Gripla - 20.12.2009, Blaðsíða 158

GRIPLA158
suggest that “the colonists followed the trail of hermit-settlers” and the
colonization was, to a large extent, a part of the common Hiberno-
Scandinavian history (e.g. MacShamhráin 2002, 79 and ch. 4).
*
the above­quoted recent publications and ongoing discussions “assert that
there were many small specific ‘regions’, ‘lands’ or similar ‘units’ in
Scandinavia … but these ‘units’ are never seen as primary subjects of history.
They always exist within the general viking Age culture, within the bound­
aries of the later nation­states and within the metahistorical ‘unifications’ of
the later states” (f. Svanberg 2003a: 93). these states, in turn, are often
treated first of all as a specific Nordic whole that was relatively isolated
from the rest of medieval Europe, which had different kings, different
states and different towns. The discussion of possible external connections
is usually limited to the “straight east” or “straight west” directions which
were established already during the Viking Age. What is completely miss­
ing is the new situation that appeared around the Baltic Sea where mon­
archs of the surrounding states played a complex game of “co­operation
versus competition”. the dynasties of ynglings, Skjoldungs, Rurikids,
Piasts and Nakonids maintained lively “diplomatic” relations that were
strengthened by numerous cross­Baltic inter­marriages. these contacts
also included cross­Baltic Christianizing missions and the issue of parallel
coinage. When added to the already mentioned diffused contacts indicated
by archaeology at the level of the common people, one could argue that in
the 10th century, there emerged a sort of a “peri-Baltic civilisation” which
is an idea that is surely worth more detailed study.
Anyway, challenging the concept of an isolated, unique and homoge­
nous early medieval “nordic civilization” is one of the important tasks of
the modern medievistic studies.