Vikings Beyond Boundaries - Conference in Oslo – an overview from subjective perspective

In a couple of past days I was extremely lucky to attend a conference held at University in Oslo, dealing with the Viking influence outside the area perceived at their traditional homelands. I am very glad that I could participate in such a well organised event that brought together many top names in the “Viking” studies.

I am finally feeling that the way in which the “Vikings” are studied is changing in the directions that I find congruent with the ethical and theoretical approaches I try to keep in my research. I am quite sure that these ideas had been present in the academia for much longer period that I have probably initially expected and they are now taking the stage after a generational change. Here I would like to humbly present my opinions about the change I can see taking place in the research agenda

I agree  to some extent with views expressed by Dagfinn Skre in his presentation when he urged for more abandonment of the ideas of uniqueness of the “Vikings” and called for placing them in wider reference frames. I can observe that quite often research about the “Vikings” exist in a certain form of “bubble” in which only few processes are compared to similar developments taking place on a global sphere. I agree also that “Vikings” form now a part of a wider pop culture. The consequence is profound as this popular image that is formed on a base of research influenced by the idea of uniqueness and certain essentialistic qualities through mass media, makes its way to the mind of the people, from which some become later archaeologist and further strengthen “the mental boundaries” of the Viking age. This can be only challenged by certain self-awareness of the historical conditions in which the subject emerged and the present conditions in which it is currently analysed.

On a more general level I can see that there is a visible rise in the subjects connected to archaeology of identities. This is extremely pleasing as in my opinion social archaeology forms one of the most fascinating branches of research. Interesting concept was introduced by Neil Price, as he somewhat separated the pirates from the farmers, maybe placing the term “Viking” finally in its proper context. However, I must say it is very hard to evaluate his observations, due to the fact that detailed perspective is hard to present in short 20 minutes presentation, and large part of his concepts is based on interpretations of several sites which might be more problematic than could be presented. Another positive development is the turn towards observing the importance of the process of the burial rituals in the construction of the society and recognition of the “artificial” nature of genealogies. I am sure that this points to the necessity of new studies of the concepts of the old Norse idea of Kinship, possibly looking for its more “social” than “biological” aspects and its role in establishing social networks. A view that places family “blood” relations in a larger reference framework of other social bonds, not necessarily drawing a sharp distinction between those two categories seem now to be a paper we all need.

Clearly an interesting development is integrating the phenomena happening in the East with those happening in the West, since it was rather problematic in the past. Now the situation is more balanced and allows for more global observation and for tracing connections between the process taking place on both of the areas, that are just divided probably only by our contemporary mental boundaries. The only concerning observation is the small amount of papers about the Western side of the Southern Baltic, but this is probably due to the difficult research situation in the region, facing the language barrier and research tradition boundaries (also mental in their essence). However, as Hauke Jöns and Anna Kowalska presented they can be overcome, resulting with extremely interesting research.

To sum up, the whole event has left a very positive impression on me. Only two problems that I would like to see addressed did not appear: the class restricted nature of the most of the evidence from the Viking age period that results in certain predominance of descriptions small elite was not mentioned, as well as the applicability of the term “Viking” as a taxon that seems not to correspond with the situation in the past societies. However this subjects might not be regarded as falling into the scope of the conference, and as so, their omission cannot really be considered as problematic.

Repeat and Reheat - discussing the origins of the Viking age — once again from the British perspective.

It seems that year 2015 is the year in which British early medieval archaeologists decided to finally adres ideas put forward by Barnett (2008). I have to say, it is about time to wave good bye to the based on circumstantial evidence ideas of shortage of wives as a cause of Viking age rides. However I am concerned still concerned about how does the other British researchers question that concept.

A newest example is What really caused the Viking Age? The social content of raiding and exploration by the co-author of previously discussed article - S.P Ashby (2015). He discusses the powers of forgein objects in the process of creation of elite social identity and a mean of gaining status as a proof of bravery related to raiding and traveling activities. Utilizing a fashionable turn towards object agency (which is a very problematic issue in archaeology since it is very rarely defined in anyway in articles that utilize it) and object biographies in my view he recycle the concept that the Viking age was mainly caused by the need of young generation of warriors to prove themselves and gain status. It is not a new idea by any means but what had to be said, it is nicely repacked in some theoretical concepts. A lack of theory (except the topics of urbanization and emergence of states) is what plagues the Viking age research and introducing concepts well known in prehistory seems to be a good way forward.

What I find very much necessary to point out is that forgein exotic objects (but also transformed practices) made their way to Scandinavia before the Viking age, often ending up in burials. They attest that elites were well connected to their insular and continental counterparts. Inhabitants of the peninsula were not a band of savages that waited until 793 to pop up and introduced themselves to the civilized world. The key question is the scale of those contacts before the final decades of the 8th c. In my opinion the answer to that question does not lie in the Births Isles, but it is buried in archaeological store houses in Scandinavia, were results of many years of excavation awaits a careful examination. A key issue is identification of the fragmented glass material from so-called Central Places of south Scandinavia. Another important area in which origins of the Viking age, inexplicably defined as time of riding and extensive traveling could be sought are the southern and eastern coast of Baltic that seem to be witnesses to earliest example of different expeditions, both peaceful or warlike.

Ashby seems to finally recognize the elitaristic focus of viking age research, writing about warrior elite and their means of producing their social status. In my opinion the whole research that is connected to the viking age is biased towards the members of social elite. The definition of Viking Age as period of rides and trade expedition further places the focus on the prominent members of the population, that were able to afford an expense of going abroad and on the members of the costal urban communities that usually were the target of those travels. With this developments taking place the Viking age studies will further exclude the majority of the population. In my studies of rural burial grounds of South Western Scania - one of the most populated regions in early medieval Denmark, I have found out that there is no change in the burial customs during the transition from Late Vendel to the Viking age. What is even more puzzling - there aren’t much finds that might have derived from riding activities in western Europe. This would suggest a limited impact of the social changes brought by the Viking expeditions. This stands in strong contrast to areas of western Norway, most often discussed in research. The true changes starts to take place in South Western Scania in the 10th c. due to the creation of the Danish state by the Jelling dynasty - and then the Insular connections become more prominent, however still not on the cemeteries. Also the older central places, with a pre-Viking age continuity are abandoned and new centers rise to power. Viking age, defined as a time of raids and travels, with a strict chronological boundaries, have a very limited applicability in archaeology.

A source critical concern of mine is also the fact that author utilized mainly english or written in english literature. Also worrying is the time depth of the article, operating around the well established as the beginning of the Viking age, final decades of 8th that in my opinion seriously limits the potential for new discoveries.

literature: 

Ashby S.P 2015. What really caused the Viking Age? The social content of raiding and exploration, Archaeological dialogues 22 (1)

Barnett J. 2008. What caused the Viking Age?, Antiquity 82

Moving the non-existing brackets – comments on the reception of “Urban Networks and Arctic Outlands”

I have stated in the introduction to my master thesis that appeal to public is a very strong trait of the Viking age research. This can be an advantage but it sometimes contributes to clouding of judgement and over emphasizing the unimportant over the truly interesting in the eye of experienced researcher. I personally believe that it is the case with the public reception of STEVEN P. ASHBY’s, ASHLEY N. COUTU’s and SØREN M. SINDBÆK’s  article.

The paper presents the results of analysis of horn and bone material from three Danish sites of Ribe, Aarhus and Aggersborg. I cannot comment on the scientific part of the paper and discuss the issues of using the mass spectronomy, since I simply lack of knowledge to do so. I can however comment on how results are presented to the public and what seems to be over emphasised in the interpretation. Further I can question the sense of discussing certain issues.

The results of mass spectronomy had revealed that among other raw materials, the reindeer antler, non-local to the area of Southern Jutland was used in comb production in the early phases of the settlement at Ribe. This points towards the fact that the material had to be imported probably from Norway. The authors rightfully stress the importance of the discovery towards a shift of looking at the Viking age urban sites and their relation with the hinterland, pointing that it might have been less important than the longer connections (although I have to say that the reindeer related material seems not to form the majority of the materials used). It is also important that Ribe’s importance as a trading site is attested not only on the local but also non-local level. This discovery could point towards the discussion about the organisation of the supply chain and collection of the raw material in the comb production (partially touched upon in the conclusion), the status of the craftsmen (attached or independent?) or the level of the specialisation (although a lot of other data would be needed). Instead what we get is a discussion about the beginning of the Viking age and what was the impulse for it. Immediately the attention is shifted towards maritime travel and gathering the experience and expertise in it before the famous Viking expedition known from the historical sources. The pop cultural image takes over a relevant subject leading towards web headlines like here:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-05/uoy-st050715.php (“TRADE STARTED THE VIKING AGE!”)

http://sciencenordic.com/viking-age-began-denmark (My personal favourite: “VIKING AGE BEGAN IN DENMARK!”)

The big news suddenly is that now the Viking Age begins around 725. It is very problematic to present this kind of statement as a relevant discovery. First problem is that Viking Age is not an event – it is a modern category, quite frankly, it will begin whenever we decide to put it and will be triggered by whatever factor a person will chose. There are no objectively defined traits of the period, it all depends on how far into the past tracking origins of certain process we wish to go.  Here, authors point towards establishment of long over regional networks as probably decisive factor. I don’t see any reason why to focus on these particular craft remains as the proof that people were able to make long distance voyages by sea – Authors themselves point toward earlier Iron Age context, such as bog weapon offerings of non-local origin as a prove that people were able to move around. Researchers dealing with older parts of Iron Age point to the fact that Scandinavia was not isolated from the developments taking place in the continent, as people served as mercenaries within Roman legions and came into contact with the Huns. Ulf Näsman had argued for a regional and long term perspective on studying the Viking age already 15 years ago (2000). Sadly, most of his reservations still holds. Mhyre had argued (among other more controversial things) that petty kingdoms, existing before the Viking age were well integrated into continental political and trade system, pointing out that trade was conducted not only with luxury items, but also commodities (2000). Placing the historical narrations in opposition to archaeological remains to prove the earlier start of the Viking age seems to be unnecessary, as anyone interested in the subject probably already is aware of the discovery of the boat grave of Scandinavian origin at Salme in Estonia, that was dated to the beginning of 8^th c. (Allmäe 2011). Additional, there is early evidence of establishing of trading places in the eastern Europe with a substantial influence people of Scandinavian origin (Lind 2011; Lind 2012). The whole debate centres in the west, ignoring evidence from the other side of the Baltic.

This is a result of kind of Anglo-centric view which Scandinavian researchers must shed away, in which Viking age begins when the raids on the British Isle become possible or important. It is puzzling how easy we forget about the imports that pre-date the Viking age from that area, such as  claw beakers (Ljungkvist 2009) or ignore possible Scandinavian connections visible for example in Sutton Hoo burial (Woolf 2014). Additionally bigger control should be exercised over what do the journalists publish. There is a lot of evidence for mobility of people before the end of the 8^th century and probably it is necessary to place Ribe in a larger network of so called Wics (Näsman 2000) and also acknowledge that Franks, Anglo Saxons and Frisians were able to sail in good enough way to maintain connections between those sites already in the earlier period of the iron Age.

Literature:

Most important of all:

Ashby, S., Coutu, A., Sindbӕk, S. 2015 Urban Networks and Arctic Outlands: Craft Specialists and Reindeer Antler in Viking Towns, European Journal of Archaeology (online early access)

And:

Allmäe,  R. 2011. Human bones in Salme boat-grave I, the Island of Saaremaa: Estonia, Papers on Antrophology XX

Lind, J. 2012. “Vikinger”, vikingetid og  vikingeromantik, Kuml 2012

Lind, J. 2011. «Vikings» and the Viking Age, In: Gvozdetskaja, N., Konovalova, I., Melnikova, E., Podossinov, A. (eds) Stanzas of friendship: Studies in Honour of Tatjana N. Jackson

Ljungkvist, J. 2009. Continetal imports to Scandinavia: Patterns and changes between 400-800 AD, In: Quast, D. (eds) Foreigners in Early Medieval Europe: Thirteen International Studies on Early Medieval Mobility

Mhyre, B. 2000. The early Viking age in Norway, Acta Archaeologica 71

Näsman, U. 2000. Rides, Migrations and Kingdoms - The Danish Case, Acta Archaeologica 71

Woolf, A. 2014. Sutton Hoo and Sweden revisited. In: Gnasso, A., Intagliata, E., MacMaster, T., Morris, B. The Long Seventh century: continuity and discontinuity in the age of transition.