Gripla - 20.12.2009, Blaðsíða 156

GRIPLA156
Still another possible way to challenge the myth of the monolithic common
nordic viking Age is to promote studies on the multi­ethnicity character­
istic of many northern populations. there are numerous examples of such
an approach that focus on various parts of the “nordic civilization” (e.g.
Roslund 2001, Urbańczyk 2003a, Hansen and Olsen 2004, Naum 2008).
there has even been an attempt to connect the early meaning of the term
víkingr with some “outsiders” of undefined ethnicity, including the Slavs/
Wends (jesch 2001, 49–50 and 56).
one of the promising but as yet underdeveloped fields for such research
is the peri-Baltic region. Archaeology shows that during the Viking Age
and even the High Middle Ages, the Baltic Sea was just a “lake” that was
easy to cross and over which intensive demographic and cultural exchange
took place. People moved in both directions: Scandinavians settled on the
south and east coast and Slavs established their homes in Scandinavia.
There were numerous multi-ethnic societies, of which the best known are
those of the Wolin and Rügen islands. Cultural traditions penetrated both
ways and had a profound impact on local developments. Here, an impor­
tant scholarly contribution has been offered by Mats Roslund. His studies
on south-Scandinavian pottery showed the diverse reception of Slavic tra­
dition in various regions (eastern Denmark, the Mälaren area and Gotland)
and proved that “Slavs had a deep impact on Scandinavian culture”
(Roslund 2001, 322). even the ship­building tradition, proudly considered
a specifically Scandinavian development, in the Baltic area shows consider­
able typological parallelism in nordic and Slavic constructions (cf.
Indruszewski 2004, 245f). Evidently, there was an intensive trans-Baltic
exchange of experiences between ship builders who shared their local tra­
ditions. We know this thanks to dendrochronological analyses that eluci­
date not only chronology but also provide insights into the histories of
individual vessels, i.e. the precise areas of their construction and places
where they were subsequently repaired.
Despite these affinities, cultural prejudices expressed by historically
based underestimation of some problems or even whole ‘directions’ of
research influenced Scandinavian attitude towards the Slavs. “There seems
to be a deeply embedded common premise that the only positive direction
of mutual contacts was from the north to the south, of course with
Scandinavians as bearers of higher civilization standards and Slavs as sim­