The Gokstad 'Back Pack'

This is a translation (see Disclaimer) of the article "Gokstadhøvdingens Jaktransel" which appeared in the publication, Viking. The Volume in question was Volume 21 (1958). Other than the two pics above all the text and picture are from that article. The top pic was taken by Jack Garrett (aka Ottar Leiðarstjarna) in 2001 at The Viking Ship Museum in Oslo where the piece is kept. The bottom photo was taken by Thorkatla Trekona (aka Judy Mitchell) ) back on July 18, 2001 when she too was visiting The Oslo Ship Museum (Bygdoy Oslo).

(Disclaimer: this is not a true translation. Passages have been omitted. Wording is blatantly changed. It's barely enough to let English reading persons build a Gokstad backpack. J)

---

The Gokstad boat grave as a find has not always been correctly appreciated even if it received a lot of attention when it was dug out in the spring of 1880 by N Nicolaysen.

The ship is of foremost interest, even if it was not until late that it became a national heirloom. For many years it was exhibited in a backyard shed at the University. Countless of more or less correct images have created us all an image of what a Viking ship was and how it looked.

Other pieces of the find, such as the bedposts, the tent, the shields and the small boats, have also obtained some small fame. But in the find there were also a multitude of smaller items such as rudder stocks, cups, trays, cloth and much more. It was pieces that belonged to the ship as well as pieces belonging to the crew and the chieftain. Some have been examined in detail and published, but they have not gotten the attention they deserve. Most of it is in fact known only from the original drawings and the excavation records of Nicolaysen from 1882.

---

Many of these items are nowadays just bits and pieces. Reasonably, it was poorly conserved, dried out, twisted and chipped so badly, that it is now hard to tell the original shape and purpose of the items, if at all possible.

We have to account it to the wood conserving knowledge of those times and the simple tools used in the excavation. Nicolaysen tells that he was glad that rain did not interfere with the digging, but this also increased the risk of drying the wooden items. They were sprayed and covered by spruce branches. “Items not made of oak underwent changes. Not detrimental to pine and spruce, which was almost as sponge when dug out, but mostly to items made of other non coniferous woods. Luckily they were drawn before the change set.”

During these circumstances it is not surprising that less care than possible might been taken when handling the items. Nicolaysen thought, and we have no reason not to believe him, that many items appeared broken before being laid in the ship. Grave robbers had been poking around and there had been movement in the earth layers as the bottom of the grave had been pressed upwards and the roof had collapsed.

What we now have of wooden items from the Gokstad burial is but traces of a rich and diverse grave find on the same level as most ship burials might have had. Much is nicely carved. Even in present condition it deserves a more thorough examination than simply appearing in Nicolaysen's records.

---

Wooden items from other ship burials, especially the Oseberg have far shadowed the Gokstad find, both in richness and plenitude. They were successfully conserved and given a showroom of their own at the University. All while the small wooden fragments of the Gokstad find was in store in 1929. It is not much room in the museum storerooms and until the expansion of the building, the items was constantly moved.

---

During one of these moves I came across the two plates in fig 1. They are not that badly preserved, being a Gokstad find. Especially the uppermost and thickest (1.3 cm) is whole and undamaged except for some blemishes on the edges and front, possibly spade marks from the excavation.

The lower is thinner (1 cm) and had not withstood drying very well. There are cracks from both short edges, there is chipping along all edges and some pieces have completely fallen off. The upper long edge is broken off and is missing.

The face of the pieces shown in fig 1 is covered with carvings and markings. Especially the centre of the pieces is covered in a net of lines. There are short and long, curved and straight, deep and clear or shallow and almost undistinguishable lines. Except for some deeper marks made during the excavation, they are all made with purpose. Similar markings is found on other pieces, such as the cutting boards, but it is easy to tell the difference from those made in random when cutting food.

These plates have many purposely carved bent lines. In the beginning it was not easy to find some pattern, but slowly…

---

… pieces of drawings came clear. One piece gave another until it was easy to complete the drawings as they are chalked in fig 1 and drawn in fig 2 and fig 4.

It was rather easy to find the geometrical shapes. The one to the right on the upper plate is deeply carved, but both the photo and the drawing shows how carelessly it was executed.

This is even more true of the ring knot in the center of the lower plate. Most lines are deep and clear and on fig 2B we have drawn all that is certain to belong to the motif. At a glance it looks like clumsy hands failing to make a ring chain. The carver has begun with the triangular shape…

---

…  in the mid left. That is clearly made with correct proportions. Around this he has continued with a ring. The lower vertex of the triangle continues in two round arms, that should have connected to arms from the other vertices. One of these has been attempted, but the rightmost shape became oval instead of circular. Below the triangle and its arms he has drawn another ring and two arms are coming down from above and under the triangle without coming out on the other side. Here is another error as he has forgotten to leave room for the left arm on the ring around the triangle.

This is where the drawer gave up. We cannot be sure that it was a ring chain that was attempted. If we try to complete the drawing it turns out as in fig 3 B. I have not seen anything similar, but it is fairly close to the Borre finds, Fig 3 C. It is obviously a close relative to the ring chain, so I have chosen to call it a “ring knot”.

It is not clear though, what was the early design, the knot or the chain.

---

This was the first possibility of interpretation, when we say that it looks like a bad attempt to draw a ring chain. The other solution is as logical as the first one. The main element in the ring chain is the triangle that split into arms that collects into new triangles and so on. The main element of the ring knot is simpler as the central triangle actually is unnecessary. The figure would have been the same as all the arms wind up in the middle.

The origin of the ring chain could possibly be found as a play with geometric forms, as the circles on the wall of the Gol church. Lexow saw it as a continuation of a simple three strand plait. But one explanation need not to disqualify the other. More likely, the ring chain is applying the form of the circle to the idea of plait. Lexow has shown that this is one of the few original elements of Viking imagery. Its origins is covered in secrecy, but it spread to other parts of Europe. It surfaces in the 9^th century or a little later and on the Gokstad and the Borre finds there are similar plaits. Our ring knot confirms this thought. (Translators note: What? He sure lost me here in deducing this…J)

To the far right of the lower plate, in a place heavily damaged, there is the beginning of another ring chain. fig 2 C. Dimensions are smaller and rings are thinner, otherwise it is identical to the larger and it too does not seem like its finished.

Of a completely different character is the animal figures on the upper plate. Fig 4. Especially the larger animal is drawn with a sure hand in elegant lines. The head is bent forward and the legs are in real trot. The backmost animal is not drawn as well. Only the head, neck and parts of back and belly is drawn with the same clarity. The front legs are straight and drawn as one, unless one is omitted. The backside is composed of just two straight lines. Perhaps these are not even part of the drawing. The lines are clear, but not uniformly deep. At some places they cant be followed.

The outer feet is not drawn at all as well as the upp er of the head and eye of the large animal.

---

At first sight this seems like a horse followed by a dog. For a comparison we have in fig. 5 put together a collection of Nordic animal drawings from Merovingian and Viking ages. The Gokstad animals is not different either in whole or in detail from these.

We find the long body in the Veggerslev and Lillbjärs III horse and especially on Oseberg (fig 5 A,B,C). The mane is missing from two of them. (fig 5. B, E) and the one from Alstad has a similarly large and oblong eye. (fig 5 E).

On both our animals heel and foot is drawn to a point and is limited by an arc. This detail can be seen on the horses and dogs from the Alstad stone. (fig 5 E, F) The neck band of the larger animal we know from Fig 5 B, C and E. It is a common attribute to horse imagery of those times and can be traced to the Merovingian horses of Veggerslev (fig 5 A) or Eggjum, even if it is not a functional part of a bridle.

What strikes us the most when comparing the images is the free and natural expression. We have mentioned the likeness to other images but this is a drawing more living and natural than common of the age. It is also mentionable that we have to go back to Merovingian monuments to find drawings as natural as ours.

The “horse” and dog from Oseberg, fig 5 C and D is also older, first part of ninth century, while Björn Haugen has dated the Gokstad plates to around 900.

---

---

Björn Haugen has made us aware of two distinct ways of representing the horse. With the exception of Veggerslev all our images are of the type “characterized by flowing lines, head stretched forward and a concave line from neck to back.” This is visible in art until the end of the Viking age. On the other hand are the figural art of the Merovingian Scandinavia where the Gotlandic picture stones are prime examples. Here we find an emancipation from the ornamental towards the naturalistic. On the stone monuments, this is a passing phenomena. Towards the end of the Viking age this yet gives way to the ornamental. One characteristic is the purely ornamental detail on the heel and foot that most strongly connects the Gokstad and Alstad animals. The latter from around 1000.

This is where our drawing can contribute to the understanding of the art of those times. Technically it is unpretentious, lightly carved on a wooden plate. It is a window to the daily lives of the Vikings. We must remember the things that have gone missing. The Oseberg find gave us fragments of picture tapestries. This material is another expression of art now lost. In both places figurative art has probably been as naturalistic as ornamental.

The Gokstad plate reminds us of the ability to render animals in a living and recognizable way, without the ornamentals. This was probably also commonly done.

It is telling that the image that most closely resembles ours, The Oseberg fig 5 C, is also carved carelessly onto a piece of wood.

---

We have with purpose avoided a question the reader must already have asked herself: What is the meaning of the drawing on the Gokstad plates; why are they carved and who did it? Even the smallest of daily art has often a function, if no less than satisfying the “writing-urge” of the drawer.

This issue has been actualized by the findings of many similar and apparently carelessly done carvings in wooden churches. They are several hundred years younger than ours. The style is different as the motifs such as dragons, lions, men and ships, but in character they remind of the Gokstad drawings. A link in between is the stone plates from Jarlshof on Shetland. The motifs are not unlike the ones found in the churches, men and ships, but they date from the first half of the 9^th century, thus older than the Gokstad.

On the woodless Shetland, stone was a obvious substitute for wood but the technique is the same as used in the churches and on the Gokstad plates. Because of these and the closely related drawings on the Oseberg ship we conclude that these kinds of drawings might be more common than previously imagined.

The likeliest explanation of this art is that its content has been as unpretentious as its form. It is a nametag in an age without writing or, as Shetelig says about the Oseberg ship drawings: “seafarers graffiti, carved in leisure” Gutorm Gjessing hints to a more complicated, magical background, as might also be the case of the church drawings.

---

A third possibility, that is not applicable to the other images, is that the drawings might be purely decorative. As they are executed, they are hardly visible and burying them made this worse. There is the possibility that they were painted. Paint was found on some carved ornaments both in the Oseberg and the Gokstad finds and in the Oseberg burial they were used alone as decoration. In this case, the carvings is just an outline to the painted image.

We don't get any closer than this without discussing what the plates are used for. (Trans. not. At Last!!!) We must start by their form and outlook, because Nicolaysens record is more than short on this. They are just noted along other goods from the chamber, port of the mast.

Both plates are oval with straight long edges and semicircular short edges. They are practically of equal dimensions. The upper is 48 cm long and 18.9 cm wide. This last measure does not include the small protrusion of the edge at the rectangular hole on the upper side, which is a later deformation. The plate is not symmetrical, as it is right side is 3mm narrower than its left side.

The lower plate is missing a part of its upper long side, so it is not possible to see if this asymmetry is the same on this plate. The missing piece is probably about 1 cm wide. The piece in present condition is 47.6 * 17.8 cm. The deviation is thus not bigger than can be expected and explained by the drying. Both pieces would not have shrunk equally as they are different thickness. Knut Faegris has determined them to be of the same kind of wood (Oak).

We might assume that two so similar pieces was made at the same time and belonging to the same object. In the excavation records, Nicolaysen mentions a third plate. Apparently this is two fragments that are kept in the stores of the University.

---

They are probably connected to each other, but they are in a different shape than ours as the edges are more pointed. They probably belong to a different object. We have already mentioned that the plates are coherent. On both plates we find the markings and carvings on only one side. The face not shown on Fig 1 has few if any markings. This allows for the conclusion that they were used with the marked side outwards, while the other, plain, side was on some inside a knife could not get to.

---

This is also according to the profile of the edge. The thicker plate has its outer edge rounded while the inner edge is sharp. (Fig 7 A – C) The edge on the long side of the lower plate is rounded on both sides ( Fig 7 E, F) Towards the edges is has been planed on the side of the markings. (Fig 7 G, H) Both plates has thus been flat on the inner side, while the outer side has been more or less rounded.

It does not require much imagination now to understand that they have been lid and bottom of a container. The small paired holes along the edge on the lower plate makes it the bottom. Through these, sinews or thread fastened to the sides of the container. In those cases the holes have been preserved, they are filled with black matter. Microscopic examination shows no trace of organics, just soil and clay. If the sides would have been pegged to the bottom, it would have left wooden residue in the holes. A thread or a sinew would disappear without a trace though.

The sides have not been preserved. In case there were traces of them in the grave, nobody gave notice to them. The method of sewing pieces together is old and well known to the production of bark and bentwood containers and present us with good reference when reconstructing the object.

As far as I know its only characteristic for, and with minor exceptions only used for, containers made of bentwood tecnique. The sides are made of one whole piece of bark ( e.g. Birch or Lime (Linden) or thin veneer, which edges are bent over each other and sewn together.

---

Fig 10 B. The methods of fastening the sides to the bottom have been several. For containers made of bark, sewing is most common. It can appear on veneer too, but here pegging is more common.

The paired holes are evenly spaced around the bottom and this is also pointing to some kind of bentwood technique. On the upper long side of the bottom, where the piece is missing, one can see traces of the inner hole of pair 1 and 5, counting from the right. (Fig 6) Of nr 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 no traces are left, but one can deduce their placement from the holes on the opposite side.

The holes are so small that they were probably made with an awl. The edge is damaged, but one can understand that the outer holes are placed in between 3 to 5 mm from the edge. The distance between the inner and outer hole varies between 4 to 9.5 mm. The distance is smaller at the short edges of the plate than on the long sides. This can be explained by placing the join of the sides on the long side, effectively doubling the thickness of the side where the sheet overlaps itself. It cant be proven, since we don't know how the the holes are spaced on the opposite, missing, side.

The holes are made vertically through the plate or in a small angle, so that the distance between the holes are larger on the outside than the inside. (Fig 7 E- H) The Wall must have stood on the bottom between the holes of each pair and sewn like in Fig 7 E.

It is not possible to determine if the sides were made of bark or wood. Both materials are technically possible as even the holes with the smallest distance between them allows for a thin sheet of wood. If we take a historic approach you get that both types were common in northern and middle Europe. The bark container even in Siberia to North America and southern Europe and both can be traced as far back as the bronze age.

---

Even if we can't prove that the bentwood technique was a successor of the bark containers, it seems like the latter was common in Scandinavia during prehistoric times and then gave way to the former. One pointer in that direction is the commonly found ____? For bark containers beginning from Celtic times to the migration era. In the Oseberg grave bark have been completely replaced by bentwood.

It is most probable that our container had bark sides. The sewing is most used with that material and with bentwood placed standing on the bottom, you would have liked to use a more solid construction such as a groove along the edge. But we also find simple fastenings such as our fig 7 E. It is also probable that sewn bentwood containers were more common then than later. In a burial as the Gokstad though, you would probably not find such an inferior technique done with bentwood.

This is not of major importance to the reconstruction. We choose bark as most likely and then we place the sides on the bottom to a height of 35 to 40 cm. The lid presents no problems. It has three holes along the edges. Examination shows that they contain no organic matter and that they probably were used to hold straps or ropes of degradable material, such as leather. There are faint traces of wear on the outer side of the two oval holes on the lower side and on the area between the holes and the edge. (fig 7 C) This is were the hinges were. At the third hole there is no wear and this probably hold a leather tab to close the lid.

---

The shape we are arriving at is close to the oval bentwood boxes that still today is common in Scandinavia. (Fig 10 B) There is but a major difference. The boxes has a separate lid, closed by pegs, and most often, but not always, has a carrying handle. They are almost exclusively used for carrying food when working outdoors or traveling.

Our lid has hinges and no handle. On the bottom there is one little detail that our box was carried too, but as a backpack.

Apart from the holes for sewing the sides, there is on fig 1 and fig 6 two larger rectangular holes near the edge of the lower long side. They remind of the two holes for the hinges, but these are not placed above the former and they have a different shape. They could have been used to fasten wooden rods to stiffen the backpack, perhaps with two more on the other side, but the shape of the holes is not suitable for that. They are cut so that the outer side of the hole follows the edge, but the inner side is more along the axis of the plate making one end shorter than the other. Its hard to imagine why cutting the rods in such irregular shape. Furthermore, the one preserved hole is not cut vertically through the bottom see fig 7 D.

---

The edge is so badly preserved that there is no sure sign of wear. The form suggests that all but straps are unlikely for the purpose of these holes. The most reasonable explanation is in Fig 8. Two carrying straps goes from the holes into the back of the upper part of the sides. This is of course highly hypothetical. It could equally well have been one single strap going into the side in one place and coming out in another, as two straps fastened to wood plates on the inside.

---

Fig 8 and 9 shows our reconstruction from the front and the back. As mentioned, it has two weak points. The material of the sides could equally well be of bark as of wood and there is just hints to what carrying device was used.

The holes in the bottom suggests carrying straps, and their form speaks against a more complicated and solid design. We have also not shown where the side would have been joined, even if the back is an obvious choice.

These are but details that does not interfere with our main result; that the plates belongs to a backpack. I don’t know of any find like this from either prehistoric times or more recent, but it has relatives. It reminds of the woven baskets of birch bark from Finland and eastern Europe, used as food containers on fishing and hunting trips. (Fig 10 A) In Scandinavia, they are considered a Finnish design. In other places in Europe and Siberia you find a container that is much more like ours, in that it is made from whole sheets of bark and often with wooden lid and bottom. (fig 10 C) This is an early design and subsequently replaced by the birch bark container. And then we have the bentwood box. It could be carried on the back, but never to my understanding as a backpack.

There is an obvious resemblance between these items, apart from the woven container, and you could perhaps view the Gokstad backpack as a noble brother to the older bark container. It might be more hazardous to continue the development unto the bentwood box. I don´t think we would be completely wrong if we did. Either our backpack was influenced by the box or vice versa. We will settle with the possibilities of kinship that our reconstruction shows.

---

How does this backpack belong in the grave of the Gokstad chieftain?

(end of translation)

Narrative : The author argues that the motif on the lid is not of a horse and dog, but of a deer and a dog, thus making it probable that it was a hunting backpack

Some similar type containers

Here are some companies that sell similar type containers: