Time flies! More than two years since part 1 and part 2, let's have some more!
This new post will focus on the foreign, and in particular eastern influence on Norse archery, in terms of both equipment and technique.
As discussed in part 1 (see reminder in pictures below), the native Norse bow was a simple longbow, typically made of yew (sometimes of elm or other woods of lesser quality), fashioned with long, back-bent ears. Through interactions with their neighbours and further travels, Vikings came in contact with other styles of bows and other practices of archery. In most of Europe it was different flavours of short or long selfbows, but two other types of bow were different enough (and in close contact enough) to warrant our attention today: the Sámi two-wood bow (tviviðr) to the North, and to the Southeast, the reflex composite bow, or horn-bow (hornbógi), of Steppic origin, encountered through contacts with the Magyar (Hungarians) who by the Viking Age were only recently settled after centuries of nomadic life as horse-archers (Hungarians/Huns, see?), and with the Byzantine who like the Western Roman empire before had adopted Eastern bows into their standard military equipment.
 |
 |
 |
| Yew longbow ybógi |
Sámi bow tviviðr |
Magyar bow hornbógi |
So, how did these bows compare with the Norse archery equipment, and what influence did they have?
Compared to the yew longbow, the composite bow is much shorter, much more complex in construction (with layers of wood, horn, sinew, glue, bone, and leather or birch bark, all requiring months of processing and assembly), and had a distinct recurve-reflex geometry (where the limbs and the tips of the bow point forward when the bow is unstrung, and form a characteristic double-S curve when strung). The two-wood bow lies in between, in terms of length, complexity and shape. In terms of bow performance, the data is less clear and the comparison more subjective. Magyar composite bows were probably in the same range as Norse longbows in terms of draw weight (in the 50- to 100-pound range, with "typical" draw weight being somewhere in between), and two-wood bows were significantly weaker (up to 60 or 70 pounds max). The speed of the bows (the ability of a bow, for a given poundage, to launch a light arrow at high speed, providing greater accuracy and range) was probably barely better for the two-wood bow than for the yew longbow, but much better for the composite bow.
Let's have a look at each of them in more details.
The Sámi two-wood bow
In terms of influence on the Norse, Sámi archery is a tricky one. The amount of cultural and technological exchange between the Norse and Sámi inhabitants of Scandinavia is difficult to estimate, and the archaeological finds are often difficult to attribute to one culture or the other. Finds of (fragments) of two-wood bows were recovered even in urban contexts southern Norway (with some stylistic variations), and the types and properties of recovered arrowheads are quite uniform across the entire peninsula, except for them getting a bit larger and heavier in the North. So there are no clear indicators of which people was using what.
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Left: Sámi bow (intact belly) from Vibby bog, Överluleå (Lulesápmi, modern-day Swedish Norrbotten) |
Right: Culturally ambiguous fragments of two-wood bows from an ice patch in the Jotunheimen moutains (hunting grounds in central Norway) and from Bergen and Oslo (Norse urban context) | ||
Literature doesn't help us either. The term "tviviðr" has only quite recently been identified as designating specifically the Sámi two-wood bow, but the word is anyway very rarely present in Old Norse literature, and only serves as a poetic or refined substitute for "bow", with no valuable details to be gleaned from the context.
But by and large, I don't expect Sámi archery to have had a significant impact on Norse archery, because all in all the two-wood bow is not, in practical use, a very different concept than the longbow - it is different technological solution adapted to a different environment but with the same objectives. In regions where good quality bow-making wood was scarce, the two-wood bow combined the quality of two lesser timbers to emulate what would have been elsewhere achieved with yew alone.
That doesn't mean that the Norse never acquired or made two-wood bows (it's particularly likely in the northernmost and harshest regions of Norse settlement, such as northern Norway, Iceland or Greenland), but it's unlikely that two-wood bows would have been particularly sought after when good quality longbows were available (unless a given tviviðr was believed to have magical properties, which the Norse often associated with the Sámi).
|
| This find of a viking-age or high-medieval bow beautifully illustrates the mutual influence between the Norse and Sámi bow technology. Found in the Jotunheimen moutains in central Norway, its construction is clearly that of a two-wood bow - it's actually one of the only fragments of two-wood bow where both the back and belly slats were recovered. However, its shape, with quite narrow and thick limbs as well as deflexed ears (and no string nock, implying that the string would be attached with a knot on that side), is much more reminiscent of a Hedeby-style longbow than of a Sámi bow, which would typically have broad, flat limbs and reflexed ears with symmetric string nocks. |
In terms of archery technique, it is possible that the Norse (or locally some individual Norse people) learnt minute details from Sámi people, that were too subtle to be recorded in the historical evidence (even though minute details can be very important in archery). But in broad strokes, it seems that Sámi and Norse archery were quite similar. Evidence of Sámi archery techniques is peripheral and mostly much later than the Viking Age, but descriptions in travel accounts, depictions and even early photographs of Sámi or other Uralic archers show them using a more or less Mediterranean grip (two or three fingers gripping the string and the arrow nock, arrow on the inside of the bow), with a draw length neither particularly short not long, and a shooting stance, angled at the hips, commonly adopted by most historical archers using powerful bows across the globe.
The Eastern composite bow
On the other hand, there is much more influence to discuss regarding composite bows. Like for Sámi bows, Old Norse literature doesn't help us much. All occurrences of the word "hornbògi" come from late works, mostly relating legendary or exotic events, with very little value regarding real-world Viking-Age archery.
But it is clear from archeology that Eastern (and in general foreign) imports were fashionable among the Norse. Magyar accessories (such as the tarsoly pouch) were abundant in places like Birka, Varangian service was a prestigious career, Rus elites blended Norse backgrounds with east-Slavic and Steppic influences... and archery is no exception. There are no finds that would prove that Byzantine bows were imported, but the presence of Magyar archery equipment is well documented in Norse archaeological contexts, with finds of fragment of typical Magyar quivers, bow cases, and arrowheads, in particular in Birka. A find from the Black Earth in Birka might also have been a fragment from a (locally made, or Magyar) composite bow.
 |
 |
 |
 |
| The remains of one of the many tarsoly pouches in Magyar style found in Sweden. |
Examples of typically Magyar arrowheads (three-bladed and broad lozenge) from Birka. | Fragments of Magyar archery gear found in the Birka grave Bj1125B, which belonged to a bow case (winged buckle, lower left) and a quiver, along with a reconstruction of how these typically looked. | |
This presence is particularly strong in the Birka Garrison, leading to the speculation that some of the mercenaries recruited there were Magyars - or maybe some Norse crew members really liked Magyar gear.
It is however unlikely that horse-archery (a Magyar specialty) or even mounted combat in general would have been considered a key military asset on the tiny and hilly island of Birka.
In terms of technique, with composite bows always comes the question of the thumb grip. As the name suggests, the concept is to hook the bowstring with the thumb, most often assisting the thumb by closing other fingers on top of it. Due to the pain caused by the string digging into the thumb, especially with powerful bows, a thumb-ring is often used, which both protects the thumb when drawing and helps with a clean release when taking the shot. The thumb grip is typically Asiatic in origin (with the oldest known thumb-rings coming from China), and because it is particularly suitable for short bows, it is typically associated with composite bows, whether used on horseback or not.
But would a Magyar archer (or a user of Magyar archery equipment, or of the Magyar archery style) use a thumb grip? It's unclear. Any Asiatic archer (meaning someone practicing Asiatic archery, irrespective of their ethnicity), when presented with a Magyar bow, would definitely shoot it with a thumb grip, as the Magyar bow is visibly of Asiatic lineage. But not a single early medieval thumb-ring has been found in what is now Hungary and surrounding countries, despite vast amounts of archery-related archaeological finds (although admittedly organic rings that would have decayed are a possibility). On the other hand, there is a quite mysterious worldwide scarcity of finds of thumb-rings in the early medieval period. Nowadays, traditional Hungarian archery horse-archery mostly uses the Mediterranean three-finger grip, but given that it is more of a revival than an unbroken tradition, it cannot be considered as solid evidence.
However, a large ring, forged out of thin bronze sheet, with a concave shape and a pointed lip, was found in the Birka Garrison (I had seen before but had completely forgotten about it!), and it clearly strongly resembles simple archery thumb-rings (and it was near other Magyar gear)... The shape of the object, reminiscent of some rare Byzantine or Steppic specimens dating to neighbouring centuries, and its find context strongly suggest it was indeed an archery thumb-ring used with a Magyar bow. So, Magyar archers might have used a thumb draw, but whether it was the favoured method and we lack evidence, or it was a method among others hence the scarcity of finds is an open question.
 |
 |
| The bronze ring from the Birka garrison. | A first attempt at a replica. I then made a second, better one, with a more concave shape. |
Another aspect of the technique, in addition to the grip, is the draw. Magyar quivers were long, suggesting long arrows and a long draw, which would rule out drawing to the chest or the belly (as often proposed based on dubious perspective in medieval art, but also based on some finds of very short arrows) - typically Asiatic bows are drawn to the face or beyond, but might be drawn across the chest as well. And if a thumb draw is assumed, it typically would go with having the arrow on the outside of the bow. All of that of course translates directly for the case of Magyar archers present in the North (or Magyar gear used in the Magyar way by the Norse).
How would this have looked like? Well, you can see in the pictures below my second reconstruction of the Birka ring, put to use by my friend Þórgeir. He practices Asiatic archery with (usually Chinese) thumb-rings, and reenacts an ex-Varangian, who brought back stuff from his time in Miklagarðr, including a Byzantine composite bow.
 |
 |
 |
One can note that the thumb technique used with this king of ring is of the "shallow hook" category (you can look up the difference between deep hook and shallow hook thumb grips online, for example here here).
Further implications on technique
Let's finish with a look at other influences that Asiatic archery might have had among the Norse, beyond the import of Magyar and Byzantine gear. The first point is the likelihood of a wider spread of the thumb grip (so, thumb-ring and draw with the arrow on the outside of the bow). In the absence of finds of thumb-rings, this is less and less likely the further away we go from trading centres and other points of contact with the East. Most archers probably used locally produced bows, and there is virtually no evidence for the use of the thumb grip with longbows in Europe, even when contact with the Arabic and Ottoman world was extensive. So, probably not a high fraction of thumb-grip users among Norse archers, and almost all these users (if they existed) would be concentrated around the main trading centres, or had been in the East themselves, as Varangians, traders, or vikings.
Another aspect is the "tactical" uses of archery. Two elements commonly associated with Asiatic archery are horse-riding (to the point where Asiatic bows are commonly referred to as "horse bows"), and speed-shooting (or burst-shooting). Horse archery is indeed a keystone of many Steppic cultures (though composite bows, especially the most powerful ones, were also used by infantry). And speed-shooting is a well-attested aspect of horse-archery, the speed of the horse making it a useful skill to deliver multiple arrows in quick succession when passing a target.
The King's Mirror (Konungs Skuggsjá) mentions composite bows (and crossbows) as good weapons for horsemen, but it's a 13th century text, dating to when the kingdom of Norway was integrated into the European feudal system, with a military revolving around mounted knights and involved in contacts with the Middle-East through crusades, so it's not representative of Viking-Age warfare at all. Some rare depictions of mounted archers occur in Viking-Age continental manuscripts (plus one mounted Norman archer in the Bayeux Tapestry), and they are likely to have been using composite bows, however there is nothing suggesting that this practice of mounted archery had been adopted in any way (via mercenaries or local use) by the Norse, who in general did not seem to favour mounted combat of any kind based on the evidence we have.
 |
 |
 |
| Horse archers in the Stuttgart Psalter (early 9th century, carolingian) and on the Bayeux Tapestry (late 11th century, Anglo-Norman). Horse archers are a small minority of the depicted archers. The depiction of these bows are not very accurate (Bayeux) or quite stylised (Stuttgart), so that the bows used on horseback don't differ significantly from all other representations. However, one of the Stuttgart archers has a bow which is visibly more recurve that the others, which might indicate a composite bow. Note in all cases the use of a Mediterranean two-finger draw, at least according to the artwork. |
||
Finally, regarding speed shooting, one must note that, unlike for example Turkish quivers or modern competitive horse-archery quivers which hold large volumes of easily-accessible arrows, Magyar (and other Steppic) quivers store a rather limited number of arrows, and they store these arrows pointing up, with the nock and fletching at the bottom of the quiver. One can thus choose carefully which arrowhead to use for which shot, and one can maybe prepare two or three extra arrows in the bow hand for a faster series of shots, but extracting and preparing each arrow from the quiver is a long process, so no matter what anyone (cough Lars cough Ander-cough cough-sen) might tell you based on other styles of horse-archery, speed-shooting was not a particular element which would have made Magyar archery appealing to Scandinavians.
I hope you will have found this discussion interesting, and that it might inspire some well-informed practice of archery in a viariety of styles in viking reenactement. Please don't use it the other way around, using the existing complexity to justify cherry-picking or mix-and-matching, trying to pass whatever bow shape and archery style you like best as "likely historically accurate for a viking archer given the diversity of their cultural influences" because it's not how it works! ;)
Yours,
Eiríkr
Wait! But what about Hjǫrtr? I hear you cry.
Right. We're left with the tantalising case of the "Hjǫrtr ring" found in Iceland. First noted and posted online by Hurstwic, this ring and the associated story have been going around the internet for years. Time to give it a proper evaluation.
 |
This large bone ring, too big to be a finger-ring and adorned with stags (hjǫrtr in Old Norse), was found in a burial mound near the site of the battle where Hjǫrtr, youngest brother of Gunnar Hámundarson, was killed, according to the Saga of Burnt Njál. It is very tempting to think that Hjǫrtr, being the brother of an outstanding archer, came across and adopted the exotic technique of thumb shooting, which he paired with a high-end composite bow, and a locally made thumb-ring.
In general Iceland is very far from the eastern routes, so opportunities to meet and adopt eastern archery would have been unlikely - but that doesn't mean impossible. And contrary to popular belief, composite bows and their specialised glues are not restricted to warm and dry climates - with proper care they can also be kept in colder and rainy places. But how plausible is this story?
When we delve deeper in the question of contacts with the East, little is known of Hjǫrtr himself, but the saga tells us that his brother Gunnar travelled out of Iceland. However, according to the saga, he didn't go further than the Göta Älv river in Götaland (present-day western Sweden), and his easternmost contact was a man met there who had spent many year on the island of Ösel (Saaremaaa, present-day Estonia). So no signs of contacts with Varangians, Magyar mercenaries, or other travellers of the eastern ways...
But the main issue lies with the ring itself. As seen with the Birka ring, rings found in a Norse context would be expected to be reminiscent of Byzantine or Steppic examples (which makes sense given the trade networks) - so, quite narrow rings with a small triangular lip curved along the thumb. On the other hand, the tall bone cylinder of the Hjortr ring has its closest parallel in archery thumb-rings from Manchuria (China).
However these quite unique Manchu rings 1) are virtually never found outside of China and 2) have a rounded lower edge to ensure a good release of the bowstring. So the Hjortr ring is 1) extremely unlikely to be an imitation of foreign archery rings, given that the Manchu originals were very distant and not widely adopted, and 2) not properly shaped to function as an archery thumb-ring, as is rough lower edge wouldn't allow a clean shot and would probably damage the string. And possibly too thin to be strong enough to withstand the pressure from a powerful bow.
 |
 |
| An ivory Manchu ring from the Met Museum, its basic shape reminiscent of the Icelandic find. Note however the thick rounded edges - lower outer and inner upper - which allow better string contact and thumb confort when using the ring. |
|
Its interpretation as an archery thumb-ring is therefore very dubious. If it nonetheless did belong to Hjǫrtr Hámundarson, and was an archery-related object, another creative interpretation is that might a wax-holder, containing a stick of bowstring wax which could be slid out and in at the push of a finger whenever the bowstring needed maintenance (interpretation by Michael Allender).
 |
 |
But let's be honest, even the likelihood of this object being somehow connected to Hjǫrtr is very low. Without even considering the question of the accuracy of the saga regarding the location of his death, the story says his body was taken home to be buried (so, not buried where he fell), and, from a statistical point of view, that grave might have been anyone, more likely a local than a travelling warrior.
Plus, the decoration of the ring is not just one stag, it's a mythological scene showing the stags who eat the leaves of Yggdrasill - making the decoration less personal and more symbolic, thus more universal - decreasing the chances that it indeed belonged to someone named Hjǫrtr (the argument had mostly been used the other way round, because deers are not native to Iceland, this stag had to have a important meaning).
Plus, the decoration style, while quite crude, can probably be described as Ringerike style, thus dating to later than 1000 AD - while Hjortr probably died in the 970s or 980s based the dating of the saga, so anything owned by Hjǫrtr at the time of his death would have been decorated in Mammen, or even older Borre style.
And finally, the elephant in the room, the famed archer among the sons of Hámundr was not Hjǫrtr, but the hero Gunnar himself. It is Gunnar who wielded a bow with fearsome efficiency at the battle of the Ranga river where Hjǫrtr died, as well as in other battles in the saga, while there is actually not a single mention in the entire Saga of Burnt Njál about Hjǫrtr owning a bow or having any kind reputation as an archer.
So with that, it's probably safe to say that we can put the case of the "Hjǫrtr ring" to rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment