Gripla - 20.12.2009, Blaðsíða 139

139
narratives that refer to the nordic early Middle Ages. even in Iceland, the
desire for a deeply­rooted ethno­political continuity is so strong that it is
necessary to be reminded that “…those who first settled in Iceland were not
Icelanders, but immigrants” (orri vésteinsson 2006, 85).
One should ask whether these two somehow contradictory concepts of
the original homogeneity promoted mostly by archaeologists, and of the
original subdivision of Scandinavia into three “ethnic” parts promoted by
historians (and strongly supported by politicians), have a firm foundation
in the available data. the study of the problem must be interdisciplinary
but I feel that the leading role in such an endeavour will be played by
archaeologists who have access to data that are local by their very character,
while historians have to deal with sources the majority of which originate
(in their extant form) from the geographically limited area of Mediaeval
Icelandic scholarly tradition. optimally, one should apply a combined argu­
mentative approach that refers to both material and written sources of
information in order to help cross-check new hypotheses. Unfortunately,
this may be impossible in many cases where geographical areas simply lack
relevant historical data detailed enough to allow serious discussion of spe­
cific problems that may be revealed by archaeological studies.
*
Let us look, then, at some examples of studies that suggest the necessity of
including local and regional diversities as an obvious element in further
research on mediaeval “nordic civilization.” to challenge the dominating
concept or myth of a pan­Scandinavian cultural unity, or even uniformity,
one may combine a basic knowledge of the Middle Ages with anthropo­
logical experiences of traditional societies, which imply that general ways
of life and ideology, and their cultural manifestations, must have somehow
differed between the north and the south as well as between the west and
the east of such a vast and differentiated area as Scandinavia. this refers
not only to the obvious linguistic and ethnic differentiation between the
dominating majority of the Germanic people who were, of course, the
main object of scholarly interest, and the long overlooked Sami who occu­
pied the far north and the mountainous interior (cf. Hansen and olsen
DeConStRuCtInG tHe “noRDIC CIvILIZAtIon”