After the Danish defeat at Dybbøl in 1864, Danes needed to remember the former glory days of the Vikings. The Viking Age represents a time when the Danes were notorious warriors. (Photo: Shutterstock)
OPINION: The
Viking Age harks back to the glory days of the Nordics, but the name is
all wrong. It should instead be called the Steel Age, says Danish
archaeologist.
Keywords:
Archaeology, Vikings
The Stone Age, the Bronze Age, and the Iron Age… All follow the most
widely recognised method of categorising historical cultural
development.
It was Christian Jürgensen Thomsen who developed the three term system at the start of the 19th century and in doing so, created order out of a chaotic pre-Christian chronology in the Nordics.
One hundred years later, one of his students, J. J. A. Worsaae, placed the Viking Age in between the Iron Age and the Middle Ages.
The Viking Age however, was not a methodical tool, but an intermediate period of time between the other two--a political manifestation from 1864.
Back then, Danes embraced the nostalgia of the Viking Age heyday. And they still do today.
Perhaps the Viking Age appeals to us today, because it is perceived as a time in which Denmark, as we know it today, took shape, with borders, written language, cities, a monetary economy, and the spread of Christianity.
So when it comes to the Viking Age, archaeologists are biased in a completely different way than if it was one of the three preceding ages. The very word Viking gets in the way.
Generally speaking, all Danes know about the Vikings and the Viking Age, but on an academic level, it is difficult to penetrate deeper into the period. And archaeologists often find it difficult to answer even relatively simple questions about the Vikings.
All would agree that looting, conquests, and colonisation were important to the people who actively participated in it, and to the powerful elite who organised and profited from it.
But were the Viking raids important for the population as a whole or to ordinary farmers?
Or more precisely: can we separate plundering in the 800, 900 and early 1000s from plundering in other periods? Or were they just a continuation of a certain practice with improved technology?
Continue Reading
Makes sense.
Viking Smiths weren't just pouring liquid iron into molds for swords.
It was Christian Jürgensen Thomsen who developed the three term system at the start of the 19th century and in doing so, created order out of a chaotic pre-Christian chronology in the Nordics.
One hundred years later, one of his students, J. J. A. Worsaae, placed the Viking Age in between the Iron Age and the Middle Ages.
The Viking Age however, was not a methodical tool, but an intermediate period of time between the other two--a political manifestation from 1864.
Back then, Danes embraced the nostalgia of the Viking Age heyday. And they still do today.
The Viking Age teases archaeologists
We still celebrate the Vikings with Viking markets, games, and festivals, and it has become quite an economically lucrative slice of the tourism industry.Perhaps the Viking Age appeals to us today, because it is perceived as a time in which Denmark, as we know it today, took shape, with borders, written language, cities, a monetary economy, and the spread of Christianity.
So when it comes to the Viking Age, archaeologists are biased in a completely different way than if it was one of the three preceding ages. The very word Viking gets in the way.
Generally speaking, all Danes know about the Vikings and the Viking Age, but on an academic level, it is difficult to penetrate deeper into the period. And archaeologists often find it difficult to answer even relatively simple questions about the Vikings.
Plundering, conquest, and colonisation
A historian would immediately say that the Viking Age began with the looting of the monastery on Lindisfarne in 793 CE and ended with the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 1066. But archaeologists ask how cultural development in Denmark can be defined by events in the British Isles, and whether activities outside Scandinavia had any significance for the cultural-historical development of Scandinavia.All would agree that looting, conquests, and colonisation were important to the people who actively participated in it, and to the powerful elite who organised and profited from it.
But were the Viking raids important for the population as a whole or to ordinary farmers?
Or more precisely: can we separate plundering in the 800, 900 and early 1000s from plundering in other periods? Or were they just a continuation of a certain practice with improved technology?
Continue Reading
Makes sense.
Viking Smiths weren't just pouring liquid iron into molds for swords.
No comments:
Post a Comment