Someone might find this interesting. Viking is a term for Scandivanians in a specific time-period, and it's also a term for pirates from the wider North European area in that specific period, because, interestingly, it wasn't only the Scandinavians that raided, but people living East of the Baltic sea raided the Western Baltic too. In other words, Vikings were getting Vikinged by non-Vikings, thus making them Vikings too. To be less tongue in cheek, there were a lot of similarities between the Western and Eastern Baltic cultures: both pagan, both had runes and somesuch, built similar ships, so as to say they had more in common than the raiding.
> both pagan, both had runes and somesuch, built similar ships, so as to say they had more in common than the raiding.
No, they did not have runes. The runes were only used by various Germanic peoples. As far as I know the Baltic and Finnic pagans lacked a written language.
I've seen archaelogical artefacts from East Baltic graves with runes. The commentary in the exhibition stated that runes and rune-related shamanic practices were imported across the Baltic sea. I'm not a historian, I'm only conveying what I've been told by enthusiasts or casually ran into.
> Viking is a term for Scandivanians in a specific time-period
Perhaps but culturally it's more widely used as a term for scandivanians "pirates/invaders" of said era. It is a well known term. Hell, we even have a football team named in their honor.
> it wasn't only the Scandinavians that raided
Did anyone say it was only the scandinavians who raided? Pretty much everyone raided. But the Vikings were just the most successful of the bunch and hence historically significant enough to remember.
I wouldn't be surprised if Stockholm started out as an attempt to protect the cities around Lake Mälaren from raids. It is not known why the city is called Stockholm but one theory is that ot comes from logs driven into the lake to control who goes in and out of the lake.
Yes, from the context of Abrahamic religion and the cultures descended from it, all religions and cultures which are not Abrahamic are by definition pagan.
That's a somewhat sad question, because we hardly know. Not enough written record exists and "paganism" was increasingly outlawed during the past millenia to the point where we're out of people that had it handed down to them. The missionaries doing most of the recording were also the ones actively suppressing its survival. I'm aware of at least one revival movement that was active during the last 50 years, but the main instigator seems to have died without leaving a meaningful succession, and thus the preservation may very well have failed. Unless someone invents a time-machine a la Assassin Creed.
The etymology of the word 'pagan' originally meant hillbillies / dumb country people. It was a slur because the towns and cities adopted Christianity before the country people did. So, 'pagan' typically means the pre-Christian religions of Europe.
In the context of European Antiquity and Middle Ages - this means the original polytheist religions of the Romans, the Greeks, the Slavs, the Celts, the Germanic people...
Gold coins pretty much disappeared from Western Europe in the early middles ages, the Byzantine Empire and the the Islamic states were pretty much the only significant source of gold for a time so that makes sense in a way.
Interestingly enough the first coins minted in the Islamic Caliphate and based on the Roman Solidus actually had portraits (they just removed the Christian symbols) on them for a while:
Weird title, makes it seem like a reveleation. There have been numerous Viking treasures discovered in Sweden with traces from the the Islamic world and it's well known that they were all over England as well.
At the time the graffiti was carved, it was a church and the carver was likely a Viking mercenary in the Varangian Guard.
Seeing it a few years ago was a very strange feeling. It is both small and inconsequential as a thing, yet making me feel deeply moved and making me think about and connect somehow with history in a way that a statue of an emperor does not.
I find it interesting that the western silver is supposed, according to the article, to have been “obtained through raids or ransom” but the eastern silver is supposed to demonstrate trade, and that the mixture of the two symbolizes “the fusion of cultures.” The Rus were raiding around the Caspian at the time, including Muslim territory, so it would be interesting to know how the archaeologists ruled out raiding as a source of the eastern silver.
History, like archeology and paleontology, often take a set of facts or evidentiary items and weave a plausible narrative around it. The narrative can be neutral but also can be stereotyped (in archelogy unknowns are assigned religious significance) or they can be influenced by contemporaneous thought --that is, the narrative is allowed to be influenced by the currents of the day. It may take a century or so for those narratives to be dispelled through the passage of time when such influence wanes.
Could it be that if the silver was still in coinage form it demonstrates trade. If the silver was formed into new objects it would imply raided silver. I'm assuming they use isotopes to figure out the origin of the silver.
Silver coins from the Islamic world were not exactly rare in Scandinavia (e.g. https://www.medievalists.net/2023/11/nearly-500000-dirhams-w...), and trade is a much more likely explanation especially over such large distances. AFAIK trading vs raiding was often just a question of opportunity and might have been done by the same viking/trader group depending on what was more 'convenient' (or: first raid and then setup an adhoc trading point just around the corner to exchange the loot against silver coins because those are easier to carry home - or the classic: do slave raids on the way from Scandinavia to the Black Sea, and trade the captured slaves with the Greeks-slash-East-Romans and Muslims against silver).
Well, that area was 200 years conquered at the time- the usual decay had not set in yet? So my guess is that there where still competent military powers around and working states & organizations. So - better to trade with these then rob a powerful enemy? The vikings where traders/mercenaries when encountering formidable opponents and robbers when they did not..
Yeah but we know they did raid Muslim areas, and furthermore, they often worked with the Byzantines who were often at war with Muslims. It could be just payment for fighting against Muslims from the Byzantines (whether indirect as booty in war or as direct payment from the Byzantines).
Yorkshire was settled by many Scandinavians at this point, who could have easily served as Varangians before settling in Yorkshire. Harald Hardrada, for example, served many years in the Varagian guard before reclaiming the throne of Norway and then invading England (he was of course, defeated at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire).
Many Anglo-Saxons also served as Varangians as well! Particularly after the Norman conquest however.
Can't stand websites that don't let you right-click on other links on their pages. Who the bloody hell are you to control my reading, clicking and ADHD habits for me, especially over some nonsensical concern about me copying your mostly mediocre content?
Web developers that fuck with the browser's functionality deserve to spend eternity stepping on rusty legos while barefoot with James Blunt blaring in the background.
When I look at disciplines other than my own, I can recognize the skill and elegance that goes into it, even though I don't have those skills myself.
But when I look at the output of web development, and I see smooth scrolling, scrolljacking, excessive whitespace, artificial latency before UI popups ... I just don't get it. How can an entire field, as a default practice, intentionally make things bad?
I have a browser extension called "Enable Right Click" installed, and that fixed the right-click issue, but not the text selection issue. I'll have to start looking.
Of course the real fix is to send the one(s) responsible for web page to the deepest pits of everyone's favourite hot place.
The term Viking describes a profession (pirating/raiding) than an ethnicity.
Now every robber (pirate) needs a fence, and going to the people that were pillaged is obviously suboptimal. Much better to go to others who are not well-disposed to the victims.
> Modern "britain" was colonized and natives were almost wiped out!
Yeah, but not by Vikings. Saxons, and before them Celts did a lot of ethnic cleansing. By contrast the people who we think of as conquerors (Romans, Vikings, Normans) subjugated, rather than replaced the native population.
Someone might find this interesting. Viking is a term for Scandivanians in a specific time-period, and it's also a term for pirates from the wider North European area in that specific period, because, interestingly, it wasn't only the Scandinavians that raided, but people living East of the Baltic sea raided the Western Baltic too. In other words, Vikings were getting Vikinged by non-Vikings, thus making them Vikings too. To be less tongue in cheek, there were a lot of similarities between the Western and Eastern Baltic cultures: both pagan, both had runes and somesuch, built similar ships, so as to say they had more in common than the raiding.
Viking just meant raider/pirate.
> both pagan, both had runes and somesuch, built similar ships, so as to say they had more in common than the raiding.
No, they did not have runes. The runes were only used by various Germanic peoples. As far as I know the Baltic and Finnic pagans lacked a written language.
By the way, Viking is a historian term, as far as I know. It was not used in the period or at least not as it is used now. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Also, surely you wouldn't call (now or then) Mediterranean-born pirates Vikings.
1 reply →
I've seen archaelogical artefacts from East Baltic graves with runes. The commentary in the exhibition stated that runes and rune-related shamanic practices were imported across the Baltic sea. I'm not a historian, I'm only conveying what I've been told by enthusiasts or casually ran into.
1 reply →
> Viking is a term for Scandivanians in a specific time-period
Perhaps but culturally it's more widely used as a term for scandivanians "pirates/invaders" of said era. It is a well known term. Hell, we even have a football team named in their honor.
> it wasn't only the Scandinavians that raided
Did anyone say it was only the scandinavians who raided? Pretty much everyone raided. But the Vikings were just the most successful of the bunch and hence historically significant enough to remember.
Sigtuna got burned down by Finnish, Karelians, Estonians or Estonian Vikings, and this was 1187...
I wouldn't be surprised if Stockholm started out as an attempt to protect the cities around Lake Mälaren from raids. It is not known why the city is called Stockholm but one theory is that ot comes from logs driven into the lake to control who goes in and out of the lake.
1 reply →
What is 'pagan' here?
Everything before abrahamic religions is pagan or something more specific?
Yes, from the context of Abrahamic religion and the cultures descended from it, all religions and cultures which are not Abrahamic are by definition pagan.
1 reply →
That's a somewhat sad question, because we hardly know. Not enough written record exists and "paganism" was increasingly outlawed during the past millenia to the point where we're out of people that had it handed down to them. The missionaries doing most of the recording were also the ones actively suppressing its survival. I'm aware of at least one revival movement that was active during the last 50 years, but the main instigator seems to have died without leaving a meaningful succession, and thus the preservation may very well have failed. Unless someone invents a time-machine a la Assassin Creed.
The etymology of the word 'pagan' originally meant hillbillies / dumb country people. It was a slur because the towns and cities adopted Christianity before the country people did. So, 'pagan' typically means the pre-Christian religions of Europe.
In the context of European Antiquity and Middle Ages - this means the original polytheist religions of the Romans, the Greeks, the Slavs, the Celts, the Germanic people...
by definition, yes
When King Offa of England's Mercia decided to mint some coins, the coins which came to everyone's minds were the islamic dinars.
That's why his coins were identical to Dinars, with OFFA REX next to the islamic shahada.
https://artofthemiddleages.com/files/original/e5a8cb4eadae18...
https://www.islamic-awareness.org/history/islam/coins/dinar1
Gold coins pretty much disappeared from Western Europe in the early middles ages, the Byzantine Empire and the the Islamic states were pretty much the only significant source of gold for a time so that makes sense in a way.
Interestingly enough the first coins minted in the Islamic Caliphate and based on the Roman Solidus actually had portraits (they just removed the Christian symbols) on them for a while:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,...
Weird title, makes it seem like a reveleation. There have been numerous Viking treasures discovered in Sweden with traces from the the Islamic world and it's well known that they were all over England as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spillings_Hoard
There was even a movie with Antonio Banderas about it! (The 13th Warrior)
In the TV series Vikings they reach the Muslim kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula
There is an interesting book about Viking trade connections, "River Kings" by Cat Jarman.
This brings to my mind the rune graffitis found on the Hagia Sophia mosque: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runic_inscriptions_in_Hagia_So...
At the time the graffiti was carved, it was a church and the carver was likely a Viking mercenary in the Varangian Guard.
Seeing it a few years ago was a very strange feeling. It is both small and inconsequential as a thing, yet making me feel deeply moved and making me think about and connect somehow with history in a way that a statue of an emperor does not.
How do we know this was traded? It could easily be bounty captured by the Varangian Guard in wars against Muslim powers.
I find it interesting that the western silver is supposed, according to the article, to have been “obtained through raids or ransom” but the eastern silver is supposed to demonstrate trade, and that the mixture of the two symbolizes “the fusion of cultures.” The Rus were raiding around the Caspian at the time, including Muslim territory, so it would be interesting to know how the archaeologists ruled out raiding as a source of the eastern silver.
History, like archeology and paleontology, often take a set of facts or evidentiary items and weave a plausible narrative around it. The narrative can be neutral but also can be stereotyped (in archelogy unknowns are assigned religious significance) or they can be influenced by contemporaneous thought --that is, the narrative is allowed to be influenced by the currents of the day. It may take a century or so for those narratives to be dispelled through the passage of time when such influence wanes.
Could it be that if the silver was still in coinage form it demonstrates trade. If the silver was formed into new objects it would imply raided silver. I'm assuming they use isotopes to figure out the origin of the silver.
Yeah it seems a bizarre claim, especially when we have references to Viking raids in Morocco and Seville as well!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_raid_on_Seville
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nekor
Silver coins from the Islamic world were not exactly rare in Scandinavia (e.g. https://www.medievalists.net/2023/11/nearly-500000-dirhams-w...), and trade is a much more likely explanation especially over such large distances. AFAIK trading vs raiding was often just a question of opportunity and might have been done by the same viking/trader group depending on what was more 'convenient' (or: first raid and then setup an adhoc trading point just around the corner to exchange the loot against silver coins because those are easier to carry home - or the classic: do slave raids on the way from Scandinavia to the Black Sea, and trade the captured slaves with the Greeks-slash-East-Romans and Muslims against silver).
Well, that area was 200 years conquered at the time- the usual decay had not set in yet? So my guess is that there where still competent military powers around and working states & organizations. So - better to trade with these then rob a powerful enemy? The vikings where traders/mercenaries when encountering formidable opponents and robbers when they did not..
Yeah but we know they did raid Muslim areas, and furthermore, they often worked with the Byzantines who were often at war with Muslims. It could be just payment for fighting against Muslims from the Byzantines (whether indirect as booty in war or as direct payment from the Byzantines).
This reminds me of a fun multiple choice question from an educational text that I will remember until I die:
How did Mansa Musa contribute to the cultural diffusion of %region%?
Varangians in Yorkshire?
Yorkshire was settled by many Scandinavians at this point, who could have easily served as Varangians before settling in Yorkshire. Harald Hardrada, for example, served many years in the Varagian guard before reclaiming the throne of Norway and then invading England (he was of course, defeated at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire).
Many Anglo-Saxons also served as Varangians as well! Particularly after the Norman conquest however.
2 replies →
Link to the paper: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/arcm.70031
Can't stand websites that don't let you right-click on other links on their pages. Who the bloody hell are you to control my reading, clicking and ADHD habits for me, especially over some nonsensical concern about me copying your mostly mediocre content?
Web developers that fuck with the browser's functionality deserve to spend eternity stepping on rusty legos while barefoot with James Blunt blaring in the background.
When I look at disciplines other than my own, I can recognize the skill and elegance that goes into it, even though I don't have those skills myself.
But when I look at the output of web development, and I see smooth scrolling, scrolljacking, excessive whitespace, artificial latency before UI popups ... I just don't get it. How can an entire field, as a default practice, intentionally make things bad?
3 replies →
AFAIK clicking the wheel (which used to be middle click) opens the link in a new tab on most systems and browsers, if that's your aim.
I feel stupid now, because I never even thought of that, but yes, you're right.
On mac cmd + click opens in new tab. Afaik, it is ctrl + click on Windows.
Wow, it even blocks text selection.
I have a browser extension called "Enable Right Click" installed, and that fixed the right-click issue, but not the text selection issue. I'll have to start looking. Of course the real fix is to send the one(s) responsible for web page to the deepest pits of everyone's favourite hot place.
Turn of JS. The you can right click. A lot of paywalls do not work without JS either.
Better link might be: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-08-11-viking-silver-hoard-rev...
The term Viking describes a profession (pirating/raiding) than an ethnicity.
Now every robber (pirate) needs a fence, and going to the people that were pillaged is obviously suboptimal. Much better to go to others who are not well-disposed to the victims.
[flagged]
> Modern "britain" was colonized and natives were almost wiped out!
Yeah, but not by Vikings. Saxons, and before them Celts did a lot of ethnic cleansing. By contrast the people who we think of as conquerors (Romans, Vikings, Normans) subjugated, rather than replaced the native population.
8 replies →
[flagged]
3 replies →