What Did Vikings Actually Look Like?

[00:00:00]Vikings. There are so many misconceptions around Vikings. It's actually quite insane. And a lot of those misconceptions are going to be around the appearance of Vikings. Uh obviously you do have certain people that still believe that Vikings look like this, which uh we are going to talk about in this video. And then you have the people who do a little bit of research come across a study that showed that Vikings only had in between 30 and 40% blonde hair. And then from there on they go and say that Vikings had brown hair which we're also going to discuss in this video because we are essentially just taking a look at every part of the appearance of the Viking to find out what is the actual truth. Whether that is in the height, in the hair color, the hairstyle and so on. So anyways, before we get started, there is one thing I have to mention because obviously we're talking about Vikings. But first of all, do we even know what a Viking is?

[00:00:54]Because obviously most people would know Vikings as basically any Scandinavian from uh the Viking age but that is incorrect. Uh a Viking is only someone who goes on expeditions or more precisely that is usually going to be raiding expeditions. So only those few people who went on expeditions would be Vikings and on top of that uh they would not be full-time Vikings at all. uh you would have uh certain Vikings that would only be Viking during part of the year.

[00:01:24]Now, obviously, we use the term Viking for basically any Scandinavian from the Viking age. And during this video, I will probably use this term a little bit too because it just is more practical than saying Scandinavian from the Viking age all the time. Even though we could also just say Scandinavian, but but anyways, point is that we are talking about uh the appearance of Scandinavians from the Viking age, not of the few raiders that went on expeditions.

[00:01:47]Anyways, let's get started. First thing I want to talk about is height. Vikings or so-called Vikings are relatively known for being quite tall. Now, if we look at uh skeletons of so-called Vikings, so Scandinavians from that era, what we are seeing is that the average female so-called Viking was usually in between 158 cm and 161 cm tall. And the average Viking man was in between 172 cm and 176. Now this might appear relatively average not to say quite small for today but obviously this was a different era and for that era uh Vikings were on average actually quite tall. What would be common in other regions of Europe during the Viking age would be approximately in between 170 to 172 cm tall. Uh obviously this depends on the exact region but overall this is uh pretty accurate as a rough estimate.

[00:02:46]And in what's today the UK there was actually a height average record during the Viking age which was of approximately 173 cm. So a little bit smaller than the average Scandinavian.

[00:02:58]So uh Scandinavians from the Viking age would actually on average be taller than other people at least generally speaking. Now we do also have certain examples of certain Scandinavians being very very tall. The tallest skeleton we have found uh has probably been the skeleton of a Scandinavian even though we cannot be entirely sure because it has been found in what's the UK but that skeleton is of 196 cm tall. So really tall. Now that is the tallest evidence we have in terms of archaeological records because obviously we do also have certain uh written sources like for example uh saga for example that do uh describe certain of these so-called Vikings as incredibly tall. Now those are less trustworthy because there is probably a lot of exaggeration and so on but to a certain they can be interesting too. For example, Harold Hardrada which is essentially a Norwegian uh king who died at the battle of Samford Bridge. He was described as being 5 L's tall, which essentially is the equivalent of 225 cm tall, which obviously is incredibly incredibly tall. And now uh obviously we cannot be sure that he was in fact this tall. In fact, he probably wasn't this tall. This is probably an exaggeration, but in any case, he probably was very tall. And then we also have uh Rulu called the ganganger because he was so large that uh when he was sitting on a horse his feet would touch the ground and he could essentially walk on on top of the horse. Now obviously the horses here we're talking about are very very small horses essentially ponies. Uh but he could apparently walk uh on top of the horse instead of sitting on the horse. So again, this is obviously incredibly tall, but again, this is probably at least partly a bit of an exaggeration because maybe he just did that on one particular horse that was incredibly small once or something like that. He probably could not do this on every single horse. But in any case, we do have certain examples of certain Scandinavians being incredibly tall. But obviously, the average would not be that tall, even though it would be on average taller than the average European from that era. Now, the next thing I want to talk about is hair color. Because obviously we all imagine Vikings as being blonde, but there was a study done in 2020 that discovered that only about 30 to 40% of Vikings were in fact blonde. And that study claims that in fact the most common hair color among Vikings was brown. However, there are some very very very important caveats to add to this because the problem is that most people when they just see this study, they will just think, "Oh yeah, okay, Vikings were in fact not that blonde. They in fact had brown hair."

[00:05:39]But there are a lot and I'm talking a lot of caveats to add to this. I'm not saying that this study is wrong in any form of way or obviously they are studying with whatever uh they can study with whatever skeletons they can actually analyze. So the the truth might vary a little bit from those numbers but uh I'm not saying they are wrong. What I'm saying is that there are a lot of caveats because first of all the most important thing to add is what do they call blonde hair because what's important to remember is that what they are calling blonde hair is only very very very light blonde hair. Meaning that this hair color right here they would define as brown. Now this isn't entirely wrong. It just depends on what definition you are using because the problem is that in reality you don't have split categories of hair color that are blonde, brown, and then black. You in fact have just a spectrum and there are going to be lots of uh kind of intermediate hair colors that are going to sit in between blonde and brown. The hair color that I have, for example, could be considered blonde, but then also you could [clears throat] consider it brown depending on what definition you are using. it is sitting in between light blonde and brown and therefore it can be considered either of the two and the problem is that depending on the definition you use the amount of people with blonde hair is just going to vary a lot for example if we take modernday Scandinavia uh roughly 75% of people will have blonde hair [snorts] obviously this depends a little bit on the country you're talking about but approximately 75% of people will have blonde hair if you now take a much stricter definition that only includes light blonde hair and uh counts uh dark blonde and medium blonde as brown then suddenly the percentage of people uh having blonde hair will drop to only 20%. So you can see here there is an immense difference between what you are in fact calling blonde hair. So when that study about the Viking age says that uh 30 to 40% of Vikings had blonde hair, what they are saying is that 30 to 40% of Vikings had light blonde hair, which is actually a lot of Vikings with light blonde hair. It's basically double the amount of modernday Denmark. So a lot of uh Vikings with light blonde hair. And those Vikings who are considered with brown hair, a couple of them might have actual brown hair, but uh many many the like vast vast majority of them will actually in fact have something in between uh blonde and brown that can be considered either of the two. So if you use a broader definition that includes medium and dark blonde hair, then suddenly the percentage of Vikings with blonde hair can go up to something like almost 90%. And then the last uh 10% are going to be people with red hair or some people with brown hair. Now the next problem is that obviously they are analyzing DNA from skeletons. So obviously that gives you an accurate measurement of uh the the genetical hair color of these different people. But the problem is that the hair can appear lighter than it actually was.

[00:08:53]Particularly because blonde hair will darken a lot with age and very very young children will have very very light blonde hair even though they might end up having darker hair later. For example, I had very very light blonde hair when I was a kid. But obviously now I have uh grown older so my hair now appears darker. But the point is that all children would have way lighter hair because their hair has not uh grown that dark yet. And then second problem is that the Vikings used a soap that was composed of animal fat uh boiled with uh ash from wood and that is how they made their soap. Now that soap would naturally contain uh something called lie which would naturally bleach hair.

[00:09:37]So the hair would appear lighter than it genetically was. Meaning that quite a lot of the people in this study that would be considered as having brown hair, they would have hair that would appear like light blonde hair because yes, genetically it might be slightly darker, but it was bleached essentially because of that soap. And then another problem is that obviously this study is taking skeletons from all over Scandinavia from the Viking age and uh from other skeletons that they believe have belonged to Scandinavians. The problem is that not all of the Scandinavian population would actually be Scandinavians. uh in actual fact uh quite a lot of it uh around 20 to 30% would be ths so essentially just slaves not free men and those would come from other places like for example Scotland or England and those regions were during that uh time period on average less blonde than uh Scandinavians which is obviously still the case now by the way but anyways the point is that there would be a sort of separation in the Scandinavian population in between ths and free and and uh the the free men would have a higher percentage of blonde hair than the ths. Now yet again this does not mean that this uh study is wrong. It just means that yes this is true for the overall Scandinavian population. However, there would be a separation between uh different uh social classes like ths and free men. So basically the point is that yes it is not wrong that around 30 to 40% of Vikings only would have blonde hair but this depends a lot on what you are calling blonde hair. uh because depending on the definition the the amount could definitely go up to something like 70% without any problem and most likely could go up to something like 90%. And on top of that the hair would appear blonder because of the soap they were using and on top of that there would be a separation between uh ths and free men. Anyways, let's now talk about hairstyles because uh Vikings are very very commonly represented with all sorts of strange hairstyles. Uh most of which not being historical but some of which actually being historical. Let's start with women because there is actually less to say about hairstyles of women.

[00:11:49]Uh obviously the norm would simply be to have long hair. Now that long hair could either be loose particularly for unmarried women and it could be uh tied very often in a bun called a valkiri knot uh which was common for married women but obviously there were differences either could wear uh both and uh there were also some other style like for example a ponytail or anything like that but the norm would definitely be to have long hair for men the norm would yet again very very simply be to have long hair now when I'm saying long hair. I do not necessarily mean very very long hair like for example going down to the waist or something like that. What I am meaning is well obviously some of them did have hair that went down all the way down to the waist but most likely you're going to be looking at elbow length or even shoulder length but but at least some form of long hair. And before start talking about any other hairstyle it's very important to remember that the norm would be to have long hair. The others are less common because there were other hairstyles. Um if we take the thus so essentially the slaves as I was talking about uh earlier that is about uh about 20 to 30% of the population uh during the Viking age in Scandinavia and those would have uh their hair shaved uh either completely shaved or just have short hair because since they were uh not free men they were not allowed to have long hair. That was something that was only allowed for uh free men. So obviously that means that essentially 20 to 30% of the Viking age population would have short hair because of the thus would have short hair. Other than that you obviously had certain older men that were balding and therefore could not so easily have short hair and would very often just essentially shave their hair their head uh simply because they were balding. So that obviously is something that can happen. And then if we go to more specific hair cuts, one cut that actually did exist was the Danish cut and it did actually exist and it is a sort of cut that is basically the the back of the head is shaved and then you will have long hair on the front. It Yeah. Anyways, uh we do have certain sources describing this style of hair cut. Uh the sources are quite rare but they describe it as something very common. The first one is going to be uh the Bayou tapestry which is going to show certain people that seem to have a similar cut to that. And you do also have certain written source describing this cut. For example, you have an anonymous uh writer from I think it is England but it might also be Scotland or something like that.

[00:14:24]from what's today the UK that warns his brother about not following the Danish uh fashion which is which which is that Danish cut and then he goes on to describing that Danish cut. So essentially that haircut with shaved on the back of the head and then long hair on the front which is described as being so long on the front that it blinds your eyes for some reason. that did actually seem to exist and on top of that it is described as being rather fashionable.

[00:14:54]Now obviously uh this does show that at least certain people did have it because it was fashionable but obviously this does not mean that the norm would be to have that cut. The norm seems to have been 100% to have long hair. Uh particularly because if you look at uh the majority of uh statues of carvings or anything like that uh statues of gods or anything like that they are always shown with long hair. So the norm would be to have long hair but that cut also did seem to exist at least during a certain period. Then we also have another style of hairstyle that was uh more common around uh Russ Vikings essentially uh Vikings that either lived more towards the east or travel towards east or something like that which essentially was a bald head but they left one long lock of hair on the side.

[00:15:46]And this was essentially just because having shorter hair is more practical.

[00:15:49]But they wanted to keep uh a little bit of long hair to show that they were actually free men because uh if you are completely uh shaved uh if you have the head is completely shaved that would in the majority of cases mean that you were in fact not a free man. And as you can see for both these hairstyles, they essentially have part of the head being short hair and then they have part of the head being having long hair. And that was because they wanted to show that they were actually free men. They were not false even though they had short hair on certain parts of the head.

[00:16:22]And then obviously you also have certain haircuts that are uh associated with Vikings but that are just completely fantasy. They we have no evidence that they did exist. For example, uh what is shown in the Vikings TV show, what uh Ragnar has as his haircut, uh which essentially is shaved on the side and then long on the top and braided on the back. That there is no evidence whatsoever of that ever existing and that is just a complete invention. And then if you come to the clothing of uh Vikings, uh they would have clothing that was made either of wool or linen in the vast vast majority of cases. Maybe there are certain exception but that was the common and uh particularly among wealthier people they would be colored in all sorts of different bright colors and they would often be embroidered to among wealthier people. Now if we look at the sort of leather clothing/armour that Vikings are commonly represented with. There is no evidence whatsoever of that ever existing. Leather was definitely used to make all sorts of accessories like for example shoes like for example belt pouches like for example belts or any of those uh kinds of things but we have no evidence whatsoever that uh clothing or clothing like things were ever made out of leather. Even certain things like leather arons that were common during the middle ages did not actually exist in the Viking age. They did not even have leather opens of any sort. Uh because essentially leather was expensive and it wasn't really worth using it for such be big pieces of clothing. You may as well use it for something more useful like for example making shoes or for example covering shields in it. Now then we have fur. Uh fur was definitely worn by a lot of so-called Vikings uh in a lot of different ways. Most of the time that is going to be not as uh like a full piece of clothing being made out of uh fur. It mostly is going to be some form of fitting on the clothing or on the cloak or something like that that is going to be made out of fur. And it wasn't just worn as some uh big rough piece of fur.

[00:18:32]It was always like fitted properly and so on. Uh it wasn't just like barbarian fur in any sort of way. Now, there are also certain uh mentions of fur coats being worn by uh certain so-called Vikings that also did exist.

[00:18:46]Essentially, just a an entire coat that seems to have been made out of fur. Now, first of all, uh this does not necessarily mean that the entire coat was made out of fur. This could mean, for example, a uh normal wool coat with a sort of fur on the shoulder, something like that. But yes, obviously it could obviously happen that uh certain people would have coats made entirely out of fur. There is nothing that indicates that never happened at all. But again, this is not going to be some sort of big rough uh jacket like barbarian style of jacket. It is actually going to be something that is properly fitted and actually looks nice. And overall, the so-called Vikings would have nice colorful clothing that looked nice. It wasn't just some sort of dark thing that was just cheap with covered in some sort of lavat was virtually non-existent. And overall, Vikings would just have nice colorful uh clothing that looked nice.

[00:19:41]They would not just have some sort of dark thing that doesn't look nice. Now, finally, let's talk about one last things. because Vikings they are uh quite commonly represented with some form of tattoo of war paint. Now obviously in any case the norm would definitely be to have none of that whatsoever. But we do have one evidence that could potentially lead lead us towards thinking that potentially some form of war paint or tattooish thing did exist. only one single thing that could have led us to thinking that. So it was definitely not the norm. But that one source is there was an Arab called Ahmad Ibn Fadlan, probably pronounced that wrong, uh that traveled towards uh northern Europe and met what we believe was some sort of Viking. Now to be fair, he traveled along the Vulga River and ended up meeting someone there that we think are Vikings. It might also have been some form of Slavic people of some kind. We don't exactly know. But in any case, he described those people that he met there as from the tips of his toes to his neck, each man was tattooed in dark green with the signs of trees, figures, and the like. Uh now, one very important thing to mention here is that in this translation, the word tattooed is used. But in the original text, what he says, the word he uses is mukada.

[00:21:16]Probably pronounced that wrong. And that means uh made green. He does not he does not say that they were tattooed. He said that they were made green. And obviously what exactly that means isn't very clear. It isn't really obvious. And certain people do say it means some sort of tattoo, but we can't really be sure of this. It could theoretically have referred to some form of tattoo, but it could also have referred to some form of paint that that they were covered in. Uh it could be uh referring to some form of disease that they had potentially uh just dirt that potentially they were dirty in some form of way. Uh or even maybe it's just a bad way of saying a bad way of formulating, a bad way of translating that they had green clothing with some form of uh design in it. Like for example, this tunic is embroidered with designs and it is green. Is is this what he referred to? Not sure. Uh they could potentially have just some form of green clothing for some reason or they could have been dirty or something like that. it isn't really clear but in any case even though he might refer to some form of tattoo or paint first thing I want to mention is that we are not sure this was uh this these were so-called Vikings and on top of that uh this is in one specific part of the world and uh the norm would definitely not be to have this and on top of that if we look at certain other written sources like for example the sagas for example they are describing in great detail the different appearance of people that being scar clothing, hair, and so on, but never do they describe anything that could be interpreted as some as some form of tattoo or war paint. And if you look at something more visual, like for example, the beo tapestry, uh yet again, there are no forms of anything similar to that at all on that tapestry. So regardless, even though that one person might refer to something similar to that, it definitely was not common. uh and most probably he did not even refer to that at all. Anyways, that was the last point I wanted to uh talk about and basically what's important to remember is that those come representation of Vikings where they show them as uh having clothing that is not colorful at all in the having rugged appearance and all and everything like that. That is just not true at all. And the vast majority of Vikings overall would be slightly taller than the average from that era. But about average even you could consider slightly small for today. In terms of hair color, it depends on what definition you're using for the different kinds of hair colors because the problem is that hair color comes in a spectrum not in uh different categories. And they would on average have something that could be defined as some form of light brown or uh that could be defined as some form of medium or dark blonde. And most of the time that hair would be very very simply long uh either loose or tied in any form of way. Uh yes in certain cases you could have certain specific haircuts like for example the Danish cut. Uh but uh even though that seems to have been fashionable during at least a certain period this does not mean that it was actually the norm to have this. It was just something that also did exist even though long hair was the norm. Anyways, um hope you enjoyed this video and I'll see you on the next