Steppe nomadic armour from Birka
By Niklas Stjerna, Fornvännen 99 (2004). Stockholm.
Translated by Magnus Ritzen
Used with permission of author (8/04)
(I just want to give a huge thanks to both Magnus and Niklas for their efforts on this
translation, it was a huge undertaking and I know that I, and many others, appreciate the
work they did to make this happen! `Halvgrimr)
Summary
Remains of lamellar armour have been found in1877, 1934, and 1998-2000 at the so called
Garrison of Birka (Uppland, Adelsö psh, Björkö). In this paper the lamellae are analyzed
and compared with similar finds from Siberia and Central Asia. eight different types of
lamellae are identified, and their original position in the suit of armour suggested. Judging
from the distribution of similar finds, the armour from birka is of Old Turkic origin. No
certain conclusions are however drawn regarding its provenance. The armour is tentatively
dated to AD 900-950.
Niklas Stjerna, Institutionen for arkeologi, Stockholms universitet, SE-106 91 Stockholm,
niklasstjernaAThotmailDOTcom
These are the results of an analysis of armour lamellae found during the excavations of
the so –called Garrison at Birka (Uppland, Adelsö psh, Björkö, RAÄ 35). The analysis
was done in 1998 as part of a study of earlier finds from the Garrison, and in 2001 as a
part of the project Strongholds and fortifications in Middle Sweden 400-1100 AD, headed
by Lena Holmquist Olausson and supported by The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary
Foundation. The material (tab. 1) origins from the excavations of Hjalmar Stolpe and
Holger Arbman (SHM 34000:Bj 596 and 21064; cf. Jansson 1988) and the excavations
done by the Archaeological Research Laboratory at Stockholm University 1998-2000
(Holmquist Olausson & Kitzler Åhfeldt 2002).
Different lamellar armour, among them the Birka armour, have been discussed by
Bengt Thordeman (1932, 1933, 1934, 1939, 1940, 1941). The information by Thordeman
does need to be complemented though, e.g. he does not present any information about
the most characteristic of the Birka lamellae; those with a lobed side and bosses (see
below). Contrary to Leppäaho & Vilkuna (1937) Thordeman had doubts (1941) that the
Birka armour was a ”single import”. That issue will not be discussed here, instead the
focus is to make clear the construction and origin of the armour. The circumstances of
the find will neither be discussed, as the armour then needs to be viewed in context with
all other finds at the Garrison.
The Birka Armour
Among the most well preserved material are some of Stolpe’s finds from 1877 and one
larger piece, consisting of twelve lamellae, from Arbman’s excavation. The material
from recent year’s excavations is not as well preserved and has during this work not
changed any results of the analysis.
To be able to compare the lamellae easily, I made contour drawings on transparent film
then stacked them on top of each other. The lamellae have a pattern…
<end page 27>
Table 1 - The Examined Material
Examination
Number of
Number Lamellar types**
lamellae/Fragments analysed* A1 A2 A3 B C D E F
?
Stople
Ar 1877
SHM Inv. 34000:596
275
119
37
2
19 8 15 - - 1
37
Arbman
Ar 1934
SHM 21064
201
56
4
-
8 1 11 1 4 9
18
Holmquist Olausson
Ar 1998-2000
244
92
-
-
10 - 3
- - 17 62
Total
720
267
41 2 37 9 29 1 4 27 117
* Lamellae/fragments where original length or width was measurable
** Lamellar types identified from the lamellae/fragments that was measurable.
Fragments identified by type in the other material are not included.
of holes in them, through which they are linked together with thongs. During the
comparison and grouping of the lamellae, special notice was taken of the position of
these holes as well as the corner radius. The material was thus divided into eight types
(A1-A3,B-F;fig 1a). Uncertain cases were not classified. A caliper was used to measure
width and length on 267 lamellae/lamella fragments. Width and length was measurable
on 18 pc, width alone on 247 pc. and length alone on 2 pc. Since the ambition was to not
measure more than one fragment from each individual lamella, effort was made to
puzzle together as many fragments as possible. The number of lamellae of various
widths seemed to largely confirm the distribution into types (fig. 2). This is of no great
concern though, as the width was instrumental in the manual distribution into types,
which of course does not make the two methods independent of each other.
The lamellae has been identified by the following types:
A1 - Width approx. 27 mm, length approx. 100 mm with one vertical pair of holes at the
upper edge, two vertical pairs of holes along each side edge, one horizontal pair of holes
along the lower edge and one hole in the centre. Either the left or the right side is lobed.
Three small bosses next to the lobed side.
A2 - Width approx. 27 mm, length approx. 100 mm with one vertical pair of holes at the
upper edge, two vertical pairs of holes along each side edge, one horizontal pair of holes
along the lower edge and one hole in the centre. Either the left or the right side is lobed.
A3 - Width approx. 27 mm, length approx. 100 mm with one vertical pair of holes at the
upper edge, two vertical pairs of holes along each side edge, one horizontal pair of holes
along the lower edge and one hole in the centre.
B - Width approx. 29 mm, length approx. 100 mm with one vertical pair of holes at the
upper edge, at least two vertical pairs of holes along each side edge, one horizontal pair
of holes along the lower edge and one hole in the centre. Wider at lower edge than at
upper edge.
C1/C2 - Width approx. 21 mm, (var. 1) and 24 mm (var. 2), length approx. 80 mm with
one vertical pair of holes at the upper edge, one vertical pair of holes along each side
edge, one horizontal pair of holes along the lower edge and one hole in the centre. Wider
at upper edge than at lower edge.
D - Width 29 mm, length 58 mm with one vertical pair of holes at the upper edge, one
vertical pair of holes along each side edge, one horizontal pair of holes along the lower
edge and one hole in the centre.
E - Width approx. 38 mm, length approx. 50 mm with one vertical pair of holes at the
upper edge, one vertical pair of holes along each side edge, one vertical pair of holes
(alternatively a single hole) at the lower edge.
<end page 28>
Fig. 1 a) Lamella types (A-F) from Birka, b) Decorated part of the Birka armour,
reconstruction
F - Width approx. 14 mm, length approx. 45 mm with one vertical pair of holes along
each side edge, one horizontal pair of holes along one of the short edges. A vertical ridge
in the centre.
A few deviations regarding the number of holes and their placement is present in the
material, probably because of how the lamellae are positioned in relation to each other.
E.g. centre holes should be missing in the lowest part of the armour.
The construction of the armour and archaeological parallels
Compared to those lamellae depicted by Thordeman (1939) in Armour from the battle
of Wisby 1361, the Birka lamellae matches the perforation of the lamellae from the
Gyantse monastery (Tibet), Turpan and San Pao (East Turkestan/Xinjiang, China): one
vertical pair of holes at the upper edge, two vertical pairs of holes along each side edge,
one horizontal pair of holes along the lower edge and one hole in the centre. One
preserved lamellar armour from Niari in Tibet is perforated using the same system
except for the lower pair of holes on the Birka armour where there are but a single hole
on the Tibetan armour. The lacing should regardless be the same on the Birka and on
the Niari armour. This system, where rows of lamellae are suspended loosely from each
other by their centre holes are distinctively different from solid laced lamellar armour as
seen on the Byzantine emperor Basil II in the famous Psalter (cod. gr. 17, fol. 3), from
shortly after 1017 in the Marciana library in Venice (Dawson 1998; cf. Olausson 2001).
Anita Malmius has examined thirty lamellae…
<end page 29>
Fig. 2 Number of lamellae of various widths and the distribution of types
…which appeared to have traces of lacing, but she did not find any textile or leather
residue. Whatever material the lacing did consist of could thus not be established.
The most discerning characteristic of the armour is the lobed lamellae (A1) with small
bosses next to the lobed side. To easier compare the Birka armour to images of similarly
decorated armour, a reconstruction drawing was made to recreate the visual
appearance of laced lamellae (fig. 1 b). The reconstruction is based upon the mentioned
above ”Tibetan” lacing system (Thordeman 1939 fig. 238).
I have earlier (Stjerna 2001, s. 40 f) stated that the Birka armour is of a Central Asian
type with close parallels in images from East Turkestan where, among others, reliefs
displaying similarly curved outline can be seen (cf. Thordeman 1939; recently Gorelik
1995). The closest archaeological parallel to the Birka armour that I am aware of (fig. 3)
has its origin from kurgan 11, Balyk-Sook, Altai (Kubarev 1998). This grave is dated AD
700-1000 and is linked to the Karai culture. The discovered lamellae have essentially the
same perforation as the Birka lamellae. The lamellae of type 1 also have a rounded ridge
in the middle, similar to those on some of the Birka lamellae and furthermore, have
almost the same dimensions. Contrary, the lamellae of type 2, is in several cases bent
inwards at the top, a trait not found on the Birka lamellae. One trait that the Birka
lamellae share with those from Balyk-Sook is a thickness of up to 2-3 mm, a deviation
from many other lamellae examples with a thickness regularly around 1 mm. These
thinner lamellae are what are present from the mainly younger material from, among
other places, Belarus (Plavinski 2001) and Russia.
Gleb V. Kubarev (1998, s. 640; cf. Chudjakov 1986, s. 158) mentions a number of 19
findings that is comparable to the armour of Balyk-Sook, among them from the Russian
provinces of Altai
<end page 30>
Fig. 3 A selection of lamellae from kurgan 11(?), Balyk-Sook, Altai, Russia (after Kubarev
1998 fig. 5), b) Armor from Balyk-Sook, reconstruction (after Kubarev 1998 fig. 6)
…and Tuva. According to Kubarev, the armour bears resemblance to other Central
Asian, especially Sogdian armours. He thus concludes that it can have been
manufactured in a Sogdian workshop. This can also be the case of the Birka armour but
until there is more support for such an assumption, the safest is to name its origin as
Turkic. Similar lamellar armour was in use between AD 700-1000 and is generally
connected to Turkic warriors of noble heritage. (Chudjakov 1986, s. 159).
Conclusion
Only in Central Asia and central Siberia one would find an equivalent with all of the
traits of the Birka armour; the lobed side, the bosses, the position of the holes, the
thickness of the lamellae and their varying shape.
With the pictorial and archaeological parallels to the Birka armour in regard, the
armour would have been designed to protect the chest, back, shoulders, thighs and
knees. The lobed lamellae of type A1 can be assumed to only have covered the chest
while the plain lamellae would have covered the back. There are examples from East
Turkestan where lobed lamellae sometimes cover the lower body only, instead of the
chest (Thordeman 1939 fig. 248). When it comes to the Birka armour, the few lamellae of
type E could instead be remnants of a suspended protection for the thighs, or protection
for the back below the waist; on one fragment reviewed by Arbman (1939, p. 63),
lamellae of type E is obviously suspended from lamellae of type A3. The smaller lamellae
of type C could have been part of shoulders while F-lamellae could have been some form
of arm protection. It is in fact not certain if these last lamellae were part of the armour
at all. I know of no Central Asian parallels to this lamellar type.
The deposits from the phase of the Garrison to which the Birka armour belongs is dated
to the mid 10th century AD, so tentatively it was produced during the first half of the
10th century AD.
<end page 31>
My gratitude to Anita Malmius and Margaretha Klockhoff for help and valuable
discussions, and to project leader Lena Holmquist Olausson, all at the Archaeological
Research Laboratory, Stockholm University. Thanks also to Sergei Kainov, Moscow
who aided with information regarding parts of the eastern material.
References
Arbman, H. 1939. Birka. Sveriges äldsta handelsstad. Från forntid och medeltid 1.
Stockholm.
Chudjakov, J.S. 1986. Vooruzenie srednevekovych kocevnikov juznoj sibiri i central´noj azii.
Novosibirsk.
Dawson, T. 1998. Kremasmata, Kabadion, Klibanion. Some aspects of middle Byzantine
military equipment reconsidered. Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies 22. Oxford.
Gorelik, M.V. 1995. Vooruzenie narodov vostocnogo Turkestana. Litvinskij, B.A. (ed.).
Vostocnyj Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevkov´e. Moscow.
Holmquist Olausson, L. & Kitzler Åhfeldt, L. 2002. Krigarnas hus. Arkeologisk undersökning
av ett hallhus i Birkas Garnison. RAÄ 35, Björkö, Adelsö sn, Uppland 1998–2000.
Arkeologiska Forskningslaboratoriet, Stockholms universitet. Unpublished.
Jansson, I. 1988. Wikingerzeitlicher orientalischer Import in Skandinavien. Oldenburg –
Wolin – Staraja Ladoga – Novgorod – Kiev. Handel und Handelsverbindungen im
südlichen und östlichen Ostseeraum während des frühen Mittelalters. Mainz am Rhein.
Kubarev, G.V. 1998. Der Panzer eines alttürkischen Ritters aus Balyk-Sook. Eurasia
Antiqua 3. Mainz.
Leppäaho, J. & Vilkuna, K. 1937. Muinais runojemme sobisopa. Kalevalaseuran vuosikirja
17. Porvoo.
Olausson, M. 2001. Krigarens resa och hemkomst. Olausson, M. (red.). Birkas krigare.
Stockholm.
Plavinski, M.A. 2001. Zascerahal´nae uzbraenne IX-XIII st. na terytory Belarusi.
Histarycna-archealagicny zbornik 16. Minsk.
Stjerna, N. 2001. Birkas krigare och deras utrustning. Olausson, M. (ed.). Birkas krigare.
Stockholm.
Thordeman, B. 1932. En gotländsk medeltidsrustning av centralasiatisk typ. Arkeologiska
studier tillägnade H.K.H. Kronprins Gustaf Adolf. Stockholm.
— 1933. The asiatic splint armour in Europe. Acta Archaeologica 4. Copenhagen.
— 1934. A persian splint armour. Acta archaeologica 5. Copenhagen.
— 1939. Armour from the battle of Wisby 1361. 1. Text. Uppsala.
— 1940. Rustningarna i Kalevala. Fornvännen 35.
— 1941. Stridsdräkten under forntid och medeltid. Nordisk kultur. Samlingsverk. 15. B,
Dragt. Stockholm.