| Author |
Message |
|
Kristjan Runarsson
|
 Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 11:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dan Howard wrote: | | Quote: | | About the owner being Khazar. Highly unlikely unless you had a guy being able to communicate with Swedes; but Scandinavian kings has both finno-ugric, slavic, anglo-saxon and frisian elite warriors, so a lone Khazar is certainly not impossible. |
Must have been a magical one-way portal. Are you suggesting that the Vikings could travel to Khazar lands and bring back a souvenir but the Khazars could not go the other way and fight in Scandinavia? |
It's more a case of us knowing that Vikings travelled to Khazar lands either on odd expeditions with warlords like Ingvar or with the Byzantine army. We have no truly concrete evidence that band of Khazar warriors travelled in large numbers to Sweden. The case for Khazars having been a common sight in 10th century Scandinavia is pretty weak. It's down to Occam's razor, the simpler explanation is usually the correct one.
Last edited by Kristjan Runarsson on Wed 25 Jan, 2017 11:51 am; edited 2 times in total
|
|
  |
 |
|
Kristjan Runarsson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 11:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | | Matthew Bunker wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: |
Haven't stumbled across any article which have examined the Vimose mail for metallurgy and slag compositions.
. |
This paper from 2015 reveals some interesting details about the Vimose shirt.
http://gladius.revistas.csic.es/index.php/gla...ew/278/282 |
Thanks Matthew 
So very interesting that the Vimose mail seems to have a specific Germanic variation (Denmark & Northern Germany) of mail fixtures of a typical Roman mail fashion (looking like a tunic).
Conclusions from the paper:
"The mix of elements in the Vimose coat points to a local Germanic manufacture, but whose construction was inspired
by the Roman tunic. The local origin of the Vimose coat is supported by the typical shape of the riveted rings, especially
the exceedingly long overlap, large diameter, and gauge of the riveted rings, which bear no resemblance to Roman
examples of mail."
"The neck opening fixtures now allow it to be narrowed down to the 2nd - early 3rd century (B2-C1b) and, given the
similarity with the Brokaer fixtures, a date of the 2nd half of the 2nd century may be suspected." |
Interesting, I'll have to read that paper. There are a few tatters of chain mail in the Icelandic national museum. Unfortunately only one of them is on display. It is dated to the 14th century but the archeologists admit they cannot really rule out the fragment is much older since it was found in open country with no context to date it by. The rings are mazingly small, maybe 4-5 mm. The hauberk this sliver belonged to must have been riveted by a child.
Regarding Lamellar. There are actually some spectacular finds from Germany that indicate Lamellar was known and used there right up to c.a. 700 AD. That's not quite Viking age but close enough that it's not unthinkable Lamellar could have been used by Ottonian armies as late as the 900s. Of course in the absence of archeological finds that is only a hypothesis but still worth keeping in mind.
 Attachment: 55.69 KB
[ Download ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristjan Runarsson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 12:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | The whole discussion about armour (having them or not) in the viking world is really so speculative, because so very few fragments have been found.
The Iron Age Hedegaard bog find of a chain shirt where chemical composition shows likely a local Danish production and thus it is clear that mail armour was produced locally for a long time.
See this thread: http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=31490&highlight=
Bog Iron (Myremalm) is prevalent in all of Scandinavia (especially Denmark were some estimations points to 25% of the country being boglands in the very wet Iron Age). Myremalm production was used in Denmark from 500 BC to 1600 AD.
The cost and time of making armour makes it reasonable that only a few warriors wore them - the reason is in my opinion not only wealth but rather restriction of access to the elite craftsman.
It seems that elite craftsmen were tied to "central places" already from the Iron Age (Gudme & Himlingøje) and it probably continued into the Viking Age. The craftsmen at Hedeby were actually war booty from the sacking by Danish King Gudfred of the Scandinavian/Vendish town of Reric in 808; so it really supports the notion that elite craftsmen in the Scandinavian world were high-prestige thralls (having a patron and not supported by their own subsistence). They were probably restricted in their movements to the town or central place and provided the local (or major) ruler with weapons, armour and jewelry. These goods were then distributed to his hird or given as alliance gifts. It is not as strange at it first sounds as Venetian glass makers were not allowed to leave the Venetian republic.
A ruler's ability to keep elite warriors around him depended on his generosity with gifts. Not being able to provide that, he would immediately be known as a miser and lose all his prestige and honour and his men would leave him; so it would be reckless not so forcefully control his craftsmen.
The legend of the smith Völund being hamstrung could be seen as a reality, when rulers took more draconian measures to control the craftsmen. His revenge shows that going so far could backfire.
My point is that likely most armour and weapons in the Scandinavian viking age (at least until around 1000 AD) were gifts from rulers to their retainers. You didn't have an open marked for elite crafts and anyways hird retainers were given gifts, food and lodgings (and eventually land on retirement at least seen on Danish runestones) & not receiving any pay to "go shopping" with.
As some retainers travelled from service to service looking for a ruler of fame and "luck", they could over time have a quite eccentric mix of equipment culturally (probably the more exotic and the more unique and lavished the better). Chamber graves of elite warriors in Denmark during the Jelling dynasty before Harald Bluetooth changed to christianity seems to support that what you also find in Birka.
With Canute the Great we see a development towards paid soldiers in the retinue! From this pay they could buy their own equipment in towns with now free craftsmen (York for instance), though gift giving would likely still have been the norm among some of the "hird" soldiers. The transition is unclear.
So the armour mentioned from Birka could very likely be a gift to a warrior in service in the east at some point, that had attached himself to Birka.
Alternatively:
Whether this armour is a war booty is harder to say. It really seems that weapons - especially swords - was "souled". Meaning that parts of the soul of each owner went into the sword. "Killing" of blades is likely the explanation for the twisted blades we sometimes find in graves.
So was armour regarded as "souled"? It seems not really, since they are very rarely found in graves - probably regarded as clothing. So it was maybe just discarded when worn out (or remelted).
So it is much more possible that a warrior to steal armour as a trophy, than it would be with weapons..... Then again it would bring you much more prestige to wear an armour given as a gift from someone famous, then an armour you stole from some dead guy.
About the owner being Khazar. Highly unlikely unless you had a guy being able to communicate with Swedes; but Scandinavian kings has both finno-ugric, slavic, anglo-saxon and frisian elite warriors, so a lone Khazar is certainly not impossible. But that is for DNA to decide (if he excisted he might have carried "normal" viking weapons). |
I previously advanced the (gu)estimate that during the first half of the viking age I doubt more that 5-10% of warriors wore torso armour (overwhelmingly mail) and no no more than 10-15% wore helmets. This is probably an over estimate too. I don't know if you have visited the Schloss Gottorf museum in Schleswig Germany, if you haven't it's worth a visit if you are ever in the area. They have an exhibit there where they have reconstructed the armies from the Nydam and Thorsberg hoards. The armies that used this equipment were active during the late Roman and immediate post Roman period but I would think that early Viking age armies would have been similar to these forces. Mostly un-armoured most infantry carrying a round shield, and axe and a spear wealthier men could have carried a sword and maybe a simple helmet but only the very powerful (and Roman army veterans among them) wore armour.
About the Gift economy I generally agree but I am not so sure about gifts being the only source of arms and armour. I did some research and found out that according to Icelandic sources:
- A sword could cost between one and four marks of silver. For one mark of silver I do not think you'd have gotten a good sword but for four marks you could probably have gotten a sword that you could be reasonably sure would not break on you in battle. Of course swords could cost way more than this.
- A mail hauberk cost four marks of silver.
- A Helmet cost two marks of silver wich is remarkable in view of the amount of work that went into a hauberk.
All in all equipping a warrior with helmet, shield, good sword, hauberk, spear and an axe would have cost around a hundred of silver (15 marks).
To put this into perspective an average female slave cost around one mark of silver (three marks was considered excessive) and a male slave (worker) between one and a half and two marks of silver. A cow cost a quarter of a mark of silver. The point here is that if you could afford to own more than one slave, a reasonably good sword, a helmet or both were by no means out of your reach. You did not neccesarily have to pay for weapons or armour in silver, you could pay in the equivalent value of textiles, dried fish, cattle, furs, walrus ivory, whale teeth or some other form of goods.
About the 'killing' of blades, that is a funerary custom. Funerary customs in pagan times varied considerably. Grave goods in Norway were, for example, pretty generous while the Icelanders and Danes had pretty similar customs where grave goods were much less extravagant. That is strange in view of the fact that many Icelandic settlers supposedly came from Norway. Even so, the point is that grave goods are not necessarily indicative of how widespread sword/axe/spear ownership was and what the basic equipment of the owner would have been. It can be that even the Norwegians did not usually bring themselves to put a hauberk and helmet, six marks worth of silver, into a grave in addition to between one and four marks worth of sword, say two marks worth of axe and, say, one marks worth of shield and spear.
I agree about the Khazar hypothesis. It is most unlikely.
Last edited by Kristjan Runarsson on Wed 25 Jan, 2017 12:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kristjan Runarsson wrote: |
Regarding Lamellar. There are actually some spectacular finds from Germany that indicate Lamellar was known and used there right up to c.a. 700 AD. That's not quite Viking age but close enough that it's not unthinkable Lamellar could have been used by Ottonian armies as late as the 900s. Of course in the absence of archeological finds that is only a hypothesis but still worth keeping in mind. |
Actually if we define the Viking Age as the start of sea-raids from "klinker"-build ships, then the Salme ship finds from Estonia might actually gives us an Iron-Age transition to the Viking Age around ~700 AD. So I wouldn't be bothered by that dating.
According to Władysław Duczko then the Salme find overall really points much more to the late 7th century than ~750 AD.
See this lecture (~17.30 min in):
"Eastern Beginnings of the Viking Age - early Swedish expansion on the Balt and Finn territories"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9Gryl4shY&list=PLiVmWzjSqvEt0EsHycqwiKLQMBodGpBQM&index=10
Also more specific to the topic of this thread this lecture about the attack on Birka by Dr Peter Lindbom -> which briefly talks about the lamellar armour found at Birka and the Magyar equestrian bow quivers found there.
"The Assault on Birka's Garrison - Warfare as a means to an globalizing end".
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DE2f-NbCo-c
Finno-Ugric shamanistic warriors like the Magyars would fit easily into a Germanic Odinic "comitatus" - the very shamanistic nature of Odin could in fact be somewhat influenced by Finno-Ugric people?.
But often military advances has a tendency to spread very quickly over huge territories, so one has to be careful to assigning ethnic attributes to such finds. Magyar-style bows and arrows doesn't prove actual Magyars being present. Germanic warriors has used celtic and roman armour and weapons in the iron age. The goths has reverted to an "eastern" horseback military style; so why should Scandinavian warriors in the viking period not adapt and use eastern style armour and weaponry - especially when being exposed to it going up and down the eastern rivers?
NB: All 24 very interesting lectures here from "Muzeum Archeologiczno-Historyczne w Elblągu" you tube site of the conference. Source: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLiVmWzjSqvEt0EsHycqwiKLQMBodGpBQM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristjan Runarsson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | | Kristjan Runarsson wrote: |
Regarding Lamellar. There are actually some spectacular finds from Germany that indicate Lamellar was known and used there right up to c.a. 700 AD. That's not quite Viking age but close enough that it's not unthinkable Lamellar could have been used by Ottonian armies as late as the 900s. Of course in the absence of archeological finds that is only a hypothesis but still worth keeping in mind. |
Actually if we define the Viking Age as the start of sea-raids from "klinker"-build ships, then the Salme ship finds from Estonia might actually gives us an Iron-Age transition to the Viking Age around ~700 AD. So I wouldn't be bothered by that dating.
According to Władysław Duczko then the Salme find overall really points much more to the late 7th century than ~750 AD.
See this lecture (~17.30 min in):
"Eastern Beginnings of the Viking Age - early Swedish expansion on the Balt and Finn territories"
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9Gryl4shY&list=PLiVmWzjSqvEt0EsHycqwiKLQMBodGpBQM&index=10 |
Yeah, I quite forgot about the Salme ships. I haven't researched them enough to judge the dating but what I found remarkable about these finds is they actually found more swords than men. According to an archeologist interviewed in a documentary about the Salme ships I recently watched this find has caused people to re-examine how well equipped Viking raiders were and how widespread sword use was and the idea that only chieftains could afford swords. In Iceland the ratio between swords and axes is about 1/3 swords 2/3 axes. In the Nydam/Thorsberg finds (whose owners seem to have originated in Norway) axes were also the most common infantry weapons. This fits well with the fact that Swedes were generally more wealthy than the Norwegians and certainly the Icelanders being that the Swedes sat on top of some very profitable trade routes.
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Bunker
Location: Somerset UK Joined: 02 Apr 2009
Posts: 483
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 1:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kristjan Runarsson wrote: | | In the Nydam/Thorsberg finds (whose owners seem to have originated in Norway) axes were also the most common infantry weapons. |
In all of the Danish bog deposits, as with anywhere else in early medieval Western European, spears prove to be the most common infantry weapons.
"If a Greek can do it, two Englishman certainly can !"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristjan Runarsson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Matthew Bunker wrote: | | Kristjan Runarsson wrote: | | In the Nydam/Thorsberg finds (whose owners seem to have originated in Norway) axes were also the most common infantry weapons. |
In all of the Danish bog deposits, as with anywhere else in early medieval Western European, spears prove to be the most common infantry weapons. |
I meant the most common weapon other than spears. Spears are ubiquitous. In Iceland we have around 50 something axes, c.a. 25 swords and over 90 spears (probably more these days since the spear count dates to 2000). There is in fact a whole string of graves in this country where the only weapons included were a knife and a spear not even a shield. I used to have a picture of that reconstructed army from Schloss Gottorf that showed over half the men carrying axes but I can't find that photo anymore so I'm not sure about axes being the most common weapon in the Nydam/Thorsberg finds (after spears of course).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kristjan Runarsson wrote: |
I previously advanced the (gu)estimate that during the first half of the viking age I doubt more that 5-10% of warriors wore torso armour (overwhelmingly mail) and no no more than 10-15% wore helmets. This is probably an over estimate too. I don't know if you have visited the Schloss Gottorf museum in Schleswig Germany, if you haven't it's worth a visit if you are ever in the area. They have an exhibit there where they have reconstructed the armies from the Nydam and Thorsberg hoards. The armies that used this equipment were active during the late Roman and immediate post Roman period but I would think that early Viking age armies would have been similar to these forces. Mostly un-armoured most infantry carrying a round shield, and axe and a spear wealthier men could have carried a sword and maybe a simple helmet but only the very powerful (and Roman army veterans among them) wore armour.
About the Gift economy I generally agree but I am not so sure about gifts being the only source of arms and armour. I did some research and found out that according to Icelandic sources:
- A sword could cost between one and four marks of silver. For one mark of silver I do not think you'd have gotten a good sword but for four marks you could probably have gotten a sword that you could be reasonably sure would not break on you in battle. Of course swords could cost way more than this.
- A mail hauberk cost four marks of silver.
- A Helmet cost two marks of silver wich is remarkable in view of the amount of work that went into a hauberk.
All in all equipping a warrior with helmet, shield, good sword, hauberk, spear and an axe would have cost around a hundred of silver (15 marks).
To put this into perspective an average female slave cost around one mark of silver (three marks was considered excessive) and a male slave (worker) between one and a half and two marks of silver. A cow cost a quarter of a mark of silver. The point here is that if you could afford to own more than one slave, a reasonably good sword, a helmet or both were by no means out of your reach. You did not neccesarily have to pay for weapons or armour in silver, you could pay in the equivalent value of textiles, dried fish, cattle, furs, walrus ivory, whale teeth or some other form of goods.
About the 'killing' of blades, that is a funerary custom. Funerary customs in pagan times varied considerably. Grave goods in Norway were, for example, pretty generous while the Icelanders and Danes had pretty similar customs where grave goods were much less extravagant. That is strange in view of the fact that many Icelandic settlers supposedly came from Norway. Even so, the point is that grave goods are not necessarily indicative of how widespread sword/axe/spear ownership was and what the basic equipment of the owner would have been. It can be that even the Norwegians did not usually bring themselves to put a hauberk and helmet, six marks worth of silver, into a grave in addition to between one and four marks worth of sword, say two marks worth of axe and, say, one marks worth of shield and spear.
I agree about the Khazar hypothesis. It is most unlikely. |
The change in viking age equipment in the late iron age from Denmark (550-750 AD) you can see here:
http://myArmoury.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=32090&highlight=
So there is changes going on all the time, but basically you are right that when non-elite warriors were called to fight, they would probably have access the what is called the classical "people's weapons" in the later medieval leding-laws.
The gift giving seems definitely certain in the Danish iron age. Then it's starts to be more murky with the first emporiums like Ribe (704 AD) and Hedeby (808 AD), while you still have old style central places like Tissø continuing. The question is how free craftsmen actually were there to work & trade (high status thralls or free men?) and could random people just go in a buy high status craftwork from anyone?
I think these early emporiums were very tightly controlled in the 700-800's AD by Danish Kings (whether 1 or several at the same time) when it came to "elite items", but it is just a hunch. The force-movement of people from Reric to Hedeby by King Godfred in 808 certainly seems to support a strong forcing component. [It's like he is cattle rustling from the enemy].
At some point you get a transition to "free trade" - even in more luxury items - but when does it start? I would think first really with Harald Bluetooth converting to Christianity and also establishing the first Danish mint. From Canute the Great you certainly starts to have paid warriors for the first time (unclear under Harald Bluetooth).
First when warriors (having no land mind you, before they retired and thus no income) actually have a salary can they go and buy anything. Before in the old comitatus system the leader gave them gifts - just see the Saxo version of Rolf Krake where Vøgg receives rings from the generous King and thus find him to be "the man" to join. Being in a comitatus you were around your leader at all times eating, drinking and fighting with him. An great King was always "poor" (visually) and in need of more lavished items to give to his men. So you would need to control expert artisans to give you a constant supply of lavish item you could distribute to your men as gifts.
Off course this go for items like swords, armour and jewelry. I'm certain normal people could always barter to get a bearded axe, a spear or a shield at the local marked. Actually they had to as it seemed to be the leding requirements when the King called for an offensive or defensive campaign. Yet again we don't know how old the leding system actually is (does it get introduced in the late viking age?).
But the Icelandic sagas describe a situation with a monetary economy - and then you are already down into the late viking age. So it perhaps doesn't tell us more than how it was in 1200 AD.
The ethos continued even into the middle ages as it was remarked that my namesake King Niels (1104-1134) was accused of being greedy since he kept only a very small hird around him. Greedy being a King who doesn't spend all his wealth on his men, but keeps it for himself (here more exactly having so few men, that he didn't need to spend a lot). He "learned" a lesson when he was killed by the people of Slesvig - if he had had a larger hird he wouldn't have been killed by the townspeople.
"Killing of weapons" are definitely seen in the Iron Age bog finds with extensive destruction of the items and so it not a only in a funeral context; but otherwise I certainly agrees that grave goods cannot be use to indicate popularity. As you mention you have tons of grave goods from Norway and very little from Denmark (except pre-christian Jelling-dynasty hird(?) chamber graves from ~925 - 975 AD).
About lack of gravegoods in both Iceland and Denmark. It would be weird that if people fled to Iceland to escape Christianity they would only flee from Norway and not Denmark??
But there is a guy on the net that compiled a list of similarity based on the genetic information provided on eupedia Y-chromosome haplogroup distribution: Look especially on the Icelandic divergence with other people.
Eupedia: http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
Each countries %'s total divergence from each other (so the lower the number the more similar).
So here is the frankly surprising result:
DENMARK:
Iceland 28,00% (Wow, so male Danish Y-chrom distribution are overall most closely resembling the male Icelandic distribution)
Germany 31,00% (?? so German distribution overall gets a better fit with overall Danish distribution, than sections of Germany).
Netherlands 38,00%
North Germany 38,50%
West Germany 41,50%
East Germany 44,50%
Norway 47,00% (Surprisingly low, but we don't have a Sami component in Denmark, like in Norway, so perhaps why?)
Switzerland 48,00%
Sweden 50,00% (Yep, Swedes are something else  ).
South Germany 52,00%
England 53,50%
Belgium 57,00%
Scotland 59,00%
ICELAND:
Norway 27,00%
Denmark 28,00% (Almost equal to Norway !!!).
North Germany 42,50%
East Germany 44,50%
Sweden 48,00%
Germany 49,00%
Netherlands 65,00%
West Germany 69,50%
Switzerland 74,00%
South Germany 75,00%
England 78,50%
Scotland 80,00%
Austria 82,00%
Belgium 83,00%
Czech Republic 85,00%
Slovenia 88,00%
NORWAY:
Iceland 27,00%
Sweden 29,00%
North Germany 46,50%
Denmark 47,00% (Again, perhaps because of no Sami component in Denmark).
East Germany 49,50%
Austria 67,00%
Czech Republic 67,00%
Germany 68,00%
Slovenia 72,00%
Slovakia 73,00%
Hungary 82,50%
Netherlands 84,00%
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Thu 26 Jan, 2017 8:02 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kristjan Runarsson
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is this traditional idea in Icelandic archeology that Icelandic culture was predominantly influenced by Norway but I don't think it was that simple and neither do quite a few archeologists today. Icelandic settlers came from a bunch of places. Many were from Norway but there are also mentions of settlers from Sweden, Denmark and especially the Southern Isles (Hebrides) and of course Irish, slaves or freedmen and a handful may have been Native Americans. Another thing is that there seems to have been considerable contact between Iceland and the Baltic area since a good number of jewellery, weapons and chape finds are Swedish/Baltic in origin. Then there is also the considerable cultural effect the Ottonan empire had on Denmark/Norway/Sweden and by extension on Iceland. We think of norse swords as 'viking swords' but Arab travellers at the time remarked that Norse people wore Frankish (read: German/French) style swords.
In Iceland the gift giving economy was never as prominent as it was in Denmark/Norway/Sweden many farmers would have bought their weapons including swords from merchants or on trips to places like Kaupangur, Heiðabær, Gotland, York, Dublin...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kristjan Runarsson wrote: | | Yeah, I quite forgot about the Salme ships. I haven't researched them enough to judge the dating but what I found remarkable about these finds is they actually found more swords than men. According to an archeologist interviewed in a documentary about the Salme ships I recently watched this find has caused people to re-examine how well equipped Viking raiders were and how widespread sword use was and the idea that only chieftains could afford swords. In Iceland the ratio between swords and axes is about 1/3 swords 2/3 axes. In the Nydam/Thorsberg finds (whose owners seem to have originated in Norway) axes were also the most common infantry weapons. This fits well with the fact that Swedes were generally more wealthy than the Norwegians and certainly the Icelanders being that the Swedes sat on top of some very profitable trade routes. |
A) This could very well be a comitatus leader and his "hird" (and other personal household retainers?); so it could be explained that they are all equipped by their leader.
B) If it is a leding drafted army (again we don't know how old that system really is), then it would mean that each soldier were supplied by himself (or his own district). Then it would be surprising that so many of them could afford and even have access to swords.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kristjan Runarsson wrote: | There is this traditional idea in Icelandic archeology that Icelandic culture was predominantly influenced by Norway but I don't think it was that simple and neither do quite a few archeologists today. Icelandic settlers came from a bunch of places. Many were from Norway but there are also mentions of settlers from Sweden, Denmark and especially the Southern Isles (Hebrides) and of course Irish, slaves or freedmen and a handful may have been Native Americans. Another thing is that there seems to have been considerable contact between Iceland and the Baltic area since a good number of jewellery, weapons and chape finds are Swedish/Baltic in origin. Then there is also the considerable cultural effect the Ottonan empire had on Denmark/Norway/Sweden and by extension on Iceland. We think of norse swords as 'viking swords' but Arab travellers at the time remarked that Norse people wore Frankish (read: German/French) style swords.
In Iceland the gift giving economy was never as prominent as it was in Denmark/Norway/Sweden many farmers would have bought their weapons including swords from merchants or on trips to places like Kaupangur, Heiðabær, Gotland, York, Dublin... |
Can you find the arabic source (interested in the dating - also is he from the middle east or from Spain?):
Well we call it Arabic numerals, when it is in fact Indian numerals. That arabs called it Frankish swords likely because Franks were the first they encountered - in fact "franj" probably just means "Western man" and/or "Crusader". You know all blue eyed, blond or redheaded guys........
Like for all classical Greeks, non-greeks are Barbarians no matter where they are from.
So franj is absolutely not specific for Franks ethnically -> Normans, Danes and Norwegians would be Franj as well and to arabs back then we all used the same kind of sword.
Also when you say "Frankish style sword" - it doesn't state it was produced by Franks!
If it is an early Arab traveller that clearly distinguish between Franj and Rus in his writings, then it's perhaps just that the Rus swords looks like the Franj swords (perhaps just not being curved?) and franks and scandinavians did use the same kind of swords to a large extend.
Also sometimes these translation are often not precise, but artistic; so you have to see an expert in arabic on what it really says in the original.
Yes it is important to remember that Iceland is an "anomaly" compared to the older settled parts of Scandinavia being frontier land. Iceland had for instance single farms and no King, whereas most of Denmark had village structure (but not in Northern Jutland and Bornholm as far as I remember, where you had single farms) and also powerful Kings.
These would create big differences on how to live your life and how much you were controlled within society. Especially with no kings, you wouldn't have large hirds. With fairly poor land you wouldn't have super rich people either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lewis
|
|
 |
|
J. Nicolaysen
|
| Posted: Wed 25 Jan, 2017 5:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, really interesting information here, great resource thread!
But the Stormfront link...Not good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jan, 2017 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Nicolaysen wrote: | Wow, really interesting information here, great resource thread!
But the Stormfront link...Not good. |
Well this is just a compilation of data from the eupedia website.
How people want to actually use these data politically is up to themselves in a democracy.
What is interesting is for instance that Danes and Icelandic Y-chromosome overall distribution patterns are surprisingly similar - you would how thought there to be only a very clear Norwegian similarity.
Can it be explain that those Norwegians moving to Iceland came from an area with few or no Sami people? That could explain the distribution being more like Denmark - whereas Denmark and Norway overall diverges more.
Furthermore it is really surprisingly how little overall distribution likeness there is between Norwegian and Dutch.
That Danes and Dutch have fairly similar distribution patterns, which are very expected based on history. (Dittmarsken being historically Frisian and with Dutch settlers brought to Amager and to some extend Møn).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jan, 2017 5:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks Mark.
I have read the parts of Ibn Fadlan about the Rus many times, but my version always starts with the description just following the sword section, so I had missed that.
Ibn Fadlan thus clearly distinguish between Franks and Rus - so that is important for the discussion.
But he only states that Rus swords have furrows like Frankish swords........that is all, not even that they look identical.
It could be like saying that the Japanese had curved swords like Persians.
I include the whole section from the link you gave:
"I saw the Rus’ who had come on their trading missions and taken up quarters on the river Atil. I have never seen men more physically perfect than they, being tall as date palms, blond and ruddy and wearing neither tunics nor caftans. A man among them, however, wears a garment with which he wraps up one side of his body, and it is through this opening hat he lets one of his hands out. Every one of them has an ax, a sword, and a knife, and he is never without the items just mentioned.
Their swords have furrowed blades in the manner of the Franks. From the tip of their toenails to their necks each one of them is covered with [tatoos of] verdant trees, figures and the like. Every one of their women has a rounded container fastened over her breasts, that is made of iron, silver, copper, or gold in a manner commensurate with the magnitude of her husband’s wealth. On each container there is a ring in which there is a knife, which is also fastened over the breasts. Around their necks they have bands of gold and silver. This is because when a man possesses ten thousand dirhams, he has a neckband made for his wife. If he has twenty thousand dirhams, he has two neckbands made for her. Thus with each ten thousand dirhams that is added to his wealth, a [new] neckband is added to those possessed by his wife. It sometimes happens that one of them will have around her neck numerous neckbands. The most splendid ornaments among them that are made of the ceramic material found on their ships, which they greatly overrate. They buy them at a dirham a bead and string them into necklaces for their women."
Here directly follows Ibn Fadlan's description that are simply at odds with all other indications about viking people being clean (even having a weekday called washing-day): So it's likely a religious/cultural bias we are observing here, like when Greek and Roman writers expects according to their worldview people far away to be primitive and filthy (like descriptions of the Aesti).
"They are the filthiest of God’s creatures. They neither cleanse themselves after either defecation or urination, nor do they perform the necessary ablutions after major ritual impurity, nor do they wash their hands after eating. Indeed they are like stray asses. They come from their country, and dock their ships on the Atil which is a large river, on whose banks they build large wooden houses. Ten or twenty of them, more or less, gather in one house. Each one has a couch on which he sits, and with them are the beautiful slave girls intended for the merchants. One of them may have sexual relations with his slave girl while his comrade looks on. Sometimes a whole group of them may come together and engage in such action opposite each other. It sometimes happens that a merchant comes in to buy a girl from one of them and finds him copulating with her, yet he does not leave her until he has satisfied his desire." etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mark Lewis
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jan, 2017 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | Thanks Mark.
I have read the parts of Ibn Fadlan about the Rus many times, but my version always starts with the description just following the sword section, so I had missed that.
Ibn Fadlan thus clearly distinguish between Franks and Rus - so that is important for the discussion.
But he only states that Rus swords have furrows like Frankish swords........that is all, not even that they look identical.
It could be like saying that the Japanese had curved swords like Persians. |
No problem... but take down that Stormfront link dude! (And don't go back there...)
The proper translation can of course be debated... I saw another version that read it as "ridged" instead of "furrowed", and interpreted it as a description of pattern-welded blades. My first thought was that "furrowed" really means "fullered", so Fadlan may be observing a distinction between Western blades with broad fullers, used by Franks/Vikings/others, and Eastern/Arabic blades... which were non-fullered? Not sure if that last statement is correct - maybe someone can confirm what a typical 10th c. Arabic sword would be. I think at this time it would be a straight-bladed sword, not curved, but don't know about fullers specifically.
|
|
|
|
|
J. Nicolaysen
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jan, 2017 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | | J. Nicolaysen wrote: | Wow, really interesting information here, great resource thread!
But the Stormfront link...Not good. |
Well this is just a compilation of data from the eupedia website.
How people want to actually use these data politically is up to themselves in a democracy.
|
Hi Niels,
You know I have appreciated your posts in particular here on a lot of things related to my Danish heritage for which I am grateful. Personally I consider myself very pluralist when it comes to various cultures and histories; I cannot personally advocate superiority or pride of one culture or race over another. But I don't want myArmoury to suffer such a debate in this thread.
I'm not an admin and I didn't flag your post, but the fact remains that Stormfront access has been banned in several countries, and in America in particular clicking on the link at work might very well cause legal difficulties. At the very least, you should give a heads up if you are going to link that stuff by also posting NSFW (not safe for work) as a consideration, though I would greatly prefer not having the link from myArmoury at all, and that you provide resources to the original data, not a link to someone else's compilation at such a site when possible. Regards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jan, 2017 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mark Lewis wrote: |
The proper translation can of course be debated... I saw another version that read it as "ridged" instead of "furrowed", and interpreted it as a description of pattern-welded blades. My first thought was that "furrowed" really means "fullered", so Fadlan may be observing a distinction between Western blades with broad fullers, used by Franks/Vikings/others, and Eastern/Arabic blades... which were non-fullered? Not sure if that last statement is correct - maybe someone can confirm what a typical 10th c. Arabic sword would be. I think at this time it would be a straight-bladed sword, not curved, but don't know about fullers specifically. |
Removed it, but I let the data stand as it is quite interesting from simply a scientific view in that Icelandic sources might have significantly focused on Norwegian ancestry during the landnam, but failed to take into account that men from other parts of the northern world might have contributed even at the landnam or slightly later.
As many sagas are very focused on the landnam period, it could simply be that Danish, Swedish and other men that settled during the 10th century simply didn't get the same focus of interest in the stories (being later).
Yeah going from one language group to another language group can be tricky when we talk about precise meaning a 1000 years ago. So ridged or furrowed?
I thought fullered as well - but if fullered blades were used by arabs that explanation will be less likely (I have no idea about fullered blades of arab swords in the 10th century?).
Ridged could be pattern welded (as we know it to be the case for viking swords), and that kind of pattern is perhaps different enough to the "Damascus pattern", so perhaps that is a better guess.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Thu 26 Jan, 2017 9:46 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Thu 26 Jan, 2017 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| J. Nicolaysen wrote: | | Niels Just Rasmussen wrote: | | J. Nicolaysen wrote: | Wow, really interesting information here, great resource thread!
But the Stormfront link...Not good. |
Well this is just a compilation of data from the eupedia website.
How people want to actually use these data politically is up to themselves in a democracy.
|
Hi Niels,
You know I have appreciated your posts in particular here on a lot of things related to my Danish heritage for which I am grateful. Personally I consider myself very pluralist when it comes to various cultures and histories; I cannot personally advocate superiority or pride of one culture or race over another. But I don't want myArmoury to suffer such a debate in this thread.
I'm not an admin and I didn't flag your post, but the fact remains that Stormfront access has been banned in several countries, and in America in particular clicking on the link at work might very well cause legal difficulties. At the very least, you should give a heads up if you are going to link that stuff by also posting NSFW (not safe for work) as a consideration, though I would greatly prefer not having the link from myArmoury at all, and that you provide resources to the original data, not a link to someone else's compilation at such a site when possible. Regards. |
Totally understand and I have removed the link.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall:
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Niels Just Rasmussen
|
| Posted: Sat 28 Jan, 2017 7:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kristjan Runarsson wrote: | There is this traditional idea in Icelandic archeology that Icelandic culture was predominantly influenced by Norway but I don't think it was that simple and neither do quite a few archeologists today. Icelandic settlers came from a bunch of places. Many were from Norway but there are also mentions of settlers from Sweden, Denmark and especially the Southern Isles (Hebrides) and of course Irish, slaves or freedmen and a handful may have been Native Americans. Another thing is that there seems to have been considerable contact between Iceland and the Baltic area since a good number of jewellery, weapons and chape finds are Swedish/Baltic in origin. Then there is also the considerable cultural effect the Ottonan empire had on Denmark/Norway/Sweden and by extension on Iceland. We think of norse swords as 'viking swords' but Arab travellers at the time remarked that Norse people wore Frankish (read: German/French) style swords.
In Iceland the gift giving economy was never as prominent as it was in Denmark/Norway/Sweden many farmers would have bought their weapons including swords from merchants or on trips to places like Kaupangur, Heiðabær, Gotland, York, Dublin... |
The discussion about an Ottonian influence is really interesting. The correct answer is probably no (unless we talk about military matters only) in my opinion.
The Danes and Holy Roman Empire were definitely NOT on friendly terms in those days. But you had some royal pretenders who tried to take the crown having support by the Roman Emperor, especially Harald Klak, but the point is that the German popularity ran in families exclusively having German military support behind their pretender forces or local rule (and they were often warded in Germany or had fled to Germany). .
So it is more from the later times, where we see more German cultural effects, but it is a slow back and forth process through the centuries.
Cultural influx from Germany was still regarded very negatively in Danish historical writing into the high middle ages (Svend Aggesen 1180's and Saxo in around 1200 AD). German culture was especially regarded as effeminate, but you also had people whose power was supported by German emperors who openly dressed as Germans.
As you quite often had internal Danish fighting for the Throne, it often ended up with one having German support and the others strongly rejecting things german. So German culture were there, and it was really disliked - which proves it did have a presence among certain groups of the elite.
In Saxo's description of the Bråvalla battle he lets the Swedish King Ring speak to his men before the battle.
As the invading force under Danish King Harald Hildetand contains both Danes, Saxons and Vends, King Ring speaks to his Norwegian and Swedish forces to give them courage before battle. They definitely can win since they fight for they country and freedom and the opposing force have only fairly few Danes, but many saxons and other effeminate people ["saxonis complures aliasque effoeminates gentes"] in their ranks; and that Nordic forces ["Septentrionalis turba"] have always been stronger than germans and vends ["Germanos ac Sclauos"].
King Svend Grathe (1146-1157) is described as being in the "hird" of the German Emperor as a young man, and thus knows both the German Emperor and german customs, which he wanted to spread in Denmark.
He was conceited (acc. to Saxo) and the King called Danish customs and traditions rural and uncultivated and supplanted it with courtly manners (Danish: Høviskhed"). He dressed in saxon clothing and convinced his warriors to dress in the same way.
So Saxo makes a point that how danes speaks to each other is different from how german speak to each other (courtly manners in the german case); and that also food and dress is markedly different.
Svend Grathe also increased the distance between King and the people, in that he no longer spoke to the common people from a normal chair on equal height, but elevated himself looking down on people and gave judgements to people that had to stand at his feet. No longer was judicial judgement based on the old nordic customs of oaths, but had to be settled by a duel!
This is very important: Traditional duels in Danish society was based on insult to honour (not a way of settling court cases), judicial cases was based on witnesses and oaths.
Svend Grathe lost the fight to Valdemar the Great and both Svend Aggesen and Saxo have ties to the Valdemar dynasty.
Svend Aggesen's (writing 1186-1187) version of the legend of "Uffe hin spage" has these words - to his father King Vermund and all the danish people present at the nationally called Ting - in responds to the threats from the German Emperor.
"Don't let those provocative threats affect us, since haughtiness is an innate german condition, in that they can brag in bombastic ways and understand to shoo (scare away) wimpish and imbecilic people with the wind of threats".
So while military technology has a tendency to spread very rapidly (people's survival depends in it), then it doesn't automatically mean that culture also spreads.
A more full embracing of German culture among the Danish upperclass probably first happens during the 1400's, where also a great number of German counts and Barons are settled in the country bringing their culture with them. With the rising power of the Hanseatic league (and Valdemar Atterdag's signing of the peace of Stralsund in 1370) the german dominance of the trading and craftsman middle classes also probably first really becomes significant from around 1400 as well.
Last edited by Niels Just Rasmussen on Mon 30 Jan, 2017 9:17 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
All contents © Copyright 2003-2024 myArmoury.com — All rights reserved
Discussion forums powered by phpBB © The phpBB Group
Switch to the Basic Low-bandwidth Version of the forum
|
This is a standard topic