conflict was caused by serious attempts on the part of Riga to prevent Courland and its inhabitants from using the Daugava waterway. Under these conditions, Duke James started planning new artificial waterways that would bypass Riga, so that goods from Russia and Belarus might be transported through Courland, yielding profit both for the traders and the Duchy.

That Duke James had far-reaching plans is attested by the fact that he had started buying up or exchanging areas of land near the seashore at Sloka (Belte 1935: 36). Had the plan of linking the Lielupe with the sea been realised, Jelgava, the capital of the Duchy of Courland, would have had direct access to the sea via the Lielupe, ensuring direct transportation of goods to Jelgava and other domestic markets and, most importantly, domestic and Lithuanian produce could have been profitably exported from the Lielupe basin, paying no dues to Riga. The River Slocene also flowed in this isthmus, but its utilisation as a waterway was greatly hampered by the mill on it, the dam being a considerable obstacle to boats. To close down the profitable mill in favour of the waterway would have been too great an extravagance.

One of the grand plans of Duke James was to duplicate the Daugava waterway by joining the River Daugava with the Lielupe basin, thus enabling the transport of goods from Russia through Courland. Canal digging began in 1667, with a view to connecting the Eglaine, a left bank tributary of the Daugava, with the Vilkupe (Fig. 3), a right bank tributary of the Susēja, thus providing a link with the River Lielupe. The River Eglaine, 36 km long, began a couple of kilometres north of Asare, while the River Vilkupe or Vilku Stream, 7 km long, had its source in the same area of bog as the River Eglaine. In order to connect the upper reaches of both rivers, a canal of about 3.5 km length had to be dug. In August and September of 1667, about 400 men dug for four weeks, creating a ditch about two fathoms (more than 3m) wide. Digging was continued in the winter of 1668, when 200 men were employed in this work, and the ditch near the River Susēja was already three fathoms wide and two feet deep. The route of the canal was marked out along its whole length by removing the turf layer to a depth of one foot. When planning the route of the ditch, a mistake had been made, which meant that the ditch had an unnecessary curve. Near the River Eglaine, the crosssectional area of the ditch was only one square foot, and the water at the canal’s outlet to the River Susēja was only one foot deep. As the width of the River Eglaine in its upper reaches was hardly one fathom, the Duke ordered 50 workmen to straighten out the curve and clean the river of fallen trees in the winter of 1667-1678.

Riga was seriously concerned about the possible loss of its income if Courland started using the River Slocene as a connection to the sea and thus, in the spring of 1668, the city sent engineer J. Svenburg to scout out the situation in Sloka. J. Svenburg produced an extensive report on what he had seen: “In accordance with the just order of your High and Honourable City Council and on its behalf, I arrived at Sloka on 15 April. Having inspected the upper course of the river beyond the mill, I visited the miller as well. He is the technical manager of the mill and other work undertaken by His Highness the Duke. In response to my request, the miller described the objectives of His Highness the Duke and the working conditions as follows: since old times, the peasants of the Duke were accustomed to sail down the river from the nearby Lake Kaņieris, where they keep their boats, to Lake Sloka and then along the River Slocene as far as the mill dam, where they sold fish on market days; or they unloaded their boats there, hauled them over the dam near the mill, then loaded them again in the Lielupe and continued on their way either to Jelgava or Riga. A couple of years ago, the hauling of boats was interrupted, since it damaged the dam and caused other kinds of inconvenience. Now His Highness the Duke would like to renew this traffic, but, as the mill cannot be removed without incurring huge losses, the Duke has decided to connect the Rivers Sloka and Lielupe with a wide ditch running across the dam and provided with two sluices, forming a reservoir to be used for shipping. The line of

However, this venture by Duke James to link the Daugava and Lielupe basins did not proceed very well, so in the summer of 1668 he gave up the work, signing a document stating that this had been done in order to favour the interests of Riga (Pāvulāns 1971: 201-202). Nowadays, a drainage ditch runs along the course of the old canal on the side adjoining the River Eglaine, and the old 17th century Eglaine-Vilkupe ditch or canal may have survived only for about 500 m in length. The mouth of the Lielupe was also in the hands of Riga, 233

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig 1. Plan of the hamlet of Sloka from 1783, showing the location of the Sloka Mill and canal (marked with a circle) (After: Broce, 1996, 379).

Fig. 2 J. Svenburg’s plan showing the idea of the duplication of the Daugava waterway (after: Juškevičs, 287).

234

JURIS URTĀNS: SCHEMES FOR ARTIFICIAL SEA-RIVER WATERWAYS IN 17TH CENTURY COURLAND

Fig 3. Remains of the canal between the Eglaine and the Vilkupe Rivers.

string of 30 peasant carts transported its cargo from Kauguri to Sloka, and only from there part of the cargo was taken further to Jelgava (Pāvulāns 1971: 200). The written records point to the non-existence of a direct waterway between the Lielupe and the sea. According to J. Juškevičs, a River Slocene canal had been built (Juškevičs 1931: 296). The issue of whether a functioning waterway was actually constructed is still open. In general, historians believe that the canal or waterway was only partially constructed (Kultūra 1996: 45).

the ditch was shown to me by the miller himself on my way back. A section of an old ditch had been used for this ditch, as well as an area of low ground; the ditch is one shot long.” Further, engineer J. Svenburg described the flow of the River Slocene, the depth of the lakes and the meadow between Lake Kaņieris and the sea, which might be used for the canal (Juškevičs 1931: 293-294). In the 17th century “a musket shot” equalled about 300 steps (Zemzaris 1981: 34). Thus, using the metric system, the ditch might have been about 250 m long.

Today the Sloka Mill, once such an obstacle for boats, no longer exists, and even its location is not quite certain. The first written evidence of the existence of the Sloka Mill dates from the year 1520, when it was in the possession of the Livonian Order (Brotze 1992: 383). The mill was of sturdy construction, built by the Livonian Order, and therefore could serve, and sometimes actually did, as a fortification or refuge for the Order. As Sloka is situated in a swampy area, and since, except for the lower reaches of the river Slocene, there is no other river with a more rapid flow, the mill could have been built only here. The strategic importance of the location of the Sloka Mill also related to the presence of the old road that connected Riga, the centre of the Livonian Order, with Courland, and led further on to Prussia. This road crossed the Lielupe near the mill, where there was a ferry. In 1480, the River Slocene was mentioned as marking the border between Courland and Semigallia (Belte 1935: 242). The Peace of Oliva, in 1660, mentions the Slocene as the border river between the Duchy of Courland and Swedish Livland. Moreover, the treaty states that the border lies along a small river “called the Sloka, where an earthwork of an outpost or fortification with a mill is located”

Historical records do not contain any indication of whether the work here was interrupted in the same manner as the Daugava project, or whether this idea of Duke James was actually implemented. Svenburg’s report states that the ditch with sluices was only an intention of the Duke’s, although some other ditch already existed on that site. The historian J. Juškevičs believes that the plans of the Duke had taken effect at Sloka, since otherwise there is no explanation for the booming activity at the neighbouring Kauguri port in the years that followed (Juškevičs 1931: 294). On the other hand, V.Pāvulāns, researcher of old communication routes in Latvia, has pointed out that there is no written evidence that the Duke’s ideas were implemented. Also, in later reports, written in February and July of 1689 by another scout, Rupert Bindenschu, an architect and engineer, no mention is made of any canal here. Bindenschu wrote that goods were transported from the port at Kauguri to Sloka using overland routes across the dunes, thus reaching the Lielupe, whence they were transported farther by boats. In the spring of 1696, when a ship came to Kauguri, a 235

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig 4. The basins of the Daugava and the Lielupe Rivers in Latvia. 1 – scheme for joining the Eglaine and the Vilkupe; 2 – scheme for joining the Lielupe River and the Baltic Sea via the Slocene (both maps after: Pāvulāns, 1971, 204).

Sloka and Lielupe to Riga (Senās… 1940: 377-378). Thus, already in the middle of the 13th century, the River Sloka or Slocene was used for shipping, and barges travelled along the river in both directions. (It is hardly imaginable that special boats were built in the upper course of the river for shipping firewood.) In later times too, even in the middle of the 19th century, “rafts loaded with beams, logs, firewood and poles were passing from the neighbourhood of Tukums and Lake Valgums along the Vecupe, Lake Kaņieris and Lake Duņerezers /…/, the Sloceņezers and past the old Sloka Mill to the Lielupe and the Daugava.” (Stūlis 1937: 8).

(Belte 1935: 37). The road, the mill and the ferry were preconditions for the development of the settlement of Sloka, which flourished during the reign of Duke James, when a glassworks, a copper foundry and a lime kiln were opened. The River Slocene is mentioned already in a treaty of 1255 between the Livonian Order and the City of Riga, which might indicate the importance of this location already in earlier times. In this document, signed to establish a pact between Anno, Master of the Order, and the City Council of Riga, directed against Albert, the Archbishop of Riga, in addition to other permissions, the inhabitants of Riga were granted the right to take firewood in barges from Lake Kaņieris along the Rivers 236

JURIS URTĀNS: SCHEMES FOR ARTIFICIAL SEA-RIVER WATERWAYS IN 17TH CENTURY COURLAND

Fig 5. The River Slocene.

function of a profitable mill and left the river free for barges. The approach described by the engineer Svenburg was also possible: a ditch or canal was dug near the mill, and with the help of sluices, boats were enabled to bypass the mill. There is another theoretical possibility: the mill was originally on the former channel of the River Slocene, and the canal we see today was dug around it, with sluices installed to serve the needs of shipping; afterwards, with the incorporation of the district of Sloka in 1783, and later the whole Duchy of Courland, into the Russian Empire, there ceased to be any need to bypass Riga. Thus, boats did not actually need the waterway any more, and so the old canal was adapted to the needs of the mill, which was built on a new site.

In the year 1807, Sloka Mill was drawn and described by J.Ch. Brotze, a well-known researcher of local history and contemporary affairs. The picture shows a large structure, which had two pairs of millstones, and other buildings next to the mill (Brotze 1992: 382-282). Another drawing by J.Ch. Brotze is a plan of the hamlet of Sloka, also indicating the location of Sloka Mill. The latter plan, drawn in about 1783, also shows an island in the lower reaches of the River Slocene. The mill is situated on Sloka side of the island (Brotze 1992: 372). This is the place where today Dzirnavu (Mill) Street in Sloka reaches the River Slocene. The street name serves as verbal evidence of the former existence of the mill here, since today no other evidence may be found on the site, which has outbuildings from the Soviet period. One of the arms of the River Slocene is an artificially dug straight canal, corresponding to the description of J. Svenburg – “the ditch is one shot long.” It might be supposed that this is the same canal as the artificially dug canal for bypassing the mill referred to by J.Juškevičs (Juškevičs 1931: 296). The mill canal is also clearly seen in a postcard from the turn of the 20th century. This is the same canal seen here today. Such canals are known as derivation canals, built for working mills in cases when for some reason or other it is impossible to establish a dam on the river itself. In such a case, a canal is dug parallel to the river, water flows in the canal for a certain distance and then, falling from a suitable height, works a mill. Thus, no dam is needed in the river, which remains free for shipping. It is very likely that this kind of solution was hit upon by the counsellors of Duke James, since it provided the possibility of maintaining the

Since the scout J. Svenburg reports that boats were hauled over the dam of the mill, it is clear that up to the year 1688, the Sloka Mill on the River Slocene operated following the common pattern, with a dam that spanned a river. The remnants of the old dam seem to be traceable on the right bank of the original bed of the Slocene, opposite the place at the end of the canal where the mill was situated in later times, as drawn by J.Ch. Brotze and seen on the postcard from the turn of the 20th century. As can be judged from the drawing by Brotze, there was a road crossing the river as well. It is likely that the mill dam was also used for overland travel. At the beginning of the 17th century, during the SwedishPolish War, the Swedes built a fortification near the mill (Belte 1935: 242). The above-mentioned 1660 Peace of Oliva refers to an earthwork of the outpost or a 237

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

as a waterway. Later, in the middle of the 19th century, when such an outlet – the Starpiņupe – developed or was created (a lessee of the estate lands ordered the digging of a ditch one spade wide and deep between the lake and the sea, and then the spring floodwaters created in a couple of hours an outlet several metres wide and deep), Sloka Mill suffered from a shortage of water, which was the cause of a dispute and litigation between the millers and the holders of the neighbouring lands. In former times, before the Starpiņupe came into existence, the mill dam had flooded the land near the lake (Stūlis 1937: 9-11).

fortification near a mill. In those times, an earthwork was taken to mean an artificial earthen bank, quadrangular, or less commonly polygonal in shape, serving for protection against enemy attack and constructed with characteristic corner bastions, providing the possibility of both frontal and flanking fire from the edge of the earthwork. Usually, an earthwork was surrounded by a moat. As the Slocene was mentioned as the border river, the earthwork had to be located on the Swedish or Livland side, namely on the left bank of the Slocene. Today, no traces of it are visible. It is likely that some clue as to the location of the Sloka earthwork might be found in Brotze’s 1783 plan of the hamlet of Sloka, where, near the mill on the left bank of the Slocene, a field of unusual configuration is seen. The contour of the field might be one side of the earthwork with a bastion, suggesting that the field was cultivated on the site of a formerly existing earthwork. Today this area is covered with allotments, and all the possible old earthen constructions have been levelled in later times.

The presently available evidence supports the idea that in the lower reaches of the River Slocene a fairly simple solution had been implemented of providing a waterway for boats, bypassing the Sloka Mill, and that the Lielupe was not directly connected with the sea. It is likely that Duke James was actually not the first to consider the idea of a canal bypassing the Sloka Mill, and that such an idea had been implemented before his time, since in 1686 the engineer J. Svenburg wrote that some pre-existing ditch had been utilised for the new ditch. This might have been a natural arm of the River Slocene, but J. Svenburg did not refer to a river or an island, but instead used the word “ditch”.

At the place on the River Slocene where the canal begins, both on the right bank of the Slocene and at the end of the island, there are remnants of piled earth or a dam, a couple of metres high and about twenty metres wide, with piled stones in it. It is likely that Brotze was describing this very place in 1807 when he wrote that “on the other side of the Dzirnupe (Slocene – J.U.), where the water level is raised and may be drained in case there is too much water, lies Bāžciems” (Brotze 1992: 382). Such a dam with water-gates might have been built already at the end of the 17th century and may have been used for letting water from the reservoir into the mill canal to operate the mill, or into the main channel of the River Slocene, enabling boats to sail on the river. The reservoir facilitated shipping and floating of timber in times when the river was shallow.

Bibliography Belte P. Rīgas Jūrmalas, Slokas un Ķemeru pilsētas ar apkārtni. Vēsturisks apskats. (The Towns of Rīgas Jūrmala, Sloka and Ķemeri and their neigbourhood. A Historical survey.) – Rīgas Jūrmala, 1935 Broce J. K. Zīmējumi un apraksti. - 2. sēj. (J.Ch. Brotze. Drawings and Descriptions. Vol. 2) – Rīga, 1996 Dimbira.I., Kleina M., Naudiša A. Pētersone A., Pētersons R. Kultūras pieminekļi Jūrmalā. (Cultural Monuments in Jūrmala) – Jūrmala, 1996 Juškevičs J. Hercoga Jēkaba laikmets Kurzemē (The Age of Duke James in Courland) – Rīga, 1931 Pāvulāns V. Satiksmes ceļi Latvijā XIII-XVII gs. (Communication Routes in Latvia in the 13th-17th century) – Rīga, 1971 Senās Latvijas vēstures avoti.- II sēj., 2. burtn. (Sources on the Early History of Latvia, Vol. II, Part 2) – Rīga, 1940 Stūlis J. Bigauņciems un apkārtnes zvejnieki. (The Village of Bigauņciems and the Fishermen of the Neighbourhood) – Rīga, 1937 Zemzaris J. Mērs un svars Latvijā 13.-19.gs. (Measures and Weights in Latvia in the 13th-19th century) – Rīga, 1981.

From Lake Kaņieris, the River Slocene had to be connected with the sea. A canal connecting Lake Kaņieris with the sea still exists today under the name Starpiņupe. However, the Starpiņupe came into existence only in the middle of the 19th century. Had this canal been dug already during the time of Duke James, his objective would have been achieved: the Lielupe waterway would have had a direct connection with the sea. Moreover, in the map drawn by Brotze of the Sloka district, marking the borders of the district in the year 1783, when it was incorporated in the Russian Empire, no watercourse connecting Lake Kaņieris with the sea can be seen. True, it is rather a sketch map, but the River Slocene and Lake Sloka are shown clearly enough. A map by L.A.Mellinn, dating from 1791, shows the same situation – Lake Kaņieris is not connected with the sea (Belte 1935: 48). Does this imply that there was no canal connecting Lake Kaņieris with the sea at the end of the 18th century and that no such canal was dug in the 1660s, in the time of Duke James? The lowering of the water level in the River Slocene after the possible opening of a canal between Lake Kaņieris and the sea could definitely have had a negative impact upon the idea of developing the Slocene 238

Place-Name Evidence for Portages in Orkney and Shetland Doreen Waugh one side of an isthmus to a different boat waiting on the other side.

Introduction I should like to begin by thanking the conference organisers for giving me the opportunity to express my views on place-name evidence for portages in Orkney and Shetland, in spite of my admission to harbouring some doubts about the regular interpretation of Old Norse (ON) eið as a location where portage took place, rather than just as an isthmus of land. When is an isthmus solely a topographical feature and when is it part of the economic landscape, used and named as a route for the movement of goods and/or boats from one coast to another? At first, I was very much inclined to interpret eið as an appellative used by the name-givers to describe an isthmus, and nothing more than that in most instances, although it could, on occasion, have been used to denote a farm or township located on the isthmus from the start. Evidence to prove that the neck of an isthmus was used as a portage route is regrettably insubstantial for both Orkney and Shetland and further study of the relevant place-names has not altered my initial perception of lack of historical evidence, although it has substantially shaken my earlier belief that eið is solely topographical in its reference in the Northern Isles. I have found only a few pieces of documentary evidence to the contrary but, in spite of this lack, I have become less doubtful about the application of eið in the sense of portage and, in this paper, I shall attempt to explain why that is the case.

The first real softening of my attitude occurred, however, when I was reminded of a reference to the late-eighteenth century dragging of a sixareen or six-oared boat from one part of Nesting in Shetland (Fig. 1) to another and a sixareen is, by no means, an insignificant boat in terms of size and weight. The distance by land, in this instance was not much shorter than the distance by sea and I began to think that perhaps my sceptical attitude was unjustified and that there were people for whom pulling boats across land was standard practice, dictated by a common-sense approach to the coastal maritime environment. The record of the movement of the sixareen across land in Nesting was passed on by word of mouth in the first instance and then recorded in an article by three local historians who wrote a chapter in a book on developments in Shetland landscape archaeology. Their comment on the portage of the sixareen is set in the context of a discussion of dykes and ridges in the landscape and the movement of the boat is described as follows: ‘Beyond the township the landscape must have appeared open. In fact the late Geordie Gair (a local historian) spoke of John Sutherland of Gletness and his four sons dragging a large sixareen from the North Voe of Gletness to the Hame Ayre of South Gletness in 1776, unhindered by dykes, a feat which would not have been possible at the end of the nineteenth century.’2

Eiðs in the Northern Isles The historian, Barbara Crawford, whose opinions and knowledge I respect, stated in her book entitled Scandinavian Scotland that:

The chief focus of this paper will be on the linkages between possible portage sites in Shetland, rather than in Orkney, but I should like to begin by discussing eið names from both Orkney and Shetland. Generally speaking, there are many toponymic parallels between the two sets of islands and I therefore expected to find those eið names which are recorded by Hugh Marwick in his book on Orkney Farm-Names3 following the same toponymic patterns as the eið names in Shetland, and that is substantially true but there are a few differences in usage. Principally, as I have already said, there is a difference in the quantity of such names, with Shetland having more surviving eið names than Orkney. The element eið occurs in its simplex form in both Orkney and Shetland but it is only in Shetland that it is now used in the Norse compound Aithsetter, which refers directly to human habitation and clearly suggests human activity in the area, although Hugh Marwick does record one example of Aithstoun, now lost, from Sandwick in

‘The Vikings’ ability to use narrow necks of land over which they dragged their boats in order to circumvent long sea routes is not to be underestimated. Wherever the Old Norse element eið can be traced in a place-name it is certain that the isthmus would have been used as a portage.’1 My problem with such certainty was that I found it difficult initially to accept that some of the places called Aith in the Northern Isles could ever have been used as portages. Why struggle to drag a large boat across the land when it would be so much easier to sail round the land? I did accept that on occasion the portage might have been of goods rather than boats and was swayed by that argument. I did also find it easy to believe that people and animals might have crossed from a boat on

2 1

3

Crawford 1987: 24

239

Leask, Bradley & Bradley 1998: 85 Marwick 1952

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 1: Language map of the Shetland Islands: Jakob Jakobsen 1936.

240

DOREEN WAUGH: PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE FOR PORTAGES IN ORKNEY AND SHETLAND Orkney, dated 1595.4 Whether this is a different name from Aith, Sandwick, itself is very debatable. Only one place is recorded as Aiths Town on an 18th century chart of the area5 and in the ‘Rental Orchade, pro Rege et Episcopo 1595’ as Aithston6 but two names – Aith and Upsale – are listed together in Lord Henry Sinclair’s 1492 Rental of Orkney.7 All the simplex Aith-names now apply to human habitation and some of them to crofts and townships of significant size and longevity as farmed land. It is possible that some of the Aith-names denoted human habitation located on the isthmus right from the start.

and Shetland in a way which does allow them to be interpreted as a network of portages to facilitate human movement of boats and goods around and across the islands. I shall air the possibilities which come to mind, although I remain conscious of the danger of seeing patterns where none may exist. Some eið names from both Orkney and Shetland are listed on your handout. A few further names have also been suggested as possible eið names but those listed here are the most convincing, etymologically speaking. The occasional question mark indicates that there is some uncertainty about the etymology of the place-name in question but that, on the whole, I am open to persuasion that it could be an eið name:

Although eið is not a particularly common place-name element in either Orkney or Shetland, the fact that it occurs more frequently in Shetland than in Orkney, could suggest that if portage was taking place, it was more often practised in Shetland than in Orkney. Once again, from a purely pragmatic point of view, that seemed surprising to me because the flatness of the land in Orkney would seem ideal for the transfer of sailing or rowing boats themselves or for transfer of goods from the boats from one shore to another and, by comparison, it would seem that the much more rugged terrain of Shetland should have acted as an immediate deterrent to any such venture. Presumably the roughness of the surrounding sea, the distance round the headland which was being by-passed and the possible danger from coastal rocks or tidal swirls were the deciding factors, rather than the flatness of the land. This opinion has been substantiated by Louise Hollinrake’s observations about sea conditions and tides in Orkney.8 She is herself a canoeist who has considered portages from the practical point of view.

Orkney (Fig. 2) Aith; Bight of Aith – island of Stronsay Aith – west mainland of Orkney Aith; Aithsdale; Aith Hope; Aith Head; Bu of Aith – island of Walls Hoxa – island of South Ronaldsday Eday – itself an island, with a notable narrowing at the middle Doomy (?), Bay of Doomy, Loch of Doomy, Sands of Doomy – Eday Scapa – parish of St Ola, in the heart of which lies the main town of Kirkwall The Orkney locations surround mainland Orkney, lying respectively to the north (Eday), east (Stronsay), south (Walls, and Scapa in the parish of St Ola) and on the west (parish of Sandwick, behind the bay of Skaill on mainland Orkney). The isthmuses which they describe on the smaller islands of Eday, Stronsay and Walls could certainly have been used as route-ways for local transport of goods or people. Aith, on the west mainland of Orkney, is in an interesting location because there is no obvious coastal neck of land to which it could apply. The current name, referred to as West Aith, lies on the eastern side of the Loch of Skaill and it seems likely that it may refer to one or both of the two stretches of land lying between the Loch of Skaill and the Lochs of Harray and Stenness respectively, which could have been used for the transfer of boats or goods into the heart of mainland Orkney and thence across to Kirkwall via the Bay of Firth or north to Dounby market. Alternatively the portage could have been used to give a more sheltered approach for boats wishing to enter Scapa Flow coming from the north-west, or wishing to leave Scapa Flow with goods for the north-west mainland. This route, if it existed, must have been from the Bay of Skaill, through Skaill Loch, across the Aith into the Loch of Stenness from which it would have been easy to reach the Brig of

One observation, with regard to both Orkney and Shetland eið names, is that they occur in convincingly strategic locations for actual portage, which, in combination with the restricted use of the element in place-names, did begin to persuade me towards its interpretation as a possible site for portage rather than a purely topographical reference. This is particularly true of Shetland where there are many, many necks of land which could have been individually described as an isthmus or eið but which were not so described. This seems to me to confirm that there could be a very specific cognitive purpose behind the naming of certain pieces of land as eiðs, amidst the plethora of necks of land which were not so named. Equally, it seems perverse that one or two of the places, in both Orkney and Shetland, which do have eið names have no very evident isthmus in their vicinity and the most likely explanation is that eið could denote something more than an isthmus, such as a route between two landing places where portage was practised. As I have said, the few places which actually are given the name eið are distributed around the coast of Orkney 4

Marwick 1952: 148 Thomson 1996: 28 6 Peterkin 1820: 46 7 Peterkin 1820: 56 8 Hollinrake 2003: unpublished essay for Orkney College course 5

241

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 2: General map of Orkney.

242

DOREEN WAUGH: PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE FOR PORTAGES IN ORKNEY AND SHETLAND Waith.9 This would have been an unusually long portage but one which avoided a particularly dangerous piece of coast.10 The Scots word waith is listed11 as occurring from the 15th century onwards but it seems reasonable to assume that in most cases the development from Norn in both Orkney and Shetland would have been seamless.

reference to the large broch-mound on the isthmus.16 Dating of place-names is always a major problem in the Northern Isles because early documentary references are scarce. It is a problem which I shall side-step in this paper but I would say that the likelihood is that simplex topographical descriptors, such as eið, which have then gone on to become township and village names are strong contenders for having been created in the early period of Scandinavian settlement in the islands, post-800 AD. It is most useful when names such as Skalpeið appear in comparatively early texts like the 13th century Orkneyinga saga.

The name Scapa itself is an eið name, recorded definitively in Orkneyinga saga as ‘Skalpeið.’12 Marwick notes that ‘ON skalpr was a poetic term for a ship, but its more prosaic sense was that of a sword-sheath … and it could be used in place-names for ‘a long hollow or depression in the terrain.’ That is exactly what there is between Scapa and the sea to the north, and the name might be understood as ‘long valley isthmus’. On the other hand, if the original idea of ‘something cleft in two’ survived in the term skalpr, Scapa might be interpreted as the isthmus cleaving the Orkney Mainland in two’.13 Whether the specific in the name Scapa refers to a ship or to a topographical feature, there can be little doubt that Scapa was used as a portage site, giving access from the north to Scapa Flow, which became particularly well known as a sheltered anchorage for much larger ships during the last century. Traffic would, of course, have been two-way, with transfer of goods and boats from Scapa Flow to the various islands of Orkney lying to the north.

The other intractable problem which one encounters is identification of the individual elements in place-names, such as Doomy, for which few early references exist. I have listed Doomy with a question mark because I am uncertain of its etymology but it is a name which interests me and it is included here more by way of putting a question to the readership. Do other such names exist elsewhere? Doomy forms the west part of the eið at Eday and it appears to refer to a mound. Derivative names are all later topographical references (Bay of …, Sands of …, Loch of …) and Doomy has not gone on to become a farm name. Could the specific be dómr and could this have been a site at which a local court met, with its location being selected by position on the narrow isthmus or eið which could be approached from various directions by boat?17

In general the Orkney eið names have not expanded into local clusters of names, based on the central eið name with the addition of other elements such as ON nes, vík etc, to quite the same extent as the Shetland eið names have done. Aith in Stronsay has been used in the English construction, Bight of Aith, describing the wide bay. From Aith in South Walls a few more subsidiary names have developed: Aith Hope, Aith Head and Aithsdale and, significantly, as Marwick points out, Aith was ‘‘an urisland tunship’14 recorded in the 1492 (Peterkin rental) and all later rentals with the head house of the tunship called the ‘Bu of Aith’ from ON bú ‘farmstead or estate’.15 Aith Head is, of course, a later English construction and Aith Hope and Aithsdale are, at the very least, anglicised from ON hóp ‘small, land-locked bay’ and dalr ‘valley’ and it is perfectly possible that they were created by English speakers. Whatever its date of origin, Aith in South Walls was evidently an important local crossing place, for which Marwick, using Orkneyinga saga as his source, convincingly suggests derivation from ‘ON haugs-eið, mound-isthmus’ with

Shetland Aith; Burn of Aith; Aith Ness; Wick of Aith; Aiths Lee; Aithbank – Fetlar Aiths Hamar – Yell Lunna; Lunnasting – north-east mainland18 Aith – Whalsay (?) Brae - north mainland Mavis Grind; Northmaven – northern part of mainland Shetland Aith; Aithsting parish; Aithsness; Loch of Aithsness; Stead of Aithsness; Aith Ness; Aith Voe – Westside of Shetland Effirth – Westside of Shetland Aith; Aithness; Loch of Aithness; Aith Voe; Loch of Aith; Brecks of Aith; Leir Wick of Aith; Minni of Aith – Bressay Aith; Aithsetter; Aithsness; Aith Voe; Aith Wick; Burn of Aith – Cunningsburgh Brae – Foula, cf Brae in the north mainland The Shetland examples of Aith, both as generic and as specific in names with another topographical generic, such as Aithsness, are scattered throughout the islands. The most northerly example is in the island of Fetlar,

9

Scots waith ‘the action or practice of hunting or fishing chf unlawfully 15 – e18; waithing ‘a catch of fish la15 -16’; ON veiðr ‘a catch, hunting, fishing.’ 10 An interesting article on waith and waithing appeared in a recent edition of the Shetland Folk Book Smith 1995: 102-108. 11 Dictionary of the Scots Language website, under Dictionary of the Older Scottish Tongue: www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/ 12 Pálsson & Edwards 1978: passim 13 Marwick 1952: 100 14 Marwick 1952: 182 15 Marwick 1952: 240; Thomson 2001: 51

16

Marwick 1952: 172. I owe thanks to Pete Mason of Eday, Orkney, who has an interest in local history and who has provided me with much useful information and photographs of the location of Doomy. 18 Stewart, 1987: 80 17

243

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

from which, incidentally, a direct sailing course can be set to the west Norwegian coast. The Vikings with their superb seamanship and tested sailing craft would have found the journey from the Norwegian coast to Shetland well within their capabilities. Landfall in Fetlar would, no doubt, have been welcome and it has been convincingly argued that there must have been contact between Shetland and Norway well before the period of actual settlement in Shetland, if only for the establishment of raiding bases from which the Vikings could harry further south before retreating to Norway with their spoils. 19 The names of the northern isles of Shetland – Unst, Yell and Fetlar – are pre-Norse, unlike almost all the other names in Shetland which are either Norse or, later, Scots. This implies that the Norwegian Vikings knew the names and became so familiar with them in the early raiding period that they continued using them and did not replace them once they had moved in to use the land themselves.

This isthmus on Fetlar could, of course, have been used by people living on Unst – perhaps in Clugan, Sand Wick or Uyeasound – who wanted to reach places such as Funzie, and Aith itself, in the south-eastern part of Fetlar. I find this a very likely scenario for its continuing use throughout the centuries, and possibly even for the initial creation of the name as well. In this Unst/Fetlar context, I am reminded of the fact that there is another word for an isthmus which was current until at least the 19th century and is still remembered by some local inhabitants today in Muness in Unst. The word, in its dialect form, is je or jæ as recorded by Jakob Jakobsen and it is used in placenames to describe a low-lying spit of land covered by water at flood-tide and often used for access to off-shore islands where animals were being grazed. Jakobsen describes it as having arisen from ON eið with prefixed [j].24 There is an off-shore island on the east side of Unst called Huney, which lies opposite the township of Clugan, and which is linked to the mainland at low water by such a spit of sand. It is interesting to note that it is sometimes called ‘De Je o Klugen’ and sometimes ‘De Je o Hune’, presumably depending on the perspective of the namer. Clugan, incidentally, is an unusual name in Shetland and the only other example is beside the Wick of Gruting in Fetlar, emphasising contact between the two islands.

The cluster of Aith names in Fetlar contains examples of other elements which are common in the placenomenclature of Shetland and which have remained in use throughout most of the centuries which have passed since the Early Norse period. ON nes (Aith Ness), hlíð ‘a slope’ (Aithslee) and bakki ‘a coastal bank or cliff’ (Aithbank) are ubiquitous in Shetland, as is the later Scots construction ‘Burn of …’, ‘Wick of …’.20 Aith (Fetlar) itself first appears, as far as I have been able to ascertain, in a document dated 1589 in which it is recorded as having ‘6 marks land’.21 Compare this with other neighbouring places, ‘to wit: 20 marks land in Trestay, 43½ marks land in Funye, 15½ marks land in Hubie and 29 marks land in Hubie’22 and Aith is placed in its 16th century context in terms of extent or value. Note that Trestay, in the above list, is an example of a place-name containing staðir, which would imply early Norse settlement on the island. There is, also, potential archaeological evidence of earlier Viking period activity in the area, in that there is a Viking boat burial at Aith, although Graham-Campbell and Batey are cautious in their interpretation. They say: ‘A Viking period boatburial seems to be suggested by the ‘several dozen’ iron rivets found in a disturbed oval mound, known as the ‘Giant’s Grave’, above the beach at Wick of Aith, on Fetlar. According to local tradition, in the nineteenth century, a giant had been buried here with his boat inverted over him and his money under his head!’23 There are other possible early Norse settlement sites in the locality as well which have not been fully excavated. The eið itself is presumably the land running from the Wick of Gruting to the Wick of Aith at the narrow point in the island.

If the possibility of a framework of linked eið names is granted, the next landfall would be in southern Yell where the only surviving eið place-name is Aiths Hamar at the inner end of Burra Voe. The adjacent archaeological remains near the village of Burravoe are the remains of the broch (ON borg) which gave the settlement its name. Other neighbouring place-names confirm that there was substantial early Norse settlement in south Yell. There is, for instance, a staðir name at Ulsta, just along the coast from Burravoe, where the modern ferry linking Yell with the mainland now has its terminal. In the past, however, travellers could have taken a variety of sea routes south from or north to Yell, depending on their intended destination or point of departure and the following would have been important routes south: • •

to Lunna, sailing in the shelter of Lunna Ness and into Swining Voe where the isthmus at Lunna is located to Brae and Mavis Grind, via Sullom Voe.

Lunna is a place-name in its own right and it is also the specific in Lunnasting which is one of the þing names of Shetland, identified by Jakobsen as *lund-eiðs-þing but, since his source is a deed of partition of property dated 1490 in which the reference is to ‘i luneidestingom’,25 it must also be possible that the specific in Lunna is ON hlunnr ‘a roller laid down at a landing place over which a

19

Crawford 1987: 46 Nicolaisen 1983: 69-85 21 SRO, E.2/16, ff 66-70. In Ballantyne & Smith 1994: 69 22 Ballantyne & Smith ibid. 23 Graham-Campbell and Batey 1998: 64 20

24 25

244

Jakobsen 1985: 387 Jakobsen 1993: 125; DN, viii, no. 426

DOREEN WAUGH: PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE FOR PORTAGES IN ORKNEY AND SHETLAND arisen. In a deed of Sept.11 1490, Bergen … the present Northmavine is called ‘Maweds otting’.28

boat was drawn’. Whatever the specific, there is no doubt that this is an eið name and that, like Aithsting on the Westside, it is the location of a local assembly – which could give tangential support to the suggested interpretation of Doomy as an eið where a local court met in Orkney. From Lunna it would have been possible to cross to Vidlin, a name possibly derived from ON vaðill or vöðull ‘a ford’, and perhaps even to cross by land from Vidlin to Durie Voe and, from there, by sea to Whalsay. Could Durie possibly be another eið name, with its specific being ON dýr, the generic word for an animal? Jakobsen makes one of his occasional, ill-advised sorties into Cymric or Welsh in his attempt to explain Durie Voe but no really satisfactory explanation has been found. Nowadays there is an expanse of sand at the top end of Durie Voe which can certainly be crossed at low tide and which, speculatively, could have been used as a crossing to shorten the route to Nesting – also a þing name. According to Jakobsen, there is another simplex Aith in Whalsay26 which may possibly have been located where the hugely expanded village of Symbister now stands, although there is no obvious land feature which would qualify as an isthmus and there is no present memory of the name. If such a place-name existed in Whalsay, it might support the possibility suggested above that eið is an element which could be used in the sense of marking the end of an established portage route. The same applies to Aith in Aithsting, which will be discussed later.

There is written evidence – in a letter now held in the Shetland Archives, Lerwick – of comparatively recent use of Mavis Grind for passage by boat from the west to the north: Letter from Barbara Johnson, Otterswick, East Yell, 25th January 1941, to Peter Jamieson. ‘Weel, I am able to tell you the year and month my father in law removed to Yell. It was in February, 1864. He told me the story or so much of it. He said they left Papa Stour before daylight with two sixerns. One had 2 cows and so much fodder (corn & hay) as was supposed to feed them till grass came, and the other sixern had him & his wife & two Bairns, the oldest a girl 3½ years, and a boy (my husband) 13 months. They reached Mavisgrind and had to disload everything and heave the sixerns across, then load again, and reached the beach of Otterswick about 11 p.m. I don’t mind him say what like the weather was. I forgot to say they had a young woman we [with] them, Barbara Fraser by name, who stayed we them for some time ..... two young men here both fell in love we the said Barbara Fraser.

Returning to Burravoe on the island of Yell, one can set off again, this time via Sullom Voe, on another route south to the portages at Brae and Mavis Grind (Fig. 3). Sullom Voe is a particularly long, deep voe which almost cuts North Mavine off from the rest of the mainland, were it not for the narrow, flat neck of land at Brae, which travellers could cross to gain access to Busta Voe, Olnafirth Voe and points south. Incidentally, a land crossing, using packhorses, from Olnafirth Voe to Durie Voe would not have been too difficult. From Busta Voe, boats can sail in the shelter of Muckle Roe and Papa Little, via Aith Voe, to the next landfall at Aith in Aithsting. There is no doubt that Brae, here and in Foula – pronounced with a diphthong [brεi] – is an eið name, from an original *breið-eið ‘broad isthmus’ as opposed to Mavis Grind, the narrow outlet to the Atlantic Ocean on the west, which derives from *mæf-eiðs grind ‘gate of the narrow isthmus’.27 To the north of this narrow isthmus is the parish of North Mavine, the name of which emphasises the importance of the isthmus by which it is joined to the mainland of Shetland. Jakobsen notes that: ‘In a document of Aug.26, 1403 (S.N.F.VII) the form ‘Mæfeid’ occurs in the collocation ‘firer nordhan Mæfeid’; April 15, 1412: ‘for nordan Mawed’; in a deed of Aug. 11, 1512 is found ‘Norden Mæveid’, from which form the present name of the parish ‘Northmavine’ … has

For name or number of the sixerns I never heard any, but probably they were named. It was Housavoe they set sail from, and the house they left was I think the North Banks, at least it was the same house Gideon Sinclair was in no long ago. .... I cannot say what time of year the Jamiesons came to Yell but I think it would [have] been in 1866, but I may be able to get some information later, I know they came by the same route. With regard to the ’32 disaster the only outstanding thing I remember was a story or a tale about a Lunnasting sixern who was blown off and reached Norroway. How long it was afore they were any word of them being alive I canna say but of course they were long given up hops of, but apparently they were hospitably treated in Norway. And as the tale went (just a tale likely) one man named Sandy (Robertson I think) was sitting with his Norwegian rescuers, wished he knew how his wife and Bairns was. One of the Norwegians said what if he could tell him so he disappeared for a time and when he came back he telled Sandy what news was home, and that his wife was baking oatcakes at a table, and he produced a pocket knife, and said this was the knife she was cutting them we. When Sandy came home he asked his wife if ever she had seen the knife, she said a peerie black dog came in and clicked (took quickly) the knife one night she was baking. What rubbish.’29

26

28

27

Jakobsen 1993: 36 Jakobsen 1993: 36-37

29

245

Jakobsen 1993: 37 Shetland Archives, Lerwick D.9/114/3

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 3: Mavis Grind, Shetland. Photo by Diana Whaley, University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

This is a mixture of folktale and historical accuracy but it certainly shows that the crossing at Mavis Grind was still being used as a portage in the mid-19th century, with two boats carrying the family and all their worldly goods. I have recorded rather more of the tale than is strictly necessary because of the reference to a boat being blown off course and reaching Norway rather than its home base of Lunnasting. There are many such tales in Shetland – some of them involving humans and some the supernatural, in the form of ‘trows’ or trolls.

mentioned by Cant. It is equidistant between Aith and Effirth and sits at the high point of the gap between the hills which is the easiest route between the two places. Jakobsen suggests eið-fjörðr for Effirth31 and this is confirmed by the recording of the name in the ‘Skat of Yetland’ (c 1507 x 1513) as ‘Aythfirtht’.32 There is no obvious isthmus at Aith – a fact which has puzzled me for some time and which chiefly led to my initial doubts about the element eið and its application to portage sites. The same applies to Effirth, where there is no evident isthmus. My suggestion for both these places would be that, in this case, there was no portage of boats but that there was considerable land traffic between the heads of the two voes, via Twatt, ON þveit ‘a piece of cleared land’. There is a place called Guddataing at the present pier at Aith and, if Jakobsen is right in his proposed etymology of *götu-tangi, from ON gata ‘a path’,33 there is the likelihood that Guddataing is a toponymic reminder that a path began at this landing-place. Indeed, the road still ends or starts at Guddataing and a note of caution about the possible influence of the present on one’s perception of the past must again be sounded. The road now follows the route which I have described to Twatt but it diverges down the hill to Bixter before again turning to the Westside.

Aith on the Westside has given rise to another þing name – Aithsting – now part of the conjoint parishes of Sandsting and Aithsting, with the head church in the village of Twatt which is situated half-way between Aith and Effirth. The medieval historian, Ronald Cant writes about Aithsting as follows: ‘Eastwards of Walls and Sandness are the parishes of Sandsting and Aithsting, associated since the Reformation and possibly before. … The principal church of Aithsting seems to have been much where it still is at Twatt and this might conceivably have been the centre of the parish of ‘Thweitathing’ mentioned in 1321’.30 The location of this medieval church is of particular interest to the present discussion of portage, whether or not it is the centre of the lost parish of ‘Thweitathing’

31

Jakobsen 1993: 36 Ballantyne and Smith 1999: 257 33 Jakobsen 1993: 45 32

30

Cant 1975: 18

246

DOREEN WAUGH: PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE FOR PORTAGES IN ORKNEY AND SHETLAND defined as ‘a hill farm’ in the Shetland context. In general, as we have seen for all the other Aith-names, they remain purely topographical in terms of the elements used in the name, although many of them now denote settlement and refer to land which has been farmed for many centuries. The combination of Aith, Cunningsburgh, with ON setr – which is one of the most common terms for a small hill-farm in Shetland and does not necessarily imply shieling activities because all farming is relatively marginal in nature in Shetland – is a chance occurrence because the Cunningsburgh area is quite fertile and there is more farming there than in some other parts of Shetland. Gordon Johnston, a teacher from Bremmer in Cunningsburgh, who has a keen interest in local history, provided me with the following information about Aith in Cunningsburgh in response to my enquiry: ‘You asked about boats being dragged across the isthmus. There’s no tradition of that, simply, I suppose, because there was no fishing from the head of Aithsvoe, just at the outer end of the voe which looks towards Mousa. There is a gait or path across the isthmus though, called the Fifteen Men’s Gait. Local tradition has it that there were three sixerns which fished out of the Ayre of Aith – ‘Eid’, as we pronounce it, of course – which lies to the east side of the Wick of Aith, or ‘Week o’ Eid’. The story is that 15 out of the 18 man crew came from Bremmer etc, and they walked to their boats over the isthmus and were joined by three men from Aith itself to make up the three crews.’36

There is much debate about the extent and origin of the name Da Wastside, which is still given to the fist of land jutting out to the west from the central mainland of Shetland and which has been used for several centuries. It has been suggested, by Jakobsen, that ‘Thveitathing’ seems to denote the ‘Westside’: A couple of old (now obs.) thing-names are found in some of the ancient charters concerning Shetland: 1) “Thveitathing”, in two Latin charters of 1 September 1321 and 6 April 1322 (Nidaros), and 2) “Raudarthing”, in a Latin charter of 1 Sept. 1321 (Nidaros). “Thveitathing” [*þveita-þing] seems to denote the “Westside” (M.), comprising Walls and Aithsting, where all the farms named Twatt [*þveit] are to be found; see “þveit”.34 Could it be that the land of ‘Thveitathing’ lay to the west side of the established path between Aith and Effirth? Or perhaps it should be argued that the path came into existence to provide a link between Aith, Effirth and the other places lying further to the west, which sent representatives to one or both of the assemblies of ‘Thveitathing’ and Aithsting. Leaving the Westside behind, boats could move south from Effirth past Tresta and into Weisdale Voe, still in the shelter of the land mass of the Westside. Thereafter the route south would follow the coast to Scalloway, from which the main assembly at Tingwall could be reached, should that be the purpose of travel.35

Aith in Cunningsburgh (Fig.5) is the only place where Aith has been compounded with setr which is best

As far as I am aware, there are no further Aith names in Shetland and there is no name, other than Lunnasting, which suggests concomitant drag sites or hauling places. Eið stands alone as toponymic evidence of possible portage on a large scale. A great deal depends on trust and imaginative reconstruction of the past, and yet I have come to believe that these place-names, in Orkney and Shetland, could indicate a portage network which would have allowed people in boats to move themselves and/or their goods from one end of the islands to the other without too much exposure to the dangers of the open sea. I have certainly shown that I was wrong to state, in the abstract which I submitted to the conference organisers, that ‘the practice of dragging boats overland had died out centuries ago and had totally faded from folk memory’. I now believe that portage could have played a part in the everyday life and movement of people living in both Shetland and Orkney from the time of the arrival of the Vikings up to at least the 19th century. The fact that the element did not survive in regular use in the Shetland dialect into the twentieth century does suggest that it was no longer an active name-forming element by that time. Jakobsen, collecting evidence for his Etymological Dictionary of the Norn Language in Shetland between 1893-95, records ‘ed as a word which ‘is still remembered in South Shetland, in its original meaning, but is elsewhere quite obsolete’.37

34

36

On the east side of the mainland we find two further Aith names in Bressay and Cunningsburgh. There is no doubt that the topography in both of these places is appropriate and that local portage of goods, and possibly boats, could have taken place. All the names which have developed from Aith in Bressay (Fig. 4) are topographical in nature and consequently difficult to date, although English grammatical constructions such as Loch of Aith, Loch of Aithness and Minni of Aith suggest survival over several centuries of use. Minni of Aith is, as it were, the mouth of the isthmus, on the side of the land which faces outwards towards the sea. The ON word mynni ‘mouth, opening’ into which a stream discharges, crops up occasionally near eið names in Shetland but that may not be significant in any way. On one occasion, however, it seems to substitute for what might have been an eið name where a narrow sandy isthmus connects south Burra to the northern part. The broad bay to the west of the sandy strip is known as Banna Minn and the croft of Minn is located next to the sandy strip. There may, of course, have been local portage sites which were not given the description eið.

35

Jakobsen 1993: 126 Fellows-Jensen 1996: 16-29

37

247

Johnston: personal comment Jakobsen 1985: 139

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Fig. 4: Aerial photograph of Aith, Bressay, Shetland. Photo by Gordon Johnston, Bremmer, Cunningsburgh.

Fig. 5: Aerial photograph of Aith, Cunningsburgh, Shetland. Photo by Gordon Johnston, Bremmer, Cunningsburgh.

248

DOREEN WAUGH: PLACE-NAME EVIDENCE FOR PORTAGES IN ORKNEY AND SHETLAND To conclude, I no longer doubt that portage on quite a considerable scale, sometimes of boats but probably much more frequently of goods, took place at locations now called Aith in Shetland and Orkney, because an eið is generally a suitable place for portage, and I am much more fully in agreement with Barbara Crawford’s statement quoted at the start of this paper.38 Bibliography Ballantyne, J. & Smith, B., 1994, Shetland Documents 1580-1611. Lerwick. Ballantyne, J. & Smith, B., 1999, Shetland Documents 1195-1579. Lerwick. Cant, R., 1975, The Medieval Churches and Chapels of Shetland. Lerwick. Crawford, B.E., 1987, Scandinavian Scotland. Leicester University Press. Dictionary of the Scots Language website, [www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/]. Fellows-Jensen, G., 1996, Tingwall: the significance of the name. In D.J. Waugh (ed.), Shetland’s Northern Links: Language and History, 16-29. Lerwick. Graham-Campbell, J. & Batey, C.E., 1998, Vikings in Scotland: An Archaeological Survey. Edinburgh. Hollinrake, L., 2003, An investigation of the traces of Norse mariners in the seascape of Orkney. Unpublished coursework, Orkney College. Jakobsen, J., [1928 Copenhagen] 1985, An Etymological Dictionary of the Norn Language in Shetland 1 & 2. Lerwick. Jakobsen, J. [1936 Copenhagen] 1993, The Place-Names of Shetland. Lerwick. Leask, R., Bradley, A.K. & Bradley, J.M., 1998, Landscape and life in Gletness and Railsbrough, South Nesting, in historical times. In V. Turner (ed.), The Shaping of Shetland, 83-94. Lerwick. Marwick, H., 1952, Orkney Farm-Names. Kirkwall. Nicolaisen, W.F.H., 1983, The post-Norse place-names of Shetland. In D.J. Withrington (ed.), Shetland and the Outside World 1469-1969, 69-85. Oxford University Press. Pálsson, H. & Edwards, P., 1978, Orkneyinga Saga: The History of the Earls of Orkney. London. Peterkin, A., 1820, Rentals of the Ancient Earldom and Bishoprick of Orkney. Edinburgh. Shetland Archives, King Harald Street, Lerwick. Smith, B., 1995, Waithing and Waith in Shetland. In J.J. Graham & B. Smith (Eds), Shetland Folk Book 9, 102-108. Lerwick. Stewart, J., 1987, Shetland Place-Names. Lerwick. Thomson, W.P.L., 1996, Lord Henry Sinclair’s 1492 Rental of Orkney. The Orkney Press. Thomson, W.P.L., 2001, The New History of Orkney. Edinburgh.

38

Crawford 1987: 24

249

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

250

The portages in the Grimstad-area on the southeast coast of Norway Johan Anton Wikander

The country road The Grimstad area is situated on the Skagerrak coast. People who travelled along this coast on land by horse or as pedestrians, followed the country road at some distance from the coast. Only in AD 1805 was this road improved so that it was possible to travel all along the coast by horse and carriage. Milestones of cast iron were put up this year, telling the distance in old Norwegian miles (one mile: 11,11 km) from the city of Kristiansand. This city was then the capital in the diocese of Kristiansand, the southernmost diocese of Norway. However, the general outline of this road was on the whole quite old. Stone churches were built along it during the Middle Ages. In the Grimstad area these churches are found in the parishes of Øyestad, Fjære, Landvig and Vestre Moland. The road with its churches is shown with a dotted line on the map fig. 1. The sea route along the Skagerrak coast The people who travelled along the Skagerrak coast by boat, followed the inshore sea route, inside the outer rocks and islands. The sea route is well known from its ‘milestones’ recorded in a document 1701. The order to write down information of this kind had been given by the Viceroy of Norway. Frederik Gabel (ca.1645 - 1708). The ‘milestones’ next to the sea route stretch. that we will study, ca. 31 km along the coast, are mostly out-harbours or havens:

Fig. 1. The Grimstad area. The map shows the country road and the old churches next to the road; and the ordinary sea route along the coast partly running next to the open sea. The two portages inside the medieval sea route are marked with circles. Drawing by the author.

No. 1: Havsøya, a narrow sound (NE on the map fig. 1). No. 2: Jerkholmen, an island, the outer harbour being inshore of the island, 1/8 old Norwegian mile, (one mile: 11,11 km) from No. 1. The island Jerkholmen consists only of sand and stones left by the Ice Age. No. 3: Haugenebb, a point, ¼ mile from No. 2. No. 4: Fevigkilen, a fiord and an out-harbour, 1/8 mile from No. 3. No. 5: Grefstadraua, a point, ¼ mile from No. 4. No. 6: Hesnes, a well known out-harbour, ¼ mile from No. 5. The ‘milestone’ of this out-harbour, is a point called Aua at the entrance to the port No. 7: Malløesund, an out-harbour, ¼ mile from No. 6 No. 8: Bjorøya, an out-harbour, ¼ mile from No. 7 No. 9: Prestholmen, a small island, ¼ mile from No. 8. The meaning of the name is ‘The Priest’s Island’. No. 10: Homborsund, a sound and a well known outharbour, ¼ mile from No. 9. No. 11: Lyngholmsund, a narrow sound, ¼ mile from No. 10. No. 12: Humlesund, a narrow sound and an out-harbour, ¼ of a mile from No. 11.

The sea route in question is found on the map fig. 1 with a stippled line. The ‘milestones’ are shown by way of pyramids. The sea route on this part of the Skagerrak coast partly passed next to the open sea: The sea route between ‘milestone’ No. 2 Jerkholmen and No. 6 Hesnes The sea route northeastward from No. 2 Jerkholmen, has an medium alternative inside rather great islands as Hisøy, Tromøy and several other ones further on northeastward. This part of the sea route is very well protected. However, the sea route southwestward from No. 2 Jerkholmen passed next to the open sea. But this part of

251

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

the sea route was to a certain extent protected by some small islands, rocks and shallow waters. This part of the sea route was not looked upon as dangerous, but of course you had to seek shelter in one of its out-harbours in stormy weather.

The sea route between ‘milestone’ No. 8 Bjorøya and No. 10 Homborsund. This part of the sea route is called Homborside. The meaning of the place-name Homborside is ‘the (exposed) coast at the peninsula Hombornes.’ The sea route runs in the open sea without any protection by islands or shallow rocks. It is also particularly dangerous because of three salient factors: the Baltic current which is always running in a southwest direction, the shape of the bottom of this part of the coast, and the wind and waves which are mostly descending from the south and south-west, thus partly in the opposite direction of the current. Quite a number vessels have been wrecked at Homborside. This stretch is thus rather dangerous and was justly feared in former days by sailors and other people who travelled along the Skagerrak coast.

The sea route between ‘milestone’ No. 6 Hesnes and No. 7 Malløsund This part of the sea route was dangerous when strong winds descended from south and south-south-west, and also after stormy weather because of the strong swell running towards the sea route and the coast. It is obvious that an inordinate number of people drowned from time to time on this part of the sea route and the coast. About 1880 a channel, ca. 200 m long, was built through the rather narrow portage inside the point Aua and the peninsula Marivoll. The point Aua at the western mouth of the Hesnes out-harbour, was the ‘milestone’ pertaining to the sea route.

In the 1770’s the mapmaker Christopher Hammer (1720 1804) worked on maps of the four Norwegian dioceses. He wrote several letters to ministers and sheriffs and asked them questions on topographical matters. One of his questions was: ‘Between seaside village Grimstad and the outer port Homborsund, is there a place called Homborside?’ Jens Pharo (1720 - 1776), minister in the parish of Øyestad, answered him in 1773: ‘Homborsund is a very nice and often used out-harbour and named after the farm Hombor. The coast between this out-harbour and the next, Bjorøya, is called Homborside. On this part of the coast, there is no haven at all - not even for a small rowing boat!’ Hans Speilberg, former minister of Hambornes, a parish of ease, answered in 1774: ‘Homborside is a part of the coast, ¼ mile long, without any protection by islands and without any harbours’. The sea route further on, southwest from No. 10 Homborsund

Fig. 2. The portage Eidet and The Hesnes Channel towards the east. The portage is close to the right side of the cliff. The remains of the fort from the Migration Age are on the top of the cliff. From a postcard issued 1905.

This part of the sea route to the ‘milestones’ No. 11. Lyngholmsund and No. 12 Humlesund, was protected by small islands. Further on the route was very well protected by rather large islands as Skogerøya, Justøy etc. This part of the sea route has a name of its own Blindeleia. The implication is thus that it is ‘blind’, the name probably telling us that the sea route is well protected, which is an obvious fact. The portages next to this sea route Along this part of the sea route we have two portages: • Hesneskanalen, ca. 200 m long, west to east, between the ‘milestones’ No. 6 and No. 7. The original name of this portage was Eidet (‘The Portage’). However, after the channel was dug about 1880, the portage changed its name to Hesneskanalen,’The Hesnes Channel’. The peninsula on the outside is called Marivoll. See figs 2 and 3.

Fig. 3. The portage Eidet and The Hesnes Channel seen towards the east. The channel and the portage change direction ca. 20° towards the north just behind the little bridge. From a postcard issued ca. 1910.

252

JOHAN ANTON WIKANDER: THE PORTAGES IN THE GRIMSTAD-AREA ON THE SOUTHEAST COAST OF NORWAY • Eide (‘Portage’), ca. 900 m long, southwest to northeast, between the ‘milestones’ No. 8 and No. 11. The peninsula outside was in former days called Hambornes. This name also could include some of the farms on the mainland inside this portage, as Hambornes also was the name of the parish of ease. See figs 4 and 5.

Next to Eidet (The Hesnes Channel) on the north side, there is a steep cliff ascending to about 40 m. Some years ago the remains of a hill fort probably from the Migration Age, AD 400-550, were found on the top. This fort was conceivably built for the control of passers-by or for the protection against enemies who followed the ordinary sea route, which at that time must have passed next to it. We go further on southwestward along the sea route. The portage at Eide inside the peninsula Hambornes, is shown i figs. 4 and 5. We perceive good farmland, observe nice old farm houses and as well a wooden church from the 1790s. But this church is not the first one on this site. The first one was a medieval stave church. Remains of it, including a large beam of oak, ca. 8 m long, were found under the present building. It would be possible to get more exact information about this older church but so far no dendrology has been applied. Generally speaking, the Norwegian stave churches were built from the 11th to the 13th century. It is thus probable that this church dates from that period.

Fig. 4. The portage Eide towards southwest. The church is to the right. In the background to the left we see the bottom of the fiord Fossdalkilen. Photo from ca. 1914.

The medieval churches were built along at the central places at the main roads. It appears to have been a crossroads at Eide. The out-harbour in Homborsund offers excellent shelter. It is mentioned in the Norse sagas. People who went from the mainland out to the outharbour of Homborsund, had to pass Eide before they reached the port. The people who travelled along the Skagerrak coast and had escaped the dangers of the Homborside, also passed the portage site at Eide. It appeals to this logic that this is the reason why the stave church, the first church to be built at the portage Eide, was built here. This explanation seems to be well consistent with medieval conditions. Transport of timber from the mainland to the ports of Grimstad and Strandfjorden for export

Fig 5. The portage Eide seen towards northeast. The church is in the foreground. In the background to the left we see the bottom of the fiord Engekilen. From a postcard issued ca. 1905.

Timber from the mainland was in late historical times floated down the river Nidelven and exported to foreign countries, mostly The Netherlands and England. Because of the very important salmon fisheries at the rapids of Rygenefossen between Arendal and Grimstad, the timber was instead floated into the lake Rorevann which is connected to the river Nidelven. The timber was taken to the south bank of Rorevann 3 km northwest of the seaside village Grimstad.

The sea route outside these two portages passed rather dangerous parts of the Skagerrak coast. It is obvious that people in former days in stormy weather, preferred to use these portages instead of following the ordinary route outside the two peninsulas. We will look for some evidence for this. In the last part of the 17th century, there was a guesthouse at Styrsund which is found only ca. 200 m east of Eidet, The Hesnes Channel. It is obvious that the guesthouse was built here to serve both the travellers who passed Eidet, and the sailors who sought shelter in the out-harbour of Hesnes from contrary winds. During the Viking Period, 1000 years ago and before that time, the level of the sea was a couple of meters higher than today. This passage was then most probably part of the ordinary sea routes. It was hardly a portage at all, rather a sound, even to fairly large vessels of this period.

The timber was then transported by horse to Grimstad where it was loaded on the foreign vessels. This export from the Skagerrak coast started in the 16th century, and increased steadily during the following centuries. The particular road stretch between the lake Rorevann and the port of Grimstad, was consequently called Kjørselveien, The Cartonage Road) The Diocesan Prefect at Kristiansand, Jørgen Bjelke (1621 - 1697), wrote a report in 1654 to the Danish-Norwegian king on this export of timber from the Skagerrak coast. His term for Kjørselveien was Eidett , thus in fact ‘The Portage’. The 253

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

reason appears to be that this was a road a rather short distance between the bank of the lake and the harbour of Grimstad. Timber was in the same way taken by horse from the bank of the lake Rorevann and down to Landvikvannet, ca. 2 km, and floated to Strandfjorden inside the ‘milestone’ No. 8 Bjorøya. Those roads are shown with a stippled line on the map fig. 1. The timber was then exported from this harbour. Strandfjorden was also the mouth of a small water system of its own through the lakes Reddalsvannet and Landvikvannet, independent of the river Nidelven water system and the lake Rorevann. References Johan Anton Wikander 1967 Sørlandsk arkivtilfang i Vitenskapsselskapet i Trondheim, Agder Historielags Årsskrift (AHÅ) nr. 45: 5-53. Johan Anton Wikander 1971 Gamle tomter i Grimstad. Grunneiere og Huseiere, Agder Historielags Årsskrift (AHÅ) nr. 49: 3-112; in addition issued separately by Selskapet for Grimstad Bys Vel. Johan Anton Wikander 1985 Gamle havner ved Grimstad, Grimstad; 2nd issue Grimstad 1989. The book is issued by Selskapet for Grimstad Bys Vel.

254

Sea routes across land: Portages in Denmark, particularly during the Viking Age and the Middle Ages Max Vinner

drawn like this. On the other hand there is a great number of place names which indicate very strongly that some specific hauling stretches were used more or less permanently. Normally they contain the elements Drag-, Draugh-, Drå-, Dræ-, Drej-, and –dræt. Most, if not all, denote localities where two waterways separated from one another draw together as much as possible. They are found between open waters, lakes, rivers or other combinations. Some have probably once been furnished with facilities like well-oiled wooden slipways and tensile force in the form of horses or slaves.

By way of short introduction I will present a few quotations. The first relates to an attack launched by a Viking Age Nordic fleet on Paris, in the chronicle of Regino for the year AD 887 or 888: “But since the burghers with alacrity prevented their movement upstream, they dragged their ships more than 1000 paces (ca 3 km), and, by avoiding the danger in this way, they relaunched them into the waters of the Seine.”

The use of the site must in such cases mean that a fee had to paid to the owner of the land. To be able efficiently to control such an installation would presumably mean an established chieftain with considerable landed power. It seems reasonable that other portages were more temporarily used and the crews themselves would have to do all the work.

And in another, Snorre Sturlason retells a story in the saga of Harald Hardrada c. AD 1060: “King Harald steered with his ships further into the Limfiord; where it is widest it is called Lusbrei. A small isthmus is found innermost in the bay towards the sea. This is where Harald and his people rowed in the evening. During the night, when it was dark, they unloaded the ships and dragged them across the isthmus, and everything was finished by daylight. And they had reloaded and refitted the ships for a second time. So they steered north along Jutland. Then they said: ‘Slipped out of the hands of the Danes did Harald.’”

I have proposed a hypothetical classification of the portages in 6 types, in terms of their location in the landscape: 1.

Portage across a narrow isthmus between two “seas”. The advantage would be to avoid a long and dangerous (for several possible reasons) detour or circumnavigation of a promontory or suchlike. My example for this is Draget at the mansion Dragsholm between Isefjord/the Kattegat and Store Bælt (the Great Belt) (Zealand).

2.

Portage between two fiord systems, by way of which the crew will be spared a long detour sailing out of one and into the other. An example is Dræby at Munkbo between Odense fjord and Kerteminde, a part of Kerteminde fjord (Funen).

3.

Portage between inland waterways, such as rivers and lakes. Such a place is found at Dragstrup between the ancient lake, now drained completely, of Søborg sø and the Esrum å (river).

4.

Portage used to avoid a countercurrent in a narrow sound. If you are running with the current you do not need it. This case is demonstrated by Sunddraget at Oddesund in Limfjorden (Jutland).

5.

Portage to escape obstacles, either created by nature or by human intervention, in river shipping. One instance would be at Skibsdræt mølle, ‘the mill at the

This manner of transportation was not unknown for such a fighter familiar with conditions in Russia. Some years later king Harald took the smaller ships of his navy up into Lake Vänern at present-day Trollhättan, a considerably higher lift. The Knytlinga saga relates the conflict between the pretenders to the crown of Denmark, Svend, Knud and Valdemar c AD 1150: “When king Svend heard this he brought together rapidly an army and went to Hedeby with his fleet. He dragged the ships from Slette across to Hyllingstad in Friesland.” Hyllingstad is the present Hollingstedt (see Brandt, this volume). Saxo gives the same story but he adds that the long haul (ca 16 km) to encircle the fortress of Knud called Mildeborg both on land and by water, “was more costly than fruitful”. These written sources give, although not critically examined for this occasion, some interesting facts. They establish that the arduous task of hauling quite considerable numbers of vessels across land was not uncommon, anyway not as a measure taken in tactical warfare. As far as I know there are no contemporary descriptions of cargo ships even occasionally being 255

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Shiphaul’, in the Gudme River east of Kolding (Jutland). 6.

Portage across a sandbank or a similar obstacle in more open waters. This can be shown by the place name Draget across Dragbanken in Nibe Bredning in the centre of Limfjorden (Jutland).

The use of such portages would presuppose light and shallow-draught vessels. Most of the types of Viking Age ships we know of would be suitable. The small-scale freighter Skuldelev III is 14 meters long and has a draught of only 85 cm, with a cargo onboard of c. 3 tons. The empty hull itself weighs 2 tons. It could reach high upstream in a water-rich river system and close to most coasts, but it must have been practical to unload the cargo before using the portage. This means a major three-stage process to reload at the other side. Small craft could possibly be hauled with some cargo still onboard. Another probable variation would be applied for difficult terrain and topography: only the cargo was transported overland and reloaded in another boat prepared for the opposite waterway. Apart from the largest knarr, a cargo ship type for the open sea, like Hedeby III, dated AD 1025, 22 m long, cargo capacity of c. 60 tons, or Roskilde IV, dated AD 1108, 25 m long, cargo capacity the same, it must have been technically possible to haul war ships as well as small cargo ships overland. Our sources combined, quotations and place names, give support to such a conclusion. Furthermore, the experiences from our experimental boat-hauls show that the process could be made surprisingly easy, given a large crew.

256

Abstracts The Díolkos trackway near Corinth, Greece Olaf Höckmann In Greece the isthmus of Corinth forms a land bridge tying the peninsula of the Peloponnese (Peloponnesus) to the mainland. Land traffic has passed over it since times immemorial. As opposed to this positive function in land traffic the isthmus forms a barrier cutting off sea traffic in the Saronic Culf, so to speak from the Aegean, from the Gulf of Corinth and ultimately the Ionian Sea with Corinth’s ever-quarrelsome colony of Kerkyra (Cercyra) and also, finally, the Adriatic itself. This situation has been the reason for the construction of a canal 5.85 kms long in the late 19th century. It not only foreshortens the passage from the Aegean toward the Ionian Sea by some 349 kms but, even more important, spares the ships from doubling the perilous capes of the southern Peloponnese of which Cape Malea has a particularly notorious reputation.

were soon abandoned for political reasons, but Nero’s planning proved to be so sound that modern engineers followed his surveys so neatly that they obliterated most traces of the Roman attempt.

The Corinthian Canal across the isthmus, cut directly for 6.3 kms through the rock, sometimes crossing the díolkos and opened in 1893. Photo: Christer Westerdahl, 1986.

And Periandros soon abandoned his project. It is a fair conjecture that it was he who instead constructed the trackway called díolkos across the isthmus which allowed smaller ships to be moved from one gulf to the other. Transport fees seem to have been considerable since Periandros was able to finance his state exclusively by way of what is usually translated as “harbour dues.” It is also related that his warships controlled both gulfs. The reason is very likely that they could be moved across the isthmus by means of the díolkos, to the very gulf where their presence was needed.

Traces of limestone of trackway of the diolkos at Corinth. Photo: Christer Westerdahl, 1986.

A canal had already been considered in Antiquity. The tyrant of Corinth, Periandros (Periander), is said to have intended to cut the isthmus as early as in the late 7th century BC, and in AD 67 the Roman emperor Nero in fact had excavations for a canal started. These efforts

Some traces of the ashlar pavement of the díolkos came to light during the construction of the modern canal. More was discovered later by chance and by N. Verdelis’ archaeological excavations in 1957. Taken together some 257

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

2 kms of the original 7.2 km course are now known in detail. Leaving aside the flat ashlar pavement at the western end of the canal, the trackway is formed by “rails” cut into the rock surface or a pavement at a gauge of c. 1.5 ms. At bends another couple of rails are added. In this respect the díolkos may be considered the earliest known “railway”. The actual process seems to have been putting the ship into two stoutly built trolleys with two axles if not more, and then pulling it across the ridge by a considerable work force of slaves. The last report on the use of the dìolkos is as late as the 12th century AD. Thus, this impressive contraption worked for no less than 18 centuries. Justly it could be called a timeless highlight of early engineering.

258

Fossa carolina An early medieval canal near a watershed Robert Koch The Fossa carolina was the most famous early medieval canal in Central Europe. The locality lay close to the eastern frontier of the Imperium Francorum and in the neighbourhood of the Carolingian duchy of Bavaria. The conditions of the Early Middle Ages in this region are very complex and difficult to ascertain. Presently its remains are situated between the two modern cities Treuchtlingen and Weissenburg in Bavaria. The Fossa Carolina is on a most important watershed where it connects the Danube and the region of the Rhine and its tributary the Main. The canal is mentioned for the first time in the Frankish Annales regni Francorum at the year 793. This year it started to be built on the direct orders of the emperor Charlemagne (747-814). During the following centuries we find some references to it in several chronicles of early Frankish monasteries.

are not very conspicuous, just insignificant hollows in the ground. Basically it appears that for some time a small valley close to the watershed was closed by a barrier of earth, forming an artificial lake of 400 – 500 m length, similar to a great fish-pond. Various observations during the last 10 years together with several aerial photographs and borings to test the stratigraphy opened the way for a new perspective. Now we can reconstruct the actual technical concept and also a realistic hydrological concept for the water supply of the Fossa. Consequently the Fossa carolina was not a “fiasco” as the Annales regni Francorum states. The recently recognized remains in the northern part demonstrate, that the Fossa Carolina once was a complete and probably functioning system for water-traffic, using small boats with a flat bottom.

The memory of the locality, in popular parlance called “Karlsgraben”, has been partly preserved in field-names during the following centuries. The 1200th anniversary of the canal in 1993 initiated supplementary topographic measurements by the Bayerische Landesamt für Denkmalpflege as well as other investigations; in order to complete the archaeological maps.

Reference Koch, Robert: 2002. Fossa Carolina. Neue Erkenntnisse zum Schiffahrtskanal Karls des Grossen. In: Elmshäuser, Konrad (Hrsg.) Häfen Schiffe Wasserwege. Zur Schiffahrt des Mittelalters. Schriften des Deutschen Schiffahrtsmuseums Band 58. Sonderdruck : 54-70.

The topographical evidence demonstrated, that the Fossa Carolina was circa 1.000 m longer in its northern part than hitherto supposed. The present remains in the terrain

259

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

The role of river systems, watersheds and portages for the formation of state borders of Northern Russia (Novgorod Land) Evgenij Nozov

In the history of states an important role was played by the geographic and topographic features of the regions especially in the early stages of the formation of territories, of course together with ethnic, social, political, and economic factors,. In the history of Russia they played a particularly significant role. On the vast territory of Russia covered with thick forests at the end of the first millennium AD, the rivers were the foundations of traffic. The water-routes with fortified settlements at key places and with towns on crossing-points formed the backbone of the Novgorod Land in the 10th century.

Northeastern Russia: the vast swampy woods and the watersheds of the Ilmen basin rivers and the upper tributaries of the Volga. The watersheds in Eastern Europe played the same role as the mountains in Western Europe. The crossing of the watersheds demanded a special organization. Here, it had to be the groups of people engaged in bringing the vessels and goods through the portages. On the watersheds were residing important chieftains in settlements initiated by the governing bodies of the principalities, which controlled the routes and where taxes were collected.

If the rivers connected the areas in Eastern Europe, the watersheds between them were the main borders, which divided the territories of Russian principalities. It is not by chance that the border of Novgorod Land with Polotzkaya and Smolenskaya Lands went along the watershed of the Lovat, Kunya and Pola, with the rivers of the basins of Western Dvina and Volga. Natural borders divided Novgorod Land from the territories of

Reference Nozov, Evgenij: 1992. The Russian river systems and the formation of states. In: Pre-printed papers, Medieval Europe ‘92. York.

260

ABSTRACTS

Medieval portages of Northern Rus’: historiographical tradition, literary sources and archaeological evidence Nikolaj Makarov Portages are normally regarded as important elements of the Rus’ cultural landscape and the key points of medieval communication systems on the Russian plain, which only made possible travelling and transportation of goods across the watersheds in the forested areas. This concept of portage was to a great degree inspired by the Primary Chronicle and its description of the route from the Variangians to the Greeks with the portage (Russian “volok”) on the watershed between the Dnieper and the Lovat’ rivers. Literary sources and place-names, later supplemented by the analysis of the distribution of numismatic finds, constituted the basis for reconstruction of medieval water routes on the vast territories of Russia as well as for the general concept of medieval communication.

landscape in Central Russia has been extensively destroyed by agrarian exploitation and modern industrial development. It is worth noticing that a hundred years of excavations in Gnezdovo, the proto-urban center located on the greatest portage on the route from the Varangians to the Greeks, produced practically no information on the portage system and on the conditions of boat transportation. The northern regions of European Russia, which once had been the far periphery of Medieval Rus’, are therefore of special value in the context of portage studies, being the only area of Russia, where one can identify Viking age and Early Medieval sites, incorporated in the portage systems. The modern landscapes of some of the portage areas in North Russia have preserved ground roads, described in the written sources as well as the dwelling sites and burial monuments on the edges of the portages. Archaeological investigations in Northern Russia reveal, that medieval portages developed as a ground road with a pattern of special settlements, which supported travelling and transportation overland. The rise of the portage system in Northern Russia dates to the 1000-1200 AD, though we have evidence that medieval settlers followed routes known since the Neolithic period.

Land documents and cadaster books of the late medieval and early modern time produce important evidence on the location of the portages, on the dynamics of their exploitation, on the settlement patterns in the local areas and the payments drawn from the travellers. In some cases they also contain information of the technical aspects of boat transportation. However their potential is limited, as most of them lack direct description of the portages as the engineering structures and the processes of carrying goods and dragging boats across the watershed.

Reference

Archaeological surveys and excavations in the core area of Medieval Rus’ cannot add much to our knowledge of the portages, probably because the medieval cultural

Makarov, Nikolai A. 1994. Portages of the Russian North. In: Fennoscandia archaeologica XI: 13-27. Helsinki.

261

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

The Draged complex, the land uplift and the inner sea routes of the archipelago of Åland Nils Storå The direction of medieval sea routes affecting the south part of the Åland archipelagoes have been studied fairly attentively. The same goes for the postal road from Stockholm to Åbo since the 17th century. Less known are the sea routes from different directions across the central part of the islands, what is known as mainland Åland. Several narrow bays and sounds penetrate deeply into the land masses. In the past these routes could have served both the thoroughfare and the internal communications in Åland. The discussion on function of the passages across land, called ed, sometimes used as portages, called draged, as boat dragging stretches between two waters, are of particular interest

parts of mainland Åland, one to the north and another to the south. During the middle of the 19th century its width was appx. 1 km. The local conditions have changed more or less drastically at all these sites pari passu a land uplift of c. 60 cm in 100 years. The geographical situation of the isthmuses and the continuous uplift have been observed for a long time. Thus one of the main sources would be plans for improving communication lines generally in Åland. The canal made at Lemström in 1882 should capture a special interest. The site was situated along an old sea route developing into an isthmus proper. In the beginning of the 18th century it was, according to tradition, already as shallow as to force the Russian Czar Peter the Great to order a dig across the isthmus to be able to pass it with his galleys.

The sources on these portages are scarce. The place names give some, although uncertain, indications. Among the considerable number of place names in Åland with the element Kugg-, interpreted as a reference to the high medieval ship type Sw. kogg (Engl. cog, both from Germ. Kogge), there is an surprising occurrence of a portage site called Kuggdra(g), which may mean that not only small boats were dragged but also rather large vessels. The most famous of all the ed places in the past obviously was Dragedet, an isthmus connecting two large

These examples show that a closer examination of the inner sea routes of Åland may elucidate various questions on the significance of draged, portages, and the profound changes brought by land uplift in a wider perspective. From an ethnological point of view it appears desirous to enlarge our knowledge on the ways of passing the isthmuses obstructing the continuous use of waterways.

262

Portages Network

Ala-Pöllänen Anne Sjöhistoria (Maritime History) Helsingfors Univ. POB 3 Helsingfors Univ. FIN-00014 Finland [email protected]

Berge Svein Termovisjon Sør Øystein Berge Skjernøy Mandal 4516 Norway [email protected]

Brendalsmo Jan NIKU, Oslo, Norway [email protected]

Bådsvik Birger Mortveit Skjold 5574 Norway

Cederlund Carl-Olof Lilla Malmtorp Dalv. 152 Grödinge SE-147 71 Sweden [email protected]

Crisman Kevin Inst.of Nautical Arch. P.O. Drawer HG College Station, Texas 77841-5137 USA [email protected]

Ala-Räisänen Elina Passuunakuja 1 D 37 Helsinki SF-00420 Finland [email protected]

Asplund Henrik Turun yliopisto Arkeologia Henrikinkatu 2 Turku FIN-20014 Finland [email protected]

Bertelsen Reidar Univ. of Tromsø Ark. inst. Tromsø 9037 Norway [email protected]

Brandt Klaus Stiftung Schleswig-Holsteinisches Landesmusem Schloss Gottorf 248 37 Schleswig BRD/ Germany [email protected]

Brink Stefan Sysslomansgat. 40B Uppsala SE-752 27 Sverige [email protected]

Buss Ojars (Busch) Matisa iela 66-22 LV-1009 Latvia Riga [email protected]

Carpelan Christian Everstinkuja 1C60 026 00 Espoo Finland [email protected]

Christensen Arne Emil Vikingeskipshuset Bygdøy Norway [email protected]

Croome Angela Flat 2, 14, The Paragon, Blackheath London SE3 0PA UK

263

Carver Martin Dept. of Archaeology King´s Manor York YO1 2EP UK [email protected]

Coles John WARP Fursdon Mill Cottage ThorvertonDevon EX5 JS UK

Crumlin-Pedersen Ole Knud den Stores Vej RoskildeDK-4000 Denmark [email protected]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Cunliffe Barry Institute of Arch., 36 Beaumont Street OXFORD OX1 2PG UK [email protected]

Domzal Robert Centralne Muzeum Morskie ul. Olowianka 9-13 Gdansk PL-80-751 Poland [email protected]

Edlund Lars-Erik University of Umeå Dept of Nordic languages Umeå SE-901 87 Sweden [email protected]

Eikli Gunnar Bredalsholmens Dokk og Fartøyvernsenter Kristiansand4623 Norway [email protected]

Elvestad Endre Stavanger Museum Stavanger Norway [email protected]

Englert Anton Vikingeskibsmuseet Vindeboder 12 Roskilde DK-4000 Denmark [email protected]

Falck-Kjällqvist Birgit (SOFI) Sweden birgit.falck-kjä[email protected]

Fenwick Valerie 4 Nightingale Mews Royal Victoria Country Park Netley Abbey Hants S031 5GB UK

Fries Sigurd Axtorpsvägen 4 Umeå SE-903 37 Sweden

Gheorghiu Dragos 9, Valea Rosie Bldg Z 5 Aptm 47, Sector 6 Bucharest Roumania [email protected]

Edberg Rune Aprikosvägen 39 II HässelbySE-165 60 Sweden [email protected]

Ellmers Detlev Oldenburger Str. 24 D-275 68 Bremerhaven BRD/ Germany

Fabech Charlotte Skovgaardsgade 8 III tv DK-8000 Aarhus C.Denmark [email protected]

Forssell Henry Stenhagsstigen 1A Helsingfors FIN-00310 Finland [email protected]

Gansum Terje Jarlsøvn 3 B Tønsberg 3124 Norway [email protected]

Gerstel Carl Anders Gene fornby Bäckagården Domsjö SE-892 43 Sweden

Gidmark David POB 26 Maniwaki Quebec 9E 3B3 Canada

Gravningen Roger Oddanbakken 7 Mandal 4513 Norway [email protected]

264

PORTAGES NETWORK

Grenier Robert Parcs Canada Les Terrasses de la Chaudiere Ottawa K1A 1G2 OntarioCanada [email protected]

Grønnow Bjarne SILA, Nationalmuseet København Denmark

Hagåsen Lennart [email protected]

Hamza Mamdouh 5, Ibn Marwan Street, Dokki, Cairo Egypt 1231 [email protected]

Hansen Arild Marøy Maritime Museum of Bergen [email protected]

Hansen Thor Ivar Almeveien 28 Mandal 4515 Norge [email protected]

Heimann Curry Allmänna vägen 11 Göteborg SE-414 60 Sweden [email protected]

Helskog Knut University of Tromsø Museum of Tromsø Tromsø 9037 Norway [email protected]

Hinkkanen Merja-Liisa Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies POB 4 University of Helsinki FIN-00014 Finland [email protected]

Hjermann Madli Harry Bothens vei 11 Trondheim 7040 Norway [email protected]

Holm Riise Eirin Tyholt Allé 6 Trondheim7052 Norway [email protected]

Holm Poul Centre for Maritime og Regionale Studier Niels Bohrs Vej 9 Esbjerg DK-6700 Denmark [email protected]

Hoven Oftedal Øyvind Postboks 16 Lyngdal 4575 Norway [email protected]

Holmberg Bente Københavns Universitet Nordiske sprog Denmark [email protected]

Huggert Anders Västerbottens museum Gammlia Umeå SE-901 24 Sweden

Hutchinson Gillian 30, The Plantation Blackheath London SE3 OAB UK

265

Hansen Lars IK Foundation & Cy 8 Chubb Hill Road WhitbyN. Yorkshire YO 21 1JU UK [email protected]

Höckmann Olaf Taunusstrasse 39 D-55118 Mainz BRD/Germany [email protected]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Hårdh Birgitta Inst. för arkeologi Lunds universitet Sandgat,.1 Lund SE-223 50 Sweden [email protected]

Iversen Ørjan B. Karmøy kommune Skole & kultur Rådhuset Kopervik 4250 Norway [email protected]

Jacobsen Pål S. Alcoa Automotive Castings Scandinavian Casting Center ANS POB 158 Farsund 4552 Norway [email protected]

Jahr Ernst Håkon Høgskolen i Agder Serviceboks 422 Kristiansand 4604 Norway [email protected]

Jakobsen Björn M. Foteviksmuseet Halörsvägen HöllvikenSE-236 91 Sweden [email protected]

Jakobsson Eva Rogalandforskning POB 2503 Ullandhaug Stavanger N-4091 Norway [email protected]

Jansson Henrik Inst. för kulturforskning arkeologi Pb 59 Helsingfors universitet FIN-00014 Finland [email protected]

Jasinski Marek Norges Tekniske og Naturvitenskapelige Universitet (NTNU) Institutt for arkeologi og religionsvitenskap Trondheim 7491 Norway [email protected]

Joensen Jóen Pauli Univ. of the Faroe Islands Deptm of History and Social Science J.C. Svabosgøta 7 FO-100 Thórshavn Faroe Islands Føroyar [email protected]

Kalstveit Åsmund Svantesvold Øvre Vats 5576 Norway [email protected]

Karlslund Willy Sidoskeppsgatan 16 TygelsjöSE-230 42 Sweden [email protected]

Keller Christian Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies University of Oslo POB 1016 Blindern Oslo N-0315 Norway [email protected]

Keweloh Hans-Walther Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum Hans-Scharoun-Platz 1 D-275 68 Bremerhaven BRD /Germany [email protected]

Hörberg Per Urban Hög Pl. 725 Kävlinge SE-244 93 Sweden [email protected]

266

Jansson Seth Allevägen 11 Härnösand SE-871 60 Sweden [email protected]

Kalstveit Eva Vindafjord kommune Rådhuset Sandeid 5585 Norway [email protected]

Kayan Ilhan Ege Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Cografya Bölümü TK-351 00 Bornova/ Izmir Turkey

Klepp Asbjørn Institutet for kulturstudier Universitetet i Oslo Pb 1010 Blindern Oslo N-0315 Norge [email protected]

PORTAGES NETWORK

Kloster Johan Oslo, Norway [email protected]

Knudsen Linn Vest-Agder Fylkeskommune Service-Boks 517 Kristiansand 4605 Norway [email protected]

Koivusalo Fredrik Finland [email protected]

Korhonen Olavi Kanotvägen 5 SE-961 51 Boden [email protected]

Krøger Flemming Rogalands Fylkeskommune Kulturseksjonen Postboks 130 Stavanger 4001 Norway [email protected]

Kvalø Frode National Maritime Museum, Oslo, Norway frode.kvalø@sjofartsmuseum-no

Larsen Jan Henning Univ. Oldsakssamling Fornminneseksjonen St. Olavsgat 29 Pb 6762 St. Olavs plass Oslo0130 Norway [email protected]

Larsson Gunilla Arkeologi Södertörns Högskola Box 4101 Huddinge S-141 89 Sweden [email protected]

Leksbø Åse Marie Pråmstøveien 13 Lyngdal 4580 Norway [email protected]

Lindquist Christian Lojovägen 73 SE-181 47 Lidingö Sweden

Lindanger Birger N-5561-Bokn Norway [email protected]

Lindström Jens Bohusläns museum Box 403 SE-451 19 Uddevalla Sweden [email protected].

267

Koch R. Bahnhofsweg 5 D-905 62 Heroldsberg BRD/ Germany

Krohn Danckert Monrad Vest-Agder County MunicipalityNorge [email protected]

Langhelle Svein Ivar Bokn 5561 Norway

Larsson Mats G. Mossby 12 Skivarp SE-274 53 Sweden [email protected]

Lindholm Marcus Åland Board of Antiquities Åands landskapsstyrelse POB 1060 POB 60 ÅL(FIN)-221 01 Mariehamn Finland [email protected]

Ling Johan Inst. för arkeologi Göteborgs Universitet Box 200 Göteborg S-405 30 Sverige [email protected]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Litwin Jerzy Centralne Muzeum Morskie ul. Olowianka 9-13 Gdansk PL-80-751 Poland [email protected]

Lofterud Curt Valne 1120 Nälden SE-830 44 Sweden

Lundström Ulf Museum of Skellefteå, Sweden [email protected]

Løvdal Jakob D. Postboks 95 Lyngdal 4575 Norway [email protected]

Madsen Hans Petter Baneveien 7 B Oslo 0682 Norway [email protected]

Makarov Nikolay Institute of Archaeology Russian Academy of Sciences Dm. Uljanova 19 117 036 Moscow Russia [email protected]

Martin Paula Arnydie Peat Inn Cupar FifeKY15 5LF UK [email protected]

Matikka Maija National Bureau of Antiquities, Helsinki, Finland [email protected]

Mazet-Harhoff Laurent Center of Archaeological Experiments Lejre, Denmark [email protected]

Mc Grail Sean Bridge Cottage Chilmark Salisbury Wiltshire SP3 5AU UK

Mjaatvedt Svein Vest-Agder Fylkeskommune NSK-avd.Norway [email protected]

Montelius Jan-Olof Pylonen Vägverkets museum Borlänge SE-781 87 Sweden [email protected]

Moore Fionnbarr Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government Harcourt Lane Dublin 2 Rep.of Ireland [email protected]

Myhre Bjørn Stavanger Arkeologisk Museum POB 478 Stavanger N-4002 Norway

Müller Leos Södertörns högsklola Baltic & East European Graduate School BEEGR Box 4101 Huddinge SE-141 89 Sweden [email protected]

Müller-Wille Michael Holtenauer Strasse 178 D-241 05 Kiel BRD/ Germany

Naimark Mischa Mark Leonidovich Mikluho-Maklaya Str. 57-1 (appt 115) 117 279 Moscow Russia [email protected]

Nielsen May-Brith Ohman Inst. for historie Høgskolen i Agder Serviceboks 422 Kristiansand 4604 Norway [email protected]

268

PORTAGES NETWORK

Nordhaug Stein Grettestø Borhaug 4563 Norway [email protected]

Nordin Petra EAA Secretariat c/o Riksantikvarieämbetet Box 102 59 Kungsbacka SE-434 23 Sweden [email protected]

Nozov Eugenie Institute for the History of Material Culture Russian Academy of Sciences Dvortsovaja emb. 18 191 186 St. Peterburg Russia [email protected]

Nyman Eva Deptmt of Swedish Language Box 200 Göteborg SE-405 30 Sweden [email protected]

Nævestad Dag National Maritime Museum Norsk Sjøfartsmuseum Oslo Norway [email protected]

Nørg aard-Jørgensen Anne RAS Rigsantikvaren Denmark [email protected]

Ossowski Waldemar Centralne Muzeum Morskie Dizial Badan Podwodnych Ul. Olowianka 9-13 Gdansk PL-80-751 Poland [email protected]

Ovsjannikov Oleg Bonnerstrasse 4 970 84 Würzburg BRD/ Germany

Paulsrud Geir Norwegian Road Mueum, Fåberg, Lillehammer [email protected]

Petersen H.C. Krebsevej 42 Ebeltoft DK-8400 Denmark

Petrukhin Vladimir Institute for Slavonic Studies Russian Academy of Sciences Butyrskaja 53/63, 176 125 015 Moscow Russia [email protected]

Phillips Christine 5, Hothams court YorkY01 9PH UK [email protected]

269

Norseng Per G. Mølterstubakken 14 Kragerø 3770 Norway [email protected]

Nymoen Pål National Maritime Museum Oslo Norway [email protected]

Olson Kerstin Bohusläns museum Museigatan 1 Box 403 Uddevalla SE-451 19 Sweden [email protected]

Parker Anthony 10, Montrose Ave Redland Bristol BS6 6EQ UK [email protected]

Petersen Robert Mageløs 9, 3 th Odense C.DK-5000 Denmark [email protected]

Rains Voldemars Museum of Jurmala city 29 Tirgonu Str Majori, Jurmala Latvia LV-2015 [email protected]

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Ray Himanshu Prabha Centre for Hist. Studies Jawaharlal Nehru Univ. New Delhi 110 067 India

Reinders Reinder Eurasian Arch. Groningen University BA I Poststraat 6 Groningen NL-9712 ER Nederland [email protected]

Roberts Owain "Penrallt" Penhryd Amlwch LL 689 TN Gwynedd Wales UK

Rogan Bjarne Institutet for kulturstudier Universitetet i Oslo Pb 1010 Blindern Oslo N-0315 Norway [email protected]

Rönnby Johan University College of South Stockholm Box 4101 Huddinge SE-141 89 Sweden [email protected]

Sandvold Steinar Pb 819 Horten 3196 Norway

Schiffahrtsmuseum Deutsches Hans-Scharoun-Platz 1 275 68 Bremerhaven BRD/ Germany [email protected]

Schnall Uwe Deutsches Schiffahrtsmuseum Hans-Scharoun-Platz 1 Bremerhaven 27568 BRD/ Germany [email protected]

Sherratt Andrew Deptm of Antiquities Ashmolean Museum Oxford OX1 2PH UK Univ. of Sheffield [email protected]

Sigurdsson Jon Vidar Centre for Viking and Medieval Studies University of Oslo POB 1016 Blindern Oslo N-0315 Norway [email protected]

Skrzynska-Jankowska Katarzyna Inst. of Archaeology and Ethnology Polish Academy of Science Al. Solidarnosci 105 00-140 Warszawa Poland [email protected]

Sköld Tryggve Skidspåret 19D Umeå SE-903 39 Sweden

Sorokin Petr Inst. of the Hist.of Material Culture Dvortsovaja nab. 18 191 041 St. Peterburg Russia [email protected]

Springmann Maik Ausbau 8 D-182 58 Klein Grenz BRD/ Germany [email protected]

270

Rieth Eric Département d´Archéologie Navale- CNRS UMR 8539 17, place du Trocadéro 751 16 Paris France

Rudjord Kåre Danefjell 10 Farsund 4550 Norway

Smedstad Ingrid Kulturminneavdelingen, Seksjon for arkeologiske kulturminner POB 8196 OSLO 0034 Norway [email protected]

Stokka Hege Kristin Postboks 18 Trondheim 7400 Norway [email protected]

PORTAGES NETWORK

Storå Nils Vårdbergsgat. 8C 207 00 Åbo Finland [email protected]

Strid Jan Paul Nordiska språk Linköpings universitet Sweden [email protected]

Centre for Maritime og Regionale Studier Fiskeri- og Søfartsmuseet Tarphagevej 2 Esbjerg VDK-6710 Danmark [email protected] [email protected]

Leon Recanati Center for MaritimeStudies Mt Carmel Haifa 319 05 Israel

Stylegar Frans-Arne Vest-Agder Fylkeskommune NSK-avd Norway [email protected]

Sveinall Paul Skarstad Marnardal 4534 Norway

Sylvester Morten Trondheim Norway [email protected]

Sørensen Bodil Holm Ladbyskibsmuseet Vikingevej 123 DK 5300 Kerteminde Denmark [email protected]

Sørensen Tinna Damgård Vikingeskibsmuseet POB 298 Roskilde DK-4000 Denmark [email protected]

Sørheim Helge Arkeologisk Museum i Stavanger Postboks 478 Stavanger N-4002 Norway [email protected]

Teigelake Ulrike Landschaftsverband Rheinland Archäologischer Park/ Regionalmuseum Xanten Trajanstr. 4 465 09 Xanten BRD/ Germany [email protected] [email protected]

Terdman Moshe Univ. of Haifa Israel [email protected]

Thorstensen Cathrine Norsk Vegmuseum Fåberg, Lillehammer, Norway [email protected]

Took Roger 20 Rossetti Garden Mansions London SW3 5Q UK [email protected]

Tveit Turid Skjold og Vate Sogelag Skjold 5574 Norway Univ. of Bergen [email protected]

Taavitsainen Jussi-Pekka Univ. of Turku Archaeology Henrikinkatu 2 Turku 20014 Finland [email protected]

271

Tveit Lars Karmøy kommune kulturavd Rådhuset Kopervik 4250 Norway [email protected]

Taavitsainen Jussi-Pekka Fabriksgatan 22 G 52 Helsingfors FIN-00140 Finland

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PORTAGES

Ulfhielm Bo Länsmuseet i Gävleborgs län Box 746 Gävle S-801 28 Sweden [email protected]

Urbanczyk Przemyslaw Inst. of Arch. & Ethnology Polish Academy of Sciences Al Solidarnosci 105 Warszawa PL-00-140 Poland [email protected]

Umeå Universitet Inst. för ark. och samiska Umeå SE-901 87 Sverige

Uppsala universitet Ark.inst. S:t Eriks Torg 5 Uppsala SE-753 10 Sweden

Urtans Juris State Inspection for Heritage Protection of Latvia van der Eynden Jo Center of Archaeology Vest-Agder County Municipality Norway Klostera iela 5/7 [email protected] Riga LV-1050 Latvia [email protected]

Vea Marit Synnøve Karmøy kommune Norway

Vilkuna Janne Jyväskylän yliopisto Taidehistorian laitos/ museologia Seminaarinkatu 15 401 00 Jyväskylä Finland [email protected]

Volden Signhild Kristianstensbakken 10 B Trondheim 7014 Norway [email protected]

von Arbin Staffan Bohusläns Museum POB 403 Uddevalla SE-451 19 Sweden [email protected]

Wallerström Thomas University of Lund, Sweden [email protected]

Waugh Doreen White Cottage Cleikhimin Penicuik Midlothian EH26 8QD UK/ Scotland [email protected]

Werner Walter Georg-Lebedour-Str. 3 904 73 Nürnberg BRD/ Germany

Weski Timm Bayr. Landesamt f. Denkmalschutz Hofgraben 4 805 39 München BRD/ Germany [email protected]

272

Vinner Max Vikingeskibsmuseet Vindeboder 12 Roskilde DK-4000 Denmark [email protected]

Vågen Inger Sirilia 56 Sandvika 1336 Norway [email protected]

Welinder Stig Mitthögskolan arkeologi Härnösand Sweden [email protected]

Wessman Stefan Marinarkeologiska enheten Vrakholmen Helsingfors SF-00570 Finland [email protected]

PORTAGES NETWORK

Westerdahl Christer Municipality to Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Archaeology and Religious Studies NO-7012 Trondheim. [email protected]

Westerlund Kasper Sjöhistoriska institutet vid Åbo Akademi Slottsg. 72 201 00 Åbo Finland [email protected]

Wikander Johan Anton Kong Inges gt 41 Trondheim 7052 Norway [email protected]

Zulkus Vladas The Centre of West Lithuanian & Russian History Klaipeda University H. Manto 84 Klaipeda 5808 Lithuania [email protected]

Østrem Nils Olav Høgskolen i Stavanger, Ullandhaug, Pb 8002 Postterminalen Stavanger 4068 Norway [email protected]

Øye Ingvild Arkeologisk Institutt Universitetet i Bergen Bergen 5020 Norway [email protected]

273

Wickler Stephen Deptm of Arch. Tromsoe University Museum Tromsoe N-9037 Norway [email protected]

Ödman Anders Ark. inst., Univ of Lund Sweden [email protected]

Aase Sigurd Pb 420 Haugesund 5501 Norway [email protected]