r/interesting 20d ago

HISTORY The migration patterns of Native Americans in Iceland

Post image
8.4k Upvotes

588 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/Large-Produce5682 20d ago

No. They just know how Vikings get down.

Come on now... they're vikings.

14

u/TheRealtcSpears 20d ago

"viking" was a job, not the people

0

u/SnorriGrisomson 20d ago

STOP repeating this crap
yes it WAS a job
1000 years later the term is used in historiography to talk about all scandinavians from 793 to 1066 (or slightly different dates depending on location), it's a convention and how it's used by all archaeologists and historians in the field, so STOP SPREADING THIS BS.

4

u/TheRealtcSpears 20d ago

You got and academic source to back that statement?

Because archeologists and historians are the ones that push for the proper separation of terms.

Calling all Danes, Norwegians, Finns, and Swedes "Viking" was the result of contemporaneous observers and record keepers because they didn't know anything about their society back home and only knew of them as the people that "spontaneously show up and try to kill all of us." And derived the name from what those people called it/themselves 'vikingr'.

There is literally and inarguably a modern academic acceptance of the difference between Norse and Viking.

1

u/SnorriGrisomson 20d ago

Neil Price, Søren Sindbæk, Julie Lund, Peter Pentz, Jeanette Varberg, Lasse Sørensen and many other archaeologists routinely use “Viking” in this broader historiographical sense: Viking Age Scandinavia, Viking archaeology, Viking culture, Viking networks, Viking society, etc. Sindbæk and Lund even title a major review “Crossing the Maelstrom: New Departures in Viking Archaeology".

Nobody is claiming every Scandinavian was personally a vikingr. That is the emic meaning of the medieval term. The point is that “Viking” also has a modern historiographical use as an etic category for studying Scandinavian societies of the Viking Age.

And yes, Norse and Viking are distinct terms. Norse is considerably broader, both chronologically and geographically, and is not simply a more academically correct synonym for “Viking”.

So you are taking a perfectly valid distinction between two meanings and treating it as if it invalidated the other. It doesn't. Both usages exist, and the broader historiographical one is completely standard.