The Assault on Helgö and Birka and the End of the Iron Age

SITUNE DEI 2009

The Assault on Helgö and Birka and the end of the Iron Age

Peter Lindbom

Abstract. In this article I propose that there was only have the Norse Sagas, and other writ- an assault on the island of Helgö at the end of the ten sources like Chronicles, that tell us of 10th Century, and that this attack was orches- the “mythical” battles that took place in the trated by the Swedish king or his Rus allies. The past present a problem with stories about attack on Helgö was synchronied with a simul- battles like the Teutoburger forest, Fyrisval- taneous assault on Birka. Both attacks have larna or Helgeå. Unfortunately we seldom common characteristics: the hall buildings were have information about these places. As thoroughly destroyed and a huge amount of ar- these sites are rarely found and excavated, rows was shot at the houses. The majority of the the credibility of these sources has de- arrowheads from the isles are of foreign origin, creased and they have been dismissed as and more specifically, of Rus making. This fantasies. However, recently discovered means that the attackers either were Rus pirates finds from Kalkriese have provided more or Rus warriors that ransacked Helgö and plun- evidence that historical texts such as Taci- dered Birka. These attacks somehow made it tus’ tale about the Germanic massacre on a easier for the king to move the trade from Birka Roman army might after all be true. to his new town Sigtuna, and that Helgö and Bir- What do we do when we stumble on a ka gave way to the urbanisation process and the find that consists of a lot of weapons, and Medieval period in Sweden. which only makes sense if they are put into a martial context? Do we dare to interpret he title of this article is meant to be them as the remains of an ancient battle- Tprovocative, as it is a statement about field, and what further conclusions can we how we are to understand and interpret the draw from these materials concerning the past. However, it is also a case study in the past? use of Battlefield Archaeology, and the aim In this article I present the arrowheads is to show that we tend to belittle the results from Helgö and Birka, and argue that the and interpretations that this new discipline only logical explanation of these finds is the makes possible, when analysing traditional assumption that they are remains from an archaeological materials. The fact that we assault that took place in the 970’s. As ‘un-

83 PETER LINDBOM tidy houses’, both the Hall on Helgö and the The fact that so many arrowheads have “Garrison” on Birka can be thought of as a been found on Helgö and Birka is also a rare unique phenomenon in Swedish Archaeolo- phenomenon, which only has parallels in gy, since most houses seem to have been the Danish bog finds, where an equal num- cleaned and emptied before they were aban- ber have been found. There are different doned (fig. 1, 2). Both houses show signs of theories on the origin of the Danish finds. intentional destruction, and are full of bro- The traditional view is that an attacking ken glass, weapon details and other debris, force was defeated, and was then offered to as if they were left in a hurry or after a fight the Gods (Ilkjær 2001, 2003). Amore recent or disturbance of some kind. In order to perspective sees the depositions as a Danish present these attacks, I will first give an ar- version of the Roman triumphal marches chaeological background and present the (Storgaard 2001, 2003). It is interesting to arrowheads found on the two isles. It is note that in this Danish example, two com- these artefacts which form the basis to my pletely different interpretations concerning explanation of ‘how’ and ‘by whom’ these the origins of the weapons have been pro- assaults were carried out. posed based upon the same material: one My theory is based on the finding of where the foreign attacking troops lost and more than 300 arrowheads on the two isles, their gear were sacrificed, while the other where the majority of the points either be- imagines the Danes made victorious cam- long to foreign types of eastern or Russian paigns abroad and brought the spoils home origin. Both on Helgö and Birka there are a to sacrifice. One common observation made number of special Russian arrowheads, by both interpretations is that the arrows which belong in the 10th Century, which and weapons were deposited or offered in have only been found in a few other places heaps in the Danish bogs, whereas the ar- in Sweden: in Estuna and in the Saami met- rows from Helgö and Birka are found in a al depots (Lindbom 2006, Lindbom in very haphazard manner near settlements press). These facts strengthen my idea that and buildings, and in some cases have been the attackers were foreigners. found stuck in the walls and the houses. One may speculate that the arrows One problem is that the foreign arrow- would have been part of some kind of of- heads from Birka and Helgö come from fering, and that they have been intentional- “open contexts”, while most of the Swedish ly spread over the settlements on Birka and arrows come from “closed contexts” or Helgö. But this is hard to accept, as some of graves. If we realise that the traditional the arrows were stuck in the walls of the grave finds are part of an ideological in- houses, and seem to have been shot from a vestment that Iron Age man chose to make, certain direction. There may have been and was part of his “social capital” that some bizarre ritual, where one shot arrows showed who they were and to what social at one’s houses in order to achieve some un- strata they belonged, we can start to com- known purpose, but this seems highly un- pare the two sets of material in order to un- likely, as there is a clear intention behind the derstand the finds from these different con- shots (see figures below). texts. If the grave finds are part of the social capital that was invested by the mourners at

84 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

A1

A2 M 62 Fragm M 46 A1 M 62 M 62 Frag M 62

Frag M 46 M 5 l å k s skål r e v l i silver s M 62 R 540 R 539 M 5 Frag M 62 R 539

Frag R 539 R 540 Fragm A1 M 62 M 62 Fragm M 46 R 538 A2 Frag M 62 M 5 R 539 M 5 Frag M 46 A1 R 538 M 62 A1

Frag

Fig. 1. The Hall on Helgö. Observe the devastation of the house and all the things that have been left in this very “untidy house’’.

SHIELD

N SHIELD SKÖLD 3177 A X SHIELD W E A73 A 181 SHIELD 1141:1 S SHIELD SHIELD 5314 E SHIELD AXE

A7 SHIELD A14 BIG KNIFES YXA SHIELD SHIELD 5272 A1344963 A9 4597 4311 Byzantinian A131 X 1294 E 4641 Chape SHIELD A133 1296 Sak n as 5059 6571 4291 4992 164 L A125 5273 BIG KNIFE A7 5192 Hedeby 4732 Hedeby 4872 AXE 5125 A105 S SHIELD Fig. 2. The untidy house on A119 2004 Birka or “the warrior’s house’’. The Garrison was probably at-

Arbman SHIELD tacked, and much like the Hall well SHIELD ’s on Helgö, it was abandoned in a hurry. There are plenty of Arbman A 13 ’s trench 1934 weapons and military equip- SHIELD Trench 2 ment in- or outside the Garri- A 14 SHIELD 615 son, suggesting that it was at- A 11 Trench 1 tacked, and that this is the re- 558 Byzantinian A 12 Terrace edge SHIELDcoin mains of the Battle of the Gar- A 6 164 AXE rison described in the text. SHIELD

SHIELD? 85 PETER LINDBOM the funeral, one can state that “the grave ar- elite graves from different phases of the rows” are part of the indigenous traditions Iron Age. that were in vogue during a specific time pe- The tang point thus has a long and con- riod, as the contents and the types in the tinuous development in the Scandinavian graves vary through time during the Iron material, where the Norwegian is especial- Age, while the foreign arrows only describe ly suited for a “longue durée” type of study a frozen moment when the attacks hit the of the progression of different arrow types isles. during the Iron Age. In the Norwegian ma- In order to analyse the materials from terial one can observe the transition from Birka and Helgö, I will present the indige- less malleable materials such as stone and nous types and their development during bone to iron sometime during the middle of the Iron Age. I then turn my attention to the the Roman Iron Age, a development that al- atypical arrowheads from these two sites to so had technological consequences, where show that these finds are a combination of the traditional flat rectangular tang was Russian types and points that have to be transformed to pointed spike-like tang characterised as “Rus” arrowheads. In this (fig. 4). article I will assume that the Rus were a hy- This transformation has both technolog- brid culture that developed between Scandi- ical and ideological reasons, as the older flat navian colonisers and the indigenous Slav tang was prone to split the wooden shaft on population during the latter part of the Iron impact due to the shape of the tang, which Age (see Duczko 2004; Hedenstierna-Jon- acted like a wedge. The technical solution to son 2006). this problem was found on the Continent, In my thesis Weapons in the time of the where Scandinavians were active as merce- wreccas, I showed that the Norwegian ar- naries in the wars between the Romans and rowheads have a long and unique develop- different Germanic peoples, and came to ment, spanning the whole Iron Age to the import both the socket points and the new early Medieval Period, roughly AD 0–1250 innovative tang during the fifth Century. (Rygh 1885; Böhner 1958; Medvedev The Continental spike-like tang occurs in 1966; Wegraeus 1971; Lindbom 2006; the Norwegian warrior graves during the fig. 3). In my study I found that the indige- end of the fifth Century, and gradually su- nous traditional arrowhead design is the perseded the indigenous tanged points tang, a construction that occurs in the mate- (Lindbom 2006; fig. 5). The tanged arrow- rials from the Stone Age right through to the heads have a long development during the end of the Viking Period. The socket head is Iron Age, and resulted in two different tra- always the result of a foreign influence, ditions, where the pointed square shaped which occurs now and again from the Ro- tradition is typical of the Norwegian arrow- man Iron Age into the early Medieval Peri- head, while the Swedish points are more od. One could even say that the tang point is rounded and have a more sleek aero-dy- the traditional solution, while the socket namical design (see fig. 6). In figure 6 one point is part of a fashion and is a part of a can see both the Norwegian and the foreign influence that is often seen in the Swedish Mälar designs, but there is also a

86 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

Fig. 3. The synthetized Rygh 1885 types as they were presented in the au- thor’s thesis, note that many of the types in the different typologies are actually the same R 213 R 535 R 537 R 538 R 539 R 540 R 541 R 543-44 R 546 R 547 R 551 types of arrowheads, for which researchers have used different Böhner 1958 names.

A B C D E F

Medvedev 1966

M 2 M 21 M 29 M 42 M 46 M 58-59 M 62 M 75M 77 M 78

Fig. 4. The difference Wegraeus 1971 between the traditional tang (to the right) and the socket (on the left). Observe the “spike-like’’ tang, which is typical of the late Iron Age arrow- heads. A1 A2 Modierad B-typ C D1 D2 E1-E2

Fig. 5. The development of the Norwegian tanged arrowhead, showing the transition from bone to iron, and also the change from flat tongue-shaped tang to the “spike-like’’ variant during the early Viking Age. Here represented by the types R 540, R 541, R 547, and R 539.

87 PETER LINDBOM

Fig. 6. The three traditions, the Norwegian square- shaped design, the Mälar type with its sleek and round shape, and the Easter Rus tradition with its rectangular cross sec- tion.

Fig. 7. The Mälar tradition is very similar to Wegraeus’ typology, here shown with the types A–E ac- cording to Wegraeus 1971.

Fig. 8. The Eastern Tradition corresponds with Medvedev’s typology; note that there are some Russ- ian types that have Swedish counterparts, for example the type M 62.

88 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA third variation, the Eastern or the Rus tradi- Swedish heads; the Russian points in gener- tion. al are smaller and lighter than the Norwe- The Norwegian type R 539 seems to be gian arrowheads. One of the most common the origin of the common Viking Age tang Rus types is the type M 62, a type that close- type in Scandinavia, and spread to Sweden ly follows the development of the two during the 8th Century, and is characteristic Mälar types A1 and A2 (fig. 8). We do not for the new material culture that is typical know when the Rus types developed, but both for Norway, Sweden and Denmark they are present in the Russian material during the Viking period. In general the from the 10th Century or even earlier. The Swedish arrow points are smaller and weigh Rus arrowheads from Russia occur in less than their sturdier Norwegian counter- chamber graves similar to the ones present parts, but also their design is different, as on Birka and in the boat grave materials the Norwegian arrowheads are very angular from the Mälar valley belonging to the 10th in their design, whereas the Swedish heads Century (Arbman 1936, 1940–43; Lindbom are rounded. According to various black- 1993). A major difference between the smiths the Swedish Mälar design takes Swedish graves and the Russian ones is the more time to make than the angular Norwe- fact that the graves from Birka consist of the gian points. This indicates that the design Mälar types A1, A2 and D2 heads, while the was chosen consciously, as the Norwegian Rus material in for example Gnezdovo is tradition is easier and cheaper to make, than mainly made up of M 62 points (Lindbom the Mälar types. Wegraeus’types are typical 2006). of the Viking Age, and have their Rus coun- terparts in Medvedev’s typology in Russia The Assault on Helgö (Fig. 7, 8). Sometime during the middle of the 970’s The Mälar type or, Wegraeus type A1, is both Helgö and Birka were attacked, and first introduced in the graves on the newly both attacks probably were carried out as established trading post on Birka sometime “pincer movements”. Most likely there in the first half of the 8th Century. It would were two groups of assailants that either at- seem that the change from continental sock- tacked simultaneously or with a slight delay et point to the indigenous tanged type is due between the different assaults (maps 2, 3). to ideological reasons, and may be taken as One interesting point is that the distance indicating the start of the Viking Age. Afact from Helgö to Birka is only 10 km on the that is important since it has consequences water, and a crew of oarsmen could make for the way we understand the Eastern tra- the trip in less than 30 minutes; a fact which dition, a custom that seems to have been in- suggests that the arrowheads are the re- troduced in the 8th or the 9th Centuries, and mains of assaults on the two isles long ago is typical of the Rus in Russia (Pushkina forgotten (fig. 1, 2 above). 1997; Muraseva 1997; Jansson 1997; The Helgö attackers landed at the beach Duczko 2004; Lindbom 2006). The Rus near Bockfjärden in the south, and the force version, or Eastern tradition, is a mixture of was able to disembark unseen from the Hall both the Norwegian and the Mälar tradi- in House group 2 due to the mountain that tions, but it is mainly a close relative of the blocked the view to the south. It would

89 PETER LINDBOM

Map 2. The location of Helgö and Birka in Lake Mälaren, note the short distance between the islands, around 10 km. It would take an attacker less than half an hour to row from Helgö to Birka by boat.

Map 3. We do not know from which direction the attack on Helgö came, perhaps from the southwest or maybe the southeast. The attackers came from two directions in a classical “pincer movement ma- noeuvre’’ from the southwest and the northeast.

90 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

400 m 400 m

R 541 A1 M 62 A1 Fra R 541 g A1 A1 M 62 A1 Fra g A1

R 538 R 539 A R A-typ 1 R 538 R 53 539 Fr 8 A A1 ag -typ Fra R 538 g Frag Frag A1 R 5 A1 A1 38 A1 R 5 A A1 A1 38 2 A1 M 62 Frag A2 Frag M A M Fr 62 1 62 ag M 6 M Frag M 62 2 62 Frag M Fra Fr 62 Frag g A R 539 Vet ej M 46 ag M 6 M R 540 1 M 46 M 62 2 62 M F Frag R V Fr R 538 M 4 62 M rag R A1 539 et ej M 46 ag M 6 R 62 M 46 540 M 46 R 539 46 540 R 5 M M 62 M 5 R 539 Vet Frag 38 46 M 62 M 4 M A1 ej R 5 M 46 R 540 6 M 5 21 39 R A-typ M M 6 M 5 539 A Vet e A-ty 62 2 M M M 2 1 j A-typ p M F A1 R 5 A 5 1 Fr 62 rag M 539 -typ M 6 M 62 ag 62 A2 Vet A A-typ 2 M 5 A1 M 5 ej -typ M 6 Fra A1 R R M 62 Fra 2 g M 539 Fra M 540 M 46 Fra g A 62 A2 Vet e g 46 g 1 M 5 j M 62 R 5 F R 5 M 62 M 38 rag Frag M 4 40 46 Frag R 539 Frag 6 M A-ty M M M 62 R 53 Fr p 62 46 5 M 5 8 ag M 4 A A R 539 Frag 6 R 538 1 Frag 1 A-typ M M M 5 62 46 M 5 R 53 M 4 A A V R 5 8 6 R 538 1 Frag 1 et ej 39 M 46 A-typ R 53 V R 5 8 et ej 39 M 46 Frag A-typ Frag M Frag 62 R 539 Frag Frag M Frag Frag A 62 R 539 -typ Frag Fr F A-t ag rag A-typ M 5 yp A-t M 5 yp

A-typ A-ty p A-typ A-ty A-ty p p A-typ A-typ A-ty A-ty p p A-typ A-typ

A-typ

A-typ A-typ A-typ A-ty p A-typ A-typ A-typ A-typ A-typ

A-typ

200 m 200 m

100 m 100 m

50 m 50 m

Bockärden Map 4. The landing at Bockfjorden. Map 5. The advance and attack on House group 6.

400 m

R 541 A1 M 62 A1 Fra g A1

R 538 R 539 A-ty A1 p R 538 Frag Frag

A1 R 538 A1 A1 A2 A1 M 62 Frag Frag M 62 Frag M M 62 62 M 62 Frag Frag R 539 Vet e M 46 R 540 A1 j M 46 R M M 62 Frag 538 46 M 62 M 46 R 539 M 46 R 540 M R 539 5 A1 Vet ej M 5 M 21 A-t M A yp M 62 62 A-t -typ M 5 yp M 62 Frag A1 R 539 Frag M 62 Vet e A1 M 5 A2 j R 540 M 62 M Frag M 46 46 Frag M 62 R 538 Frag R 539 Frag A- typ M 62 M 46 M 5 M 5 M 46 R 538 A1 Frag A1 R 538 R 539 Vet ej M 46 A-typ Frag Frag M 62 R 539 Frag Fra Frag g A-typ A-t M 5 yp

A-typ

A-ty A-t A-ty p yp p A-typ

A-typ

A-typ A-typ

A-typ A-typ

A-typ

200 m

100 m

50 m

Map 6. The archers open up on the houses, and their line of fire, here illustrated by big arrows to show the direction to which they were aimed and shot.

91 PETER LINDBOM seem as if the aggressors knew this and used valuable objects like the Buddha and the this knowledge in order to be able so set up crosier that were lost and trod down into the a surprise attack on the inhabitants of the earth after their owners had been shot or Hall. They could therefore gather their killed by the attackers (map 8). forces at a rallying point somewhere in front In my analysis of the attack on the Hall, or between the two mountains, and the ad- one can see the flight plans of the arrows vance about 150–200 metres, until they shot at the house, where some projectiles were in position to open up on House Group fell short of the target, while some flew over 6 in the west or the big Hall in the east it (map 9). There is a high concentration in (map 4). The distance to house group is the western corner of the house, probably about a hundred metres, and there are a where the defenders stood. According to my dozen arrows found in the eastern part of the view the flight plan shows that the archers houses, maybe they came from the attack opened fire somewhere in the space be- which either forced the inhabitants to flee or tween the two hills or mountains to the was sufficient to kill those who ventured southwest of the Hall. This assumption is outside (map 5, 6). strengthened by the fact that there are no ar- The main force focused its assault the rows found to the south, along the hill in the Hall. Many opened up already from maxi- southeast behind foundation VI (map 8, 9). mum distance about 200 metres, and shot If my assumption is correct, the inhabitants volleys of arrows in order to give suppres- of the Hall were squeezed between this sive fire and allow the foot soldiers to ad- southern force and the attack coming from vance towards the Hall. One can see sever- north-east, and the pincer attack closed, and al concentrations of arrows where the they were shot to pieces in a hail of arrows archers aimed their attack, and one can draw from two directions. After the arrow storm an imaginary “line of fire” in order to see ceased, the foot soldiers moved in and from were the archers loosened the projec- killed those who had survived. tiles, and even see if their aim was ‘spot- All in all, the assault on Helgö lasted less on’, fell short, or over-shot (map 7). One has than an hour and all the inhabitants seem to to assume that the archers used the standard have been killed. There is no proof of a mas- tactics and shot volleys of arrows in order to sacre, but it is highly probable, as the num- provide “suppressive fire” for the advanc- bers of arrows are more than 150, some- ing spear- and swordsmen, and to create thing that would indicate a massive attack. what is commonly called a “shower of ar- We can also expect that a high number of ar- rows”, a tactic few enemies were able to rows have been collected or destroyed, and withstand without cover and protective that the actual number of projectiles has equipment (Lindbom 1997). been much higher. The concentration of arrows in the northwestern corner of the Hall indicates The Attack on Birka that the inhabitants were trying to defend Unfortunately we do not have enough in- themselves, and had gathered in there in or- formation concerning the circumstances on der to meet the attackers. Maybe they were Birka during the late 970’s, as there are no trying to escape the attack, as there are a few written sources. We do know that the wood-

92 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

Svärd/Sword Bryne/Hone

Spjut/Spear Pilar/Arrows

Lås/Lock Mynt/Coins

Guldgubbe/ Kniv/Knife Gold foil gurine

A1 Guldbrakteater/ Glas/Glass Gold bracteates

A2 M 62 Fragm M 46 A1 M 62 M 62 Frag M 62 Frag M 46 M 5 M 62 R 540 R 539 M 5 Frag M 62 R 539

Frag R 539 R 540 Fragm A1 M 62 M 62 Fragm M 46 R 538 A2 Frag M 62 M 5 R 539 M 5 Frag Norr/North M 46 A1 R 538 M 62 A1

Frag

Map 7. The Helgö Hall and the arrows, note the arrowheads in and around the walls, and also the ar- rowheads concentrated to the western part of the house, especially the concentration of arrows in front of the house and its western corner. Here illustrated with big arrows to show the direction they were aimed and shot. The crozier, silver ladle and the Buddha were found outside, in the northwestern corner of the building.

Map 8. The pincer movement and the di- 400 m

R 541 A1 M 62 A1 Frag rection of of attack and A1

R 538 R 539 A-typ A1 R 538 Frag Frag

A1 R 5 A1 A1 38 A2 flight of the arrows shot A1 M 62 Frag Frag M Fr 62 ag M 6 M M 62 2 62 Fra Frag g A R 539 Vet ej M 46 R 540 1 M 4646 R 5 M M 62 Frag 38 46 M 62 M 46 R 53 M 46 R 540 9 M R 5 5 39 A1 Vet ej M 5 M 21 A-t M Frag A yp M 62 62 A- -typ M 5 typ M 62 Fra A1 R 5 Frag g M 6 39 A1 M 2 A2 Vet ej 5 M R 54 62 M 4 Frag M 46 0 6 Frag M 6 2 R 538 Frag R 538 R F A 539 rag at the Hall building on -typ M 6 M 4 M 5 M 2 6 5 M 46 Frag M 4 A1 F A Vet ej 6 R 538 rag 1 Frag R 53 V R 5 8 M 46 et ej 39 M 46 Frag A-typ Frag Frag M 6 2 R 539 Frag Fr F ag rag A-typ A-t M 5 yp

Frag R 538 Helgö. A-typ Pit 92 291 A-typ A-ty 290 A-ty p p A-typ 289 288 287 A-typ 286

A-typ A-typ

A-typ A-typ

A-typ

200 m

North

South 100 m

50 m

93 PETER LINDBOM

Map 9. The landing at Birka’s Garri- son.

Arrow head types Scandinavian A-typ A1 A2 D1 D2 R 214 R 539 Fragment Egen The Map is based on information from Arrow head types X Kitzler 1997, Hedenstjerna Jonson et al.,1998, Bengtzon 2001, Holmquist Olausson & Kitzler Scandinavian Åhfeldt 2002 Rus Russian A-typ A1 A2 D1 D2 R 214 R 539 Fragment Egen M 5 M 62 M 2 M 14 M 29 M 29 M 46 X Rus Russian M 5 M 62 M 2 M 14 M 29 M 29 M 46 North

W E North

S V Ö

S Mountain

Mountain The smithy

The sm tih Terrace III y

Ter ss

on rass III tre

The Garrison r

The Fortress The

o

F e

The Garris k h r T Earth work o X w

The lower Terrace Earth Trench 2 X The low T ren er ch Terrac 2 e Sea level during the Trench 1

Viking Age ntain

u Sea level during

+5 mabove the in the Viking Age +5 s trench

Arbman’s trench Mo

Trench 1 ta modern level an’ m above the n m u modern level o

Arb M

- t

Beach head e

rg

e Borgberget

- b ead h g each r

B o B

Map 10. Defenders and attackers, a complicated Map 11. The archers’ attack and the distribution situation, where we unfortunately have too little of arrowheads in the investigated site between information, and have to speculate on how the the two hills. battle was fought.

94 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

L 2

Stolphål A 11 Terrass III Trench I Stolphål A6 eventuell öppning eller tornkonstruktion X Terrass II L 11 514 Segmenterad Silvermynt pärla (11,41m) 260 (11,22m) X 318 (11,12m) 608 Guldfoliepärla X X X 562 Blå Pärla (11,06m) (11,02m) 219 Tatingkanna 278 Sköldbuckla 164 Spjutspets (10,41m) (10,95M) Sållfynd 606 Silvermynt(A 12) 238 Silvermynt 99 Silvermynt 558 Bysantinskt mynt (10,22) (10,29) (10,90m) 615 Tångespjut 270 Vapenyxa 46 Sköldbeslag (10,59M) Terrace I (10,10m) (9,85m) 338 Sköldbuckla (9,78m) pes 414 Sköldbuckla Arrow Head ty 62 Silvermynt (?m, lös fynd) (8,74m) Scandinavian Koncentration av vapen- och spetsfynd A-typ A1 A2 D1 D2 R 214 R 539 Fragment Egen X Rus Russian 8 13 14 15 16 M 5 M 62 M 2 M 14 M 21 M 29 M 46

Other nds Silver- och bronze coins X Weapon details Pearls

Map 12. The trenches and their profiles allow us to see the layers, their depths, and the correlation between the arrowheads and other finds. This allows assessment of their chronology to judge if the artefacts are contemporary. Note the concentration of missiles in front of and behind the stockade.

N

W E

S

Saknas 6571

5125 Saknas

X

Map 13. The Garrison or

Arbman the warrior’s house; note well ’s the concentration of ar- rows behind the palisade pes Arbman Arrowty Scandinavian and in front of the house. A-typ A1 A2 D1 D2 R 214 R 539 Fragment Egen ’s trench 19 X Also observe the concen- Rus Russian M 5 M 62 M 2 M 14 M 21 M 46 34 M 29 tration of arrows in the

Andra fyndtyper Silver- och bronze coins south-western corner of Tre X Loose weapon details nch 1 Pearls the house, both outside Trench 2 the walls and inside the building.

The Map is based on information from Kitzler 1997, Hedenstjerna Jonson et al.,1998, Bengtzon 2001, Holmquist Olausson & Kitzler Åhfeldt 2002

95 PETER LINDBOM en palisade was burned down sometime If one accepts the facts and tries to un- during the 10th Century, whether this was derstand and explain the vast number of ar- an accident or an act of intentional act of ar- rowheads found in the Garrison, one would son connected to assault on the island is un- have to surmise that the attack came from known. Perhaps there was a full-scale at- the waterfront to the southwest by means of tack, but hitherto this idea is pure specula- a bridgehead on the jetty, which is believed tion, and would need more excavation in or- to have been located below the Garrison. der to be corroborated (map 10). Most probably the Garrison was the “back- We do not know if there were defensive door” to the fortress, as access to the fortifi- measures on the two hills that lie on each cation from the water was easy, and deliv- side of the Garrison, for example high eries of food and other supplies could be places where the defenders were either shel- carried up the steep hill to the guards in the tered by the palisade, or could take refuge in ‘warrior’s house’. One might carry supplies one or several towers that stood on the hill over land from the harbour in the town fur- tops (map 11). Perhaps there were defensive ther north, but this is highly improbable, as fortifications on each side of the Garrison, one would have to work much more. where there were both regular troops and The attackers tried to land their boats at groups of archers manning the walls that the bridge below the Garrison, but from could hold off any undesirable advances to about 200 m away the foreigners opened the Garrison from the southwest. There fire on the Garrison and the men at the pal- must have been some sort of defensive for- isade on the lower terrace (fig. 12). On fig- tifications on each side of the Garrison, as ure 12 one can see in the profile that the first the troops manning the house otherwise finds of arrowheads both in Arbman’s would have been caught, literally, in be- trench and Trench 1 come from an area tween ‘two rocks and a hard place’ if at- slightly in front of the lower terrace and the tacked. earthworks that are supposed to make up the Without protection from above the Gar- foundation for the lower terrace some 20 m rison would be a death trap, as there was in front of the warrior’s house. One may as- nowhere to escape if an enemy was able to sume that some of the attacker’s arrows fell scale the hill on the northern side of the Gar- short of the target and landed in front of the rison. Once up on the hill, an enemy could stockade. In a picture of Trench 1 and 2 one either shoot straight down on the men in the can actually see that there are no arrows Garrison, or straight into the fortress itself. found below terrace 2, and that the arrow- We do not have any information of such de- heads are concentrated in front of and be- fensive constructions, as it is only the small hind the gate that has been assumed to have strip called the Garrison or the ‘warrior’s been in the palisade (fig. 13; Kitzler 1997). house’ that has been thoroughly examined The figure of the profile in Trenches 1 and or excavated. The situation at the Garrison 2 also shows that the arrowheads have all (map 2, above) indicates that something been found about 50 cm below the topsoil highly irregular took place on the island and indicate that they have been deposited more than a thousand years ago. at the same time.

96 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

On figures 12 and 13 one can also see Åhfeldt 2002). The entire southern part of that there are two concentrations of arrows, the house has been heavily disturbed, and it one slightly in front of the Garrison, and one is from here that the majority of the finds outside the house and in the southwestern come. side of the house. However, there are also Much like the attack on Helgö the de- some arrows that overshot the target and fenders of the Garrison seem to have lost the landed behind it. The figure also shows that fight, as they did not have time to clear out there were a lot of arrows that belonged to the house, but were forced to leave in a hur- the Rus-type M 62 (map 12). Figure 14 ry or were killed by the attackers. Contrary shows the concentration of arrows to the to Helgö the finds from Birka show a dis- south-western corner of the house, where tinctly military presence, with a lot of the arrows are either stuck in the wall or weapons, armour, combs and coins, all of have buried themselves in the ground in which could be associated with some kind front of the building and in the floor on the of fight or disturbance in the building. It is inside of the house. logical that the attackers did not bother to This part of the house seems to have clean up after the fight, or that they proba- been burnt and broken down, much like the bly did not have the time to loot the place episode that is told in Egil Skallagrimsson’s properly, as they were needed elsewhere, saga, where the chieftain Thorolf is attacked and moved on to the fortress or to plunder by the Norwegian King Harald, who after the town below. some failed attempts to storm the house sets The fact that there are no corpses in the it on fire. Thorolf decides on a last desper- Garrison may be seen to decrease the prob- ate attempt to break out by tearing down the ability that there has been a fight in the wall, rather than being burnt alive or slaugh- house. From examples in Battlefield Ar- tered as they try to escape the flames! chaeology we know that it is always hard to Thorolf and his men broke down the wall find the corpses and the mass graves after and made a desperate attempt to fight off the the battles, unless we accidentally run into enemy. King Harald then kills Thorolf, and them by mistake. Maybe the corpses were the fight is over (Lindbom 2006; cf. Egil dragged out of the building and buried in a Skallagrimsson’s Saga.). mass grave elsewhere, either by the attack- Maybe it was the opposite case at Birka, er or the survivors after the men had been as there are signs of disturbance in the cor- killed. Perhaps there is a mass grave some- ner nearest the hill in the northwest, where where on the island, where the victims of there are finds of at least two broken swords the attack were buried. or pommels, and a lot of plate armour and One can only speculate on the reasons rings belonging to a hauberk both in- and behind the assumed attacks on Helgö and outside of the house (map 2, 8). The south- Birka, but we do know that the trade post on western side of the building is badly pre- Birka ceases to exist in the end of the 10th served and rubble and debris have clearly Century and the trade moves to the King’s been disturbed, and these layers are differ- new town in Sigtuna. However we do not ent than the other parts of the house (see the have enough information on the situation in figures in Holmquist Olausson & Kitzler the King’s demesne in Signhildsberg, and

97 PETER LINDBOM perhaps there was a phase when the trade first made a surprise assault on Helgö, and from Birka moved there. then continued on to Birka. It is probable In a recent article Sten Tesch explains that there were indeed two attack groups, the building of the town of Sigtuna as a joint and that they performed a similar attack on venture between the King and the expand- Birka, where they first attacked from the ing Christian Church, where King Erik southeast against the town and fortress, and Segersäll is the prime mover in the start of then also attacked the “back door” the Gar- “the Swedish urbanisation project”. The rison in a similar pincer movement as on town was originally planned with “parcels” Helgö. of land that were assigned to different mer- The only limit to our speculations on this chants, craftsmen and towns people, which attack is the scale and size of the attacks indicates the existence of structured plan for against Helgö and Birka. Perhaps it was a the town, probably drawn up by the King mere “pirate raid” that struck the rich island (Tesch 2007). It would seem that the mer- of Helgö sometime during the end of the chants and chieftains who controlled the 10th Century, and that the attack on Birka is trade on Birka somehow were a threat to the another separate attack on another occasion. ambitious King’s plans, and that they had to If this is the case the Viking Age must have be removed in order for the King to carry been a turbulent period, with a lot of battles through his ideas. and raids that we do not know of, or have even heard about! However, we have also to One or two attacking parties? accept that the Rus, or Russian influence, It seems as if the attack on Helgö took place has been more important in Sweden than in order to kill the inhabitants of the big Hall hitherto realised, and it is the Svear or Rus that was situated on the Island. Frands Her- that traditionally are assumed to have the schend has suggested that the attack was role of the aggressor or colonisers. If we ac- provoked by the fact that the inhabitants cept the fact that the arrow types found at were Christians, and that they were assault- Helgö and Birka both belong to the same ed and killed by heathen warriors (Her- foreign types, which are very rare in Swe- schend 1995). Another motive may have den and date to the late 10th Century, the been that it was here that the hersir had his most logical answer is a large-scale attack hall, and perhaps it was he or his family that with the strategic aim to destroy and kill the was the prime target of the attack on Helgö. inhabitants. The attack on Birka is only pos- As a surprise attack on the hersir’s hall sible if the sufficient number of warriors is would make it hard for the defenders on Bir- available to deal with both the population in ka to organise the defence, as their leader the town and with the defenders in the was dead, this would lead to internal strife fortress. Most probably the attackers would and confusion among the remaining troops. have to lay siege to the Garrison and fortress We do not know if there were two attack on Birka, and to cut off Birka’s lifeline to groups involved in the assault, one that hit Adelsö, in order to stop any reinforcements Helgö first, and a second group that simul- coming to the aid of the island. Perhaps taneously attacked the Garrison and fortress there even was a third attack group that as- on Birka, or if it was only one group that

98 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA saulted Adelsö at the same time they at- in the 980’s, and why he was able to per- tacked Birka. suade the Swedish King to help him in his In order to wrap up this case scenario, I attack on his brother. Perhaps the two kings will try to point out a probable perpetrator, were great friends, or maybe Vladimir was and suggest why he or rather they had mo- cashing in favours for services given earli- tives to assault both Helgö and Birka. Per- er, when he was a refugee or a landless war haps it was the founding father of Sigtuna, leader in the service of the Swedish King. Erik Segersäll, who according to Tesch had What kind of favour would have given him risen to power early in the 970’s, had an in- the support of the Swedish King? Perhaps terest to destroy the Rus on Birka. he and his troops were allowed to assault Unfortunately this is mere speculation as Helgö and to sack Birka, kill the hersir and the written sources have little to say about the Rus elite in order to make it easier for this turbulent period, and we are still in the the King to take control over the trade and dark when discussing the events that led to move the merchants to the new town of Sig- the move from Birka to the new town of tuna. Sigtuna. According to Nestor’s Chronicle, We do not know this for certain, but such Prince Vladimir seems to have been ousted a scenario would make it possible to explain from Novgorod by his brother sometime not only the extraordinary occurrence of during the 970’s, and fled across the Baltic several hundred foreign arrowheads on Hel- Sea to the King in Sweden. Vladimir seems gö and Birka, but also their distribution out- to have stayed in Sweden for a couple of side and inside the houses. More important- years before he triumphantly returned with ly, this scenario starts a discussion on what Swedish mercenaries and began his inva- happened at the end of the tenth Century, sion of Russia (Nestor’s Chronicle; when Birka vanished and seems to have Franklin & Shepard 1996). been replaced by the King’s new town of We do not know how and why Vladimir Sigtuna which heralds the beginning of the was able to return as a successful war leader new era of the Middle Ages.

Duczko, W. 2004. Viking Rus. Studies on the References presence of Scandinavians in Eastern Eu- Arbman, H. 1936. En kammargrav från rope. Boston. vikingatiden vid Långtora, Uppland. Forn- Egil Skallagrimssons’s Saga = Isländska sagor. vännen 31. Del 3. Övers. och utg. Hj. Alving. Stockholm Arbman, H. 1940–43. Birka I. Die Gräber, Text 1938. & Tafeln. Uppsala. Farbregd, O. 1972. Pilefunn fra Oppdalsfjella. Böhner, K. 1958. Die fränkischen Altertümer Miscellanea 5. Det Konglige Norske viden- des Triers Landes. Germanisches Denkmäler skabers selskab museet. Trondheim. der Völkerwanderungszeit, Ser. B. Die Franklin, S. & Shepard, J. 1996. The emergence fränkischen Altertümer des Rheinlandes, Bd of the Rus 750–1200. Edinburgh. 1. Berlin.

99 PETER LINDBOM

Gräslund, A.-S. 1980. Birka IV. The burial cus- Kempke, T. 1991. Starigrad/Oldenburg, Haupt- toms. A study of the graves on Björkö. Stock- burg der Slawen in Wagrien, III, Die Waffen holm. des 8.–13. Jahrhunderts. Offa Bd 73. Gräslund, A.-S. 1989. Resultate der Birka- Kitzler, L. 1997. Rapport från utgrävningarna Forschung in den Jahren 1980 bis 1988. Ver- av Garnisonen på Björkö 1997. Birkas be- such einer Auswertung. Birka II:3. Systema- fästning 4. Stockholm. tische Analysen der Gräberfunde. Ed. G. Ar- Lindbom, P. 1993. Pilspetsar från de uppländs- widsson. Stockholm. ka båtgravfälten. Seminar paper. Dept. of Hedenstierna-Jonson, C. 2006. The Birka war- Archaeology, Uppsala University. rior. The material culture of a martial socie- Lindbom, P. 1997. Koger, pilregn och logistik. ty. Stockholm. Från Nydam till Mary Rose. Tor 30. Herschend, F. 1995. Hus på Helgö. Fornvännen Lindbom, P. 2006. Vapnen under wreccornas 90. tid, 150–500 e.Kr., om de romerska auxil- Holmquist Olausson, L. 1993. Aspects on Birka. liarspetsarna och den västliga traditionens Stockholm. framväxt. Uppsala. Holmquist Olausson, L. & Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. Lindbom, P. in press, The arrowheads at Helgö, 2002. Krigarnas hus. Arkeologisk under- and the end of the Viking Age. Excavations sökning av ett hallhus i Birkas Garnison, at Helgö, XVIII. Stockholm. Raä 35, Björkö, Adelsö sn, Uppland Lindbom, P. in press. Estuna, a “Rus” smithy 1998–2000. Stockholm. from the 10th Century AD. Ilkjær, J. 2001. Unterschiede zwichen Moorfun- Medvedev, A. F. 1966. Ruchnoe metatelnoye den und Waffengräber in der jungeren römis- oruzhie, (luk i strely, samostrel VIII–XIV chen Kaiserzeit. Military aspects of the aris- vv). Archeologija SSSR. E 1–36. Moscow. tocracy in Barbaricum in the Roman and ear- ly Migration Periods. Papers from an Inter- Muraseva, V. 1997. The Viking Age monuments national Research Seminar at the Danish in the Jaroslavl region on the upper Volga. National Museum 10–11 Dec. 1999. Ed. B. The rural Viking in Russia and Sweden. Con- Storgaard. Copenhagen. ference 19–20 October 1996 in the Manor of Karlslund, Örebro, Sweden. Ed. P. Hansson. Ilkjær, J. 2003. Danske krigsbytteofringer. Sej- Örebro. rens triumf. Norden i skyggen af det romerske imperium. Eds. L. Jørgensen et al. Nestor’s Chronicle = The Russian Primary Copenhagen. Chronicle, Laurentian text. Ed. S. H. Cross & O.P. Sherbowitz-Wetzor. Cambridge, Jansson, I. 1997. Warfare, trade or colonisation? Mass. 1953. Some general remarks on the eastern expan- sion of the Scandinavians in the Viking peri- Pushkina, T. A. 1997. Scandinavian finds from od. The rural Viking in Russia and Sweden. old Russia. Asurvey of their topography and Conference 19–20 October 1996 in the chronology. The Rural Viking in Russia and Manor of Karlslund, Örebro, Sweden. Ed. P. Sweden. Conference 19–20 October 1996 in Hansson. Örebro. the Manor of Karlslund, Örebro, Sweden. Ed. P. Hansson. Örebro. Kempke, T. 1988. Zur überregionalen Verbre- itung der Pfeilspitzentypen des 8–12 Rygh, O. 1885. Norske oldsaker. Kristiania. Jahrhunderts aus Starigard/Oldenburg. Bericht Der Römisch-Germanischen Kom- mission Bd 69. Mainz am Rhein.

100 THE ASSAULT ON HELGÖ AND BIRKA

Storgaard, B. 2001b. Himlingø – Barbaricum Tesch, S. 2007. Sigtuna. Det maktpolitiska och empire or Roman implantation? Military as- sakrala stadsrummet under sen vikingatid pects of the aristocracy in Barbaricum in the och tidig medeltid. Människors rum och Roman and early Migration periods. Papers människors möten, kulturhistorska skisser. from an International Research Seminar at Stockholm. the Danish National Museum 10–11 Dec. Wegraeus, E. 1971. Vikingatida pilspetsar i 1999. Ed. B. Storgaard. Copenhagen. Sverige. En förbisedd föremålsgrupp. Upp- Storgaard, B. 2003. Kosmopolitiske aris- sala. tokrater. Sejrens triumf. Norden i skyggen af Wegraeus, E. 1986, Die Pfeilspitzen von Birka. det romerske imperium. Eds. L. Jørgensen et Birka II:2, Systematischen Analysen der al. Copenhagen. Gräberfunde. Ed. G. Arwidsson. Stockholm.

101