14
Mateusz Popek
The formation of the early Piast monarchy constituted very interesting and dynamic times that continue to stimulate lively discussions among scientists. Our scientific knowledge about those times is quite extensive, but many research questions remain, for historians and archaeologists alike. One such issue is the incorporation of the Bay of Gdańsk area into the early Piast state. Both the exact moment of annexation and the processes that followed1 are debatable. The discussion centres on an archaeological site at the mouth of the Płutnica River (Figure 14.1). Historians2 and archaeologists alike3 are persuaded that the place is of great importance to the early medieval history of the area around the Bay of Gdańsk. The literature to date has repeatedly referenced research results from the 1980s and 1990s that no longer reflect the current state of knowledge about the site.4 However, new data and analyses provided by a project conducted by the Centre for Underwater Archaeology of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Poland, in 2017–19 have allowed knowledge obtained from almost 40 years of research to be compiled and new analyses performed. This has significantly illuminated the fairly opaque history of this archaeological site at the mouth of the Płutnica. It has also presented a plethora of new research problems. However, with our current state of knowledge about the place, we can now return to the discussion of the importance of Puck harbour to the early medieval Baltic economic zone and its role after Pomerania was incorporated into the state of the first Piasts.
FIGURE 14.1 Archaeological site at the mouth of the Płutnica River.
Research history
The relics of an early medieval harbour were discovered in Puck Bay in 1977, when three divers from Warsaw found the remains of wooden structures and an abundance of historical material while searching for a legendary privateer in the harbour. Since then, the site has been examined by multiple teams of archaeologists.5 The first seasons of research were conducted under the supervision of W. Stępień. The studies lasted from the late 1970s to 1984. The purpose of these works was to survey the site. At that time, the wrecks of three early medieval vessels were discovered that were later given the codes P1, P2 and P3, plus a logboat designated P4. Cooperation between archaeologists and surveyors at the time led to very detailed plans of the underwater objects being drafted.6
In the years 1984–89, research on the harbour relics was paused. However, since 1990, the Department of Underwater Archaeology7 of the Institute of Archaeology of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń began work in cooperation with the Central Maritime Museum in Gdańsk.8 This research lasted for three years and saw the creation of plans of 1 hectare of the site and the establishment of five survey excavations. The wreck of the P3 vessel was also explored, during which endeavour a fifth wreck – that of an early medieval vessel (P5) – was discovered. The object was left in situ, where it remains to this day.9
From 1994 to 2017, only the Central Maritime Museum in Gdańsk researched the site, with interruptions. At that time, in addition to archaeological explorations, numerous environmental studies were also carried out to reconstruct changes in the water level in Puck Lagoon.10
In 2017, the Centre for Underwater Archaeology of Nicolaus Copernicus University launched the project “Virtual Arch – For better utilisation of hidden archaeological heritage in Central Europe”. The project aimed to create a virtual reconstruction of the medieval harbour in Puck. To achieve this goal, archival documentation scattered around museum and private archives was collected. In 2018–19, there were four research expeditions. With the help of specialists from the Maritime Institute in Gdańsk, a very detailed bathymetric map of the site was produced. Three-dimensional models of selected structures were also created, and a series of radiocarbon and dendrochronological datings was made. Furthermore, in cooperation with the company Innomar, innovative technology was employed in the form of a parametric bottom-sediment profilograph. The data provided by this type of prospecting facilitated a virtual reconstruction of one of the harbour phases. Another significant outcome of the project in question was its substantive summarising of all previous research, which allowed for a detailed interpretation of the site.11
The analysis of the historical sources revealed that the site was settled in five phases. The pre-harbour phase extends from the Bronze Age to the seventh or eighth century ad. No harbour structures have been assigned to this phase, but some very interesting cultural artefacts have been discovered. The oldest archaeo-logical objects from the site are some probably Bronze-Age horn tools. The next items are two floor planks of vessels – one dated to the turn of the fifth century ad and the other to the turn of the eighth – which are analogous to those used in a vessel from Nydam, and a clasp dated to the last quarter of the fourth century ad.12 These artefacts indicate the initial period of human maritime activity at the mouth of the Płutnica.
The first harbour at the mouth of the Płutnica was built in the mid-ninth century and operated until the late tenth century. It is this phase to which the present chapter is devoted. Meanwhile, the second phase of harbour operation in Puck lies in the latter half of the twelfth century. All identified structures from this period lie eastwards of the phase-I structures (Figure 14.2). This means that the harbour was probably built from scratch. This phase post-dates Pomerania’s annexation to Poland by Boleslaus III the Wry-mouthed, who granted these lands to the Sobiesławic family; it is to this family that the construction of the phase-II harbour should be linked.13
FIGURE 14.2 Layout of the three phases of Puck harbour.
The third phase extends from the late thirteenth to the latter fourteenth centuries. These were very turbulent times in the history of Pomerania. After a war that lasted from 1269 to 1271, which was won by Duke Mestwin II, Puck became a castellany.14 However, at the beginning of the fourteenth century, these areas were taken over by the Order of the Teutonic Knights. On November 16, 1348, the Order granted Puck a city charter based on Chełmno Law.15 A very important year in the reconstruction of the harbour’s history was 1288, when Duke Mestwin II of Pomerania granted to the Cistercian monastery in Oliwa a fishing station called Trzęsawisko at the mouth of the Płutnica River.16 The structure’s location and a series of dendrochronological dates suggest that these phase-III structures are highly probably that same fishing station of Trzęsawisko (Figure 14.2).
Everything indicates that, around the mid-fourteenth century, the harbour at the mouth of Płutnica was abandoned. This was most likely related to Puck being taken over by the Teutonic Knights. In 1348, it granted city rights to Puck in a new location 1,000 m east of the mouth of the Płutnica.17 It seems that, wherever possible, the Teutonic Knights avoided chartering cities on the sites of old estates.18 This was probably also the case in Puck, leading to the harbour at the mouth of the Płutnica being forgotten for over six centuries.
The early medieval harbour
The first phase of the harbour’s operation was in the ninth and tenth centuries, when the water level was 0.70–0.75 m below its current level.19 The first series of dendrochronological dates recorded for the relics from this phase is from trees felled in the mid-ninth century and the first decades of the tenth. The second series of samples was assigned to the middle of the tenth century.20 This suggests that the harbour was renovated after having been in existence for at least several decades. These dates also show that the site was in use for at least a century. It should also be noted that the structures from this phase include approximately 5,500 piles.21 More than 100 samples were taken for dating, from which just 26 datings were obtained. This is due to the very poor condition of the wood, whose top layers have been damaged by the activity of the sea, making the material difficult to date dendrochronologically. This means that the harbour may have received multiple renovations and repairs that have not yet been detected.
A very important research issue is the reason for choosing this site for the construction of the harbour. The estuary of the small Płutnica River was chosen as the site of the harbour constructions (Figure 14.1). They were built to the east of its mouth on a flat bank. This site is sheltered from the prevailing westerlies. Many hypotheses have been formulated as to the choice of this site for building a harbour. The idea that is most coherent, though not without its flaws, is that proposed by J. Litwin, suggesting that there was a portage at this point. This scholar posits that there was a connection between the Czarna Wda and Płutnica Rivers (Figure 14.1) leading through Bielawskie Błota that would have significantly shortened the route to Gdańsk by creating a shortcut avoiding the 35-km-long Hel Peninsula, while also leading through calm bays protected from strong winds.22 This interpretation is complicated by the uncertain chronology and multiplicity of interpretations of medieval settlement in Gdańsk.23 Therefore, this hypothesis should be loosened somewhat to posit a portage leading to “somewhere” in Gdańsk Bay and, from there, further inland. It should also be noted that the harbour’s location does not entirely fit the pattern of location of other early medieval coastal centres on river banks several kilometres upstream of river mouths. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that the medieval port in Kamień Pomorski has an extremely similar location.24 Another weak point of this hypothesis lies in our lack of knowledge of the Płutnica’s navigability in the early Middle Ages. The etymology of the name “Płutnica” suggests a shallow, marshy river.25 However, environmental research should try to reconstruct the river’s conditions in the early Middle Ages. This would conclusively confirm or disconfirm the navigability of the Płutnica and, thus, its viability as a gateway inland.
The structures of the first phase of Puck harbour had a complicated spatial layout and cover approximately 2 hectares (Figure 14.3).26 During this period, there were probably two separate quays of similar shape – one eastern and one western – but they were oriented in different directions. The western quay was about 100 m long and U-shaped, with the convex side facing into the bay, while the eastern quay was of similar length and shape, with its concave side facing slightly offshore in a northwesterly direction. Near the eastern quay, an early medieval wreck (P2) was found. This vessel was from the tenth century and exhibited a unique structure, with features of both Scandinavian and Slavic “boat-building schools”. The reconstructed length of the vessel is approximately 20 m, allowing it to be categorised as a large boat or small ship. Meanwhile, its length-to-width ratio of 1:9 suggests that it was a military vessel.27
FIGURE 14.3 Layout of the first phase of Puck harbour.
The piers, meanwhile, appear to be consistent in construction and in being oriented along a NW-SE axis (Figure 14.3). These piers were 3–4 m wide. Their length ranged from several tens of metres to over 100 m. It can be assumed that the piers ran parallel to (but not adjoining) the shore, constituting a berth for vessels while also acting as breakwaters. They were connected to the mainland by a pier up to 60 m long running perpendicular to the shoreline. Considering that the water level was approximately 0.7 m below its current level, the water can be estimated to have been 1.2–1.7 m deep at the piers. This would have been sufficient for early medieval vessels, whose drafts did not exceed a few tens of centimetres. Several tens of metres to the north there was one more structure not connected with the others. It can be assumed to have been a defensive barrage of sorts, protecting the harbour. This interpretation is supported in the written sources, in which Adam of Bremen saw rocks hidden beneath the water’s surface in Birca, blocking entry to the harbour. Archaeologists examining that site confirmed the existence of structures designed as a barrier preventing the uninitiated from entering the harbour. The main difference from the historical sources is the fact that, here, there were not rocks but specially driven piles.28
The archaeological data were taken into account in determining a hypothetical shoreline. The logical harbour layout was thus derived. The safest zone was the harbour basin, protected against westerly and northerly winds both by the piers built parallel to the shore and by those running north to south. Westerlies prevail in Puck Bay, and the NW-SE-running pier was the most vulnerable to damage and, thus, required a more solid construction. The piers face into the bay, that is, where boats came in and where fishing was also conducted. The harbour’s very layout also protected it against the most dangerous, easterly winds. Unfortunately, it is not known what the harbour to the east of the eastern wharf looked like, because there is a group of structures there that have a different chronology.
Puck and the early Piast state
To understand the role and importance of Puck harbour, it should be placed in the context of the developing state of the first Piasts and of the emporia between the Oder and the Vistula. The nature of the site in the Puck Bay makes such interpretation difficult. Most of the coastal emporia and major centres of the Piast state have been studied using terrestrial methods, and movable cultural finds are the main source for interpretation. So-called imports and prestige goods, as well as the settlement structure, determine a centre’s range of contacts and importance. In Puck, all of the studies have been carried out strictly within the harbour zone, and the residential and production facilities either have been destroyed or are still to be located. Additionally, the cultural items only come from surface research and are relatively scarce. This accounts for the difference in archaeological material that hampers the drawing of conclusions as to the role and importance of this port. Furthermore, it should be noted that the scope of excavations carried out at the terrestrial sites has been significantly greater than the few survey excavations carried out at the Puck Bay site. This situation causes great difficulties in interpretation.
There is, however, a series of data that allows some cautious interpretations to be made. The first relates to the size and technological advancement of the harbour structures. Such extensive piers and wharfs were only to be found in the largest harbours of the early medieval Baltic Sea. Another clue may be found in the wreck of a large military vessel found close to the harbour structures. Analysis of this vessel leads to the conclusion that the emporium in Puck was not a local harbour, but had contacts with at least the Scandinavian cultural circle. Another important piece of information that allows us to draw conclusions about the harbour’s history is a series of dendrochronological datings that may constitute an argument in the discussion on the Piast dynasty’s annexation of Pomerania.
During this phase of Puck harbour, four other important trade and craft centres were operating between the Oder and the Vistula: Wolin, Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo, Truso and, arguably, Gdańsk.
In the tenth century, Wolin was already an emporium with well-developed residential buildings and numerous craft workshops. Its intercultural contacts have been confirmed by the numerous finds of imports. There was certainly also a harbour. However, despite there being archaeological and historical sources, its appearance and functionality have been interpreted in far less detail than has the centre’s onshore part.29
At the same time, on the Parsęta River, a centre was developing at Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo, approximately 4 km from the coast. At that time, the emporium had a well-developed residential and craft zone and abundant evidence of long-distance contacts. In this case, there are no interpretations of the harbour area, beyond the assertion that it did exist and indications of its probable location.30
To the east of Puck on Lake Drużno, in the early ninth century, the Truso emporium began to develop. The buildings at the emporium are closely related to the Scandinavian zone, as also confirmed by numerous finds. Inside the settlement, numerous traces of craftwork and coins have been found. In this case, the harbour area has also been examined, and a wreck was found. However, in this case, only negatives of wrecks and wharves have been found. It is therefore difficult to draw conclusions about the appearance of the harbour structures.31
The last important centre between the Oder and the Vistula was Gdańsk. The chronology of early medieval Gdańsk is the subject of many polemics. The datings of the oldest structures as being the remains of a major fortified settlement from the 930s have often been criticised and determined to be erroneous. Studies marking the advent of Gdańsk’s millennial documented 17 cultural layers dated between ad 970 and 980 in what can be described as “ducal strongholds”. In the vicinity of the churches of St. Nicholas and St. Catherine, there was a second settlement in which the settlement levels date to the ninth and tenth centuries. Meanwhile, there is a third settlement near Długi Targ, where there was some kind of system of fortifications.32 However, the latest dendrochronological analyses have indicated the 1050s to 1060s for the construction of the Gdańsk stronghold, which changes the potential interpretations of the site.33
In comparing Puck to the main commercial and craft centres between the Oder and Vistula Rivers, it is clear that there are huge differences in the nature of the available sources. However, each of these emporia has a comparable location. Wolin, Kołobrzeg-Budzistowo, Truso and Gdańsk are situated some distance from the sea, on the calm shores of rivers and lakes. This allowed a settlement to be built in a relatively safe place with an open route inland. Puck, however, presents an entirely different case. It was not connected with any river leading inland; the harbour was built on the shore of a bay and thus needed protection against sea waves by specially built structures. One interpretation of the harbour’s establishment on the bay shore is A. Buko’s suggestion34 that the site for building a settlement was poorly chosen. However, it seems unlikely that such a large facility would have functioned and been adapted and repaired for more than a century had it been so poorly located. Had this place not been suitable for sea-faring activities, the inhabitants would have left the harbour and not expanded it. The precise selection of the place for construction is also evidenced by finds of structural elements of vessels from the fourth and fifth centuries ad and from the turn of the eighth century, which show that this place was already a point on maritime routes. Meanwhile, the two subsequent construction phases show that, despite a break in settlement between phases, people still returned to the place. Therefore, there must have been a significant factor warranting the choice of this location for a harbour. Perhaps there may indeed have been a portage here that was the reason for the construction of the harbour, or perhaps the reasons have yet to be discovered by research.
The incorporation of Gdańsk Pomerania into the early Piast state is the subject of extensive polemics among historians and archaeologists. An analysis and comparison of two hypotheses as to how this incorporation came about have been presented by S. Wadyl.35 According to historians, Gdańsk Pomerania was seized by the Piasts as part of a military operation in the 950s.36 By contrast, S. Wadyl suggests that archaeological sources, including the knowledge about the harbour in Puck at that time, indicate that East Pomerania was annexed by the Piast state in the mid-eleventh century.37
Referring to the earlier annexation of areas on the Bay of Gdańsk, B. Śliwiński suggests that Puck harbour would have been the main centre of the area.38 It seems that, after the conquest of these territories, the early Piast state should have established a focal point of sorts to control the occupied territories. The older literature considers this to have been the city of Gdańsk. However, dendrochronological analyses of hook structures of the fortified settlement in Gdańsk, considered to be a “showpiece” of the Piasts, suggest, rather, that the fortifications were of eleventh-century construction.39 Therefore, B. Śliwiński sees Puck as the main centre of power in these areas. The very extensive and wide harbour facilities at the mouth of the Płutnica indicate that it was a large-scale site. The older literature mentions the presence of hook structures at this site, but unfortunately these elements are of unknown date.40 In addition, the verifications carried out in 2017–19 failed to confirm the occurrence of such constructions, meaning that they cannot be definitively stated to have existed. Further important information is provided by the numerous structural elements with traces of burning found at the Puck site, which may be evidence of an armed takeover by the Piasts.41 However, none of these elements has been dated, and their location does not allow them to be assigned to any one of the three phases of the harbour in Puck. Therefore, it cannot be stated unequivocally that the phase-I structures were burned down or, thus, that the entire harbour was taken over by the Piasts. It is fairly certain that the early medieval structures of Puck harbour were built in the mid-ninth and early tenth centuries. Then, in the 940s and 950s, some structures were renovated.42 The dates of the harbour’s rebuilding are similar to (though slightly older than) the historians’ view of the annexation of Gdańsk Pomerania by the Piast state. However, if the Piasts entered the Bay of Gdańsk in the mid-eleventh century, phase-I Puck harbour would no longer have existed, while the phase-II harbour would also not yet have been built. The key piece of evidence would be to find the hook structures and traces of fire mentioned in the older literature and to accurately date them. Due to the lack of unequivocal evidence of the presence of the first Piasts in Puck, the question of who built such a huge harbour at the mouth of the Płutnica – and why – remains unanswered.
Conclusion
To sum up, there is no doubt that, in the early Middle Ages, the harbour in Puck was a vast and perhaps important trade and craft centre – it was not a regional centre serving only its immediate surroundings. Unfortunately, there is no plane on which it can be compared to other emporia such as Wolin, Kołobrzeg or Truso: the nature of the site also does not allow for broad inferences about intercultural contacts, nor about the economy and social structures of the population living at the settlement. Another important research issue is the role that Puck plays in discussions on the presence of the first Piasts in the Bay of Gdańsk. Accurate dating and extension of the analysis of the phase-I harbour structures may provide very interesting lines of questioning in this discussion. These important research issues undoubtedly still require concrete and extensive research on this extremely interesting archaeological site.
Notes
· 1 Sławomir Wadyl, “Pomorze Wschodnie w X wieku. Uwagi na marginesie pracy Błażeja Śliwińskiego, Początki Gdańska: Dzieje ziem nad zachodnim brzegiem Zatoki Gdańskiej w I połowie X wieku, Gdańsk 2009,” Pomorania Antiqua 24 (2015): 129–35.
· 2 Błażej Śliwiński, Początki Gdańska. Dzieje ziem nad zachodnim brzegiem Zatoki Gdańskiej w I połowie X wieku (Gdańsk: Muzeum Historyczne Miasta Gdańska, 2009), 237–42.
· 3 Andrzej Buko, Świt Państwa Polskiego (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo IAiE PAN, 2021), 135–237.
· 4 Andrzej Buko, Archeologia Polski wczesnośredniowiecznej. Odkrycia – hipotezy – interpretacje (Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Trio, 2005), 183–84; Buko, Świt Państwa Polskiego, 135–37.
· 5 Wiesław Stępień, “Puck przed Gdańskiem,” Z Otchłani Wieków 49 (1983): 49–57.
· 6 Wiesław Stępień, “Wczesnośredniowieczny wrak łodzi klepkowej W-2 z Zatoki Puckiej,” Prace i Materiały Muzeum Archeologicznego i Etnograficznego w Łodzi, Seria Archeologiczna 34 (1987): 139–54.
· 7 Presently the Centre for Underwater Archaeology of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń.
· 8 Now the National Maritime Museum in Gdańsk (Narodowe Muzeum Morskie).
· 9 Wojciech Szulta, “Badania podwodnych struktur archeologicznych zalegających w Zatoce Puckiej przeprowadzone w latach 1990–1992,” Nautologia 1–2 (2002): 76–82.
· 10 Iwona Pomian, Łukasz Gajewski, Błażej Śliwiński, Szymon Uścinowicz, Tomasz Ważny, and Karolina Wójcik, “Aktualizacja dokumentacji archeologicznej: ochrona reliktów portu średniowiecznego w Pucku,” Zapiski Puckie 13 (2014): 83–94.
· 11 Mateusz Popek, “Średniowieczny port w Zatoce Puckiej w świetle badań archeologicznych.” (PhD Diss., Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, 2020), 23.
· 12 Waldermar Ossowski, Przemiany w szkutnictwie rzecznym w Polsce. Studium Archeologiczne (Gdańsk: Centralne Muzeum Morskie, 2010), 169.
· 13 Błażej Śliwiński, “Dzieje Pucka w świetle najstarszych źródeł pisanych,” in Historia Pucka, ed. Andrzej Groth (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Marpress, 1998), 55–68.
· 14 Błażej Śliwiński, “Dzieje Pucka w świetle najstarszych źródeł pisanych,” in Historia Pucka, ed. Andrzej Groth (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Marpress, 1998), 61.
· 15 Klemens Bruski, “Puck w czasach krzyżackich,” in Historia Pucka, ed. Andrzej Groth (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Marpress, 1998), 68–90.
· 16 Władysław Łęga, Obraz gospodarczy Pomorza Gdańskiego (Poznań: Instytut Zachodni, 1949), 8–9.
· 17 Szymon Uścinowicz, Grażyna Miotk-Spiganowicz, Mariusz Gałka, Jacek Pawylta, Natalia Piotrowska, Iwona Pomian, and Małgorzata Witak, “The Rise, Development and Destruction of the Medieval Port of Puck in the Light of Research into Paleocli-mate and Sea Level Change,” Archaeologia Polona 49 (2013): 97–104.
· 18 Michał Starski, “Uwarunkowania lokalizacji i rozplanowanie miasta lokacyjnego w Pucku,” in Puck: kultura materialna małego miasta w późnym średniowieczu, ed. Michał Star-ski (Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Instytut Archeologii, 2017), 49.
· 19 Szymon Uścinowicz, “Charakterystyka wpływu środowiska naturalnego na stan zachowania zabytku,” in Raport końcowy z prac wykonanych przez Muzeum Ziemi Puckiej im. Floriana Ceynowy w Pucku. Projekt “Aktualizacja dokumentacji archeologicznej” zrealizowany w programie Ministerstwa Kultury i Dziedzictwa Narodowego, Dziedzictwo Kulturowe, Ochrona Zabytków Archeologicznych, ed. Iwona Pomian, Unpublished report on file at Muzeum Ziemi Puckiej im. Floriana Ceynowy (Polska: Puck, 2013), 13–31.
· 20 Tomasz Ważny, “Wyniki badań dendrochronologicznych stanowiska port w Zatoce Puckiej” (Unpublished report on file at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Polska, 1991), passim; Tomasz Ważny, Dendrochronologia obiektów zabytkowych w Polsce (Gdańsk: Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku, 2001), passim; Tomasz Ważny, “Dendrochronologia Pomorza – możliwości i ograniczenia,” in XIII Sesja Pomorzoznawcza, ed. Henryk Paner (Gdańsk: Muzeum Archeologiczne, 2003), 25–33; Tomasz Ważny, “Analiza dendrochronologiczna drewna z wczesnośredniowiecznej łodzi klepkowej P-2 z Pucka” (Unpublished report on file at Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń, Polska, 2007), passim.
· 21 There are 7,738 posts within ten inventoried hectares. Beyond this area, remains of wooden structures continue to be found.
· 22 Jerzy Litwin, “Stanowisko archeologiczne w Zatoce Puckiej szansą na nowe muzeum morskie,” Nautologia 33, no. 3–4 (1998): 18–19; Robert Domżał, “Portages at the Coast of Poland in Medieval Times,” in The Significance of Portages. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Significance of Portages, ed. Christen Westredal (Oxford: Archaeo-press, 2006), 69–75.
· 23 Wadyl, “Pomorze Wschodnie w X wieku,” 129–35.
· 24 Mateusz Bogucki, Ośrodki handlowo-rzemieślnicze nad Bałtykiem we wczesnym średniowieczu. PhD Ddissertation, archaeology (Warszawa: Uniwersytet Warszawski, 2006), 280.
· 25 Jerzy Treder, “Puck,” in Nazwy miast Pomorza Gdańskiego, eds. Henryk Górnowicz and Zygmunt Brocki (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, 1998), 171–72.
· 26 The real area may be larger, as not all relics have been inventoried.
· 27 Jerzy Litiwn and Iwona Pomian, “Attempt at Evaluating the Scientific Value of the P-2 Boat Originating from the Middle Ages,” in Between the Seas. Transfer and Exchange in Nautical Technology. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium on Boat and Ship Archaeology, ed. Ronald Bockius (Mainz: Römisch-Germanisches Zentralmuseum, 2009), 421–28.
· 28 Michael Olausson and Jens Lindström, Fållnäs: arkeologiska undersökningar. Del 1, En ränna, RAÄ 680, ett gravfält RAÄ 680:2 samt en fornborg, Skansberget, RAÄ 721 vid Fållnäs gård, Sorunda sn, Södermanland 2000–2001 samt en pålspärr, RAÄ 488, Stäket, Sorunda sn, Södermanland 2000–2002 (Stockholm: Arkeologiska forskningslaboratoriet, 2003), passim.
· 29 Błażej Stanisławski and Władysław Filipowiak, Wolin wczesnośredniowieczny część 2 (Warszawa: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej, 2014), passim; Andrzej Janowski, “Port wczesnośredniowiecznego Wolina – wyniki prac archeologicznych w latach 2011–2013,” Acta Archaeologica Pomoranica 5 (2015): 115–31; Marian Rębkowski, Wolin The Old Town. Vol. I: Settlement structure, stratigraphy and chronology (Szczecin: Instytut Archeologii i Etnologii Polskiej Akademii Nauk, 2019), passim.
· 30 Lech Leciejewicz and Marian Rębkowski, Kołobrzeg. Wczesne miasto nad Bałtykiem (Warszawa: Fundacja na Rzecz Nauki Polskiej, 2007), passim.
· 31 Marek F. Jagodziński, Janów Pomorski/Truso. Struktura i zabudowa strefy portowej (badania 1982–1991) (Elbląg: Muzeum Archeologiczno-historyczne w Elblągu, 2017), passim.
· 32 Wadyl, “Pomorze Wschodnie w X wieku,” 129–35; Buko, Świt Państwa Polskiego, 138–39.
· 33 Bogdan Kościński and Henryk Paner, “Nowe wyniki datowania grodu gdańskiego – stanowisko 1 (wyk. I–V),” in XIV Sesja Pomorzoznawcza, eds. Henryk Paner and Marian Fudziński, 2 (Gdańsk: Muzeum Archeologiczne w Gdańsku, 2005), 11–47.
· 34 Buko, Świt Państwa Polskiego, 137.
· 35 Wadyl, “Pomorze Wschodnie w X wieku,” passim.
· 36 Śliwiński, Początki Gdańska, 237–42.
· 37 Ibid.
· 38 Ibid., 195–242.
· 39 Buko, Świt Państwa Polskiego, 169.
· 40 Wiesław Stępień, “Wczesnośredniowieczny port z dna Zatoki Puckiej,” in Historia Pucka, ed. Andrzej Groth (Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Marpress, 1998), 34–54.
· 41 Śliwiński, Początki Gdańska, 137.
· 42 Ważny, Wyniki badań dendrochronologicznych stanowiska port w Zatoce Puckiej, passim; Ważny, Dendrochronologia obiektów zabytkowych w Polsce, passim. Ważny, “Dendrochronologia Pomorza – możliwości i ograniczenia,” 25–33; Ważny, Analiza dendrochronologiczna drewna z wczesnośredniowiecznej łodzi klepkowej P-2 z Pucka, passim; Ważny, Analiza dendrochronologiczna drewna z Pucka (badania podwodne w Zatoce Puckiej), passim.