4 ms·
It's almost certainly a fake. As the late Samuel Eliot Morrison described it, 'Scandanknavery'.
by ZanyProgrammer 10y ago
It's almost certainly a fake. As the late Samuel Eliot Morrison described it, 'Scandanknavery'.
- kpil 10y agoIsn't it a stretch to call them "Vikings?" They where clearly Norwegians. The Kalmar Union was in effect in 1450, and the kingdoms had been formed for long. There were at least two Universities in Scandinavia, etc.
- gozur88 10y ago>Isn't it a stretch to call them "Vikings?" Are you saying we shouldn't call them Vikings because they weren't engaged in raiding and piracy, or we shouldn't call them Vikings because they were Norwegian?
- kpil 10y agoI am not sure what constitutes 'vikingness', but the government, culture and economy was nothing like what I think comes to mind when thinking of vikings. The viking era ended 400 years before, because of Christianity and the rise of strong kings and kingdoms. (Working together) They certainly did not call themselves vikings, if some ever did.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- Stranger43 10y agoThe problem here is that the arguments against it being fake rest on the same shaky ground of potentially obsolete science as the argument for it being genuine. see http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/arch/kens/kens.htm There was a huge shift in the academic literature on the medieval Norsemen and how the runic language changed doing the middle ages, doing the 60ies and 70ies when old monastic scripture gave way to tax records, archeology and "/experimental archeology/". that renders a lot of what still in the textbooks on who the Norsemen were kind of obsolete.