Viking Age Past Paper PDF

R aiding and warfare are central to our understanding of the Viking Age. For many years the only popular image of the Vikings was the Viking warrior, brutal and terrifying, raping and pillaging, burning monasteries, committing a variety of atrocities and demanding Danegeld. This image has been incre...

R aiding and warfare are central to our understanding of the Viking Age. For many years the only popular image of the Vikings was the Viking warrior, brutal and terrifying, raping and pillaging, burning monasteries, committing a variety of atrocities and demanding Danegeld. This image has been increasingly downplayed since the 1960s and 1970s, as scholars have rightly pointed out that there were many other important aspects to Scandinavian society in the Viking Age, and that only a small proportion of the population were warriors, while also noting that, since the surviving historical accounts were written by the Vikings’ Christian victims, they may give an exaggerated picture of both the impact and the barbarity of raids by the pagan Vikings. Nevertheless, although the term Viking has come to be used for the whole society of the period, it is raiding and warfare that define ‘Viking’ activity – a Viking (OE wicing, ON víkingr) was a raider or pirate, and although trading, crafts, seafaring and settlement and many other aspects of Viking society may be equally important, it is the raiding which gives us the concept of a Viking Age. It is increasingly clear from archaeological evidence that there was contact between Scandinavia and the rest of northern Europe before the late eighth century, and historical sources show the Scandinavian kingdoms increasingly becoming part of the European mainstream from the eleventh century, if not earlier. It is only the visible military expansion from the late eighth century to the eleventh that makes the Viking Age a meaningful concept. The motivation behind the earliest raids remains the subject of debate. According to one school of thought, the early raids on monasteries represented a pagan political/ religious response to the aggressive Frankish Christian mission against the Saxons and the Danes (Myhre 1998). However, this interpretation has not been widely accepted, not least because the earliest raids seem to have been launched from western Norway, not Denmark, and against the British Isles and Ireland, not against the Franks (Wamers 1998). It is clear that later raids were primarily motivated by the desire to gain wealth, and it seems likely that this was the main motivation for raiding and external warfare throughout the Viking Age. This leaves aside internal warfare within and between the emerging Scandinavian kingdoms, which was apparently motivated by the desire for political power, but the raids against western Europe are characterised by a desire to gain wealth abroad. This might then be translated into political power either abroad as in the formation of new Viking kingdoms and earldoms in Britain, Ireland and Normandy, or at home, where successful Viking leaders such as Óláfr Tryggvason and Óláfr Haraldsson used their success in England to press their claims to kingship in Norway. The results of raiding brought wealth in different forms. Conquest brought landed wealth abroad, and the fact that the military expansion of the Viking Age coincided with the more peaceful settlement of the North Atlantic serves as a reminder of the importance of landed wealth, however it could be acquired. However, raiding which fell short of conquest could also generate portable wealth, which might then be converted into land and status at home or elsewhere. This could be acquired directly through plunder, or through the ransoming of captured people or precious objects, such as the Codex Aureus (an ornate Gospel book from Canterbury) (Webster and Backhouse 1991: 199–201), or through the imposition of tribute. Although the payment of ‘Danegeld’ is particularly associated with the later Viking Age, and especially the reign of Æthelred II, large payments to the Vikings for peace are recorded in Frankish sources from the ninth century, and even Alfred the Great was forced to ‘make peace’ with the Vikings on occasion (Coupland 1999; Abels 1998: 79, 105–14, 140–2). Archaeological finds of Insular material in Scandinavia provide clear evidence of looting in the early Viking Age, while the vast number of late Anglo-Saxon coins found in Denmark and Sweden (more survive there than in England) must in part reflect the success of the later Vikings in taking gelds (Wamers 1998; Blackburn 1991: 156–69; Metcalf 1989: 178–89; 1990: 165–76; Gillingham 1989, 1990; Lawson 1984, 1989). Clearly the Viking raids were significant enough to be recorded as major events by their victims, but how important were the raids, and how distinctive was Viking warfare? Scholarly interpretations on these points differ, especially on the scale and importance of the raids, not least because Viking raiding followed different patterns in different areas. In England, Ireland and the kingdom of the western Franks, there is an apparent progression from small-scale seasonal raiding at the end of the eighth century through larger seasonal raids, then over-wintering, then conquest and permanent settle- ment in the ninth century. However, it is clear from historical sources that the pattern in Frisia was different, with a series of Danish chieftains settling in Frisia in the early ninth century, under Frankish overlordship, as part of an ongoing dynamic of political rela- tions between Danish and Frankish rulers (Coupland 1998). Similarly, archaeological evidence suggests that Norwegian settlement in the Northern Isles of Scotland may have begun as early as the first half of the ninth century (Crawford 1987; Graham- Campbell and Batey 1998; Hunter et al. 1993; Ballin Smith 2007). It would also appear that although there was relative peace from Viking raids in England in between 954 and the reign of Æthelred II (978–1016), this gap in England saw extensive Viking activity in northern Scotland and around the Irish Sea (Crawford 1987; Williams 2004). The idea of a First Viking Age and Second Viking Age, found in the works of some English historians, thus represents a narrowly English perspective on Viking raiding. The earliest raids seem all to have been on a small scale. Where numbers are given, only very small numbers of ships or men are cited, such as the three ships that attacked Portland in what may have been the earliest recorded Viking raid, in the reign of Beorhtric of Wessex (786–802). Where numbers are not given, the choice of wealthy but exposed coastal monasteries such as Lindisfarne and Iona rather than larger targets also suggests relatively small forces. Such small raids were probably undertaken by local groups under their own leaders. The raiders at Portland apparently came from Hordaland in western Norway, while Frankish sources identify attacks by men from Vestfold in southern Norway (ASC E–F, sub 787 ; Nelson 1991: 55 n. 2). Raiding on a small scale continued throughout the Viking Age. A battle off the coast of Wessex in 896, described in unusual detail by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (ASC A, sub 897 ) involved only six shiploads of Vikings, and much of the raiding around Scotland and the Irish Sea apparently continued to involve small fleets as late as the eleventh and twelfth centuries. However, the ninth century certainly saw an increase in the scale of Viking forces. The size of fleets mentioned in English, Irish and Frankish sources increased, often numbered in hundreds of ships by the mid-ninth century, and led by named kings or earls. These titles probably reflect personal status and lineage, and do not necessarily mean that such leaders ruled major territories in the Viking homelands. These were not yet fully unified into the modern Scandinavian kingdoms, which begin to emerge fully only towards the end of the Viking Age. Nevertheless, such titles indicate that the leaders of Viking raids now came from the highest levels of Scandinavian society, although lesser chieftains no doubt also continued to play a major part. While there is no doubt that the scale of the raids increased in this period, historians have disagreed over the extent of the increase, and on the impact of these larger forces. Peter Sawyer, in his influential book The Age of the Vikings, argued that while the smaller numbers such as three and six ships seemed to be exact, the larger fleets were always in suspiciously round numbers, and were therefore unreliable. He questioned whether any Viking leader could realistically have mustered fleets of hundreds of ships, and suggested that the figures in the sources are much exaggerated, with even the largest Viking armies numbering only several hundred men (Sawyer 1962: 117–28). However, Nicholas Brooks (1979) noted that there is close agreement between independent Anglo-Saxon, Irish and Frankish sources on the size of fleets, and argued that the figures cited in the various chronicles were more reliable than Sawyer had suggested, and that the larger armies probably numbered in the low thousands. More recent thinking has tended to fall between these two positions. Interpretations of early medieval warfare generally since the mid-1980s have tended towards relatively small armies, but it does seem hard to reconcile contemporary accounts of the largest Viking forces with numbers below the low thousands. This is not least because of the scale of the achievement of the Vikings in war. It may be true, as Janet Nelson (1997) has argued, that Frankish chronicles suggest that internal conflicts between the rival successors to the Carolingian Empire were seen as more important than the Viking raids in the late ninth century, and that the Vikings suffered a number of major defeats. Raids on Britain and Ireland also need to be seen in the context of the recurrent warfare between the petty kingdoms there – Viking raids did not take place in a peaceful vacuum. However, the Vikings in turn inflicted major defeats on the Franks and succeeded in extorting large amounts of silver as the price of peace. In England, three of the four great kingdoms of the late ninth century were conquered, while the fourth came close. In the second wave of large-scale attacks on England, vast quantities of coin were paid for short-lived peace, and eventually the whole kingdom was brought under Danish rule for more than a generation. In Scotland, Vikings successfully conquered the Northern and Western Isles, and large parts of the northern and western mainland, and probably contributed substantially to the collapse of both the Pictish kingdom and the kingdom of Dál Riata and to the emergence of a new kingdom of the Scots. Territorial conquest was more limited in Ireland, but the Vikings did succeed in establishing a number of defended trading centres on the coasts from which they were never permanently expelled. It is hard to see how any of this could have been achieved if the Vikings had been quite as insignificant in numbers and military prowess as some modern historians seem to suggest. This does not mean, however, that historians have been wrong to question some elements of the Viking reputation as warriors. In particular, their reputation for atrocity seems to have been exaggerated. Certainly they showed little respect for churches and churchmen, and inevitably this provided material for religious polemic by monastic chroniclers. However, attacks on churches by Christian rulers were not unknown, while Charlemagne notably treated the pagan Saxons extremely harshly (Foot 1991; Halsall 1992). The one specifically ‘Viking’ atrocity, the so-called blood-eagle (in which a victim’s ribs were split, and his lungs pulled out behind him like wings), does not appear in contemporary sources, and may well be a later literary invention (Frank 1984, 1988, 1990; Bjarni Einarsson 1988, 1990). Vikings were certainly capable of brutality by modern standards, but it is hard to argue that they were much more unpleasant than their Christian contemporaries. Nor was the emphasis on raiding and plunder particularly unusual. Raiding in order to plunder portable wealth is typical of the warfare between the petty kingdoms of pre- Viking Britain and Ireland, and survived long after across medieval Europe, with the chevauchée continuing to play an important role even in the era of more obviously ‘national’ warfare in the later Middle Ages. Similarly, taking tribute seems to have been a central part of the relationship between greater and lesser kings in early medieval Britain (Charles-Edwards 1989; Dumville 1997), and although Anglo-Saxon sources tend not to equate payment of geld to the Vikings in return for temporary peace with the payment of ‘legitimate’ tribute to overkings, it is hard to see much difference in substance, and successful Viking leaders may well have regarded those who paid them gelds as tributaries. Frankish sources explicitly refer to such payments as tribute, and often imply that it was demeaning for the Franks to be in that situation (Coupland 1999). Timothy Reuter (1985) argued persuasively that even the campaigns of a great Euro- pean ruler like Charlemagne were largely carried out on the basis of a combination of raids against neighbouring kingdoms in pursuit of conquest where this was feasible, tribute where long-term dominance could be established that fell short of full conquest, and plunder when Charlemagne had the resources to raid but not to establish lasting domination. This provides a useful paradigm for much of early medieval warfare, and the Vikings are only unusual in that their expeditions were often led by ‘private’ warlords rather than by national leaders, and even this distinction becomes blurred in the eleventh century, when one looks at the campaigns of figures such as Sveinn Forkbeard and Cnut the Great of Denmark, and Harald Hardruler and Magnús Barelegs of Norway. If the Vikings were not markedly more atrocious than others, and campaigns based around the combination of plunder and tribute were not unusual, it is probably also fair to say that their reputation on the battlefield has also been exaggerated. An important part of their campaign strategy often seems to have been to avoid battle unless they felt confident of victory. For example, although Viking raids continued in southern England following Alfred’s victory at Edington in 878, the various Viking forces seem to have done their best to avoid being brought to battle, and although the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle for this period is dominated by the activities of the Vikings, it presents a picture of Alfred and Edward repeatedly pursuing the Vikings as they moved from one temporary base to another, rather than a series of glorious battles. Viking armies did have notable victories, but they also had notable defeats. The limited evidence available suggests that Viking battle techniques were broadly similar to those of their enemies, based around the shield wall, with some use of missile weapons (Williams forthcoming: ch. 5). Although the sources indicate that Viking forces often moved on horseback, and emphasise the acquisition or loss of horses on more than one occasion, they seem to have fought primarily as mounted infantry, dismounting for battle, and rarely fought on horseback, unlike the Franks, who regularly used horses on the battlefield (Davis 1989). As discussed elsewhere in this volume, their weapons and armour were also very similar to those of their enemies, and many of their finest weapons and armour were of Frankish manufacture (Pedersen, ch. 15, below; Williams forthcoming: ch. 2). There are, however, some distinctive features of Viking warfare. Closely related to each other, these are the use of ships in war, the effective use of mobility in their campaigns and a strong awareness of the importance of supplying themselves when on campaign. The use of ships in warfare was not unique to the Vikings, and both Anglo- Saxons and Franks had a history of seafaring before the Viking Age (Haywood 1991), while the Scots of Dál Riata appear to have had a comparatively sophisticated levy system based on boats (Bannerman 1974; Williams 2002). However, technological developments in the early Viking Age meant that the Vikings had access to vessels which were suitable for use at sea, and which were also of sufficiently shallow draft to be used on at least the larger inland rivers, and large enough to carry significant numbers of men. They could also be used to carry both supplies and loot, and ships and boats were far more effective than any form of land transport for transporting bulk goods through- out the Middle Ages and beyond. These ships are most commonly associated with the ability to arrive suddenly on a hostile coastline, attack a vulnerable target and leave again before local forces could be raised against them – the archetypal Viking park-and-raid approach. This was the strategy of all of their early raids, and a recurrent strategy throughout the period. However, ships also played a vital role in the large-scale campaigns of the mid- to late ninth century. The carrying capacity of the ships allowed Viking forces to transport both their accumulated wealth and stores, without the necessity for slow and cumbersome baggage trains, which would have made it much easier for their enemies to launch attacks on them. The shallow ships were able to penetrate far inland, and thus we hear of fleets, not just land forces, descending on completely landlocked targets such as Paris or Repton (Williams forthcoming: ch. 6). On occasion, the Vikings also divided their forces, sending one force overland and another by sea, to rendezvous at an agreed target, as with Exeter in 876 (ASC A and E, sub 877 ). This meant that the land force could travel unencumbered, moving quickly with the advantage of surprise, while the supplies moved in the ships, safe from counter-attack, although vulnerable to the weather, especially since they presumably sailed with reduced crews, since some crew- members would have served in the land force. As mentioned above, the Vikings sought to equip themselves with horses on land whenever possible, which also provided additional carrying capacity as well as speed (Clapham 1910; Davis 1989; Williams forthcoming: ch. 6). Horses provided a similar mobility on land to that provided by the ships along the rivers and the coast, and allowed the Vikings to extend the idea of the surprise attack in areas without access by water. This emphasis on mobility was coupled with a shrewd sense of where to raid. Familiarity with western Europe prior to the outbreak of Viking raids enabled them to target wealthy and isolated monasteries for the early raids, as well as major coastal trading centres such as Dorestad in Frisia, which was raided repeatedly (Coupland 1988). However, the choice of targets became even more important with the shift towards larger-scale raiding, especially once the Vikings began to overwinter, rather than simply raiding seasonally. This overwintering is again one of the most distinctive aspects of Viking warfare, with a significance that has largely been underrated. The early Viking raids tended to be seasonal, of necessity, since their ships were not well suited to winter sailing. However, it is easy to ignore the fact that land-based warfare was normally seasonal in this period as well. Even Charlemagne, despite his impressive record for conquest and tribute-taking, rarely campaigned over winter, although he tended to campaign in most years (Reuter 1985). Although Alfred the Great eventually recognised the importance of maintaining a standing army to counter the Viking threat, this was not easy to maintain, and on one occasion a besieged Viking force was able to escape because the besiegers were forced to withdraw before their relief arrived (ASC A, sub 894 ). When even major kingdoms struggled to maintain permanent field armies, the fact that the Vikings managed to campaign for years on end, often in hostile territory, is perhaps a more impressive achievement than any success they may have enjoyed on the battlefield. They managed to do this by careful selection of overwintering places, descending on monasteries, towns and royal estates early in the winter. That meant that they arrived in places where supplies had already been gathered, which they could take over for their own use, while the onset of winter made it difficult for anyone to raise and supply an army to remove them before the spring. The Vikings then probably spread out over the surrounding area, making it easier to supply the smaller groups, but retaining the centre as a rallying point and defence in case they were attacked, and there is growing evidence for secondary Viking activity close to Viking overwintering centres such as Repton, London and York (Brooks and Graham-Campbell 2000: 69–92; Richards 2001: 97–104; Blackburn 2002: 89–101; Williams forthcoming: ch. 6). Some sites already had defences, such as Roman forts and fortified towns, but where they did not, the Vikings simply created their own fortifications, as at Repton, and the many fortified centres in Ireland known as longphorts (Price 1991; Kelly and Maas 1995; Docherty 1998; Kelly and O’Donovan 1998; Ó Floinn 1998; Biddle and Kjølbye-Biddle 2001; Gibbons 2004, 2005; McKeown 2005; O’Brien et al. 2006; Williams forthcoming: ch. 4, 6). While tribute payments provided short-term relief, battles were rarely decisive enough to provide a lasting solution to Viking raiding (Coupland 1999: 68–9), and it was only when the twin issues of mobility and supply were tackled that the Viking raids could successfully be contained. Charles the Bald introduced fortified bridges to deny the Vikings access to the Frankish river system, making it difficult for them to penetrate far inland, although this strategy failed when bridges were not built or maintained properly. Fortified bridges were also used by Alfred the Great, who also built ships to defend the coastline, and introduced a network of fortified towns across Wessex (Abels 1997; Peddie 1999; Williams forthcoming: ch. 4). These acted not only as refuges, but also as supply centres, denying the supplies to Viking raiders, and facilitating the resupply of his own army (Abels 1997: 257–65; Williams forthcoming). Despite initial difficulties, these burhs proved successful in Wessex, and the system was extended across England by his successors as they gradually conquered the Danelaw from its Viking rulers (Hill and Rumble 1996). The social and organisational structures which underpinned Viking raiding and warfare have been hotly debated. Later laws from Denmark, Norway and Sweden all record the existence of a form of ship-levy system known as ON leiðangr, and although these laws date from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, many historians have sought to project such systems back to the Viking Age. This view has been questioned since the 1980s, most notably by Niels Lund (1985, 1994, 1996, 1997; cf. Gelting 1999), who argued that no form of leiðangr existed before the late eleventh century at the earliest, and that the Viking raids were basically private ventures, carried out by war- leaders with whatever followers they were able to attract through their own reputations and the promise of wealth, rather than any sort of national army, even when the leaders were important Scandinavian kings. This view has received some support for the ninth century from Richard Abels (2003), who notes that Anglo-Saxon sources tend to describe Viking forces as here (warband) rather than fyrd (army), and argues that describ- ing Viking forces as ‘armies’ implies much more structure than probably existed. Lund’s views have not been universally accepted, and there is evidence that some form of leiðangr existed in the tenth century, although since the leiðangr seems originally to have been linked to defensive warfare, it is not clear that this would have much impact on Viking incursions into western Europe (Malmros 1985, 2002; Crumlin- Pedersen 1988, 1997, 2002; Williams 2002, forthcoming: chs. 7–9). There is certainly a case for arguing that some of the conflicts between Danes and Franks in the ninth century reflect some form of national warfare (Wamers 2002; Williams 2002, forth- coming: ch. 7), and it is difficult to separate entirely the roles of ‘king’ and ‘viking leader’ for figures such as Svein Forkbeard and Harald Hardruler. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that the majority of Viking raiding and warfare was carried out by individual warbands. These might band together into larger groups, and their leaders might be kings or earls, or lesser chieftains. Occasionally, with the ‘great’ warbands of the late ninth century we see several kings or earls jointly leading their forces, again implying a merging of smaller independent forces. This apparent lack of formal structure makes their achievements in long-term campaigning and strategic and logistical planning even more impressive. To conclude, raiding and warfare were typical features of the Viking Age, not just for the Vikings but for the whole of northern Europe. In many ways, Viking warfare is little different from their contemporaries’, and the only really distinctive features are the emphasis on ships, and the strong emphasis on strategic mobility and logistics, which allowed Viking forces to campaign for years at a time. However, it is important not to underplay the significance of Viking raids, in terms of either their perceived impact by contemporaries, or the lasting effects of their conquests. Other ‘Viking’ achievements may be more impressive, and certainly more positive, but many of these rest in part on their military success, and without Viking raiding and warfare, we would have no ‘Vikings’. CHAPTER 15 VIKING WEAPONRY Iron swords designed for single-hand use were doubtless the most prestigious and expensive weapons of the time. Single-edged swords, some of them up to 1 m long, were still in use in the early Viking Age thus continuing the tradition of the Germanic sax (Nørgaard Jørgensen 1999). However, double-edged swords measuring about 90 cm in length were by far the most common. A characteristic feature intended to reduce the weight of these weapons is the broad shallow groove or ‘fuller’ running along the centre of the blade; special treatment of the edges and pattern-welding of the core provided extra strength and pliability. The iron blades, both single- and double-edged, were fitted with lower and upper guards and usually also a pommel made of iron or cast copper alloy; less common are silver and organic materials such as bone or antler. Ornaments may be cast, but iron fittings are most often decorated with silver and copper inlay forming geometric patterns, animal motifs and in some cases even Christian symbols such as on the Carolingian sword recovered from the boat-chamber grave excavated at Hedeby in northern Germany (Müller-Wille 1976; Wamers 1994: 9–14). The lower guard, typically about 10–11 cm long, is increased up to 16–17 cm in the late Viking Age, and the upper guard and pommel are reduced to a single pommel. The grip between the guards measured about the breadth of a hand. Its core, the iron tang of the blade, was covered by, for instance, wood, leather, horn or bone and on some swords also decorated with metal-plating or silver and gold wire as seen on a sword from Dybäck in southern Sweden (Rydbeck 1932). Remains of scabbards are preserved in the corrosion layers on many sword blades. Scabbards were made of wood, probably a single board which could be split lengthwise, hollowed out and then joined again (Malmros 1987; Geibig 1991: 104–6). Beechwood, easy to split and yet difficult to bend, was suitable for the purpose but required a protective leather covering. Cast metal scabbard mounts could be added, mainly copper- alloy sword chapes depicting, for instance, animal figures in the Jelling style or bird motifs. Compared to the total number of swords, such chapes are few, and function not only as protection for the scabbard point but also as a badge of rank or group member- ship, possibly even a magical symbol has been suggested (Strömberg 1951; Paulsen 1953; see also Kulakow 1985). In 1919 Jan Petersen published a typology based on Norwegian finds from the eighth to eleventh centuries, in which about 1,700 swords were grouped into twenty-six main types, A to Æ, and twenty distinctive types, the main criteria being the shape and decoration of the hilts. The typological sequence reflects changes through time, but also a distinction between simple and ornate weapons. Petersen’s work includes most north- west and central European types and is still widely used, although adjustments have been made to certain types and type groups, such as the swords of the eighth and ninth centuries (Menghin 1980). The sword types leading up to the Viking Age are discussed in a detailed analysis of late Iron Age weapon graves in Scandinavia by A. Nørgaard Jørgensen (1999). A. Geibig chose a different approach to that of Jan Petersen. Based on an extensive analysis of late eighth- to twelfth-century material, the hilts are grouped into nineteen combination types and three construction types, and fourteen types of blade are identi- fied by morphological and metric criteria (Geibig 1991). Although Geibig’s focus lies outside Scandinavia, his system can be applied to Scandinavian finds, and in more recent publications either system – a classification based largely on a visual evaluation of the hilt and to a lesser extent sword blade or a classification focusing on constructional criteria – may be referred to. Next to the swords, axes were widely used in battle, and numerous axes (or rather axe-heads) have been recovered. In well-equipped graves axes may be found alongside other weapons, but they appear to be more common as single weapons in less conspicuous burials, suggesting a difference in rank and economic means among the deceased and their families (see Näsman 1991). On the other hand, deposition of axes alone is not limited to poorly furnished graves. The Danish Bjerringhøj chamber burial contained a highly decorated axe-head (Iversen and Näsman 1991), and to judge from the quality of the silver inlay it must have represented considerable value. In the case of the Ladby ship grave, also from Denmark, the axe-head found in the front half of the ship most likely represents the tool used to slaughter the horses and dogs led into the ship to accompany the deceased (Thorvildsen 1957). Axe-heads found in female graves give equal cause for speculation. Are they true weapons or rather part of the assemblage of tools and kitchen utensils used by the mistress of a household? Axe-heads were made of iron, and most are plain although the line between head and blade may be emphasised by narrow grooves. However, decoration in silver and copper does occur, and even gold, as seen on a rare eleventh-century axe-head from Botnhamn in Norway, decorated in the Ringerike style (Viking to Crusader no. 114). Other axe-heads are exceptional due to their small size (see Trotzig 1985) or unusual shape, a rare type having a blade reduced to a narrow frame surrounding a cross-shaped figure (Paulsen 1956: 66–8). A typology based on Norwegian finds was published by J. Petersen in 1919 and includes twelve types, A to M, distinguished by way of the head, the shape of the blade and its cutting edge (Petersen 1919: 36–47). The axe-heads range from light, slender forms with more or less pronounced spurs on either side of the head to the well-known broad-bladed battle axes, also with projecting spurs. The latter type resembles the weapons featured in the Bayeux tapestry, and its basic shape continues in use well into the medieval period. Axe-heads with a long ‘helm’ at the back of the head were most likely introduced from the eastern Baltic region (Hallinder 1986: 47), whereas others with elongated, often decorated blades and in some instances extremely long spurs at the head probably originated in the area south of the Baltic (Paulsen 1956: 156–67). These axes are very likely prestige weapons, possibly even exotica, brought home by their owner or received as gifts. Similar to the swords and axes, spears were deposited in Viking Age burials, but have also come to light in settlements and a few weapon deposits. Most of the spearheads belong to heavy thrusting spears or lances. They were made of iron, some of them pattern-welded or showing elaborate geometric or vegetal/zoomorphic designs in silver and copper on the socket (Blindheim 1963; Horn Fuglesang 1980; Lehtosalo-Hilander 1985). The blades are usually leaf-shaped with rounded or angular shoulders towards the socket and have a more or less pronounced rib along the centre. They were fitted to the shafts by rivets; on one long and narrow type up to fifteen rivets formed an additional decorative element along the socket. Based on evidence from burial finds the shafts were up to 2 m long, and analysis of wood remains suggests that, for instance, ash was chosen for strength and flexibility. In his work on Viking Age weapons J. Petersen also arranged a classification of the spearheads using the shape of the blade and the socket as basic diagnostic features. Twelve types, A to M, were identified, of which type L differs from the others in having short barbs and, instead of a socket, a long tang not unlike that of Viking Age arrow- heads (Petersen 1919: 22–36). A more accurate and detailed framework with a revision of Petersen’s chronology, but also based on Norwegian material, has since been provided by B. Solberg, whereas the late type M is treated by K. Creutz (Solberg 1984; for a summary of recent typologies see Creutz 2003: 28–34). Bows and arrows form the fourth weapon group of the Viking Age. The first com- plete longbow was recovered from Hedeby in northern Germany. No bowstring was preserved but the wooden bow made of yewwood and measuring 192 cm in length is intact (Graham-Campbell 1980: 74). Unlike the wooden bows, arrowheads of iron are common, occurring in burials and as single arrowheads in settlement contexts. Mineralised remains of organic material corroded together with tightly packed arrowheads in several graves suggest that whole bundles were deposited in a quiver made of leather or wood. Scandinavian arrowheads usually have an iron tang, whereas socketed arrowheads appear to be more typical of the area south of Scandinavia (Kempke 1988). On the basis of Swedish finds several types have been identified (Wegraeus 1973, 1986). Most com- mon is a lanceolate multipurpose type, but other forms are known, and during the Viking Age points with a triangular or square cross-section especially suited for military use were introduced. Arrow-shafts and feathered flight-ends are rarely preserved. Evidence from the Hedeby boat-chamber grave indicates that the shafts, in this case made of birchwood, had been fitted not only with feathers but with cast copper-alloy nocks consisting of a sub-conical base with a deep notch and tang (Müller-Wille 1976: 80–6). It is often difficult to determine whether arrows deposited in graves represent offensive weaponry or rather were intended for hunting. The latter seems most likely for the bundle from Hedeby which, with copper-alloy fittings, may well have been a gift of some value (Wamers 1994: 29). DEFENSIVE WEAPONRY According to the older Gulathing and Frostathing laws every man on board a leding ship was required to have a shield. Very few complete shields have survived, but remains of originally sixty-four shields in the Gokstad ship-burial uncovered in Norway give an impression of their size and construction (Nicolaysen 1882: 62). The circular wooden disc, at Gokstad 94 cm in diameter, was joined by thin wooden boards, and many were probably fitted with an additional covering of leather (Arwidsson 1986: 39). The hole for the hand-grip at the centre of the shield was covered by an iron boss, usually one of three main types distinguished by the shape of the dome, the neck and the flange for attachment (see Rygh 1885: nos 562–5). Other metal fittings for the shields include rim-bindings, and occasionally also a metal grip instead of one of wood and sheet metal or cast copper-alloy grip-mounts (Arwidsson 1986: 40–3). Shields could be distinguished by colour. An inscription on a Danish runestone from Rønninge on Fyn speaks of the son of ‘Asgot of the red shield’ (Moltke 1976: 313), and the shields from Gokstad were painted in alternate colours, black and yellow, similar to those depicted in the Bayeux tapestry (Nicolaysen 1882: 63). Sagas and law texts mention red and white, the latter possibly the natural colour of the wood but also signifying peaceful intentions (Falk 1914: 128), and according to the saga of Saint Olaf King, gilt, red and blue crosses marked the white shields of the king’s men. King Olaf ’s men were also equipped with body armour. Images of Viking warriors indicate that helmets were used, but archaeological finds, usually only metal fragments, are extremely rare. Leather, a probable alternative to metal, has left no trace. The most complete helmet, a simple iron cap fitted with eye-guards, was recovered from a richly furnished cremation at Gjermundbu in Norway (Grieg 1947: 3–4). Small rings at the edge of the cap suggest that the neck was protected by a cover of chain mail. Apart from the helmet, the Gjermundbu grave contained fragments of a chain-mail shirt, and at Birka protective armour made of narrow metal plates has been identified (Arbman 1939: 63; Grieg 1947: 4). Shirts made of thousands of iron rings welded together or closed with a rivet were doubtless expensive and available only to the very wealthy, although scenes in the Bayeux tapestry indicate that mail shirts in later times were no longer so unattainable. WEAPONS TRADE Most complete swords and spearheads are recovered from burials. They appear far less common in settlement contexts where instead axes for different tasks, arrowheads and single sword fittings may be found. The arrowheads and sword fragments testify to the presence of weapons in individual households as well as the local manufacture and/or repair of weapons. Although it can be difficult to distinguish between indigenous and foreign production, some of the finest swords and spearheads were doubtless imported (Solberg 1991; Martens 2004). Trade in weapons is recorded and forbidden in a number of Frankish capitularies, although apparently related to specific events rather than general export (Horn Fuglesang 2000), and plunder or gift exchange are equally valid explanations for some foreign swords in Scandinavia. The early Carolingian so-called ‘King’s sword’ from the Hedeby boat-chamber grave was fully fitted when acquired; in other swords foreign blades are combined with Scandinavian-type guards. Inscribed blades, many with the name vlfberht or the word ingel, are widely distributed from Ireland in the west to Russia in the east (see Geibig 1991: 113–33). The inscriptions are rarely identical, and obvious distortions or imitations suggest that they do not represent single workshops in western Europe but rather designations of quality that could be imitated, also in Scandinavia (Andresen 1993). RITUAL CONTEXT In spite of close interregional contacts leading to exchange and use of similar weapons, traditions of deposition differed within Scandinavia. Thus the percentage of weapon graves in relation to the corpus of known burials varies considerably, and not least the sheer number of weapons from Norway is impressive ( Jakobsson 1992; Martens 2003). Based on the combination of artefacts selected for burial at a local or regional level, the role and meaning of weapons in the burial rite – and in the living society – were not uniform across Scandinavia ( Jakobsson 1992; Pedersen 1997). Visual quality as evident in the decorative use of contrasting metals was important, and weapons probably had considerable value not only in battle but also as symbols of power, rank and wealth. Swords are often singled out, and their importance is supported by numerous sources, among them the highly ritualised scenes depicted in illuminated manuscripts. However, axes and spears most likely held similar functions (Trotzig 1985; Näsman 1991). Although not Scandinavian, one of the most renowned spearheads of the time was the Carolingian sancta lancea belonging to the imperial insignia. Dated to c. 800, the spearhead was copied c. 1000 and presented by Otto III to Bolesław Chrobry of Poland in return for relics of St Adalbert, an act of great religious as well as political significance (Bernward von Hildesheim no. II-33). Apart from burial, other ritual acts may have involved weapons. Surprisingly many stray finds from Denmark are recovered from wetland areas – bogs, lakes or rivers – and although conflict or extensive traffic near major crossing points and important settle- ments may explain certain finds, others appear to be sacrificial offerings (Lund 2003) Occasional swords and not least spearheads have been recovered in similar circumstances suggestive of ritual deposition elsewhere in Scandinavia, for instance at Gudingsåkrarna in Valstena parish on Gotland (Müller-Wille 1984: 188–93). Here about 500 weapons and weapon parts have come to light since the nineteenth century, most of them spearheads or parts of spearheads and many of them damaged. Ritualised and symbolic use of weapons in the late Iron Age and Viking Age is finally supported by finds of miniature weapons or amulets, among them swords and spear- heads less than 5 cm long. Their exact purpose and meaning are uncertain, and it has been suggested that both groups are possible attributes of the pagan god Óðinn. How- ever, they may equally well be magical amulets, intended to ward off evil forces against which real weapons despite their efficiency in battle were powerless (Koktvedgaard Zeitzen 1997: 18 with references).