Hacker News Reader

> [..] 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-viki...

[2] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269403778_RESEARCH_...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salme_ships

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.

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?

> 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?

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.

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.

Right, and there's the added bonus of the author not being Scandinavian himself.

History classes in schools in every country probably follow the same general pattern, and if you live in a western country I would expect everyone starts with the ancients, Egypt, Greece, Rome...

But if you grew up in Scandinavia, after the fall of Rome you would generally jump straight into the Viking age, because it's at this point that history stops being about them, the others, and starts being about us. The Viking age is when we became a people, it's when our history starts, it's the moment when we burst onto the world stage and got noticed by others. It's at this point in time that we ceased being generic north-Germanic settlers and became our own culture. This watershed moment legitimises our modern nation states, because this is when it all began.

"Maybe you shouldn't romanticise this time period as much as you do!"

ᚠᚢᚲᚲ ᛟᚠᚠ, ᛞᛁᛈᛊᚺᛁᛏ.

It is you who are drenched in ideology. This author is trying to keep history focused on history rather than patriotic myth-building.

> The author is attempting to use linguistic pedantry to delegitimize an ethnicity he doesn't like for contemporary ideological reasons.

The point of the author is that casting all norsemen as vikings is factually wrong, and that further wrong is done by the use of this historic falsehood as a basis for political movements.

At the same point in time, a large part of Europe was under the control of the frankish empire. Despite that, we don't describe people from this area as bloodthirsty warriors out for tributes and land conquest. We are able to realize that only a small part of the feudal society took part in these raids, and we have lots of historic material on other aspects of this society. This is what is missing in the history we tell of the nordic society.

> 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.

> 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/prehistori...

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-ass... mentions a much bigger problem, in my opinion, with how the period is treated in popular culture.

> 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.

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.

> 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.

So historically inaccurate characterizations give rise to racism, except it doesn't because the racism was already there? I still don't understand.

I would say that the original claim is that they feed each other.

I agree with that claim. However I think there are much more prominent feedback loops at play such as socio-economic status. Historical mischaracterizations play a negligible role IMO when compared with other factors.