UK

11° London Hi 14°C / Lo 8°C

The Vikings: it wasn't all raping and pillaging

Forget what history tells us about the Nordic invaders. New research suggests they were model immigrants who co-existed peacefully with the natives

By Arifa Akbar

Jarl Squad Vikings march while carrying lit torches to set fire to a Viking longboat during the Up Helly Aa festival in Lerwick, the Shetland Islands in northern Scotland

REUTERS/David Moir

Jarl Squad Vikings march while carrying lit torches to set fire to a Viking longboat during the Up Helly Aa festival in Lerwick, the Shetland Islands in northern Scotland

For centuries, they have been stereotyped as marauding barbarians arriving in their helmeted hordes to pillage their way across Britain. But now a group of academics believe they have uncovered new evidence that the Vikings were more cultured settlers who offered a "good historical model" of immigrant assimilation.

The evidence is set to be unveiled at a three-day Cambridge University conference starting today, when more than 20 studies will reveal how the Vikings shared technology, swapped ideas and often lived side-by-side in relative harmony with their Anglo-Saxon and Celtic contemporaries. Some may have come, plundered and left, but those Vikings who decided to settle rather than return to Scandinavia learnt the language, inter-married, converted to Christianity and even had "praise poetry" written about them by the Brits, according to the experts.

The conference, entitled "Between the Islands", draws on new archeological evidence, historical studies and analysis of the language and literature of the period, and shows that between the 9th and 13th centuries, the Vikings became an integral part of the fabric of social and political life that changed Britain and Ireland far more profoundly than previously realised. The academics hope it will tip the balance still further in the "raiders or traders" question.

Scholars will argue that they should be seen as an early example of immigrants who were successfully assimilated into British and Irish culture. Their so-called "invasion" led, to some extent, to the creation of trans-national identities, a process that has particular relevance to modern Britain. Dr Fiona Edmonds, of Cambridge University's department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, said: "The latest evidence does not point to a simple opposition between Vikings and natives.

"Within a relatively short space of time – and with lasting effect – the various cultures in Britain and Ireland started to intermingle. Investigating that process provides us with a historical model of how political groups can be absorbed into complex societies, contributing much to those societies in the process. There are important lessons that can be gained from this about cultural assimilation in the modern era."

Dr Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, who is co-organising the conference, said it was not a simple case of the Vikings coming and conquering. There was a "cross-fertilisation" of practices, including Anglo-Saxon communities adopting Norse names. "They were mutually transformed in the process, it was two-way interaction," she said. "Those who settled had to become different, and adapt to the society around them and learn to communicate with each other."

Some Viking kings learnt to speak English, Welsh and Irish as well as Latin, the language of the elite in Britain, and adopted Anglo-Saxon names. One king who settled in Ireland was honoured with "praise" poetry dedicated to his rule by the indigenous community. The Viking kings of Dublin, said Dr Ní Mhaonaigh, became a very active element of the city's political scene.

"What is clear is that the popular picture of Vikings is not quite as it seems, and when viewing their long-term presence, it is quite untrue. The communities were mutually transformed in the process. Of course, there was plundering and pillaging, but those who started to build camps and started to settle began interacting in a very different way," she said.

She added that King Amlaib, who settled in Dublin in the 10th century, became a Christian and was venerated by the local poets, while another leader from the mid-11th century, whose Welsh name was Gruffud ap Cynan, bore Welsh and Norse blood-ties, and spent a long time in Dublin. This, she said, was another example of cultural inter-mingling.

"It's a good historical model when a relatively small number of people can adapt and assimilate into a complex, sophisticated society," she said.

A new analysis of personal names in the Domesday Book also suggests that settlements established in Yorkshire from the 9th century retained their Gaelic-Scandinavian identity until the Norman Conquest. Even after the Battle of Hastings, and long after the Norse were believed to have been expelled from the area, there were people with some element of Scandinavian identity living happily in the heart of Anglo-Saxon Yorkshire. Through this time, they were able to hang on to elements of their Viking identity without expulsion by the indigenous people – further evidence that there was little opposition to these conquering emigres.

Research into Scandinavian settlements reveals a profound level of social and economic interaction between Viking incomers and the Celts. There was mixing in many towns and rural camps in Ireland, while recent studies of regional coins from the Viking age show that these rulers were far from impervious to local economies. In East Anglia, for example, where they had a well regulated monetary system, they adapted the existing economic system, while in other areas with only limited coin circulation, they introduced a bullion economy.

On a cultural level, Celtic folklore began to influence Viking literature. An analysis of Old Norse literary works that shows some of their tales may have been borrowed from Gaelic storytelling, thus the myths of Scandinavia, Ireland and Britain became inexorably intertwined. Professor Judith Jesch, from the University of Nottingham, reveals how Norse poetry was composed in the Hebrides. Professor Terje Spurkland, from the University of Oslo, has found that rune stones combined Scandinavian inscriptions with Celtic designs.

Over the centuries the importance of this cross-fertilisation was overshadowed by a skewed mythology of the Viking age that was created by 12th and 13th century Irish chroniclers and poets long after the Scandinavians' golden era had ended. A host of poems and prose narrative emerged which depicted the Vikings as "otherworldly beings" who came and stream-rollered across the cultural terrain of the British Isles.

These Irish writers went to great lengths to "extol the virtues of their Celtic ancestors who had fended off the Vikings", and so circulated this mythology of the maurading invader. It is only now, in recent decades, that academics have begun to unpick the stereotype and reveal an altogether different story.

From raiders to traders

They were prolific seafaring explorers, warriors and merchants from Denmark, Norway and Sweden who colonised swathes of Europe from the late 800s to the 12th century. In Norse, the word Viking means piracy and therefore the Vikings have become known as raiders who terrorised Europe instead of disciplined conquerors who established settlements as far afield as Constantinople, Greenland and Newfoundland.

There is archaeological evidence they discovered the Americas 500 years before Christopher Columbus. Their famed narrow longships allowed them to enter countries through rivers and it is this access which allowed them to settle and trade throughout Europe. A stereotyped image as a noble savage emerged in 17th century British texts and then again during the Victorian era. This image later turned into a cartoonish caricature of Vikings as barbarian invaders.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Don't forget the Normans
[info]49niner wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:35 am (UTC)
When William the Conqueror landed in 1066, many of his followers were descended from Vikings who had settled in northern France, including probably, my ancestors. So the Norman conquest might be seen as much a continuation of Viking raids, rather than a French invasion, which is how it is often portrayed.

And it goes to show what a multicultural society we have been for centuries. It gives hope that we can get over the tensions generated by recent immigration. A good dose of intermarriage helps. As they say, "Love Conquers All".
Integration can happen...
[info]solcreciente wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 06:45 am (UTC)
Integration can happen successfully when a population does not have to be subjected to a daily diet of racism, innuendo and politics. It is the fact that communications are so efficient today, and are so often vehicles to support myths and stereotypes of immigrants, that encourages us not to get one with one another, creates an atmosphere of distrust and difference. In medieval times they weren't subjected to that so were inclined to talk to one another and learn from each other.
Further to "Integration Can Happen"
[info]wolfstan wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 08:38 am (UTC)
Integration at that time was true "Integration". The Vikings came over settled and mixed with the native people, they inter married and took up the same religion. Today when people talk about "Integration" they just mean "getting along" and respecting other people's culture. This is probably where we are going wrong. Integration should mean a melding of cultures, not keeping them apart.
Viking integration/assimilation
[info]ppinter wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 10:33 am (UTC)
The above article postulates that despite being invaders and local rulers the Viking ended up being integrated. Actually what is desribed is assimilation into the indigenous population and becoming part of it..

A modern parallel is multiculturism ( politically encouraging seperate/ equal ethnic blocks and identities) versus case for integration but still defining by ethnic /cultural groups.

Instead multiculturism should be ditched and assimilation actively encouraged aimed at a single national identity . Without it social strife will get really bad ( eg currently incompatibility of fundamentalist Islam in UK) . The future should be an assimilated melting pot of proud Britons with a British historical identity. Otherwise the indigenous majority will increasingly see the swarm of immigrants as invaders to be repelled.
Re: Viking integration/assimilation
[info]jimg66 wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 11:47 am (UTC)
Just as the British did in India, Nigeria, Egypt, Sudan, Malaya, Burma, Australia, New Zealand, Belize, Guyana, Canada.......
Re: Viking integration/assimilation
[info]vinodmoon wrote:
Sunday, 15 March 2009 at 12:16 am (UTC)
The process of assimilation is a two-way street. How much so this was in the Viking era is shown by the number of key words which are of Viking origin - for example 'law'. Within the Danelaw, it was the Anglo-Saxons who were assimilated into Viking culture rather than vice-versa. Indeed, prior to this, it was the Celts who were assimilated into the immigrant Anglo-Saxon culture!
Unfortunately, the modern Anglo-Saxons do not seem to realise to what an extent the 'separate ethnic groups' have integrated - they would no longer fit into the cultures from which their ancestors sprang. The Asians of Bradford belong to Bradford much more than they do to Lahore or Ludhiana or wherever their ancestors may have come from.
The Jews never gave up their culture or religion. They used to be reviled for living in crowded rooms, for keeping coal in the bathtub, etc - the same thing that Pakistanis were accused of not so long ago. Yet today they are respected members of society.
As for 'incompatibility of fundamentalist Islam in UK', I have noticed that fundamentalist Christianity does not seem to get in the way, although it is alien to modern British society. In what way is Fundamentalist Islam different from Fundamentalist Christianity?
The central concept of British Society for much of the 20th Century was 'fair play'. Yet most British people accepted Thatcherism - which is fundamentally alien to this concept. The British people accepted the lies of the Blairite government and allowed their troops to participate in the slaughter of over a million Iraqis in a new crusade; how alien is this to the British idea of basic decency?

[info]peersrogue wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 11:09 am (UTC)
"...but those Vikings who decided to settle rather than return to Scandinavia learnt the language, inter-married, converted to Christianity and even had "praise poetry" written about them by the Brits, according to the experts."
That's the way to do it -
Converted to Christianity?
[info]arthur_ide wrote:
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 09:35 pm (UTC)
Hardly--most adapted to Christianity (as did Henri IV of France who "became" Roman Catholic, claiming "Paris is worth a mass") but continued their own beliefs for more than 1000 years--as they found it easier to pretend to believe as did many Arians, Manicheans and others who were forcefully converted by the pagan Emperor Constantine who established Christianity as the official religion of his empire to keep it from shredding under the warlord bishops whom he, as emperor, called together at Nicea and enforced his interpretation on them--including such mythologies as the Trinity that came from ancient Egypt, the "Mother of God" (a name originally for Isis), to the consternation of many "fathers" (and a few mothers since women were already ordained as bishops and priests) of the church wrote about befor their deaths (many by the hands of other bishops and even the pope). Christianity has never had a blessing for mortals, but only bloodshed, war, terror, and hatred.
Vikings
[info]colmliathain wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 11:33 am (UTC)
Sounds a most interesting conference. I have to say though that even the examination of place names throughout the Islands of Europe demonstrates a pattern of settlement and not merely episodic raiding. Will a book emerge from this conference? I hope so.
Colm O'Liathain
Viking Invaders
[info]condros1 wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 11:40 am (UTC)
But lets not forget they were also brutal slayers, and rapists, who surprised the local communities with absolute devestation, especially the peaceful Monks and Nuns of the convents and monasteries.
Do not be lulled by a pacifist ideology that people who come to conquer or kill, won't do it -if you just are nice to them, today's headlines of brutality-should be a warning-and not glossed over as mere propaganda.
Re: Viking Invaders
[info]oldskald wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 03:03 pm (UTC)
True, the dastardly Vikings attacked monasteries and enslaved monks and nuns. And who were the only people able to write records of such activities...? Yes! You guessed it! The very same monks who were apparently attacked. Now, I'm not saying that the Vikings were all lovely folk, or that they didn't attack monasteries (and after all, it was undefended free money to them, with no religious significance. Plus, loads of Christian rulers were doing the same so why single out the Vikings? Ahh, they were UNBELIEVERS! Shock! Horror!). However, we must bear in mind that if someone went into a media headquarters today and ransacked that, enslaving the pen-pushers, there would probably a bit more of a media outcry than if they did it in, say, Sierra Leone or Darfur. We merely see the 9th century version of this when considering the Vikings...
Stereotype
[info]godseyesore wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 04:33 pm (UTC)
Stereotypes usually have a basis of fact. I expect the ruthless Viking image is true for conquest, as well as the subsequent peaceful integration.
Vikings
[info]sciatis wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 05:42 pm (UTC)
Congratulations to the Independent for being only 20 or so years late on this story. The 'new evidence' that you report has been the common currency of scholars for a generation. Looks like you've been rolled over by an efficient PR machine at Cambridge University.

Sciatis.
[info]goranbockman wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 05:55 pm (UTC)
It appears the paramount objective of the Vikings, wherever they settled, was to conquer a "Place In the Sun" for themselves, much like their Swedish cousins the Goths. So they did in Russia where they founded the proto-Russian nation, so too in Normandie, as in Ireland and England, but, unlike the Goths, they integrated with the local population and soon lost their distinguishing features and their distinctive culture.
[info]ducky_dude wrote:
Friday, 13 March 2009 at 11:47 pm (UTC)
a
christian mass killer's religion not mentioned
[info]wholetruth123 wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 02:14 am (UTC)
christian mass killer's religion not mentioned. Arab travelers mentioned the vikings would wash hands and spit into the same bowl as it was passed around. The Arab traveler/trader was very hard put to work around the viking civilization.
Arab travelers mentioned the vikings would wash hands and spit into the same bowl
[info]wholetruth123 wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 02:45 am (UTC)
Arab travelers mentioned the vikings would wash hands and spit into the same bowl as it was passed around. The Arab traveler/trader was very hard put to work around the viking civilization.

sorry for garbling of my prior comment...
rh
Vikings
[info]finkelgruber wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 08:30 am (UTC)
It is high time that ALL history is reviewed and rewritten. Previous historic accounts, written by biased and ignorant victors, simply do not tell the truth. Most ,like Caesar, Alexander the Great etc. would be today
charged with war crimes!

Hartmut,
Perth, Australia
The word 'viking'
[info]olavnor wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 11:58 am (UTC)
Actually, there is widespread disagreement among scholars regarding the etymology of the word 'viking'. It could mean many things, i.e. it could be a designation for people who lived in Viken, the area from the Oslo fjord to the south-western edge of Norway. Also in modern norwegian, that makes sense, grammatically, at least.
Re: The word 'viking'
[info]olavnor wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 12:21 pm (UTC)
And one must also keep in mind that the borderline between trade and piracy in these times was very thin. Piracy and trade would often go hand in hand, as traders took advantage of "targets of opportunity" on their journeys, and perhaps went on to sell the loot to others. The image of a blood-thirsty gang of robbers could easily be applied to any group of traders during the times. Perhaps the heritage of norse mythology has given the 'vikings' a particular colour of violence.
The Vikings: it wasn't all raping and pillaging
[info]profoundnosense wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 02:11 pm (UTC)
The undeserved reputation imposed on the Vikings in English history was the result of "bad press" given them by the only members of society in those days who could read and write - Christian Monks.
The monks, the only chroniclers of early English history, did not like these new arrival simply because they were pagans. As a result of this dislike the Vikings went down in history as rapists, pillages and murders.
The word Vikings in Old Norse simply meant "people who live on a wick" (a wick being an inlet from the sea, as is Wick in Scotland) and not pillagers and murderers.

The Vikings' Bad Press
[info]profoundnosense wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 02:12 pm (UTC)
The monks, the only chroniclers of early English history, did not like these new arrival simply because they were pagans. As a result of this dislike the Vikings went down in history as rapists, pillages and murders.
The word Vikings in Old Norse simply meant "people who live on a wick" (a wick being an inlet from the sea, as is Wick in Scotland) and not pillagers and murderers.

Etymology of the word Viking
[info]profoundnosense wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 03:09 pm (UTC)
Statement from the above article: "In Norse, the word Viking means piracy".
The author needs to study etymology a little further. The Old Norse word "Vik" means an inlet from the sea.
The Norse word "Vikinger" means "Dwellers on a wick". Wick being the Old English spelling of Vik. In modern Danish the word "vik" is still used with its original meaning.
In English the word wick is no longer used but is found in place names - Wick in Scotland is a town on an inlet from the sea.
Re: Etymology of the word Viking
[info]andre_t wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 05:17 pm (UTC)
In German a Viking is a Wickinger, and the Norwegians spell the word Viking but pronounce as their Germanic cousins of Germany as Wiking - so we are essentially speaking of related people being Saxons (Germany or England) Angles (Northern Germany, Netherlands Denmark) and Norse men of various kinds.
Re: Etymology of the word Viking
[info]profoundnosense wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 05:58 pm (UTC)
in Danish the word Vikinger is pronounced Vee'king'er.

Ihe "er" on the end of the word is merely the plural. as "s" is in English. Vikings in English - Vikinger in Danish
Goths
[info]kodak321 wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 06:20 pm (UTC)
They didn't make it on the fashion front. In Britain, the Goths beat them hands down. Still, I still like the Viking 'look'.
Myth of of our fathers enemy
[info]joethedumber wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 10:31 pm (UTC)
I am not surprised at all that the "crown" and her conquered territories would slander and lie about the people we were at war with. Compare and contrast the myth of vikings to the myth of our current oversea enemy. They share much in common.
how about the Vikings in Russia
[info]ricardohead wrote:
Saturday, 14 March 2009 at 11:19 pm (UTC)
The Vikings traded and bullied their way down the Russian river system in the ninth century all the way to Constantinople (the road from the Varanagians to the Greeks, as it was called), and in the process established themselves as rulers in Novgorod and Kiev (and other places).They established the Rurik dynasty which lasted until the time of Ivan the Terrible, and within a generation were speaking old Russian, and had become more or less slavicized.What started out as a kind of protection racket turned into the Kievan state, which by the 11th century, was a power to be reckoned with in Eastern Europe, like Normandy in France. By this time, the Vikings had had become Russian.
this article has been stolen
[info]thiefwarner wrote:
Sunday, 15 March 2009 at 02:47 am (UTC)
Re: this article has been stolen
[info]the_editor_guy wrote:
Sunday, 15 March 2009 at 03:23 am (UTC)
No, the article was begun with the first few paragraphs and then attributed to the Guardian with a link to this page. Be careful in trying to be sensationalist. Dick Eastman is a proselytizer for proper attribution.

The Editor Guy
Re: this article has been stolen
[info]the_editor_guy wrote:
Sunday, 15 March 2009 at 03:25 am (UTC)
Sorry, should have been "The Independent" not the Guardian. Late at night here in the few acres of snow colony.
the "good side" of the Vikings!
[info]swedish2 wrote:
Sunday, 15 March 2009 at 03:47 pm (UTC)
Being of Swedish ancestry, I am often reminded (mostly by my husband) of my grim Viking heritage. A long over due tribute to the Vikings!

A former Svensson.
Your own Ancestors may have been Vikings
[info]alexisnexus wrote:
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 03:50 am (UTC)
The Vikings on Nova

We watched part of a very interesting program on May 20, 2000 on a "PBS' Nova program. It was titled "The Vikings".

It created the thought behins this story of our ancestors that may have been Vikings!

http://www.familyforest.com/captainslog/18.html

http://familyforest.wordpress.com
The Vikings:
[info]james_yates wrote:
Tuesday, 17 March 2009 at 07:01 pm (UTC)
The Norse occupied and settled in most of northern England. Where do you think the Northern accents, dialects and customs came from? Even after the "Harrowing of the North", i.e. genocide by gangs of marauding Norman-led criminals, the Norse communities of Northern England survived. The fact that Southern England has denied a separte cultural heritage in Northern England since Norman times is nothing more than a continuation of Norman-London power politics. Unfortunately it has been so successful that the people of Northern England are now totally ignorant of their own history.
Re: The Vikings:
[info]rainborowe wrote:
Saturday, 11 April 2009 at 12:39 pm (UTC)
Thank you, James! I was born in Yorkshire in 1945 and lived my first 25 years there. There's nothing in this article that's new to me except the suggestion that the Viking language died out pretty early and the Viking settlements were odd places surrounded by Anglo-Saxons. Whoever wrote this obviously never heard any Yorkshire dialect-speakers, expecially the East Riding dialect.
The Vikings
[info]justtkate wrote:
Thursday, 30 April 2009 at 12:02 am (UTC)
It is certainly has some points we didn?t associate with Vikings, but did people live with them in harmony out of choice? They have invaded Britain, didn?t they? If Vikings were invaders, and then is it not the other way round, and it is actually Britain hass ?offered a "good historical model" of immigrant assimilation?.
Kate from buy to let mortgages
[info]mark_levi wrote:
Tuesday, 30 June 2009 at 12:58 pm (UTC)
I agree. Almost all history is biased. The accounts of the vikings were written by Britons who were obviously going to exagerrate.
However, people believe that Boudica was a crazed woman who merely hated the Romans. Upon the death of her husband, the king, the Romans took over, beat her, and PUBLICLY RAPED her two daughters. Because anyone else would've sat on the sidelines smiling. Not!
Mark from best buy to let remortgage deals

Most popular in UK News


Article Archive

Day In a Page

Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat

Select date