Gripla - 20.12.2009, Síða 145

145
conversion. This way, the historiographic tradition of the clear-cut periodi­
sation finds obvious support in archaeological evidence which in fact has
been interpreted according to this periodisation. This works in such a way
even in Iceland, which obviously had no indigenous traditions that could
blur the bi­polar vision of “pagans” versus “Christians”. to be honest, one
must admit that such logical loopholes were typical also of other historio-
graphies. A good example of the radical separation of two distinct periods
is to be found in Polish medieval studies where such an a priori scheme,
however primitive, also spares the trouble of explaining a transition from
one ideology to another.
The way out of this circular argumentation is through complex multi-
disciplinary studies that must include precise accelerator (AMS) dating of
every burial. only a skilful combination of critically assessed texts and
analyses of material evidence, supported by linguistics, theology, numis­
matics, history of art and historical anthropology, may ensure real progress
in our understanding of the fascinating process of Christianization of
North Europe. This will reinforce the already visible departure from the
simplistic “text­driven” archaeology that concentrates on the “confirma­
tion” of the written sources, and from “item-fascinated” history that uses
archaeological data as simple illustrations of ready­made concepts, both of
which were parasitic substitutes of the postulated multi-disciplinarity.
there is a need for thoughtful discussion about the Christianization of
Iceland which is still viewed through the rather naïve lens of the story con­
structed by the late “republican” tradition of the peaceful and radical
acceptance of religious change. Dominance of this concept saves archaeolo­
gists interpretational troubles when discovering early graves and results in
a suspiciously clear story devoid of the expected tensions connected to
ideological conflict. Instead of contemplating this unique situation of the
cleverly negotiated compromise, one should rather ask what could have
been the political function of the conversion, viewed as the “capitulation”
of the old world (Toynbee 1951, 358).
I suspect that this myth of an unproblematic conversion that hid the
real conflicts was consciously created by the Icelandic intellectual elite,
perhaps in order to reinforce the idea of the power of negotiability that
was deeply embedded in the ideology of the medieval Icelandic political
system. Ca. 1130 this was openly expressed by Ari Þorgilsson who in his
DeConStRuCtInG tHe “noRDIC CIvILIZAtIon”