Mord's Conclusions: Viking Armour

[Mord]

I am sorry to have to start a new thread, but for some reason I am unable to access the 3rd page of the "Viking Armour" thread on this forum. However, since I wrote some very long posts, I feel obliged to come to some conclusion.

But also, I am very busy this Monday, and may not be able to post anything else today (11/2).

You can divide the weapons and armour of the Vikings:

Weapons:

--Swords
--Spears
--Axes
--Archery

Armour:

--Helms
--Body Armour (both mail and lamellar)
--Shields.

Hopefully, in the next few days, I'll be able to post more.

Thanks for your time,

Mord.

[iaenmor]

Looking forward to your thoughts there Mord. Take your time.

[Glen K]

As you fill it in, I'll make it a sticky.

Feel free to cut-and-paste anything from your old posts. I'd help, but since it's best to have one person's train of thought I'd probably do more harm than good.

[Mord]

Taking a deep breath, I'll begin with swords.

While swords are dicpicted and presented in representational and written sources, most of the detailed information comes from archaeology. Swords are found in graves and as stray finds (such in the mud of rivers--check Wheeler's "London the Vikings" for examples). So many swords have been that I Marten's asks in an article, "Thousands of Swords. Why is the number of Viking Age found in Norway higher than any other European Country?" (Collegius Medivale. Vol. 16 ('03) pages 51-66.

Considering the large sample of swords, I have had to give some thought on where to start. The various typologies published are the most convenient, but not the best. An examination of swords found from place to place (Iceland, Dublin, Scotland, Wales, England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Norway [oy], Sweden [oy, again], Finland, Poland, and Russia) is, however, a frightening prospect. Though typologies are an end result of study and should not be used as a definitive answer, I'll start there.

The first "typology" I've found is Oluf Rygh's "Norske Oldsager." This work, published in the 19th century, is a catalog of finds divided by period. The Viking Age is entitled the "Yngre Jernalter" or Younger Iron Age. The etchings of the swords may be used as a sort of typology, but it's seemingly not the main intention of the author. Also, more importantly, what is presented is imcomplete.

The first real typology is J. Petersen's "De Norske Vikingsverd" (1919). Petersen based his typology on hilt-handle-pommel construction, and does not seem to be interested in blades. However, Petersen has been used by various scholars and other folks for most of the 20th century. It even has been partially re-published on the net (in English).

Gotta get back to work.

Mord.

[Mord]

As I was posting.

Petersen's typology is in Norwegian, and contains many different types.

A simpler typology in English was published by M. Wheeler in "London and the Vikings" (1927?), Btw, as a side note, Wheeler also published a typology of saxes (single-edged "swords") in "London and the Anglo-Saxons." Having read the both books, I came to wonder about the size of the sample of swords with the typology was based. It seemed to me that Wheeler's typology was based on a limited number, and all of those were stray finds from the rivers in England (often found when building bridges in the 19th century).

Be that as it may, Wheeler's sword typology was eventually adopted/modified by E. Oakeshott in his book, "The Archaeology of Weapons." This typology has the advantage of being in English, but again I wonder about the size of the sample. More importantly, as much as Oakeshott was interested in blades, he does not make a connection between blade and the hilt-handle-pommel. His typology, again, is only a discussion of hilt-handle-pommel.

This was the way things stood until early 90s, and M. Jacobsson's "Krigaridelologi och vikingatika svardstypologi" (ISBN: 9171469877). Derived from a huge sample, this work created a typology in order to deal with regular in the "design of...sword, dating from AD 700-1100 in terms of their symbolic function." In this way, I suspect the author is trying to connect the sword with its cultural significance. However, Jacobsson, despite is large sample, bases the typology on hitl-handle-pommel. Blades, as far as I can tell, are not really discussed.

It is A. Geibig in his book, "Beitrage zur morphologischen entwicklung des schwertes im Mittellalter" (ISBN: 3529011711). that takes blade and hilt/pommel construction into account. In this gargantuine effort, 19 "combination types" are discerned.

With the exception of Rygh, all of these typology are dicussed in I. Peirce's "Swords of the Viking Age," but it's important to understand these works individually, instead of someone else's summation, including mine.

But...

Studying typologies of swords, is really only the beginning. Swords or at least sword blades were imported to Scandinavia from Europe (Frankia). These would be ULFBERTH or INGELIR swords. Documentation for this can be found B. Solberg's article "Weapon Export from the Continent to the Nordic Countries in the Carolingian Period" (Studien zur Sachsenforschung 7--1991).

Also, one should consider the contruction of swords. Some older swords are pattern welded: a series of small iron and steel billets are pounded to together to make a strong, flexible sword. Other swords (the Frankis ones, I believe) were forged out of a single billet of steel. The economic causes of these methods of manufacture is something that has not really been realized. Suffice to say, that Frankia was one of the better producers of iron and steel in abundance in the Early Middle Ages.

Finally, the symbolic function of swords should be discussed, briefly. Swords, with their hilts and pommels that were often very fancy are generally believed to be statis symbols. This is why they were placed in graves of prestige (such as chamber-graves and ship-graves). The man who carried a sword literally wore power and wealth on his hip.

next: Spears and axes.

Mord.

[Derian le Breton]

Is Oakeshott's typology too high-level for a study of Viking arms?

-Donasian.

[Mord]

Is Oakeshott's typology too high-level for a study of Viking arms?

-Donasian.

I must admit some confusion at your question. Too high-level?

Certainly Oakeshott work post early middle ages in "Records of the Medieval Sword" is his most useful work, but the typology of the viking age swords in "The Archaeology of Weapons" is something that leaves me with more questions than answers.

Mord.

[Mord]

Now having had coffee & a donuts (a fine scholarly breakfast);

Spears and axes:

As with swords, much of the information about spears and axes comes from archaeology. Many a grave with a sword also have a spear-head and ax-head; but also many a grave just has spear or an ax.

Still, written sources mention spears and axes. Odin's weapon is spear. An ax is given to Skallgrim, Egil's father, in a saga.

I have always found the use of a spear by Odin, the "Chief of the Gods," odd. Recently, however, I was working on The Stuttgart Psalter, a Frankish illuminated manuscript of the 9th century, where I saw kings (the ones with crown on their head) holding a spear. This is streching things, but the use of a spear by a chief or a king could be a symbol of authority in older ancient "Germanic" cultures. More work would have to be done to validate or invalidate this idea.

As I've stated above, most of our information about spears and axes come from graves. J. Petersen in his viking sword book apparently has a typology for both of these weapons. Yet, what is found in these graves are only spear-heads and axheads. The shafts of the spears and handles of the axes have long since decomposed. We do not have much, if any information, on the length of these parts, nor do we have much, if any, information about what sort of wood was really used. While I have heard that literary sources have said that spear-shafts were supposed to of ash, one should ask "Where was this wood found?" I've not found anyone who has tried to answer this question--interest in early medieval arms and armor is rather limited--but I'm willing to bet that ash wood was not universal to Scandinavia or any of the parts of Europe that were invided or colonized. Iceland, for instance, had only willow & scrub pine at the beginning of colonization. The supply of wood over a couple of generations was depleted by the 11th century.

Gotta go...

Mord.

[Derian le Breton]

Is Oakeshott's typology too high-level for a study of Viking arms?

-Donasian.

I must admit some confusion at your question. Too high-level?

Too broad. Lacking in detail for weapons a specific time/place that look fairly similar to one another.

-Donasian.

[Phil of Fibh]

"Where was this wood found?" I've not found anyone who has tried to answer this question--interest in early medieval arms and armor is rather limited--but I'm willing to bet that ash wood was not universal to Scandinavia or any of the parts of Europe that were invided or colonized.

I'm anything but an expert on trees but I've been informed that Ash grows nicely from the Mediterranian all the way up into Scandinavia.

also - Copised(sp?)/Pollarded Ash is a very effective way of prodicing large amounts of usefull wood relativlety quickly (just search out how it was/is used in charcoal production) - so long as a large number of trees are carefully maintained but people who know what they are doing huge amounts of Ash staves can be produced.

[Mord]

Is Oakeshott's typology too high-level for a study of Viking arms?

-Donasian.

I must admit some confusion at your question. Too high-level?

Too broad. Lacking in detail for weapons a specific time/place that look fairly similar to one another.

-Donasian.

Yeah, ok, Donasian. Oakeshott is notably lacking in detail. His dicussion on weapons of the Viking Age is only one chapter in The Archaeology of Weapons, and as I've stated, I really wonder about the size of his sample for the typology. Also, and perhaps more importantly, I wonder about the provenance of the swords examined. This question crops up again I. Pierce's book "Swords of the Viking Age." Great photos, some even in color (which is welcome), but the catalog there doesn't really go deeply in to the origins of the object displayed.

The subject deserves more attention than what Oakeshott and Pierce have given it, imo.

Mord.

[Mord]

Phil,

First let me finish my entry about spears and axes.

As I was posting,

As I've stated, Petersen published a typology of spears and axes in "De Norske Vikingsvard," and that much of our information about these weapons comes from archaeology, especially graves. Sometimes, these axheads and spearheads are found in combination with swords and other arms and armor, sometimes not.

A few folks would think that the grave with only a spear or and ax would denote a man of lesser station, but this refuted by a couple of observations. First, the type grave in which the object was found; all too often these graves are chamber graves, which cost time and labor to build. Secondly, some axes and spears were decorated. The axhead found at Mammen was inlaid with silver. Some of the spearheads found at Birka also had decoration of silver.

Thirdly, some of the spearheads were imported from Frankia. B. Solberg's article discusses this, but Frankish spearhead are, in some cases, easy to identify; they include a "hilt" at the bottom of the head where the socket for the shaft. If there were a market for imported spears, then the wealth existed to buy them--such spearheads became a way of showing position within a community & nation.

Finally, I have heard some speculation about the use of these weapons. Obviously, a warrior struck his opponent with an ax, but was a spear used for striking or thrusting or both. The practical answer is don't know, since the we can accurately discern the approximent length of the spear-shaft. A long shaft would argue for thrusting only, like a pike. A shorter shaft would argue for both, since the weapon could be better controled. However the 2 sentences above are shear speculation. In the end, we simply don't know.

Phil,

Not to jump ahead, but when you look at the wood used for shields, you find the material evidence partially refutes the evidence of written/literary sources. Material evidence points that a variety of woods were used, where literary evidence states that only Linden (aka lime) wood was used. I suspect the same probably holds true for spear shafts--a warrior used what wood was avialable.

Mord.

[Phil of Fibh]

a warrior used what wood was avialable.

I can't disagree, I can only say that ash is/was quite a common wood and with good care taken of the land can yeald large amounts of useable staves.

I've read some stuff on wood for shields, your earlier comments seem to fit well with that reading, but I'll save that for later in the thread.

please keep going, this is a cracking read

[Mord]

Archery:

There is the famous story from Njal's Saga of the outlawed Gunnar (or is it Skarp-Hedin?) defending his stead against the "posse" (led by a "Mord") sent to kill him. At first, Gunnar keeps the posse at bay with his bow, until the string breaks and he asks his wife, Hallgerd, of a lock of her long hair as replacement. Hallgerd, taking revenge for mis-treatment, refuses.

There is also the rather odd joke of the viking who couldn't get his pants off to go to bed because there was an arrow through his ankle. One wonders if mead made a good pain killer.

Finally, there is a point in "The Battle of Maldon" where there is an exchane of arrows.

For reasons I'm not entirely sure of,the use of archery during to viking age has not had much attention paid to it.

Material evidence will come later. Gotta go...

Mord.

[Konstantin the Red]

For want, perhaps, of remnants of bows to work with?

[Mord]

For want, perhaps, of remnants of bows to work with?

Actually, 7 bows of yew-wood were found at Hedeby. H. Paulsen documents them in "Das archaologische Fundmaterial VI" (or is it IV?) (1999) ISBN 352901933X.

Also, 8 arrows of Scots Pine were found at Scar, Sanday in Scotland. Owen and Dalland document them in "Developments around the Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age." (1994) ISBN: 9171929509.

But the largest material evidence of archery is arrowheads found in graves. Even Iceland has 2 graves with arrowheads. E. Wegraeus in "Tor" for 1972 (Vol. XV) provided a typology in his "Pilspetsar under vikingatid."

Except for arrowheads, the material evidence is scanty. There is no information for bow strings, and just because yew-bows were found one place doesn't mean they were a universal form. Also, just because pine arrows were found one place, doesn't mean other arrows made of other wood wasn't used in a different place.

Next: Helms

Mord.

[Mord]

Helms:

There is, unfortunately, a lot of confusion when it comes to helmets. I've often thought I would like to find the 19th century mook who came up with the "horned viking helmet," so I can find his/her/its grave and call on the Gods to nasty things. More seriously, I suspect the whole helmet with horns is a gross mis-interpretation of the Danish Vikso helmet, which was from an earlier period.

There is also confusion about the Vendel and Valsgarde helmets found in Sweden. These peices of armor are of course real, and are interesting to study. The connections with the "Europe" with these helms (via an examination of their structure--not their decoration) is fascinating. However, these helmets (and the helmet fragments found elsewhere, like the Island of Gotland) were not of the Viking Age. The Valsgarde and Vendel Helmets, at best, were of the Vendel Period, about 500 AD to about 750. The geographical extent of the Vendel Period, I heard, is a matter of arguement. The Danes have called this period "The Younger Iron Age" in which the Migration period was the last stage.

More later, if I find the time. Busy today.

Mord.

[Mord]

It was a busy day. I have no internet access, so this will have to wait until monday.

Mord.

[Endre Fodstad]

More seriously, I suspect the whole helmet with horns is a gross mis-interpretation of the Danish Vikso helmet, which was from an earlier period.

Isn't the usual hypothesis that it is from Wagnerian Opera costumes? More spesifically, the Valkyries' winged helmets that morphed into cow-horn-headpieces?

[Russ Mitchell]

fyi, though a touch OT... pine arrows were quite common in the western steppe zone, and they make very good shafts, particularly for arrows where the arrowhead is tanged.

[Mord]

More seriously, I suspect the whole helmet with horns is a gross mis-interpretation of the Danish Vikso helmet, which was from an earlier period.

Isn't the usual hypothesis that it is from Wagnerian Opera costumes? More spesifically, the Valkyries' winged helmets that morphed into cow-horn-headpieces?

I've heard that as well, but I've yet to investigate it. I do know there was something of a "popular viking folk-movement" in the 19th century. I suspect someone like Andrew Wawn (author, "The Vikings and the Victorians) probably has some information on this.

Representational sources for helmets:

As stated on the thread that inspired this one, 2 sources come my mind: a carving of a "head" found, I believe, at Sigtuna, Sweden, where a conical helmet is worn, and the Gotland Picture Stone. The "book" on these stones is a 2 volume work entitled, "Gotlands Bildsteine" by S. Lindqvist (1941-1942). Also, there is the book "Stones, Ships and Symbols," which a little more accessable. The problem, as I see it, with the picture stones, is discerning what is merely a hat from what is a helm. The stones are weathered and can be very vague.

Gotta go...

Mord

[Mord]

Material Information:

There is th well-known helmet from Gjermundbu (S. Greig "Gjermundbfunnet," 1947). This helm, or what is left of it, is nominally a spangen helm--that is to say a plates of iron attached to a framework. The helmet also has an ocularium, not unlike some of the Valsgards helmets. This similarity, I've found, often adds to the confusion.

Many folks will tell you the Gjermundbu helm is the only extant example. However, W. Duczko briefly notes 2 helmets found in a "Norse" cemetery at Gnezdovo ("Viking Rus" pages 162-164, ISBN:9004138749) near Smolensk. These 2 helmets are described as conical with a mail curtain. Duczko does not provide illustrations of these helmet, but he does provide the source: Sizov, V.I. "Kurgany Smolenskoi gubernii 1," (1902)but I have yet to find a copy of this work in the US. I've heard there's one in Tozzier Library at Harvard, but that specific library does not loan.

Also, I suspect Kirpicnikov's "Drevnersskoe Oruzie" has helmets or fragments of helmet in it. I've only had the briefest time looking at this 3 volume work.

Finally, D. Tweddle in his book of the Coppergate Helm presents a fragment of helm's "eye-brow" found in Denmark, but there is little else.

In general, helmets do not seem to wide-spread, at least if we are to believe the material sources. Many have speculated on why this is not so: the helmets were past down through the generations; the helmets became re-cycled metal; etc. These speculations make for interesting discussions, but without serious proof, I fear they will get no further. Also, and I think more importantly, if helmets were passed down and/or recycled, then how did the few helmets have found wind-up in graves in the first place? One might ask if the iron or any other metal were so valued, then why do we find object of metal in any grave? Iron, bronze (or copper-alloys), gold, and silver were valued, but their worth was something more than what was made of them.

Mord.

[Bob H]

Archery:

There is the famous story from Njal's Saga of the outlawed Gunnar (or is it Skarp-Hedin?) defending his stead against the "posse" (led by a "Mord") sent to kill him. At first, Gunnar keeps the posse at bay with his bow, until the string breaks and he asks his wife, Hallgerd, of a lock of her long hair as replacement. Hallgerd, taking revenge for mis-treatment, refuses.
...

I finally found this again, couldn't remember which saga it was in:

From the Heimskringla translation at
http://omacl.org/Heimskringla/hardrade2.html

The Saga of Harald Hardrade
...

65. BEGINNING OF THE BATTLE OF NIS-RIVER.

...

"Our king, his broad shield disregarding,
More keen for striking than for warding,
Now tells his lads their spears to throw, --
Now shows them where to strike a blow.
From fleet to fleet so short the way,
That stones and arrows have full play;
And from the keen sword dropped the blood
Of short-lived seamen in the flood."

It was late in the day when the battle began, and it continued
the whole night. King Harald shot for a long time with his bow.
So says Thiodolf: --

"The Upland king was all the night
Speeding the arrows' deadly flight.
All in the dark his bow-string's twang
Was answered; for some white shield rang,
Or yelling shriek gave certain note
The shaft had pierced some ring-mail coat,
The foemen's shields and bulwarks bore
A Lapland arrow-scat(1) or more."

...

_______________

ENDNOTES:
(1) The Laplanders paid their seat, or yearly tax, in bows and
arrows; and the meaning of the skald appears to be, that as
many as were paid in a year were shot at the foe. -- L.

Not only is it a fairly important battle won partly by archery, but if the Lapps were providing bows and arrows as part of their tribute, then it brings Lapp laminated (or at least backed) bows and possibly different arrow woods into the picture. Hmmm...

[Mord]

Body Armours, beginning with lamellar:

Though I have gathered information on lamellar armour, I have not until now put anything together about it. Obviously the place to start with the "vikings" is the lamellar found at Birka. N. Stjerna in the periodical "Fornvannen" for 2004, wrote, "En Stappnomadisk rustning fran Birka." This article was also translated and posted by Halvgrimr, with many thanks. 8 different types of lamellar plates are discuss and examined. These plates, for the most part were found in the excavation of The Borg, or the Hill-fort. The plates are dated to the 10th century.

Merovingian Frankish lamellar are documented by Janssen in the article, "Das Frankische Graberfeld von Wesel-balilich" (in the periodical, "Zeitschrift fur Archaologie des Mittelalters" 1990/1991, pages 71-116). These plates from Grave (Garb) 39 are certainly dated to well before the viking age.

Avar lamellar is discussed in Daim's article, "Avars and Avar Archaeology: An Introduction" in the book, "Regna & Gentes: The Relationship Between the Late Antique and Early Medieval Peoples & Kingdoms in the Transformations of the Roman World" ISBN: 0851158722.

Finally, J. Haldon writes in, "Some Aspects of Byzantine Military Technology from the 6th to the 10th centuries" in the periodical, "Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies" (1975) pages 11-47. This article discusses the use and non-use of lamellar by the Byzantines.

The question with lamellar is 2 fold: how far into Europe did this armour spread, and how wide-spread was it?

Finally, a few words about lamellar made of leather or rawhide: the only lamellar I've ever found made of leather is documented, briefly, in H.R. Robinson's "Oriental Armour." The armour was from China.

Next: mail

Mord.

[Magmaforge]

Mord, you rocketh mightily.

[Dan Howard]

Leather/hide lamellar was used by the Romans in Syria. Nicolle notes a medieval example dating to the Middle Ages. Leather/hide scale/lamellar was very common during the Bronze Age. As has beeen said leather/hide lamellar was used in China - the earliest examples date to the Warring States period.

[Mord]

Mord, you rocketh mightily.

Thank you. Sometimes I rolleth, too

Mail:

In general, mail poses a problem for folks interested in early medieval arms and armor. Part of the problem is the assumption, as far as I can tell, that mail was part of every warrior's gear. This assumption has led to some speculations that can not be proven:

1. Mail was passed down the generations. S. Coupland in his article "Arms and Armour of the Carolingians" ("Viator", 1990), has an example where this happened, but the father was a Frank and not a Swede, Norwegian, or Dane. Also, we don't really know if this incident was wide-spread among the Carolingian Franks, much less the Scandinavians. Also, if mail was passed down, then why was it found in graves?

2. Mail rusted in graves. Iron certainly rusts, but in any grave, such oxidation would leave a "mark" in the soil, as, as the very least, a reddish stain. It is these changes in soil coloration that archaeologists look for and document. Chemical analysis of such soil has only recently come into play.

3. Mail was re-cycled for it's iron. I have never encountered any specific proof of this. Possible? Yes. Plausable? Yes. Provable? No. I'm sorry, but the skeptic in me tries to find what can be proven.

These speculations, provable, partially-provable, and not provable leave me more confused than convinced. I feel as if something is missing somewhere; it's time to start over.

First, then, just what is mail? I've a working definiation of the armour as follows: Mail is a series of metal rings interlinked to form a protective mesh.

Second, how was mail made in the early middle ages? D. Tweedle in his book about the Coppergate Helmet has an entire chapter about this. Wire is made by drawing the metal through a draw-plate, then "spun" around a mandrel to make rings, then punched, and the rivetted together. I've heard some rings were punched out of sheet with a rivetted ring to attach them.

All in all this process sounds time consuming and specialized. Such work would be a rare skill, or at least a skill passed down. Also there is a certain economic element to the making of mail. Iron has to be smelted, heated, worked, and then reheated. What many arms and armour specialists do not realize is the importance of iron the lives of the peoples who lived in the early middle ages. Without iron, farming would be much more primative and yield less. Tools for working, from a simple knife to and the more complex things like tongs and tripods made life possible in certain parts of Europe. Iron was the stuff of everyday, and so iron for mail and weapons required the ability to create an excess.

It's why I'm interested in the Carolingian Franks and their trade networks.

More later,

Mord.

[Endre Fodstad]

It is important to recall that "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" (as you of course know) in archaeology, Mord. This applies in a transferred form to the low number of grave (and other) archaeological finds of helmets and maille from the viking age - the number of finds cannot really be used to determine how common something was unless, paradoxically, we have large enough numbers of finds to start using statistical analysis.

For maille tools, we have a lot of drawing-irons from urban digs out there. Most are labeled "silver wire irons" which is how they appear in the literature. However, some have pretty big drawing-holes and I cannot see why they shouldn't really have been labeled iron drawing-irons.

Nicolle notes a medieval example dating to the Middle Ages.

And not a medieval sample dating to the neolithic? Fascinating.

sorry

[Mord]

It is important to recall that "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" (as you of course know) in archaeology, Mord. This applies in a transferred form to the low number of grave (and other) archaeological finds of helmets and maille from the viking age - the number of finds cannot really be used to determine how common something was unless, paradoxically, we have large enough numbers of finds to start using statistical analysis.

For maille tools, we have a lot of drawing-irons from urban digs out there. Most are labeled "silver wire irons" which is how they appear in the literature. However, some have pretty big drawing-holes and I cannot see why they shouldn't really have been labeled iron drawing-irons.

Nicolle notes a medieval example dating to the Middle Ages.

And not a medieval sample dating to the neolithic? Fascinating.

sorry

I agree. It's entirely possible that a lot of helmets and mail were destroied in cremation-pyre graves. It's also possible that lamellar from leather suffered the same fate. However, you also have to know where prye graves are. As with all "Viking Age" graves, there is more inconsistancy than consistancy. Traditions, if that is the right word, varied.

When pressed, I usually say, "I don't know of any evidence." What this phrase means is that I haven't found anything and that I'm keeping an open mind on the subject. New information is always being found (sometimes in the basement of a museum!) that can radicially change how we see things.

As for draw plates, I'm not just looking for them, and then concluding that mail was made here by this person, but rather I'm looking particular circumstances. A draw plate is only one element within this circumstance: evidence of metal-production and/or metal-working is another. The location of the circumstance (such as a trade-town) is still another.

Mord

[Aelfric of Cedde]

I have always found the use of a spear by Odin, the "Chief of the Gods," odd. Recently, however, I was working on The Stuttgart Psalter, a Frankish illuminated manuscript of the 9th century, where I saw kings (the ones with crown on their head) holding a spear. This is streching things, but the use of a spear by a chief or a king could be a symbol of authority in older ancient "Germanic" cultures. More work would have to be done to validate or invalidate this idea.

a go...

Mord.

Not symbolism just usefulness, the spear was the most common weapon of the period, used by the highest to the lowest, the Anglo Saxon word for commander or champion was ‘frumgar’, which translates as ‘first spear’ while in the poem ‘The Battle of Maldon’ Eoldorman Byrhtnoth kills two enemies with his spear before drawing his sword (and incidentally is dead within a couple of paragraphs). For all the prominence of the sword or axe the spear was the primary battlefield weapon of the period.

[Mord]

Continuing to blather on about mail...

My interest in mail armor began in earnest (which is to say, I began gathering articles and related articles) about a year ago when I started looking into the armor depicted in the Stuttgart Psalter. There is some arguement concerning the validity of this 9th century Frankish illuminated manuscript as a source. Learning about mail became necessary.

What does this all have to do with things viking? Well, for one thing, we know that Frankish swords & spears were being import into Scandinavia. Solberg's article discusses this. More important, we also know that Charlemagne and Charles the Bald (d. 877), both Frankish Kings and Holy Roman Emperors (though the Bald was emperor for only 2 years) banned the importation of weapons and armor. Both Coupland and J. Brondsted (in his book, "The Vikings"--1967) tell us this. Obviously, the Franks, or at least people within Frankia, were manufacturing arms and armor. The question is, then, what sort of economics makes such manufacturing possible?

To many folks, the idea of early medieval economics may seem unfathomable. The "Dark Ages" (a term abandoned these days) had no economics or trade: everybody ate mud, built their houses in muddy swamps, and generally had to deal with filthy, nasty muck & squalor at every monent in their lives (and of course, the vikings showed, and there massive heap of mud and blood and everyone died).

To many scholars, the idea early medieval economics is cause for investigation, examination, and arguement. I know you're probably saying, "GET ON WITH IT!" so, I will. The engine of the Caroligian ecomony was the monastery, which provided knowledge, a cheap labor force (monks), and a need to make things. Monasteries also had Church and Royal protection. These monasteries were not small hermitages, but large estates that could provide the needed resources for things like metal smelting and smithing on a large scale. In short, the Franks could make weapons and armor because they had the economic sturcture to support it.

People with skills go to where the money is to work. A skilled metal worker might set up shop on monastic lands. That same metal worker might "take his wares to market" or sell his wares to a merchant who would take it to market. The markets, which Richard Hodges calls "emporia" were places like Dorestad, which flourished to point of war. The bann on armor and weapons was due, in part, to the success of the emporia network. Of course, people with weapons also go to where the money is--to steal it.

One would think that the trade, illicit or not, in mail or other armor would be brisk. However, Coupland also reports that cost of a mail shirt was an extraordinary 12 gold soldies--a sword cost 5, and a shield and spear cost 2.

However, Frankia was not the only source for mail. I'll get to that later.

Mord.

[Mord]

My reasons for looking at the "economics of mail" and the structure of the Carolingian economy have to do with small amount of evidence that I've found. The Gjermudbu mail shirts are useful examples, and I strongly suspect that fragments of mail were found in the hill-fort at Brika. More importantly, Kirpichinkov states that mail existed in the Rus-East (in the book "Varangian Problems," 1971), but he is annoyingly brief about this. I suspect his large 3 volume catalog has more detail. I will have to take another look.

The literary example of mail as far as I can remember was in Egil's Saga. Here the brothers Egil and Thorolf fight for Aethelstan in what was presumably the Battle of Brunannburg. Egil and Thorolf don't wear mail, and in fact Thorolf kills a noble who is.

I've never encountered a representational example of mail that can be applied to the viking age. It's been argued that some of the goldfoils (pressbleche) from the Vendel Period helmets depict mail, but this is only an arguement that to my knowledge remains unresolved.

With all this scant evidence, and yet, many are of the opinion that mail was much used, I found myself trying to figure out how to prove or disprove these opinions. What I'm looking for:

1. Tools that would be used for mail making--usually a draw plate.
2. A location where iron was readily available, either through trade or through smelting in large quantities.
3. A location where was worked.
4. A location where trade occured and wealth was avialable.

If I can satisfy these four elements, then I believe I can make an arguement for the possiblity of mail-making. Until then, I'm not entirely sure. Any ideas woudl be appreciated.

Next & finally: shields.

Mord.

[Aelfric of Cedde]

There are a fair number of literary references and depictions of mail in England from just before and right through the Viking Age, the Bayeux Tapestry from right at the end of the period being an obvious but by no means unique example, from just before the Viking Age come the eighth century Repton stone (a single mailed warrior on horseback) and Franks Casket (a number of men attacking a house, at least two of whom appear to be in mail), during the Viking Age proper we have the (I think) 10th century illustration of two mailed swordsmen facing off, an armoured warrior standing with his spear and shield, an 11th century illustration of Goliath (off the top of my head and not an exhaustive list). There are also numerous written references to mail and legal requirements to posses it, from at least Alfred’s time the law required every thegn to turn up for muster equipped with a helmet and mail shirt, the death duties of Knut’s time demand two mail shirts and two helmets from every kings thegn, the poem ‘The Battle of Maldon’ records most of the Viking warriors it mentions as wearing mail (usually when praising the English warrior who has just killed the mail wearer). From the continent there are a number of Caroligion illustrations of mailed warriors. In short there is a fair bit of evidence that mail was not in any way uncommon among the warrior elite of early medieval Northern Europe.

[Mord]

There are a fair number of literary references and depictions of mail in England from just before and right through the Viking Age, the Bayeux Tapestry from right at the end of the period being an obvious but by no means unique example, from just before the Viking Age come the eighth century Repton stone (a single mailed warrior on horseback) and Franks Casket (a number of men attacking a house, at least two of whom appear to be in mail), during the Viking Age proper we have the (I think) 10th century illustration of two mailed swordsmen facing off, an armoured warrior standing with his spear and shield, an 11th century illustration of Goliath (off the top of my head and not an exhaustive list). There are also numerous written references to mail and legal requirements to posses it, from at least Alfred’s time the law required every thegn to turn up for muster equipped with a helmet and mail shirt, the death duties of Knut’s time demand two mail shirts and two helmets from every kings thegn, the poem ‘The Battle of Maldon’ records most of the Viking warriors it mentions as wearing mail (usually when praising the English warrior who has just killed the mail wearer). From the continent there are a number of Caroligion illustrations of mailed warriors. In short there is a fair bit of evidence that mail was not in any way uncommon among the warrior elite of early medieval Northern Europe.

I'm not exactly running on all pistons today. Long week with a short staff at work.

I appreciate your post, Aelfric, but I also have some problems with it.

I do not deny that the Franks, Merovingian or Carolingian, had mail (or some sort of body armor), and I have not discussed the Anglo-Saxons or the Anglo-Danes. But where are the Scandinavians? And what was the relationship of, say, the Franks with the Norwegians. The problem you present, imo, is the idea of "The Warrior Elite of Northern Europe." This is an old idea, often defended by the sources you've listed. After all, past scholars only really had access to these written and pictorial sources.

Has it occured to you that there are limitations about the sources you've listed? Was the poet there at the Battle of Maldon to see Byrthnoth killed? To see his retainers run in cowardice? There is an arguement that the Stuttgart Psalter (in which arms and armor are depicted) of the 9th century was really based upon 6th centrury Byzantine art--thus what we see does not always reflect what was there. This is even true with archaeology, especially burials, where much of our information was found.

I've stated this before, history is a matter time and place examined through skepticism. Early medieval northern Europe is too large a time (500AD to 1100--600 years?) and too large a geography (From Kiev to Iceland) to make the generaliztions you've made. New sources than the pictorial and written sources you've post point towards a much more specific time and place.

I had intended to discuss what I've posted above in my final post. I will try, if I can find the energy, to into this in more depth, after I've finished with shields:

The best synthesis on viking age shields is written and published by Peter Beatson.

This is not to say that I haven't looked at this subject myself; it's impossible to avoid finding information on shields when reading or looking at the sources.

Many a saga or poem (including the Battle of Maldon) depict shields. Byrthnoth of the poem Maldon spends time arraying his troops into a shieldwall. Shields shatter in battle, etc. However, the most interesting use of shields in the sagas is in "Kormacs Saga" (there are a couple of translation of this). "Chapter 12" of this saga describes the rules for holmganga fighting: each combatant is allowed 3 shields. This shows that shields--despite the centuries of time between and the writing of the saga--were disposable. They were on made to survive a fight. This is again seen in the Saga of Thorstein Staff-struck, where Thorstein and another man are fighting. Their shields destroied (beaten down to the boss), but the fight still a stalemate, Thorstein goes and retrieves another shield for himself and his opponent. Whether or not this actually happened is somewhat moot, but the episode still shows that shields were constructed as such to be light, not necessary sturdy.

More later. Sorry this is a long post.

Mord.

[Mord]

Now having had a 2nd cup of coffee:

Representational sources for viking shields:

The first 2 sources that come to mind are the Gotland Stone (see my discussion on helmet for the citation) and the Oseberg Tapesty. Shields show up being carried on ships (on the Stones) and being used by warriors. The shields are round, and with the Tapestry seem to depict a center boss. Yet, the real question with these source isn't the shape of the shields (though, with earlier scholarship, this was not an unimportant question--very early 19th Century source stated that shields could be oval as well); the question is are the size of the shields proportionate to those who are carrying them. Do the shields reflect what really was.

I'm dubious that they are. If you look at the art of the place and time (beginning with B. Salin), you will see that "Viking" or Early medieval Scandinavian art is anything but realistic. The twisted shapes of the various ani-morph styles, from Borre to Urnes, are, to put in a word, fantastic. Why should the Oseberg Tapestry and the Gotland Stones be different? Admittedly, the Tapestry and the Stones are not as fantastic as other art of the period and place, but look, for instance, at the Jelling Stone of Harlald Bluetooth. The message there is obvious--here is Christianity. The Jelling Stone not only has spiritual message, but a political one as well. Should we think differently of the Oseberg Tapestry and Gotland Stones?

Mord.