Raiders or Traders?
A replica Viking vessel sailing the North Sea has helped archaeologists figure out what the stalwart Norsemen were really up to
- By Andrew Curry
- Photographs by Carsten Snejbjerg
- Smithsonian magazine, July 2008, Subscribe
Editor’s Note: This article was adapted from its original form and updated to include new information for Smithsonian’s Mysteries of the Ancient World bookazine published in Fall 2009.
From his bench toward the stern of the Sea Stallion from Glendalough, Erik Nielsen could see his crewmates’ stricken faces peering out of bright-red survival suits. A few feet behind him, the leather straps holding the ship’s rudder to its side had snapped. The 98-foot vessel, a nearly $2.5 million replica of a thousand-year-old Viking ship, was rolling helplessly atop waves 15 feet high.
With the wind gusting past 50 miles an hour and the Irish Sea just inches from the gunwales, “I thought we’d be in the drink for sure,” says Nielsen, now 63, a retired Toronto geologist.
It was August 6, 2007, and the Sea Stallion’s crew of 63 had been underway for five weeks, sailing from Roskilde, Denmark, to Dublin, Ireland, on a voyage that would culminate 35 years’ research—“the best living-archaeology experiment ever conducted anywhere,” Pat Wallace, director of the National Museum of Ireland, calls it.
As Nielsen and some of his crewmates struggled to keep the Sea Stallion upright, four others went to work at the stern. Kneeling on the ship’s heaving, rain-slicked deck, they hauled the 11-foot rudder out of the water, replaced the broken leather straps with jury-rigged nylon ones and reattached the new assembly.
Reducing the sail to a minimum, the crew proceeded at nine knots. As the ship plowed from wave to wave, a full third of the Sea Stallion’s hull was often out of the water. Ahead lay the Isle of Man, 15 hours away.
Two weeks later, its crew exhausted, the Sea Stallion limped into the port of Dublin for a nine-month refurbishment in dry dock at the National Museum of Ireland. In July 2008, it sailed, relatively uneventfully, back to Denmark. Ever since, researchers have been poring over reams of data from both voyages, gathered from electronic sensors on the ship, to learn more about the Vikings’ sailing prowess. Their findings will follow a host of recent discoveries by historians, archaeologists and even biologists that have led to a new understanding of the Vikings as a people who were as adept at trading as they were at raiding.
Norsemen have been seen as intrepid seafarers and fierce warriors—a sort of Hell’s Angels of the early Middle Ages—since A.D. 793, when they raided the rich island monastery at Lindisfarne off the northeastern coast of England. “The ravages of heathen men miserably destroyed God’s church on Lindisfarne,” according to the annals known as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. In 845, the Viking raider and extortionist extraordinary Ragnar Lothbrok slipped up the Seine with 120 ships—an estimated 5,000 men—to Paris, where King Charles the Bald paid him 7,000 pounds of gold and silver to leave in peace. (A contemporary wrote that “never had [Ragnar] seen, he said, lands so fertile and so rich, nor ever a people so cowardly.”)
Viking raiders traveled thousands of miles to the east and south: across the Baltic, onto the rivers of modern-day Russia and across the Black Sea to menace Constantinople in 941. “Nobody imagines they were there to capture the city,” says Cambridge University historian Simon Franklin. “It was more terroristic—all about instilling fear and extracting concessions for trade.”
At the same time, the new research suggests that the Vikings pouring out of Denmark, Sweden and Norway 1,200 years ago had more than raiding on their minds. Buying and selling goods from places as distant as China and Afghanistan, they also wove a network of trade and exploration from Russia to Turkey to Canada. “They were people without boundaries,” says Wladyslaw Duczko, an archaeologist at the Institute of Anthropology and Archaeology in Pultusk, Poland. “I think that’s why Vikings are so popular in America.”
Recent climate research has led Duczko and others to posit that a warming trend around the ninth century led to a population boom in Scandinavia, causing more and more landless young Norsemen to seek their fortunes elsewhere. Not everyone agrees. The National Museum of Ireland’s Wallace says the Vikings may have had a simpler motive: “They had the best iron in the world, trees to cut down and build ships, the best swords and edges on their blades. All the factors were there. They could do it, and they did.”
Whatever the causes for the Vikings’ explorations, evidence of the range of their trading networks began turning up about 150 years ago, when their elaborate burial mounds were first excavated. Well-preserved graves in Birka, Sweden, for example, contained fragments of Chinese silk, and in Norway, the ships in which wealthy Vikings were customarily buried were painted with pigments that may have come from India and the Middle East.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.









Comments (18)
With the collapse of the Carolingian Empire, it left a power vacuum in Europe to be filled. So the Vikings came down, and filled it. When I was in Waterford, Ireland, that started as a Viking trading post, where commodities could be brought up from the Mediterranean to Western and Northern Europe. While in Ireland, they heard tales of western islands from Irish monks, which led to the Viking colonization of Iceland, Greenland, and North America. In the east, they united the Slavs together, and formed the powerful nation of Kievan Rus, and great trading cities such as Novgorod. But the Viking power was to eclipse with the rise of kingdoms such as Russia, Poland, France, and England. What happened to the Vikings who colonized these areas? Simple they merged with the local people. When the Vikings took on French speech and customs, they became the Normans. When they founded Bruges, that later became the great trading center of Northern Europe.
Posted by Tim Upham on January 3,2013 | 12:14 AM
this is awsome
Posted by anymous on November 8,2012 | 09:39 AM
Continued:
Just to clarify, to make a laminated sword blade that weighs around two pounds ( a typical weight of a Viking sword or larger Japanese Katana), when finished, requires about 10 to 15 times as much iron to start with. So twenty to thirty pounds of iron is worked in the forge to not only shape but to laminate and weld and add hardening minerals to what becomes the final blade. During this long and skillfull process, oxygen from the air combines with the surface of each red hot portion of the iron and forms a skin of black material called iron oxide ( also refered to as "scale" ). This scale is not flexible and "chips off" every time the metal is bent , usually by each hammer stroke, leaving a freshly made "bare surface" ready to form new iron oxide, which chips off with the next hammer stroke, and repeats the scale formation continuously. This loss of scale is where the 28 pounds of iron is lost in the long process of making a two pound laminated sword blade from thirty pounds of iron.
Making a solid steel sword blade doesn't require as much forging since no fold laminating occurs and so less scale is produced and less iron is lost in the process.
Steel is simply iron , to which has been combined a small amount of the element carbon. Carbon is the key ingredient in making iron into very hard steel. It is absorbed into the atomic structure of the iron and is permanent. One way to combine the right amount of carbon with iron is in the smelting of the iron ore. Another way is during the forging of the iron after it has been produced by smelting. The twist lamination teniques of the early Viking smiths employed this latter method of adding carbon while the iron was in the forge. The Frankish sword makers did this during the smelting process and as a result all the iron was made into steel, not just the sword blade's edge. This produced a superior sword blade which the Vikings prefered.
Posted by Henrik the Dane on September 26,2010 | 03:47 PM
Continued:
Contrary to any supposition that the Viking art of blade making was "lost", the real reason the Vikings stopped making twist laminated swords that way was because they had been introduiced to a "better" way and simply used frankish sword blades to make their own Viking swords from. Late period Viking swords have Viking hilt fittings assembled to Frankish blades.
As far as asian swords are concerned, that is a whole different matter that has no relation to Viking swords at all. Briefly, the Japanese method of sword forging derives from fold lamination, not twist lamination. The iron ore the Japanese used was typically magnetite deposits found in river sand, not iron rich mineral deposits found in bogs, nor rock ore mined from deep underground. Japanese sword making technology and traditions migrated to Japan from the mainland of the Asian continent, through Korea and most likely originated in China, which has been smelting iron, sometimes in huge massive quantities for several thousand years. Lumps of ancient Chinese iron smelts weighing several thousand pounds have been discovered in China and smaller ones weighing up to several hundreds of pounds have been discovered in Japan. These are all a far cry from the bog iron of the vikings, amounting to a mere tens of pounds at most and typically much less.
Posted by Henrik the Dane on September 26,2010 | 03:46 PM
Early Vikings and their predicessors made swords from local iron that they smelted from local sources. Contrary to modern understanding, local iron was not mined from local iron deposits ( which were not known nor available on the land's surface , for the most part), rich though they may have been particularly in Sweden, but instead was refined from mineral rich bogs which produced "bog iron". This iron was of poor quality and required great skill to produce the fine twist laminated blades ( such as the one discovered in the Sutton Hoo Burial)that early Vikings have become noted for. However on the Continent , the Franks produced fine steel swords that soon became known to the Vikings after they began raiding those lands. Swords such as those made by "Ulfbert" and others made with a "runnning Wolf" mark became famous and of great desirability.
The Early twist laminated Viking swords , although pretty to look, at had weaker construction over all due to the presence of hard steel on only the edges of the blades. These blades were forge welded together throughout and the hard steel edges were forge welded in place last. Sometimes the construction was not perfect and failures were not uncommon.
The Franks discovered a method of making large blocks of steel that they forged out into homogenous bars of steel which then were shaped into the blades they made. These blades lacked any forge welds and were uniformly hard all over. As such they could be made thinner and lighter and could be were more flexible than the more massive twist laminated blades they were contemporary with. The Frankish blades were soon prefered by anyone who had seen them and experienced their performance in combat.
Posted by Henrik the Dane on September 26,2010 | 03:43 PM
Few answers to some of the questions raised:
Folcrom ought to read this article: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119131136/PDFSTART
As comprehensive a description of all the Rollo/Ragnars you could desire.
As for the reasons the Vikings began to settle, it appears land was less of an issue. Demographic pressure was only really an issue in Denmark - Vikings were almost exclusively looking for loot, not land.
One idea is interesting: With more and more Vikings raiding it became more profitable to settle in an area. Not only did this mean the settlement could exact tribute and protection money from the peopel around it, but it could protect them from *other* viking raiders. Over-plundering damaged long-term possibilities. Vikings were economically-savvy, it appears.
Posted by Alex on June 11,2009 | 11:03 AM
To Jean Hael! Yes, the Sea Stallion left Ireland as scheduled and arrived safe and sound in Roskilde, Denmark, on August 9th-2008. Website: http://www.havhingsten.dk/index.php?id=277&L=1
Posted by Lisen on August 24,2008 | 08:01 AM
Aug 16,2008-question Did the ship leave Ireland as scheduled in June (or since) and did it get back to Denmark safely?
Posted by Jean Hael on August 16,2008 | 02:41 PM
Question about the sails. Why are the sails always portrayed as having red and white vertical stripes? I understand that the sails consisted of squares of woven material joined together in a diamond pattern, perhaps each square edged with red-dyed leather for extra strength. This would not have produced red and white vertical stripes.
Posted by Ricky Cooper on August 15,2008 | 07:57 PM
I believe that far too little notice has been made of their many settlements and the contributions they made to the local culture. To me this shows another facet of their natures, for they did not simply pillage and plunder, though they were clearly very skillful at it, and were also fabulous seafarers. I wonder what prompted these settlements? Were they initially merely stopping places, perhaps to rest, repair, reorganize for their next raid, or did they reflect genuine interest in being a part of a new country? I would be interested in knowing more about the women who also braved these rigorous journeys and made their homes in strange, new, maybe hostile places, especially if they initially came ashore during a raid. What must it have been like to be a Viking woman?
Posted by Pat Nelson on July 30,2008 | 01:37 PM
This is a comment on iron. Norway and Sweden have an exceptionally high grade iron ore called magnetite which has a low amount of impurities. The more common ore found in the U.S. and other parts of the world is called hematite. Steel is basically a clean iron with controlled carbon. The repetitive heating and hammering which was used to make swords does somewhat clean the iron, however, given similar processes steel made from magnetite will naturally have less impurities or inclusions and thus be stronger. Today, with oxygen and vacuum degassing processes it is possible to make clean steel from even marginal ores.
Posted by Byron A.Nilsson on July 3,2008 | 09:33 PM
This wonderful article makes me proud that my ancestors came from the seafaring towns of the Norwegian fiords and the towns outside of Stockholm. They were strong, fearless people.
Posted by Sonya Harris on July 2,2008 | 04:56 PM
As a child living in Bognor Regis, Sussex, England, I remember seeing a replica Viking ship visiting Bognor pier. It must have been during the late 1940s or early 1950s, and had also been rowed by a crew from Denmark.
Posted by Jo Hammond on July 1,2008 | 11:45 PM
Can you explain how the crew handled personal hygiene issues on this 5 week experiment? Sixty-three crew members of men and women had to have challenging situations. Was this ship accompanied by other ships providing for necessities? Posted 6/30/08 C.F.
Posted by Carmen Fraga on June 30,2008 | 02:33 PM
Did Ragnar Lothbrok also go by the names Ragnar Ragnivaldson and Rollo the Dane?
Posted by folcrom on June 29,2008 | 01:40 AM
My comment is about leather straps used for holding the Sea Stallion's rudder to its side. Did they use walrus hide? For such tasks walrus hide was the strongest and most durable material available in pre-nylon times.
Posted by Alex on June 26,2008 | 08:17 PM
The Saxons had the best sword technology in the eighth centuary, but the Northmen learned quickly. Much of the steel in swords all across Europe was pitted and not well smelted or annealed. The Japanese at this time were well behind the pace on the military technology of the day. China had some decent steel, and some of this may have found its way to Japan. Don't confuse the Samurai sword (Seventeenth Centuary) with Saxon swords a thousand years earlier.
Posted by Elk on June 26,2008 | 09:06 AM
Is Wallace suggesting that the Vikings had better iron than the Japanese? Does that also mean better steel?
Posted by Ken on June 25,2008 | 02:40 PM