I saw this on the Hurstwic site;
"Arrowheads are not commonly found in the graves of warriors, suggesting that bows were not thought of as tools for warriors. Most arrowheads are found at house sites, which might suggest that bows were thought of doemstic tools, used for hunting."
This doesn;t sound right to me. Vikings seem to have made great use of archery and I have seen more than one description of arrowheads in the graves of Nordic warriors. Ideas, thoughts?

Archery is mentioned in the Saga's, in some quite famous episodes (The description of the Battle of Svolder, from numerous sources)

Hunting during the viking age (as probably before, and definitely after) has been an activity for the rich and wealthy. It takes time, specialized equipment and manpower. Think hounds, falcons, driving/herding teams and so on.

So it might just be that dumping a sheaf of arrows (that could be argued to be at least semi-expendable) in a tomb or grave comes off as a little cheap compared to a spear, axe or sword?

Not to mention that the laws of the Frostating (from about 1000 AD and probably has roots much further back) and the law of Magnus Lagabøte (1274 AD) both requires there to be one bow and twenty-four arrows for every other oarsman aboard the warships. With 20-30 bows per ship and a potential of up to 270-300 ships in the fleet, that becomes a lot of archers.

Falconry was very much an activity of the social elite during the Merovingian/Vendel period, the Salian Franks had laws concerning falconry and the Vendel/Valsgarde graves contain birds of prey within the boat inhumations which would suggest that the exchange of such birds was very much a part of the social elite gift/exchange system.

best
Dave

By the way, I saw this the other day, It's from 2012:

http://sciencenordic.com/legendary-viking-town-unearthed

In the article they mention one of the longhouses they excavated. Apparently it was burned to the ground during the 10th century:

Quote:

"The house was more than 30 metres long and nine metres wide, and in the remains of the pillars that once stood by the wall and the entrance, we found arrowheads and caltrops. This suggests that the house was attacked in a military conflict and burned down.”

I think Baard H is quite right. The feudal system was never properly implemented in Norway / Sweden so the bow was a utility tool for hunting. Archery equipment was probably not looked upon as a social status marker as opposed to the sword and axe. Norwegian arrow heads finds are typically broadheads that could be implemented for both hunting and war. A few bodkins have been found but they are attributed to late medieval times.

There is 36 arrows found in the Högom Grave outside Sundsvall in sweden. The look like needlebodkins and are from the 5th Century. Here is a drawing of the finds from högom. you find the arrows up in the left corner!

[ Linked Image ]

Thanks for the replies they are great. I too would have thought that hunting in Scandinavia would not have followed the mainstream European model. That said it was only specific beasts (in England at least) that were protected. Wolves, Roe deer and others could be hunted by ordinary folks.
It was this line that really stood out; "suggesting that bows were not thought of as tools for warriors". It would seem to me that this might be more valid for other cultures in the early medieval world such as the Irish or Anglo saxons but not Nordic culutres which seem to have had a particulalrly strong martial archery tradition. Interestingly in the List of Rig it is the Jarl at the top of the Nordic social structure (excepting kings of course) who sits making bows; .

Within two gazed | in each other's eyes,
Fathir and Mothir, | and played with their fingers;
There sat the house-lord, | wound strings for the bow,
Shafts he fashioned, | and bows he shaped.
(....)
To grow in the house | did Jarl begin,
Shields he brandished, | and bow-strings wound,
Bows he shot, | and shafts he fashioned,
Arrows he loosened, | and lances wielded,
Horses he rode, | and hounds unleashed,
Swords he handled, | and sounds he swam.

There's also some references to sami archers being hired as mercenaries into different Norwegian armies in the viking period. In my oppinion this might show that the military leaders of the time not only valued masses of archers but individual archery skills as well.
According to Snorre, the man who shot the arrow that broke Einar Thambarskelfir's bow might have been of sami origin (or just a man called "Finn"...)

Quote:

Einar Tambarskelver, one of the sharpest of bow-shooters, stood by the mast, and shot with his bow. Einar shot an arrow at Earl Eirik [...] Then said the earl to a man some say was called Fin, but other says he was of sami heritage – that was a great archer – "Shoot that tall man by the mast." Fin shot; and the arrow hit the middle of Einar's bow just at the moment that Einar was drawing it, and the bow was split in two parts. "What is that," cried King Olaf, "that broke with such a noise?" "Norway, king, from your hands," cried Einar. "No! not quite so much as that," says the king; "take my bow, and shoot," flinging the bow to him. Einar took the bow, and drew it over the head of the arrow. "Too weak, too weak," said he, "for the bow of a mighty king!" and, throwing the bow aside, he took sword and shield, and fought valiantly.

Thank you for your interest in the Hurstwic site. I'm the author of the articles on the site, including the bow and arrow article quoted by Neal Matheson.

I stand behind what I wrote in the article. The majority of arrowhead finds are from house sites, while the majority of the finds of other weapons are grave finds. To me, that suggests that Viking-age people had a different outlook on the use of bow and arrow than, for example, spear or axe or sax or sword.

That does not mean that Viking-age warriors did not use bow and arrow in battle. Such missiles were essential, for example, in nautical battles.

But the sagas also suggest that bow and arrow was not the first choice for resolving conflicts. Short-range weapons, the weapons found in graves, seem to have been the more typical choice.

The fact that arrowheads seem to be more commonly found in house sites suggests a more domestic use of the tool, and hunting comes to mind.

[quote="William R. Short"]
I stand behind what I wrote in the article. The majority of arrowhead finds are from house sites, while the majority of the finds of other weapons are grave finds. To me, that suggests that Viking-age people had a different outlook on the use of bow and arrow than, for example, spear or axe or sax or sword.

Hello, I wasn't really being critical but was just interested in what other people thought or if there was a bit more to it. Certainly from what you have written it would seem that bows were possibly/probably seen in a different light to what we might expect. It is a bit odd though.

This bias towards livestock is also shown in Iron Age biritish sites such as Danebury. If you are farming animals then really there is little need to hunt beyond, predator/pest control, recreation or as you say fur. Haplin reckoned that most of the many arrows found in Irish sites from the Viking period were military.
I wonder if the bow was not placed in warrior burials (assuming it wasn't of course as many would not be preserved) because it had another civilian function.