C.J. Adrien's Blog, page 8

Did Vikings Attack the Island of Noirmoutier in 799 A.D.?

Most modern history books on the Vikings tell us that the monastery of St. Philbert on the island of Noirmoutier succumbed to an attack by Vikings in 799 A.D. To most, it is a fact. Recent scholarship has called into question whether the Vikings were to blame for the attack and whether the monastery of St. Philbert was the target. Did Vikings Attack the Island of Noirmoutier in 799 A.D.? Here I will discuss both sides of the debate and which side has the upper hand.

Why do we think the Vikings attacked Noirmoutier in 799?

What we know about the attack comes to us by a letter from the theologian Alcuin—who also wrote about the attack on Lindisfarne—to the bishop Arno of Salzburg. He described an attack by Paganae, or pagans, in the insulas oceani partibus Aquitaniae, or islands of Aquitaine. While the testimony proves light on details, historians have traditionally co-referenced Alcuin’s letter with concurrent mentions of Viking activity on the Western coast of France produced by the Carolingians.

The first mention appears in the Two Lives of Charlemagne by the biographer Rimbert. In or around 800, emperor Charlemagne encountered a fleet of Viking ships off the coast of Aquitaine. So says Rimbert, when they learned the emperor had taken up residence in the coastal village they had intended to raid, they turned tail and sailed away.

A second mention in the biographical Vita Karoli Magni by the biographer Einhart also places Charlemagne in Aquitaine in or around the year 800, emphasizing that part of the reason for the visit had to do with the fact that Northmen had infested the area (Nordmannicis infestum erat).

Two later documents further confirm that Vikings had carried out the attack and that the monastery of Noirmoutier had been a target. A letter by the abbot of St. Philbert in 819 complained of frequent raids, and a later account by the monk Ermentarius written in the 830s mentions the first raid, although the account gives few details. 

Why Some Historians Now Question If Vikings Attacked Noirmoutier in 799.

The historian Simon Coupland first questioned whether Vikings or someone else had carried out the raid on Noirmoutier. He cited the monk Ermentarius’ testimony of a Moorish raid attempt, telling us that the Moors were active in the area at the time. Further, he cites another letter by Alcuin describing Muslims as paganae, denoting a tendency by our primary source to conflate the different groups of people raiding in and around Aquitaine at the turn of the century.

Some historians have seen enough cause to dismiss the 799 raid altogether, placing the first major Viking incursions into Western France ten to fifteen years later, consistent with our primary testimony from St. Philbert monks. 

Who is right?

It is essential in the study of history to hold claims to scrutiny. The renewed scrutiny over whether Vikings attacked the island of Noirmoutier in 799 A.D. puts conventional wisdom to the test and reminds us that so little is certain in the study of the Viking Age. My opinion–and I take this position rather strongly in my own research–is that the attack was indeed carried out on Noirmoutier, ile D’Yeu, and ile de Rez in 799 A.D by Vikings. While the prospect of a Moorish raid intrigues me, the Carolingians placed far too much emphasis on the growing threat of the Vikings in too broad a breadth of concurrent sources for the opposite to have been true. 

The raid on Noirmoutier also fits in well with the westward progression of Viking raids across the west. First, Lindisfarne in 793, Iona in 795, and St. Philbert in 799. Coupled with the repeated alarm-sounding by Charlemagne’s biographers of the looming Northman threat, I believe we have a solid case in favor of the Vikings. 

The Blood Eagle: A Gruesome but Possible Execution?

In a new study published in the journal Early Science, researchers theorized that the “blood eagle” may have been an actual execution method used by Vikings. The gruesome act involves cutting open the victim’s back, pulling out their lungs, and then stretching them across their wings like a bloodied eagle. The article says that there is evidence that Vikings were feasibly capable of performing the act. So what does saga literature say about the blood eagle? Furthermore, was it put into practice?

What was the Blood Eagle, and Where is it Mentioned in Medieval Writings?

The Saga of Ragnar Lodbrok first mentions the Blood Eagle, mentioning that Viking king Aslak Hane was executed in this way. The saga also mentions that Vikings would sometimes cut off their enemies’ heads and hang them on poles to warn others. Interestingly, there is no mention of the blood eagle as an execution method until after the death of Aslak Hane. Some scholars have theorized that this may be because the act was so gruesome that it was only used as a last resort.

The blood eagle was later used to torture and eventually kill four powerful male figures—Halfdan Haleggr, King Ælla of Northumbria, Lyngvi Hundingsson, and Brúsi of Sauðey. The accounts in Old Norse literature span from the 11th to the 13th centuries. The eight Old Norse texts contain the phrase “to carve/cut/mark an [blood] eagle,” which also appears in the Gesta Danorum, a Latin source, which describes how the perpetrators “commanded that the image of an eagle should be etched onto his back.”

Despite their comparable appearance, the sources have no agreement on what exactly constituted the blood eagle. The victim is taken captive following armed conflict and subsequently has an eagle carved or cut into his back in all nine of the recorded instances.

A New Study Argues in Favor of the Anatomical Possibility of the Act

The notorious blood eagle ritual has long been a source of debate: did Viking Age Nordic people torture one another to death by cutting away their ribs and lungs from their spine, or is it all a misunderstanding of some perplexing verse? Previous research focused on the accuracy and completeness of ancient texts describing the blood eagle, with advocates for or against its historicity. The study of the anatomical and socio-cultural restrictions within which any Viking Age blood eagle would have had to be carried out has thus far not been addressed. The new study evaluates medieval descriptions of the ritual with a contemporary anatomical understanding. It contextualizes specific reports with recent archaeological and historical scholarship on elite culture and the ritualized mutilation of the human body in the Viking Age. The study argues that even the most complete form of the blood eagle described in textual sources was feasible but difficult. They concede that the practice would have resulted in the victim’s death early on in the procedure.

The study can be found at:

-Journal of the University of Chicago Press: “The Blood Eagle Revisited” by Alexander J.C. Thomas, et al. (DOI: /doi/full/10808621)

-Early Science: Volume 21, Issue 01, 2018 – “On the Wings of Eagles? A Reconsideration of the ‘Blood Eagle'” by Søren Sindbæk and Alexander J.C. Thomas

C.J. Adrien’s Take

As I tend to do with new studies that make bold claims, I will address this one with caution. The tendency in academia today is to create clickable headlines for articles because attention and reach equal funding. Of course, the study authors are established scholars, and I have no reason to doubt they did their due diligence in researching the topic. However, this study does have the look and feel of attention-grabbing. Hence, while I agree with their conclusions based on the thorough evidence they proposed in their study, I find the conclusions lacking in impact. While the new study provides a convincing argument for the Blood Eagle’s feasibility, there is still no solid evidence that it was put into practice. We may never know whether or not the Vikings carried it out.

With that said, I do still think the Blood Eagle may have been a literary device. Where the sources are concerned, we must remember these were written decades and centuries after the events they chronicle by authors who were neither present nor involved. Yes, archeological finds have confirmed a few elements from the sagas, but that does not mean they are entirely reliable sources. Their historicity remains dubious at best.

As an author of historical fiction (and not just a historian), I would also like to add that the Blood Eagle is an attractive element that would spice up any story. While it may not be particularly good history, it certainly makes for good fiction. For me, that idea alone is telling. Writers have an audience in mind, and we know from many medieval sources that inserting fantastical elements for the benefit of readers was commonplace. Anatomical feasibility is a far cry from hard evidence of the practice. In my opinion, I do not think the Blood Eagle ever took place, but rather it showed up in later sources as a literary device.

Curious About the Current State of Viking Age Research? A New Paper from Denmark Overviews Viking Research “Hot Spots”

A new paper titled Crossing the Maelstrom: New Departures in Viking Archaeology published in the Journal of Archaeological Research has compiled the latest trends and recent finds in Viking Age research. The meta-study, compiled by Julie Lund and Soren Sindbæk, seeks to identify and overview trends in Viking Age research from the past ten years with an emphasis on archeology. Key to the paper’s central proposition is the identification of research “hot spots” where new discoveries and cross-disciplinary approaches are changing our understanding of the Viking Age. While not an exhaustive summary of all the things going on in Viking Age research, the paper summarizes the main themes that have marked the most exciting and impactful developments in the past decade. 

Below is an excerpt of the paper with a link to read it in its entirety:

Abstract

This paper reviews the achievements and challenges of archaeological research on Viking Age northern Europe and explores potential avenues for future research. We identify the reemergence of comparative and cross-cultural perspectives along with a turn toward studying mobility and maritime expansion, fueled by the introduction of biomolecular and isotopic data. The study of identity has seen a shift from a focus on collective beliefs and ritual to issues of personal identity and presentation, with a corresponding shift in attention to individual burials and the “animated objects.” Network ontologies have brought new perspectives on the emergence of sea trade and urban nodes and to the significance of outfield production and resources. Field archaeology has seen an emphasis on elite manors, feasting halls, and monuments, as well as military sites and thing assembly places, using new data from remote sensing, geophysical surveys, geoarchaeology, and metal detectors. Concerns over cur- rent climate change have placed the study of environment as a key priority, in particular in the ecologically vulnerable North Atlantic settlements. Discussing future directions, we call for alignment between societal/economic and individual/cultural perspectives, and for more ethically grounded research. We point to diaspora theory and intersectionality as frameworks with the potential to integrate genomics, identity, and society, and to ecology as a framework for integrating landscape, mobility, and political power.

Introduction

Whether we think in terms of exchange and mobility, gender, violence, migration, political evolution, ethnicity, or cosmology, the Viking Age is a focus of recent debates in archaeology. Today, studies of this period are equally invigorated by a range of new conceptual explorations as well as scientific approaches. Viking Age research also attracts attention as a globally known topic in popular history and is claimed as a historical heritage by diverse groups—from nationalists to internationalists, capitalists to environmentalists, atheists to neo-pagans. Yet, this reception serves as much to distort recognition of a period that holds genuine importance as a transformative historical trajectory.

The cultural and political transformation of northern Iron Age societies in the centuries following the dissolution of the Roman Empire along with the consequences of maritime expansion following the widespread adoption of sailing vessels make the Viking Age a lynchpin of developments across much of northern Europe. From the first documented maritime raids and explorations in the North Sea and on the Baltic shores shortly before AD 800, seafaring Scandinavian armies were a prime political concern in western Europe by the mid-ninth century. The following century saw Scandinavian communities settle and maintain trading networks that stretched from England, Ireland, and Atlantic Scotland to Normandy and European Russia, along with settlements in Atlantic Scotland, Iceland, and the Faroe Islands. This process culminated in the establishment of colonies in Greenland and ventures into Newfoundland shortly before AD 1000. Meanwhile, societies in Scandinavia experienced profound changes, including the creation of larger and more powerful kingdoms and the adoption of Christianity, especially from the mid-10th century onward. While the military and political roles of Scandinavians waned after the mid-11th century, Scandinavian (or Norse) diasporas maintained a strong cultural presence in coastal areas into the high Middle Ages, and the Viking Age remained a cultural memory expressed by sources such as the Icelandic sagas and Skaldic poetry.

This paper explores changes during the last decade in the archaeological analyses of Scandinavia and the wider Viking world during the Viking Age (c. AD 750/800–1050). Our aim is to review trends and tendencies, not to make an exhaustive list of research on the period. Viking Age archaeology refers to Scandinavia, parts of northern Germany, and the North Atlantic islands, including Iceland and Greenland, as well as to diasporas in western Europe, Ireland, the British Isles, and even as far west as Newfoundland. Furthermore, the activities of settlers, traders, and travelers of Scandinavian origin have been studied in Polish, Finnish, Baltic, and Russian areas as part of Viking Age archaeology (Fig. 1). In this paper, we emphasize developments and challenges in Scandinavia, with the ambition to also cover the main achievements relating to diasporas in the west and east. While the study of the Viking world is a highly interdisciplinary field, the main focus here is on archaeology. Achievements within philology (i.e., Old Norse studies), place name studies, history, and history of religion—subjects that mainly refer to written sources—thus mostly remain beyond the scope of the present paper.

In research on the Viking Age, as in popular perception of the period, one can identify two competing views as to what defines the subject of interest. One may see the Viking Age as a pattern of trade, diaspora, and raiding—activities in which society engaged with the sea and the wider world in new, transformative ways. The other view identifies its focus as Old Norse culture, with pagan world-views and mentality as the point of departure. While these two views are not mutually exclusive, they tend to divide research interests and communities with little cross-referencing. We argue that a lack of integration between these two largely tacit strains of research undermines the effort of the first to identify motivations and agency and limits the potential of the second to engage with social organization. We also notice that the transformation of interdisciplinary inherent in these developments aligns archaeologists increasingly with biology, chemistry, or geology and decreases research integration with philology, history, and social sciences.

In the following, we examine some themes that have been explored within the last decade. In response, we call for changes toward more ethical research frame- works: first, focus on an alignment between societal/economic and individual/cultural perspectives, with diaspora theory, personhood, and other post-humanistic perspectives as frameworks with the potential to integrate genomics, identity, and society; and secondly, an environmental perspective that integrates landscape, mobility, and political power with a growing attention to ecology, environmental change, and societal resilience.

Crossing the Maelstrom: New Departures in Viking Archaeology: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10814-021-09163-3.pdf

Viking Age Amulets May Have Represented Ritual Costumes, Not Gods and Heroes, A New Study Concludes

Denmark – A new study from Pieterjan Deckers, Sarah Croix & Soren Sindbæk released this month has proposed Viking Age amulets and figurines, once thought to have represented gods and heroes, instead express ritualistic costuming. The study authors analyzed various objects uncovered by archeologists in a Viking Age ceramics workshop found in the town of Ribe in Denmark. 

As the study authors propose: “By highlighting iconographic and stylistic parallels with the tapestries of the Oseberg ship burial, we apply a novel perspective to the discussion of the armed woman motif and other Viking-Age figurative art. We argue that the common theme of the images is not the portrayal of heroic or mythological beings, but is instead ritual performance, in which women played a central role.”

While most of the amulets and figurines have not survived, the workshop in Ribe contained an assortment of molds that revealed the kinds of iconography produced there when examined with the help of advanced 3D scanners. Researchers discuss the iconography of a riderless steed, an armed woman, and a gripping man among the figures. All three share stylistic particularities that, when considered together, point to shared ritualistic use. The researchers’ conclusions are as follows:

“When viewed as an ensemble, the images from the Ribe moulds suggest themes of ritual rather than mythology. This conclusion is sustained by the stylistic and iconographic correspondence to depictions like the Oseberg tapestries. It is in this light that we should understand the apparent inversions in the images: the man gripping locks of his hair and the woman bearing weapons and armour, along with the full cast of miniature accoutrements: swords, shields, steeds and wagon wheels. As amulets and as part of female formal dress, these trappings harnessed the potency of ritual actions involving the transgression of social — especially gendered — norms. Depicting ‘ordinary men and women in extraordinary situations’, they highlight the central role of women in communal ritual and the importance of this prominence for female status and identity.

In remodelling inherited Nordic representations, the craftspeople of Ribe could draw inspiration from the heritage and visual culture of the Mediterranean past, which increasingly reached Northern Europe both in terms of the recycling of materials and in the re-appropriation of ideas borrowed from Classical myth, Christian legend and migration-period heroic tales. The urban networks of these emporia and the intersections between Scandinavia and the wider world of post-Roman Europe can be seen in the trade materials and adopted craft technologies arriving in Ribe. They were equally at the heart of the iconographic transformations revealed by the imagery of its amulet casting moulds.”

Read the full study here: Assembling the Full Cast: Ritual Performance, Gender Transgression and Iconographic Innovation in Viking-Age Ribe

C.J. Adrien’s Take

My suggestion for you when reading the study is to pay close attention to the analysis of the armed woman. The researchers discuss the use of a helmet with cheek guards that, as far as we know, was not a style of helmet in use during the production of the amulets. The discussion also draws parallels to—and suggests a connection with—Roman iconography that, if correct, opens a whole host of possibilities as to the production and ceremonial use of the amulets.

The most important implication of this research is the conclusion on the role of women in ritual. Though the study authors make no direct connections between their hypothesis and the broader discussion of Viking Age warrior women, their conclusions support the idea that other archeological finds claiming to have found warrior women—or shield maidens/Valkyre—may not be what they seem. In particular, the so-called warrior woman from Birka that made headlines a few years ago may have been buried in a ritual style of dress akin to that represented in these amulets rather than as an indication of her living profession. Such an assertion is supported by the fact that the woman’s bones showed no signs of trauma common to the bones of male warriors, indicating she likely did not live a warrior lifestyle despite being buried with weapons and armor. 

I look forward to seeing how this new study withstands peer review and where it may steer the discussion on the role of women in ritual and warfare in the future.

Recent Study Suggests A Grave in Suontaka, Finland Contained A Gender Non-Binary Viking Warrior

If you thought the discovery of a female Viking warrior a few years ago was controversial, wait until you hear about the gender non-binary warrior from Finland. An individual presumed to be a Viking Age Finnish warrior discovered more than 50 years ago in Suontaka, Finland, recently underwent new genetic tests to solve the decades-long mystery of why he was buried in women’s clothes. The tests revealed the individual had a rare genetic condition called Klinefelter’s syndrome. In Klinefelter’s syndrome, men have an extra X chromosome, sometimes giving them female physical features. Given the test results, the fact that the grave contained both female clothing and a warrior’s weapons, and the fact that the person buried must have held an important position in the community (such graves were reserved for the elite), the study authors have suggested the individual in questions may have been gender non-binary and accepted as such in their community.

A grave that raised eyebrows from the start

The 1969 excavation of Suontaka uncovered a number of fascinating finds, including the now-famous bronze-hilted sword thought to have belonged to the person interred in the tomb. Archeologists also found a ring sword with silver inlays, a sheathed hunting knife, and a sickle placed on the body’s chest, objects indicative of a man’s grave. What caused them to scratch their heads was the additional discovery of a small penannular brooch, two oval-shaped turtle brooches with strands of woolen fabric, and a double-spiral chain, objects indicative of a woman’s style of dress.

The unusual combination of grave goods led archeologist Oiva Keskitalo to propose the grave had belonged to two people—a couple—rather than a single person. Keskitalo admitted the idea had a significant problem because the tomb had room enough for a single body. For lack of a better hypothesis, the double-grave idea stuck in academia. Still, detractors in the field asserted the tomb had contained a single body. Given the women’s clothing discovered therein, the tomb proved to many that women might have fought as warriors during the Viking Age.

A new Finnish study published on July 15, 2021, at Cambridge University Press has challenged both ideas.

Tests reveal the Suontaka Warrior may have had Klinefelter’s Syndrome.

While most of the individual’s body had decomposed, archeologists did recover two small pieces of hip bone that they preserved for later study. A new group from Finland has put the bones to the test to determine the Suontaka warrior’s gender. What they found has created quite a stir in the academic community. The DNA tests, carried out in the archaeogenetic laboratory of the Max Planck Institute in Germany, revealed the individual buried in the Suontaka tomb might have had a rare chromosomal condition called Klinefelter’s Syndrome.

Each cell typically contains a pair of sex chromosomes—XX for women and XY for men—which determine a person’s sex. In Klinefelter’s Syndrome, men are born with an additional X chromosome. Most of the time, symptoms of the syndrome are so subtle that affected individuals do not know they are affected. In others, prominent feminine features such as gynecomastia (development of female breast tissue) and hairlessness develop. Affected individuals can also exhibit hypospadias (malformation of the penis), atrophy of one or both testicles, and delayed puberty.

“Based on current data, it is likely that the individual found in Suontaka had XXY chromosomes, although the DNA results are based on a minimal data set,” said Elina Salmela, post-doctoral fellow at the University of Helsinki and co-author of the new study.

The study authors suggest the Suontaka Warrior may have been gender non-binary.

Given the mixed grave finds in the Suontaka’s tomb and the finding that the individual interred there was anatomically male but suffering from Klinefelter syndrome, the study authors have proposed the Suontaka Warrior may have been gender non-binary. Moreover, that the individual received such an elaborate burial denotes a person of importance within the community. Not only was this person potentially gender fluid, but they appear to have been accepted for it. The idea flies in the face of historical evidence that Viking Age Scandinavians were intolerant of people who did not fit the gender-role mold.

“If the features of Klinefelter syndrome had been evident on the person, they might not have been considered strictly female or male in the community. The abundant collection of objects buried in the grave is proof that the person was not only accepted but also valued and respected,” said Ulla Moilanen, a co-author of the study.

Because swords and jewelry cost a considerable amount of money, the authors agree that: “The individual may have been a respected member of the community because of his physical and psychological differences from other members of the community; but it is also possible that the individual was accepted as a non-binary person because he or she already had a distinctive character or obtained a position in the community for other reasons; for example, by belonging to a relatively wealthy and influential family.”

My take on the study’s findings

Like what we saw with the woman warrior’s grave in Birka, I see tremendous potential for the findings of this latest study out of Finland to appeal to modern audiences for modern cultural reasons. Claiming that the Suontaka Warrior may have been non-binary is a bold statement and incredibly biased toward our modern cultural lens. Of course, bias is inevitable. However, we must proceed with caution when making claims that so obviously cater to current cultural issues—in this case, gender issues.

Calling the individual gender non-binary or gender-fluid risks conflating the findings into something they are not. Was the individual considered non-binary (a term and concept that did not exist at the time), or just a man better in touch with his feminine side? Until a broader breadth of historians can examine the findings and interpret them within the broader historical context, we should be careful to avoid too much speculation.

The findings of the study are intrinsically fascinating. While the study authors admit their test samples were too small to make an absolute conclusion, their methodology was on point, so I believe it is fair to say primarily conclusive. It is a unique find that may help broaden historians’ perspectives on gender and social roles within Viking Age Scandinavian society. Now that the study has been published, it is up to leading historians in the field to work out the actual implications of the findings. That will take time, and until then, we should treat the study as it is: an exciting discovery with implications that are not yet fully known.

Read more about the study at the following links:

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/european-journal-of-archaeology/article/woman-with-a-sword-weapon-grave-at-suontaka-vesitorninmaki-finland/33A89DB1D7E4900F017833D87C997D3D

https://www.livescience.com/medieval-grave-non-binary-warrior-finland.html

Les Bátar, A French Group, to Build the Fastest Longship in the World to Sail to New York

Vikings are popular. Really popular. So hugely, immensely, unreasonably popular that their name (which isn’t even a word they used) and likeness (which is generally misrepresented) get tossed around in all manner of ways. People from Norway to France to the US have gravitated toward the Vikings and made them their own. A group in France who call themselves Bátar are no exception.

Bátar is a group of what I would call Viking enthusiasts who have made it their mission to build replica longships and sail them all over Europe. They are not the first such enterprise. Similar groups have emerged over the last century in Scandinavia, England, France, and even North America. Bátar’s first attempts at building longships were successful and took them to Denmark and Norway. Their new mission: to build the fastest longship in the world and sail it to New York.

Let’s start with the name of the group. Bátar is the Norse word for boats, plural. Those of you out there who know a smidge of French will recognize the name is a play on words. Batar in French means bastard. The group’s Twitter handle, “Les Bátars,” leaves no doubt the double entendre is intentional. Right off the bat, the group represents themselves in a semi-comedic fashion. When I first read about them, I thought they were a joke.

Looking into them further, I understood they have actually been quite successful in reaching their goals. Their comedic flare makes for good marketing, which has helped them raise the funds necessary to complete their projects. Several of the people on their team have academic backgrounds. The ships they have built to date are close approximations to the real longships of the Vikings. Against my initial suspicion, the group checks out as legitimate.

Bátar’s new mission—to sail from Toulouse to New York—has created a great deal of buzz in France. The group president has estimated the project will require more than two million euros to complete, and they are aggressively fundraising to make it happen. Will they succeed? Their track record says they have a good chance. I, for one, am rooting for them. Learn more about their mission on their website: https://www.batar.fr

Check out their latest promo video below:

How Did the Vikings Wear Their Hair?

Few images haunt the imaginations of schoolchildren more than the discovery in their history books of the Vikings’ mysterious longships, with carved dragon heads mounted on their prows, emerging from a morning fog on a desolate coast or river to prey on a still-sleeping village. The popular portrayal of the men aboard these ships harkens to a more primal likeness of humanity, one in which weather-beaten marauders with long, flowing locks of unkempt hair and immensely dense beards unleashed unimaginable ferocity on their victims for no greater purpose than to enrich themselves and to satisfy their carnal desires.

Modern revisions to Viking history have painted a starkly different picture of what life may have been like for Scandinavians during the Viking Age to the image popular culture has retained. We have since learned that they were cleanliness-oriented, bathed weekly, and paid particular attention to their appearance. We know that women decorated their clothes with colorful beads, jewelry, brooches, and hairpins, among other personal accouterments. The men groomed their hair and beards daily and may have worn eyeshadow. With all of this new information available to us, the question stands: how did the Vikings wear their hair?

Contrary to popular belief, long hair and a thick beard were not universal among those who betook themselves a-Viking. Long hair was a hazard during combat and challenging to keep clean during long sea voyages. Some historians have noted that short hair may have been reserved for slaves (more on that below). However, there is evidence to show that styles varied considerably among free individuals. Notable figures, some of them kings, chose to cut their hair short. Evidence from the archeological record, including statues, statuettes, and picture stones, shows men with various hairstyles. It appears that, precisely as it is today, hairstyles were likely a form of self-expression.

What is most important to understand is that the Viking Age lasted for over three centuries. In that time, fashion and hairstyles changed. Early in the Viking Age, the evidence does point to long hair and thick beards as the popular style. As time progressed, hairdos evolved, along with numerous other parts of Scandinavian culture.

Early Hairstyles

The evidence for early hairstyles points to variety. For example, the Tängelgårda stone (pictured below) depicts men with long hair and beards. Taking a closer look, a man on the lefthand side, below the horse, appears not to have long hair and is presumably a slave (although his actual status remains unclear).

the Tängelgårda stone

The Stora Hammers Stone (pictured below), one of the most famous relics of the Viking Age, also depicts different hairstyles. Some have long hair and beards, others short, and for others, it is unclear. Damage to the stone has obscured some of what we can see.

The Stora Hammers Stone

A head carving from the Oseberg Ship Burial (pictured below), dating to the mid-9th Century, shows a man with a well-trimmed beard and a well-fitting coif, indicating that, for that man at least, long hair and a free-flowing beard were not his first choice.

A head carving from the Oseberg Ship BurialMid-Viking Age Evidence

Below is a silver coin from Ireland depicting king Sihtric of Dublin, a notorious Viking who, on the coin, neither has long hair nor a beard. Oddly, Sihtric carried the name “Silk-Beard,” indicating he had, at one time, worn a well-kept beard but changed his style later in life (this assumes the nickname was a commentary on his beard, and not, as often was the case, a play on words).

a silver coin from Ireland depicting king Sihtric of DublinLate Viking Age Evidence

By the end of the Viking Age, the Christianization of Scandinavia lead to the imposition of rules around vanity. These rules may have contributed to the end of the varieties of hairdos among Scandinavians (for a while). Shifts in the Vikings’ military organization may have also played a role. The Bayeux Tapestry shows us that military men during this period wore short hair, particularly in the back (pictured below), without much variety.

The Bayeux TapestryHow did the Vikings Wear Their Hair?

How did the Vikings wear their hair? The evidence points to a culture that allowed self-expression. Styles appear to have varied over time and across geographic regions. However, due to the sparseness of the evidence, we cannot say much more than that. Some had long flowing hair and beards. Others had short hair and shaved faces. Others still had all manner of varieties in between. 

Did the Vikings Wear Makeup?

“Dear C.J., When I was little, my family stayed at a warrior reenactment camp, and one of the sections of the camp was a family who went ‘a-Viking. The woman was talking to me about her makeup. At the time, there was only discovered a brief mention that a woman or women had on what we today would call makeup. As a historian, she had to infer the rest to do this role-playing/reenactment. It would be cool to read about makeup and decorative flourishes worn and revered by people of that time.” – Rachel from Facebook.

Dear Rachel,

Where it concerns what we know about Viking Age Scandinavian personal styles and decorations, we can only speak with a relative amount of certainty to those things which have come up in the archeological record. Hard, durable items made of metal—such as brooches, necklaces, hairpins, and other personal items—survive the test of time far better than soft, organic materials. Makeup falls under the latter category. To complicate matters, the Vikings did not have an advanced writing system and are silent in the historical record. If all we had was evidence the Vikings left behind, we would have little in the way of evidence to answer the question of whether the Vikings wore makeup or not. 

Fret not. Extrinsic evidence does exist, albeit peripherally.

To answer whether the Vikings wore makeup, we must first explore the broader topic of personal hygiene among Scandinavians of the time. In general terms, we know hygiene played an important role in the daily life of Viking Age Scandinavians; so much so that various sagas allude to a bathing day, which stands in stark contrast to the Christian cultures of the West at the time (an anonymous medieval cleric once wrote ‘the smellier we are, the holier we are’). Christian chroniclers in close contact with the Danes in England also allude to their cleanliness practices. John of Wallingford, prior to Saint Fridswise, expressed discontentment in his writings about how the Danes combed their hair, bathed every Saturday, and regularly changed their clothes.

On the other side of the European continent, the Arab chronicler Ibn Fadlan, who met the Rus (Swedish Vikings) on the Volga river, made a variety of interesting albeit odd observations about their hygiene habits:

“Every day they must wash their faces and heads and this they do in the dirtiest and filthiest fashion possible: to wit, every morning a girl servant brings a great basin of water; she offers this to her master and he washes his hands and face and his hair — he washes it and combs it out with a comb in the water; then he blows his nose and spits into the basin. When he has finished, the servant carries the basin to the next person, who does likewise. She carries the basin thus to all the household in turn, and each blows his nose, spits, and washes his face and hair in it.”

Historians generally discount the testimony at least in part due to the apparent negative bias infused by the author. However, the account does show that even on a long voyage so far from home, the Vikings still practiced some form of self-care and grooming. 

Here is where Ibn Fadlan’s account gets interesting: he mentions men wearing eye makeup to make themselves appear more fearsome. If left alone, the detail might not inform us of much, but as luck would have it, it accompanies another element. Ibn Fadlan claimed they also wore blue tattoos. The topic of tattoos is controversial because, like makeup, skin does not preserve well in the archeological record. However, another chronicle from a wholly separate time, place, and culture confirms the observation. The Annals of Fulda describe Viking warriors who launched an invasion attempt on Aachen as having tattoos from head to toe. 

Within the historical record, Ibn Fadlan’s testimony is the best evidence we have. It alludes to the use of eye shadow (but says nothing of women). But it does tell us that the Rus at least may have worn makeup. Thankfully, the historical record is not all we have. 

Among the items uncovered in the considerable breadth of ship burials across Scandinavia and Western Europe, archeologists have found numerous household items we would recognize today but might not think of as ancient inventions: scissors, tweezers, brass washbowls, combs, ear spoons (not quite as comfortable as a Q-tip), among other personal grooming tools. In fact, the assortment of personal grooming items lends to the idea that Viking Age Scandinavians spent a great deal of time grooming and decorating themselves. 

The Swedish National Museum’s collection has some of the more intriguing artifacts regarding the makeup question. The “grooming kit,” a collection of personal grooming items, includes a mortar that, with testing, showed a residue whose contents point to one thing: makeup.

Swedish National Museum Grooming Kit

While we cannot say with certainty that the use of makeup was widespread among Viking Age Scandinavians, we do have some evidence to suggest the practice existed among at least a portion of the population. As with most questions in regards to the Viking Age, we have here a maybe-probably-could-have-been answer. I think it was wise of the woman in the reenactment group to describe her use of makeup with caution. Both historical and archeological evidence is light at best, making for a somewhat anachronistic inclusion as part of her costume. 

Buzz about Viking “Reunion” is Just That: Buzz.

It is always difficult to tell what new findings in Viking studies will make the rounds in mainstream media. Some of the most significant and impactful studies on our understanding of the Viking Age never leave the academic journals in which they are published, while other far more meaningless stories leap into headlines. A recent report about two supposed Viking relatives reunited as skeletons in Denmark shows there is often little rhyme or reason for why one story makes the headlines and others do not.

The story in question centers around a recent genetic test that revealed two skeletons from the Viking Age, one discovered in England and one in Denmark, belonged to the same family. One of the men died in his 20’s as part of a presumed massacre. Archeologists discovered his skeleton in 2008 at St John’s College at the University of Oxford as part of a supposed mass grave. The other appears to have died in Denmark in his 50’s in less violent circumstances.

The finding, while intriguing, offers little in the way of expanding our knowledge and understanding of population movements between Scandinavia and the British Isles in the late Viking Age. And yet, several major news outlets have reported on the findings citing Dr. Rane Willerslev, director of the National Museum of Denmark, as saying, “We thought that Vikings had left Denmark to live in Britain, but we were not certain. Now we had the evidence that they were kin.” Let us hope Dr. Willerslev’s statement was taken out of context.

The reality is that overwhelming evidence already exists to support the current consensus that significant population movements occurred between Denmark and the British Isles during the Viking Age, including modern DNA surveys, place names, and a wide breadth of historical and archeological findings.

What is more, the precise relationship between the two skeletons is unknown. The researchers admit that they have no idea if the two men were grandfather and grandson, uncle and nephew, or second cousins. They cannot even tell if they were alive in the same period or lived within overlapping generations. If the finding that the two men were “relatives” were our only basis for confirming Danes migrated into the British Isles at the end of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century, it would be dubious evidence at best.

All this is not to say the findings of the mass grave in Oxford are without interest or impact on our understanding of the Viking Age. That researchers discovered a mass grave of Danes in England promises all manner of potential findings on its own. But why does finding out that one of the skeletons happened to be loosely related to another skeleton in Denmark make it more newsworthy? We already knew the men in the mass grave in England were Danes. We’ve learned nothing new.

I understand the folks working at the National Museum of Denmark and their excitement. It is one more fun fact to add to the skeletons’ plaque to illustrate the broad impact of Scandinavian expansion into the British Isles. In no way do I want to minimize the importance of the finding to them. However, in terms of substance and newsworthiness, I find the whole story light on substance. It’s a fluff piece. Perhaps more about the two men will come to light in the future, and we may yet learn something new and profound from them. Until then, they remain a curiosity more than anything.

Two New Ship Settings Found on the island of Hjarnø, Denmark

An article recently published in The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology by a group of researchers from Flinders University has proposed discovering two new ship settings at the Kalvestene grave field on the island of Hjarnø, Denmark. Researchers used medieval textual witness testimony of the gravesite by a man named Ole Worm to identify the new ship settings. The findings both affirm Ole Worm’s credibility as a historical source and opens the door to more potential finds at the site.

What is a ship setting?

A ship setting is a style of burial that was popular in the early Viking Age in Scandinavia. Rather than bury a ship in the ground, as became standard later on for the wealthiest individuals, the dead had the likenesses of ships outlined with rocks around their graves. The image below of the two largest stone ships at Anund’s barrow in Sweden illustrates the scope and size some ship settings attained in a dramatic way.

Ole Worm’s 17th Century Drawings of The Kalvestene

Ole Worm’s 17th-century drawing of The Kalvestene (which translates roughly to “calf stones”) grave field included representations of more than twenty stone settings. Curiously, archeologists have found fewer than a dozen, leading many to question Ole Worm’s testimony. However, the recent study successfully used the drawings to find two more settings, opening the door to the possibility that, hidden in the ground, several more remain. It is a delightful confirmation that Ole Worm is, for the most part, a reliable source and an exciting proposition for archeologists who will continue to hunt for additional stone settings not previously found at the site.

Erin Sebo, lead author of the study, wrote of the discovery: “Our survey identified two new raised areas that could in fact be ship settings that align with Worm’s drawings from 1650. One appears to be a typical ship setting and the second remains ambiguous, but it’s impossible to know without excavation and further survey.”

If you want to read more about the study, CLICK HERE.

C.J. Adrien’s Take

In the study of the Vikings, nothing is for certain. Contemporary sources pose all manner of problems for modern historians, and their credibility is often in question. Therefore, the work of historians is primarily to evaluate textual sources for their credibility and cross-reference information with other contemporary sources to confirm the likelihood of any one source’s authenticity. In the case of Ole Worm, we have here confirmation that his drawings are, most likely, a close representation of the gravesite in his time. In my opinion, the discovery is a more significant win for historians than for archeologists, as we have here a confirmation of a historical source’s credibility in conjunction with the archeological discovery of new ship settings.