Another interesting if slightly dumbed down article on Viking genetics pointing to "Olaf" dragging the missus with him on his raids and subsequent colonisation of North Eastern Britain. At least it isnt too sensationalist (since it is the Independent) and of course wont come as a surprise to many. Whats more interesting is the armour worn in the the picture in the article....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/think-again-about-the-pillaging-viking-warriors--it-wasnt-just-the-men-who-raided-britain-9910537.html
I do sometimes wonder about the thought processes that go into such an article. DNA analysis of settled Norse populations showed they were Norse, therefore the women came on the raids (as opposed to, say, moving in with a 'great army' when or after the land was conquered) and therefore the raids did not consist of men going out to rape and pillage (which must have come as a great relief to the sheep).
Still, the shot of armoured recreational Vikings is worth having.
Quote from: Patrick Waterson on December 14, 2014, 11:49:25 AM
Still, the shot of armoured recreational Vikings is worth having.
quote of the week I think! :)
So much archaeology comes with a pre packaged political view. The Vikings are being rehabilitated from monsters who terrorised NW Europe into peaceful traders who dud a bit of raiding. Likely their biggest trade commodity was slaves, anything else would be in small volumes and certainly not sufficient to fill the large Viking fleets that arrived in Britain and France. The Vikings seem to have been bent upon conquest from early on, installing puppet rulers and then, most likely going back for wives and families . Taking families on an initial expedition would take up too much space on the ships which would have been more usefully filled with warriors.
The Vikings are not uniquely nasty in period. The English were quite as thorough at disposessing the British elite, the Irish/ Scors those of the Britons and Zpicts, the Carolingians thoroughly brutal in Saxony, the Zottonian Germans quite effective at crushing the Slavs. It is much more realistic to see the Vikings as brutal in a brutal world, as Guy Halsall does than to deny that they were cruel and barbaric, a picture that was painted because the Vikings were aggressive pagans who destroyed the property and lives of those who wrote the histories, the churchmen.
Roy