7 ms·

The author's point is that the term is wrong because most northmen weren't going viking, weren't pirating and plundering and raiding, therefore it should be cal

The author's point is that the term is wrong because most northmen weren't going viking, weren't pirating and plundering and raiding, therefore it should be called something different. Alright, cool, but suggest something better, then? The way this time period is taught in Swedish schools is that we talk about the "viking age", and people generally know that referring to everyone living in Scandinavia at this time as "vikings" is wrong and sloppy, and a better term is "northmen". But you know what? It doesn't matter. The fact is that this time period (~800 to ~1050) in Scandinavia is reasonably well-defined, and characterized by a bunch of distinct shared features; art, religion, language, and culture, such that no other cultures had these features at this time. The start of the time period is usually set at the raid on Lindisfarne, because this was the first time that Scandinavians had some sort of effect on the rest of Europe, it's the first time we got "noticed" by the others, it's the first time we appear in history. The Viking age generally ended with the Christianization of Scandinavia, and the establishment of the nation states that pretty much powered the historical events of the last thousand years in the area. Sure, history is always a continuous blur rather than well defined eras, but it's still a useful concept. The age of dragon-headed longboats, human sacrifices to Odin, runestones, and the Varingian guard was a thing, it was unique and unparallelled, and it left behind a legacy outside Scandinavia in the form of for example Normandy, the Danelaw, or the Kievan Rus, and a legacy inside Scandinavia, being an intrinsic part of the "founding mythos" of our modern nations. This thing needs to be called something, so why not name it for the thing that started it, why not name it for the people going viking?

Strom 4y ago
> [..] time period (~800 to ~1050) [..] the first time we appear in history. Some interesting new developments with that recently. In 2008-2010 two Viking ships were discovered in Saaremaa, Estonia. The ships (or the bits that's left of them) have been dated to be from around 650–750. There were some 40+ Swedish men buried with these ships after some sort of battle. [1][2][3] These findings move Viking military action outside of Scandinavia to a time before Lindisfarne. The archaeologists believe the men died in a battle some time between 700 and 750, perhaps almost as much as a century before the Viking Age officially began. -- [1] https://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-vikings-saaremaa-estonia-salme-vendel-oseberg https://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-viki... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269403778_RESEARCH_RESULTS_OF_THE_SALME_SHIP_BURIALS_IN_2011-2012 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269403778_RESEARCH_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salme_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salme_ships
Mizza 4y ago
The article is drenched in ideology. It's explicit: > The final development, the ‘ethnicisation’ of the word that allows the use of terms such as ‘Viking farms’, ‘Viking towns’ and ‘Viking women and children’, is much more recent and has gradually crept up since the Second World War. This is insidious; by linking military prowess and savagery to an entire ethnic group, it encourages its appropriation by racial supremacists. The author is attempting to use linguistic pedantry to delegitimize an ethnicity he doesn't like for contemporary ideological reasons.
- em-bee 4y ago
  linking military prowess and savagery to an entire ethnic group aren't we doing the same to every warfaring group? goths, gauls, romans, mongols... is there any warfaring group that didn't have families and and even at least animal farming?
  - jcranmer 4y ago
    > is there any warfaring group that didn't have families and and even at least animal farming? Some of the Plains Indians gave up sedentary agriculture after the introduction of the horse, and became fully nomadic. I don't believe they even kept herds of domesticated animals, so the "at least animal farming" part would fail. There are some uncontacted tribes on the Andaman Islands which are remarkably hostile to outsiders that are believed to be hunter-gatherers. Would that count for you?
  - pyrale 4y ago
    Well, the romans were probably one of the most militarily successful societies over a long period, but when talking about them, we still remember that warfare was only a small aspect of their society and not their way of life. You'll find plenty of books that focus exclusively on their politics, art, civil engineering, etc.
    - em-bee 4y ago
      well yes, exactly. and yet here someone is complaining that we are trying to do the same for the vikings, when we really should look at those aspects everywhere.
xg15 4y ago
> Alright, cool, but suggest something better, then? The way this time period is taught in Swedish schools is that we talk about the "viking age", and people generally know that referring to everyone living in Scandinavia at this time as "vikings" is wrong and sloppy, and a better term is "northmen". I think the author's point is that exactly this lumping-together into a single time period and culture is problematic and gives way to racism. > The final development, the ‘ethnicisation’ of the word that allows the use of terms such as ‘Viking farms’, ‘Viking towns’ and ‘Viking women and children’, is much more recent and has gradually crept up since the Second World War. This is insidious; by linking military prowess and savagery to an entire ethnic group, it encourages its appropriation by racial supremacists. > The issue with the term is not merely semantic. This conception of ‘the Vikings’ seriously distorts our understanding of European history. We have tended to group almost all Scandinavian activity between the 790s and the mid-11th century together under the ‘Viking’ label, creating a distinct ‘Viking Age’ and an imagined ‘Viking’ culture and identity. The evidence, however, does not support this analysis.
- bavell 4y ago
  I have no idea where you or the author are getting this racism idea from. Is it because the Vikings were mostly white and known for violence? And somehow this magically "gives rise to racism"? Either I'm not understanding or this is an incredibly lazy argument.
  - pyrale 4y ago
    > And somehow this magically "gives rise to racism"? No, the point is that some current day groups tend to like very much the idea of a militaristic society with a fetish for strength and disregarding death. Therefore, this historically inaccurate characterization tends to be coopted and used to prop up their political agenda. Racist groups were already there, and them using history to build their credibility is nothing new.
    - bavell 4y ago
      So historically inaccurate characterizations give rise to racism, except it doesn't because the racism was already there? I still don't understand.
red_admiral 4y ago
I agree. For another example, we have a whole period earlier on called the La Tène culture simply because that's where the people who named it first excavated. The same goes for Hallstatt culture etc. As long as we teach people that viking was a "profession" not a demonym, we need a word to describe the time period so the viking age as "the age during which viking happened, even if not everyone took part" is good enough. Also, this: https://acoup.blog/2020/11/20/miscellanea-my-thoughts-on-assassins-creed-valhalla/ https://acoup.blog/2020/11/20/miscellanea-my-thoughts-on-ass... mentions a much bigger problem, in my opinion, with how the period is treated in popular culture.
vintermann 4y ago
> because this was the first time that Scandinavians had some sort of effect on the rest of Europe Nonsense. Where do you think those infamous "Goths" came from? There are no sharp boundaries in influence. > The Viking age generally ended with the Christianization of Scandinavia If that was true, it would have ended before it began, because Christianization started long before the kings' official incorporation into the unified Christian world. Norse traders and mercenaries came back from places like Byzantium in awe, and wanted to be more like that. And as the article points out, much if not most of the piracy happened when kings and chiefs were Christian. > human sacrifices to Odin Like many examples of Norse savagery, not proven to ever have happened. But that doesn't stop the metal boys from trying to incorporate it into "our" national mythology.
- arcanus 4y ago
  > Like many examples of Norse savagery, not proven to ever have happened. This is a curious comment. There is real historical evidence for Viking savagery and human sacrifice. Humans are notoriously violent throughout history. It would perhaps be more notable if a famous group of raiders was not known for incredibly savage acts. "archaeological finds from recent years show that human sacrifice was a reality in Viking Age Denmark" https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/religion-magic-death-and-rituals/human-sacrifices/ https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistori...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

Strom 4y ago

> [..] time period (~800 to ~1050) [..] the first time we appear in history. Some interesting new developments with that recently. In 2008-2010 two Viking ships were discovered in Saaremaa, Estonia. The ships (or the bits that's left of them) have been dated to be from around 650–750. There were some 40+ Swedish men buried with these ships after some sort of battle. [1][2][3] These findings move Viking military action outside of Scandinavia to a time before Lindisfarne. The archaeologists believe the men died in a battle some time between 700 and 750, perhaps almost as much as a century before the Viking Age officially began. -- [1] https://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-vikings-saaremaa-estonia-salme-vendel-oseberg https://www.archaeology.org/issues/95-1307/features/941-viki... [2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269403778_RESEARCH_RESULTS_OF_THE_SALME_SHIP_BURIALS_IN_2011-2012 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269403778_RESEARCH_... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salme_ships https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salme_ships

Mizza 4y ago

The article is drenched in ideology. It's explicit: > The final development, the ‘ethnicisation’ of the word that allows the use of terms such as ‘Viking farms’, ‘Viking towns’ and ‘Viking women and children’, is much more recent and has gradually crept up since the Second World War. This is insidious; by linking military prowess and savagery to an entire ethnic group, it encourages its appropriation by racial supremacists. The author is attempting to use linguistic pedantry to delegitimize an ethnicity he doesn't like for contemporary ideological reasons.

em-bee 4y ago
linking military prowess and savagery to an entire ethnic group aren't we doing the same to every warfaring group? goths, gauls, romans, mongols... is there any warfaring group that didn't have families and and even at least animal farming?
- jcranmer 4y ago
  > is there any warfaring group that didn't have families and and even at least animal farming? Some of the Plains Indians gave up sedentary agriculture after the introduction of the horse, and became fully nomadic. I don't believe they even kept herds of domesticated animals, so the "at least animal farming" part would fail. There are some uncontacted tribes on the Andaman Islands which are remarkably hostile to outsiders that are believed to be hunter-gatherers. Would that count for you?
- pyrale 4y ago
  Well, the romans were probably one of the most militarily successful societies over a long period, but when talking about them, we still remember that warfare was only a small aspect of their society and not their way of life. You'll find plenty of books that focus exclusively on their politics, art, civil engineering, etc.
  - em-bee 4y ago
    well yes, exactly. and yet here someone is complaining that we are trying to do the same for the vikings, when we really should look at those aspects everywhere.

xg15 4y ago

> Alright, cool, but suggest something better, then? The way this time period is taught in Swedish schools is that we talk about the "viking age", and people generally know that referring to everyone living in Scandinavia at this time as "vikings" is wrong and sloppy, and a better term is "northmen". I think the author's point is that exactly this lumping-together into a single time period and culture is problematic and gives way to racism. > The final development, the ‘ethnicisation’ of the word that allows the use of terms such as ‘Viking farms’, ‘Viking towns’ and ‘Viking women and children’, is much more recent and has gradually crept up since the Second World War. This is insidious; by linking military prowess and savagery to an entire ethnic group, it encourages its appropriation by racial supremacists. > The issue with the term is not merely semantic. This conception of ‘the Vikings’ seriously distorts our understanding of European history. We have tended to group almost all Scandinavian activity between the 790s and the mid-11th century together under the ‘Viking’ label, creating a distinct ‘Viking Age’ and an imagined ‘Viking’ culture and identity. The evidence, however, does not support this analysis.

bavell 4y ago
I have no idea where you or the author are getting this racism idea from. Is it because the Vikings were mostly white and known for violence? And somehow this magically "gives rise to racism"? Either I'm not understanding or this is an incredibly lazy argument.
- pyrale 4y ago
  > And somehow this magically "gives rise to racism"? No, the point is that some current day groups tend to like very much the idea of a militaristic society with a fetish for strength and disregarding death. Therefore, this historically inaccurate characterization tends to be coopted and used to prop up their political agenda. Racist groups were already there, and them using history to build their credibility is nothing new.
  - bavell 4y ago
    So historically inaccurate characterizations give rise to racism, except it doesn't because the racism was already there? I still don't understand.

red_admiral 4y ago

I agree. For another example, we have a whole period earlier on called the La Tène culture simply because that's where the people who named it first excavated. The same goes for Hallstatt culture etc. As long as we teach people that viking was a "profession" not a demonym, we need a word to describe the time period so the viking age as "the age during which viking happened, even if not everyone took part" is good enough. Also, this: https://acoup.blog/2020/11/20/miscellanea-my-thoughts-on-assassins-creed-valhalla/ https://acoup.blog/2020/11/20/miscellanea-my-thoughts-on-ass... mentions a much bigger problem, in my opinion, with how the period is treated in popular culture.

vintermann 4y ago

> because this was the first time that Scandinavians had some sort of effect on the rest of Europe Nonsense. Where do you think those infamous "Goths" came from? There are no sharp boundaries in influence. > The Viking age generally ended with the Christianization of Scandinavia If that was true, it would have ended before it began, because Christianization started long before the kings' official incorporation into the unified Christian world. Norse traders and mercenaries came back from places like Byzantium in awe, and wanted to be more like that. And as the article points out, much if not most of the piracy happened when kings and chiefs were Christian. > human sacrifices to Odin Like many examples of Norse savagery, not proven to ever have happened. But that doesn't stop the metal boys from trying to incorporate it into "our" national mythology.

arcanus 4y ago
> Like many examples of Norse savagery, not proven to ever have happened. This is a curious comment. There is real historical evidence for Viking savagery and human sacrifice. Humans are notoriously violent throughout history. It would perhaps be more notable if a famous group of raiders was not known for incredibly savage acts. "archaeological finds from recent years show that human sacrifice was a reality in Viking Age Denmark" https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-viking-age/religion-magic-death-and-rituals/human-sacrifices/ https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistori...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]