Steppe nomadic armour from Birka

[Halvgrimr]

its finally ready for unveiling!

see http://www.vikingsna.org/translations/birkaarmour/

huge props go out to Magnus and Niklas for their work on this.

FINALLY the most up to date info on the subject is available IN ENGLISH!


IMO this is another nail in the coffin on the subject of Vikings lamellar.

IMO is sorta implies that whatever it was doing in Birka, it wasn't a local item but an extremely exotic import

I friend of mine has a theory that the abundance of eastern items might suggest a renegade Prince or deposed King who sought (or bought) sanctuary for himself and his bodyguard, don't know if I buy it but its an interesting concept!


Halv

[Damian]

Halv,

THANK YOU for posting this.

I just finished a set of Lamellar body armour that resembles this more than superficially. I was being told by others that it in no way looked Viking but rather, Mongol or Turkish in design.

I'm a bit confused however as the article seems a little vauge on the dating. Is this 7-10th century or closer to 10th century?

This can also be the case of the Birka armour but until there is more support for such an assumption, the safest is to name its origin as Turkic. Similar lamellar armour was in use between AD 700-1000 and is generally connected to Turkic warriors of noble heritage. (Chudjakov 1986, s. 159).

The deposits from the phase of the Garrison to which the Birka armour belongs is dated to the mid 10th century AD, so tentatively it was produced during the first half of the 10th century AD.

In either case can you recommend a type of helmet, arm & leg defences that would be of similar provenance?

Regards,

Grimr

[Halvgrimr]

I am in no way an expert on the subject, I am merely hosting the info;)
But I will take a stab at your questions.



I'm a bit confused however as the article seems a little vauge on the dating. Is this 7-10th century or closer to 10th century?

This can also be the case of the Birka armour but until there is more support for such an assumption, the safest is to name its origin as Turkic. Similar lamellar armour was in use between AD 700-1000 and is generally connected to Turkic warriors of noble heritage. (Chudjakov 1986, s. 159).

The deposits from the phase of the Garrison to which the Birka armour belongs is dated to the mid 10th century AD, so tentatively it was produced during the first half of the 10th century AD.

I beleive what is being said is that

A) lamellar of this type was common between the time of AD 700-1000 and

B) the Birka lamellar is specifically dated to the first half of the 10th C (900-950)




In either case can you recommend a type of helmet, arm & leg defences that would be of similar provenance?


Helmet? spangen with either a mail drape or quite possibly with a lamellar drape

arm/leg defenses? mail?

Not much to really go on really.

Halv

[Russ Mitchell]

THANK YOU.

[Cunian]

Wow. Thank you. I need to get back to it when I am not in an exhausted pre-war fog, and I'm not at all sure I WANT nails in the coffin of Viking lamellar, but... I am sure I will cope.

[Wil]

Excellent! I guess Norman from Silk Road was right about the middle hole in the long, narrow Birka plates. I remember him encouraging us to add an extra hole to the original CAD drawing, but all anyone had was the line drawing from Thordeman to work from (which doesn't show the extra hole). I always felt there wasn't enough overlap, which was why I shingle-laced them rather than lacing them standard.

An excellent article overall, thanks Hal (And Magnus and Niklas!). I've suspected for a long while that these plates weren't Scandinavian in manufacture or use.

~Wil

[Knut Forkbeard]

IMO this is another nail in the coffin on the subject of Vikings lamellar.

How would this be a "nail in the coffin?" Even if it was imported from some other, and seemingly quite distant, part of the world doesn't mean that Vikings didn't wear lamellar armor in and around the time period mentioned in the analysis (mid- to early- 10th century). If one is looking to prove that Vikings were manufacturing lamellar locally during this time period, this analysis would indicate that this possibility is more unlikely than it once may have been supposed. However, if one is looking to prove that a Norseman COULD have been wearing lamellar into battle during this timeframe, then I'd say this was conclusive proof that lamellar was available if you had sufficient means to have it imported....or kill the other guy wearing it.

[Wil]

IMO this is another nail in the coffin on the subject of Vikings lamellar.

How would this be a "nail in the coffin?" Even if it was imported from some other, and seemingly quite distant, part of the world doesn't mean that Vikings didn't wear lamellar armor in and around the time period mentioned in the analysis (mid- to early- 10th century). If one is looking to prove that Vikings were manufacturing lamellar locally during this time period, this analysis would indicate that this possibility is more unlikely than it once may have been supposed. However, if one is looking to prove that a Norseman COULD have been wearing lamellar into battle during this timeframe, then I'd say this was conclusive proof that lamellar was available if you had sufficient means to have it imported....or kill the other guy wearing it.

Hi Knut

I'm very hesitant to make assumptions on your knowledge of the Birka excavations, but one needs a pretty thorough knowledge to appreciate Hal's 'coffin' statement. I've sadly read very little, mostly from re-enactors/SCA folks rather than historians.

A very large number of items have been excavated from Birka which are inconsistent with Scandinavian themes. As you know, Birka is pretty much the closest Scandinavian community to the Russian trade routes, so it was always assumed that all this stuff was Eastern imports, used by Swedes in Birka (Or Swedish copies of imported items).

More recently, theories have arisen that, as a trade town, there was a decent immigrant population from modern-day Russia living and operating in Birka. Many of the garments, jewelry items etc. found in Birka graves (and other areas of the town) which are characteristically un-Scandinavian may have belonged to people who were characteristically un-Scandinavian.

*edit* The plates were found in the remains of a building (the 'Garrison' mentioned in the article). Nearby artifacts were of a non-Scandinavian style, which suggested the building was used by a non-Swedish military group. Working from dim memory here, but I think the building & artifacts showed signs of a fire. *edit*

Your import theory assumes that lamellar was superior to mail for 10th century Scandinavian style combat (Relatively static infantry, spear & sword, broad round shields), which we don't know. If a lamellar corselet is of no greater advantage than a mail shirt, there's no reason a Swedish fighting man would have preferred it. This question, unfortunately, we have no answer to.

I've long speculated that the Birka lamellar was Khazarian in origin, to find it's contemporaries even further east is fascinating.

Anyway, this is all theory for fun. I'm no expert, jus tputting ideas out there.

TTYL

~Wil

[Halvgrimr]

How would this be a "nail in the coffin?" .

--why?

Because for years most of the "evidence" for Viking Age lamellar consisted of "There is that one set from Birka"

We now know for sure (well as sure as the folks who worked with the actual piece can be) that "That one set from Birka" isn’t ‘Viking’ in origin, it an exotic import IMO

To apply it to a modern day analogy, IMO it’s just as likely that the average ‘Viking’ with lamellar was about as common as the average man today with a Lamborghini.

Sure it might not be unheard of but it sure wasn’t the base line for what the average Viking wore IMO.


Halv

[Russ Mitchell]

Crap, I'm going to tip my hand on next year's presentation at Kalamazoo.

Lamellar has superior impact and cutting resistance to mail. That does *not* make it superior armor. Each reflects a fundamentally different approach to armor. Lamellar has a glaring vulnerability compared to mail -- coverage. There are many gaps which can be exploited, especially if this is a tibetan-style loose-thing-hanging construction (the latter part of which I am doubtful on, as Tibetan lamellar also exerted a tremendous influence on the middle east, where construction is implied to be somewhere in-between the Byzantine and Tibetan/Korean loose-lacing style).

[Knut Forkbeard]

Sure it might not be unheard of but it sure wasn’t the base line for what the average Viking wore IMO.

Completely in agreement with you here.

My stance was geared more toward leaving lamellar open as a possible armor which might be worn by a person portraying a Norse persona of approximately the 9th/10th century. Would wearing a chainmail byrnie cause you to more closely resemble the majority of armor-wearing Norsemen during this time period? Absolutely? However, would wearing lamellar armor put you right in the middle of "non-period" territory? Well, no. Lamellar was clearly "period" in the lands of hte North, albeit rather exotic.

For those striving to accurately portray "in period" Norse armor of the 9th / 10th century, its nice to know there is another legitimate alternative to chainmail. Yes, you must make a stretch to justify how your persona acquired such exotic armor, but it is a stretch one could make nonetheless.

As an aside, the "antique" lamellar found at Visby does seem to indicate that lamellar was at least not so exotic that it wasn't still in use somewhere in the North around 400 years later than the time of the Birka finds. Further support for why one could argue for lamellar as a legitimate alternative to chain for Norse personnas.

[Alcyoneus]

If a lamellar corselet is of no greater advantage than a mail shirt, there's no reason a Swedish fighting man would have preferred it. This question, unfortunately, we have no answer to.
~Wil

Status as a veteran of 'foreign conflicts' is one reason. Being wealthy enough to own a foreign 'car' is another. Impact resistance is, of course, greater as well.

[Halvgrimr]

Knut

A) to each their own, I wouldnt wear it for LH purposes but for SCA, whatever (though this thread has inspired me to get rid of my SCA lamellar asap)

B) as for the Visby comment, as is being discussed in anther thread, the frags at Visby didnt resemble lamellar as we know it, they were frags that there assembled to create a psuedo CoP/brigadine, ie it was not a laced set of lamellar.

Halv

[Knut Forkbeard]

they were frags that there assembled to create a psuedo CoP/brigadine, ie it was not a laced set of lamellar.

The key to this being that those frags weren't being worn by Khazars or Tibetans on the field of the Visby...they were owned by men of the North. I may be wrong on this, but isn't the thinking that these Northmen took the lamellar that had been handed down to them through their families and salvaged it for use in making more modern harness? This means that at some point, lamellar went from being worn by foreigners in Birka to being a family heirloom among Northman families in Visby. Given this, could lamellar have really been that rare in the North? Seems to me it had to have achieved some sort of common use to migrate that far in time and place. Just can't believe those poor sods at Visby were using the same lamellar harness those crazy Khazars brought with them to Birka in the early 10th century.

[Halvgrimr]

Touchee!

But the common underlying theme in both examples is that lamellar seems to be a rarity not the norm.

One rare example at Birka and one rare example at Visby does not an army of lamellar cladden Vikings make!;)

It might prove that there is a possibility that the Swedes knew about the technology, what it doesn’t prove is that it is common enough for Joe Averageson the Viking to have had a suit of it.

And to be honest, it really only helps to hint at the Swedes using it, which doesn’t help the Danes, Norwegians, Finns, Irish-Vikes, Brit-Vikes, etc

--I haven’t studied the topic in great detail but perhaps it would be interesting to collect pictorial and written evidence of ‘Vikings’ (that aren’t in Byzantium) using lamellar.

At this point I’d accept saga references (even though they were written down hundreds of years after the fact) as a starting point.

Halv

[Russ Mitchell]

Seems more likely to say "they saw the armor, and didn't *like* it." Else why go to the trouble of converting it, rather than simply doing a repair?

[guthroth]

Hi

The key to this being that those frags weren't being worn by Khazars or Tibetans on the field of the Visby...they were owned by men of the North.

How can you know that ?

I'm terrible for noting references, so don't ask where it was, but I have read an article suggesting the owner was indeed a Khazar, living in Birka. It further suggested that he could even be a renegade or runaway noble who sought - or bought - political refuge at Birka for himself and his bodyguard.

When he died he was buried in all his finery and his compatriots merged with the local population. The range of extremely exotic artifacts being uncovered would certainly support the idea of a 'transplanted' population.

I may be wrong on this, but isn't the thinking that these Northmen took the lamellar that had been handed down to them through their families and salvaged it for use in making more modern harness? This means that at some point, lamellar went from being worn by foreigners in Birka to being a family heirloom among Northman families in Visby. Given this, could lamellar have really been that rare in the North? Seems to me it had to have achieved some sort of common use to migrate that far in time and place. Just can't believe those poor sods at Visby were using the same lamellar harness those crazy Khazars brought with them to Birka in the early 10th century.

I haven't read anything like that, and I find the idea that 400 year old metal plates were being used to make 14thC armour just a bit far-fetched.

Mind you, I'd love to read that article if you could tell me where it is.

[Knut Forkbeard]

Hi

The key to this being that those frags weren't being worn by Khazars or Tibetans on the field of the Visby...they were owned by men of the North.

How can you know that ?

I'm terrible for noting references, so don't ask where it was, but I have read an article suggesting the owner was indeed a Khazar, living in Birka.

I was actually speaking about the battle of Visby which, as I understand it, was fought between the townspeople of Visby and a royal Danish army. These townspeople are Northmen, not visitors from the east.


[quote="Knut Forkbeard" I may be wrong on this, but isn't the thinking that these Northmen took the lamellar that had been handed down to them through their families and salvaged it for use in making more modern harness?[/quote]

[quote="guthroth"]
I haven't read anything like that, and I find the idea that 400 year old metal plates were being used to make 14thC armour just a bit far-fetched.
[/quote]

I was referring to the theory that the lamellar bits found at Visby were from "antique" armor that earlier generations of warriors in Visby owned and, presumably, used. I wasn't suggesting that the lamellar bits found at Visby were somehow from lamellar harness worn by the easterners living in Birka...you are quite right that this is preposterous. My point is that the only way for the Northmen who died wearing lamellar bits at the Battle of Visby to own lamellar bits is if lamellar armor had achieved some sort of usage among northmen during the centuries between the Birka and the Visby finds.

[Ny Bjorn]

Good to see some debate on the Garrison - it happens to be the focal point of my LH-group...

Some general info, some of it mentioned earlier on the other thread: the great hall - the "Hall of the Warriors" was burnt down around the mid part of the 10th century. The lamellar armour was apparently inside the building when it burnt and burnt with it. After the fire it looks like the charred remains were searched and shovelled around. Several hundred arrow heads show that the fire wasn't caused by accident but by an outright attack on the Garrison. Most arrow heads are typical, tanged Scandinavian ones (Wegraeus type A) but some are of the eastern socketed type. There are several patches of ring weave from the Garrison (from approx. 4 objects judging from the ring sizes). Right by the Hall (some 4 m away) were a forge with several furnaces. The total number of warriors at the Garrison seems to have been between 30 and 40 (judging from the number of comb cases found in a post hole). Near the forge a mounted belt was found during the digs of -02 and -03.
The Archaeological Research Laboratory has undertaken excavations at the Garrison since 1997 and this year will probably be the last for now. The nicest find this year is a well that might well have been the Garrison's water source. It still held water after more than 1000 years.
A lot of research n the Garrison has been undertaken but much more is to come. I'll post info on new publications here when they are published. So far most of it has been written in Swedish, but fear not - English is the modern linga Archaeologica here in Sweden, so there's bound to be more info in due time.

Cheers

/N B

[Alcyoneus]

When he died he was buried in all his finery and his compatriots merged with the local population. The range of extremely exotic artifacts being uncovered would certainly support the idea of a 'transplanted' population.

Then all of the silver hoards found in the north support the idea of vast numbers of Arabs moving north, and merging with the local populations, don't they? Virtally all of the silver hoards are composed of coins from the Middle East. Which is more likely, that Arabs moved in (and others), or that locals went south (extensively proven) and brought back a whole range of material culture/artifacts that they found there?

While possible, I think it unlikely that one Norseman aquired his buddha in India, China, or Japan.

[Rizzo]

There are many theories about the hoarding. It is definately a Gotlandic habit. Among the common items in a hoard are the armrings of standard weights used as means of payment. This is described as a Nordic/Rus fashion by arabic writers. *

* Ibn Fadlan, 920 when meeting the Volga Rus: "When a man amasses 10 000 dirhams he makes his wife one neck-ring; when he has 20 000 he makes two; and so the woman gets a new ring for every 10 000 dirhams her husband aquires, and often a woman has many of these rings."

[Russ Mitchell]

Hey-ho...

Got a typology for those arrowheads? I'm not used to seeing socketed arrowheads described as typically eastern... this runs counter to most of what I know for the period. Would love to see where your info comes from and stack it up against the rest of what I've got (part of my research, and I have a smith doing samples for me RIGHT NOW, so potential for replicas is high).

[Ny Bjorn]

Hey-ho...

Got a typology for those arrowheads? I'm not used to seeing socketed arrowheads described as typically eastern... this runs counter to most of what I know for the period. Would love to see where your info comes from and stack it up against the rest of what I've got (part of my research, and I have a smith doing samples for me RIGHT NOW, so potential for replicas is high).

The current typology for Scandinavian Viking-age arrow heads was established by Erik Wegreaus in the early 70's - you'll find a good pic in his article on arrow heads from Birka in "Birka II:2" (ed. G. Arwidsson, Stockholm 1986) - the article is called "Die Pfeilspitzen von Birka" and the typology is to be found in Abb 4:2. All native Viking-age Scandinavian arrow heads were tanged according to him. A photo of the most common type, A1, can be seen here. The A1-type is defined by the "blade" being longer than the "shaft" and tang together, whereas the ratio on A2-heads is the opposite. Socketed arrow heads are mainly found in mixed contexts, but are considered to be eastern by Scandinavian standards, i.e. Slavonic. Keep in mind that we speak of the Viking Age here - socketed arrow heads became common during the Scandinavian medieval period.

There is currently some research on this field, undertaken by a post-graduate at Uppsala University - Peter Lindbom - but he hasn't written anything for ages so I can't say whether he has broken new ground or ended up in a dead end.

Cheers

/N B

[Russ Mitchell]

That's interesting: Medvedev's typology seems to include quite a number of tanged arrowheads, and almost all the Uralic and Turkic peoples' arrowheads of which I'm familiar are tanged, with the exception of barbed arrowheads, which are always socketed (but which are quite rare in my context).

Thanks for the information.

[TassilosRache]

Let me just throw in some thoughts from my own research, which is mainly focussed on an earlier era:

1. Lamellar armour starts to show up in western European graves around 550 AD. Earlier examples tend to be from what we now call Russia. The way of "immigration" seems to coincide with the route the Avars took dutring their sometimes slow, sometimes fast migration. Italy, Austria, Germany, Scandinavia (all modern territorial ideas). The grave finds from the 6th to 8th cent. "Frankish empire" seem to support that thought.

2. Pictorial evidence only (afaik) shows lamellar armour worn by riders, suggesting that it was cavalry armour. My theory: Cavalry of that time did seemingly not use shields and so had to rely on "better" armour. This is supported by gravefinds which seldom have lamellar armour AND shield boss in the same grave. This suggests, that lamellar was not used as infantry armour. Did Vikings fight from horseback? (I only know of horses used to get TO the battlefield...)

3. There is some speculation on whether lamellar armour and/or helmets were locally produced in the frankish territory. Experts disagree, but agree that some pieces seem to have been at least modified by "westerners" for their own use (e.g.: The "Avar helmets" would not fit a Frankish person due to the fact that their nasals were straight and thus did not leave enough room for our bignosed physiognomy).

@Arrowheads: before 800, tanged arrowheads are usually classified as "of Avar origin".

@gaps in lamellar armour: In the few graves with lamellar armour, that were very well documented to help with that question, there is some evidence that might point to maille worn underneath lamellar armour. There is also some evidence for lamellar "collars" and arms. But most pictorial evidence shows riders without neck or arm protection. Only leg protection is commonly depicted.

@maille more comon than lamellar for Vikings: How many samples do we have of Viking (roughly 800-1000) maille used as body armour? And I am not talking about the undisputably relative common use in aventails.

@trade, raids, etc.: silver coins, amuletts, weapons, etc. are a lot lighter and smaller than a suit of lamellar armour. Who would carry home 20 pounds of metal and leather, when he could carry 20 pounds of silver?
Coins btw. were traded rather freely (I'm thinking of an imitation of one of Offas gold pennies with arabic inscription instead of Old English), Dublin was famous for its slave market, Wolin and Birka were international trade centers, etc.

BUT: Didn't some norsemen sereve in the Varangian guard and didn't they have lamellar armour? I do not know enough about that era, so maybe someone else can shed some light on that question?

Sorry for the late post, but as I just returned from vacation, I have a huge "backlog" to work off...

[guthroth]

Hi

TassilosRache mentioned the 'Byzantine' connection in reference to Vikings wearing Lamellar.

My thoughts are that this is extremely unlikely as the Byzantine army of the 10/11th Cent was a regular army, not a group of warbands.

Equipment, dress, weapons armour were issued centrally from state factoies, just like a modern army, and I find it unlikely that such a centrally controlled military organisation would allow its mercanaries to simply take state manufactured equipment home with them.

[Mord]

Okay, folks, I really haven't had the time to adsorb all the info on the lamellar from Birka, so I didn't want to post anything.

Two articles,

The "Fornvannen" article, translated and posted by Halvgrim (with many thanks!)

Holmquist-Olausson, Lena. "The Fortification of Birka--Interaction between land and sea." in Maritime Warfare in Northern Europe. A.N. Jorgensen, J.Pind, L. Jorgensen & B. Clausen (eds.). Copenhagen. The National Museum of Denmark, pp159-168, (ISBN 8789384881. Many thanks to the folk who recommended this article (Ny Bjorn and Rizzo?).

The first article is a typology (wrong word, really) of the lammellar. The second article sets, to some extent, the context of the find. This stated, certain facts are:

A. The Garrison, the fort, seems to have been attacked and burned. The latest of these attacks and burning seems to be the late 10th century.

B. There was a great "mountain of objects" found. For our purposes, chain mail, weapons, and great plethora of arrow heads were uncovered.

C. Birka, or at least the fort at Birka, seems to have had royal sponsorship. The soldiers were royal servants.

Like I said, I have had enough time to adsorb all the info from these two articles, however I am left with the following question:

A. Does the lammellar found represent multiple suits or only one suit? Obviously with presence of mail, other weapons (swords, especially), and other objects (locks, etc) show that the soldiers were probably well to do or well supported

At this moment in the game, any conclusion I would think to be a bit pre-mature. At least I know I'm going to be reading tonite.

Halvgrim, yes, I've copied the second article for you and will send it along today (via snail mail).

Mord.

[white mountain armoury]

This is an excellent thread, im sorry i have little to add, but i am enjoying the reading

[Halvgrimr]

A. The Garrison, the fort, seems to have been attacked and burned. The latest of these attacks and burning seems to be the late 10th century.

--So IMO this pushes the Varangian issue, since the first 'official' use of the Swedes by the Empire was in 988 when Basil II was sent 6000 Swedish warriors by Vladimir. Surely even if the Varangians were trusted enough to leave with military issue armour in their 'hayday', this trust couldn't have been built up so early?


Also, a revolt comes to mind when I read about the way the items were destroyed, I mean when an army attacks a base and burns it, normally its a chaotic effort, not one in which the invaders go in, pile stuff up neatly in heaps and then burn it.

To me that screams 'damnit I am trying to make a point here'

Its only a theory though;) (and on that just struck me)



Halvgrim, yes, I've copied the second article for you and will send it along today (via snail mail).

Mord.

--Obliged as always;)

Halv

[Russ Mitchell]

I've always been bothered by the "no shied bosses = no shields" theory... certainly the sort of shield a footman uses in the period, with a center grip, requires a boss... but what if the shield is strapped along the forearm (by far the more likely position for cavalry, given that smacking your horse upside the head with your shield is generally considered a no-no).... in this case, does the lack of shield bosses actually tell us anything, except that they weren't heavy footmen?

[Mord]

Hey-ho...

Got a typology for those arrowheads? I'm not used to seeing socketed arrowheads described as typically eastern... this runs counter to most of what I know for the period. Would love to see where your info comes from and stack it up against the rest of what I've got (part of my research, and I have a smith doing samples for me RIGHT NOW, so potential for replicas is high).

Russ, I think I have that typology around somewhere, if I find it, I'll let ya know.

Mord.

[Mord]

I've always been bothered by the "no shied bosses = no shields" theory... certainly the sort of shield a footman uses in the period, with a center grip, requires a boss... but what if the shield is strapped along the forearm (by far the more likely position for cavalry, given that smacking your horse upside the head with your shield is generally considered a no-no).... in this case, does the lack of shield bosses actually tell us anything, except that they weren't heavy footmen?

Shieldbosses were certainly present at Birka, at least in the graves. I think the predominate type of boss was Rygh type # 562 (O. Rygh. Norske Oldsager). You might want to check Arbman's catalog, Grave #736. As for bosses found in the garrison, I haven't a clue.

Such a question, Russ...more reading for me tonite.

Mord.

[Halvgrimr]

Shieldbosses were certainly present at Birka, at least in the graves.

Mord.

some examples can be seen here
http://www.missouri.edu/~winsloww/archi ... ses/Birka/

Halv

[Mord]

Halvgirm: I just mailed the article "The Fortress at Birka." I will send the rest of the articles in a couple of days.

As for this current thread, I'll post something tomarrow. I still have too many thoughts running around my head to be able to put it down.

Mord.

[Russ Mitchell]

Sorry... Birka's not my main line (the steppe armor is), and I don't know where the "burn pile" is in relation to the graves... are the two necessarily relevant to each other? I hadn't understood that the lamellae were from graves... a "mountain of objects" implies a separation of identity from the lovingly-buried...