SITUNE DEI 2009 Experimental ‘Viking voyages’ on Eastern European rivers 1983–2006 Rune Edberg Abstract. Several experimental boat voyages Soviet Union on its way to the Black Sea. on rivers in Eastern Europe and the ex-USSR The crew was however forced to turn back have taken place during the last decades. All at the easternmost Polish border. At the time have confirmed that travelling on rivers, against of renewed efforts with Krampmacken in stong current or in shallow waters, is a chal- 1985, the expedition picked up where it had lenging and sometimes quite impossible task. been forced to leave off, but instead fol- The notion that Scandinavians brought their lowed the river Vistula (Wisla) upstream as own vessels to and across Russia, as sometimes far as possible. From there, the crew, with suggested by imaginative scholars, is neither the help of a cart, pulled the boat across the supported by archeological and historical re- Carpathian Mountains, and continued on to search, nor by these experiments. Miklagård (Constantinople / Istanbul) via the rivers Ondava, Bodrog, Tisza and he 1991 dissolution of the Soviet Union Danube (through Poland, Czechoslovakia, Tlead to a considerable loosening of pre- Hungary, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Bulgaria viously strict travel restrictions for foreign and Turkey). Krampmacken was 8 meters visitors. This meant that it became possible long (fig. 2). The design was based on a to study the conditions applicable to the Gotlandic boat find. Erik Nylén headed the Viking Age voyages on the eastern water- project, and I participated on one leg of the ways first hand. Since then, a number of journey. voyages have been undertaken (fig. 1). In The Norwegian Havørn expedition be- the present article, I will briefly present came pioneers in the newly ex-Soviet states. them, and try to establish what they have ac- In 1992, it traveled down parts of the rivers complished and what they have added to Daugava (in Latvia) and Dnepr (in the previous research. Ukraine). Havørn was a 16 meters long As early as 1983, a Swedish expedition ship, a 2/3-scale replica of the Gokstad ship traveling in the boat Krampmacken, at- (fig. 3). A group whose driving force was tempted to obtain permission to cross the Thor Engøy owned the ship. 35 RUNE EDBERG From the Varangians to the Greeks undertaken with the two ships, in 1994 and The next attempt was made by the Swedish 1996–2000, mainly took place on open wa- Aifur expeditions in 1994, 1996 and 2001, ter, and to some degree on West European respectively. The route went through the rivers affected by the tide. The experiences rivers Neva, Volkhov, Lovat, Usvyatya and gained from those trips fall outside the Kasplya in Russia, the Dnepr in Russia and scope of this paper, but in the year 2000, the the Ukraine and the Daugava in Belarus and Heimlösa Rus traveled up the Don and con- Latvia. The goal of the expedition was to tinued to Volgograd via the Volga–Don travel the “Road from the Varangians to the canal, and from there on to Astrakhan on the Greeks” as it is outlined in the Russian Pri- Volga (fig. 6). These expeditions were lead mary Chronicle. by the owner of the boats, Fredrik Koivusa- The Aifur was 9.5 meters long, based on lo. a combination of several Viking Age origi- My latest example is a Polish expedi- nals (fig. 4). She was collectively owned by tion, which traveled on the rivers Vistula, an organization consisting of ten members Bug and Dnepr (in Poland and the Ukraine) with Jan Johansson as chairman. I was re- onboard the boat Welet in 2006. The Welet sponsible for documenting it all. was a 12 meters long replica of a Viking The 1996 Aifur voyage ended at the Age boat find from Danzig-Ohra (Gdansk- mouth of the river Dnepr (in the Ukraine), Orunia) (fig. 7). Henryk Wolski headed the but the Himingläva expedition, which took expedition. place in 2004, acted as a geographical con- We may see more expeditions of this tinuation of the Aifur voyages. Himingläva kind, but then again, maybe not. One of the started out at the mouth of the Dnepr with factors that deter potential arrangers of such the Caspian Sea as its goal. The idea was to voyages is the very thick red tape and the recreate a trip that is known from Swedish corruption that rages within the old Soviet rune stones and Icelandic sources, often re- areas. These problems only seem to com- ferred to as The Voyage of Ingvar (“Ingvar pound with each year. It was because of the Far-traveled”). After that, the expedition problems like that, that the 2004 Himinglä- traveled across the Caucasus, partially on va expedition had large parts of its travel rivers and partially by land with the help of plans spoiled by bullheaded Russian au- oxen (in Georgia and Azerbadzhyan). The thorities at the border crossings. In 2006 9.75 meters long Himingläva was modeled Henryk Wolski had to dole out a large sum the largest of the smaller boats found in con- of pledge money in order to get the Welet junction with the Gokstad ship find (fig. 5). across the Ukrainian border. The worst case Håkan Altrock owned the boat and also scenario is that the research window that headed the expedition. was opened to foreign researchers in 1991 has been slammed shut for now. The Don and the Volga The Finnish boats Rus and Heimlösa Rus Varying quality were both 12-meter long replicas of a find Whatever the future holds, there have now made in the inner parts of the Gulf of Fin- been enough successful attempts at these land, the so-called Lapuri boat. The voyages types of journeys that we can flesh out a few 36 EXPERIMENTAL ‘ VIKING VOYAGES’ Aifur (2001) Havørn (1992) Aifur (1994–1996) Krampmacken (1983–1985) Heimlösa Rus (2000) Welet (2006) Himingläva (2004) Fig. 1. Schematic map of the various expeditions discussed in the paper, drawn by the author. general implications. The basis of such con- of my knowledge, there is no documenta- clusions is, of course, the available docu- tion in the true meaning of the word regard- mentation, which varies in quality. This ing the Havørn’s voyages. There are, how- causes a problem for the interpretation in it- ever, some unpublished accounts that cover self. parts of the journey (Engøy 1992; Altrock The most well documented of these voy- 1993). To my knowledge, there is, as of yet, ages were the Krampmacken expedition no documentation regarding the Welet’s (Nylén 1983, 1987a, 1987b: also Oreheim voyage in 2006, other than a TV documen- 1989; Sjöstrand 1988) the Aifur expedition tary and on the Internet (http:// welet. (Edberg 1998, 2002), and the Himingläva best.net/pl). expedition (Altrock 2005). The Rus expedi- There were also large differences in tion is documented in a book (Koivusalo preparations, starting points, ambitions and 1996) while documentation of the Heimlösa organization between the expeditions. This, Rus voyages only appears to be available on too, must be observed when evaluating the line (www.qnet.fi/rus-project/). To the best 37 RUNE EDBERG Fig. 2. Krampmacken under sail on the Vistula River in 1983. Photo courtesy of Erik Nylén. Fig. 3. Havørn was forced to interrupt the jour- Fig. 4. Aifur in shallow water on the Lower Lovat ney up the Daugava River in 1992. Photo cour- in 1996. Photo courtesy of the The Aifur associ- tesy of Håkan Altrock. ation. 38 EXPERIMENTAL ‘ VIKING VOYAGES’ Fig. 5. Himingläva with draft oxen in a mountain Fig. 6. Heimlösa Rus under sail on the River pass in the Caucasus, 2004. Photo courtesy of Don in 2000. Photo courtesy of Fredrik Koivu- Håkan Altrock. salo. Fig. 7. Welet under sail on the River Bug in 2006. Photo courtesy of Henryk Wolski. outcomes. The following are examples of The carefully selected crew of Kramp- this. macken put in a lot of practice before it set off. The crew sailed around Gotland and Amphibian vessels? back and forth to the mainland. They did The scholar’s own preexisting knowledge not, however, practice traveling on any riv- always plays a role in what types of ques- er. When it came to those points during the tions he will pose. 1983 and 1985 journeys, when the boat had For example, Erik Nylén had researched to be rowed or towed up-stream on the Vis- the ships depicted on the Gotlandic picture tula and Bug rivers, the crew was unable to stones, and as a result, he come up with the travel any more than ten kilometers per day, theory that relatively small vessels could despite much toil. It became obvious that have traveled across the Baltic ocean and on this vessel was not suited for this purpose. rivers, as well as being pulled across land When, after some time, farther progression between the rivers. In other words, they on the rivers became entirely impossible, would have been used much in the way of Erik Nylén had the crew, partially aided by an amphibian vessel. horse, pull the boat on wheels across the 39 RUNE EDBERG Carpathians and the Dukla pass (500 meters rolling ships and boats long distances on above sea level). logs, also came across as unrealistic. The best part of the journey with Kramp- macken was that Erik Nylén never gave in Unfortunate consequences to temptation by allowing engines or other To a large extent, the Aifur expeditions of anachronisms. The expedition did, howev- 1994, 1996 and 2001 followed in the foot- er, allow the use of a car to haul provisions steps of the Krampmacken expeditions.