the earliest wave of viking activity? the norwegian ... · 356, downham, 2017: 1). possibly after...

The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?The Norwegian Evidence Revisited

AINA MARGRETHE HEEN-PETTERSEN

Department of Historical Studies, Norwegian University of Science and Technology,

Trondheim, Norway

This article discusses the chronology and nature of the earliest Viking activity, based on a group of earlyburials from Norway containing Insular metalwork. By focusing on the geographical distribution of thismaterial and applying the concept of locational and social knowledge, the importance of establishingcognitive landscapes to facilitate the Viking expansion is highlighted. It is argued that the first recordedViking attacks were only possible after a phase in which Norse seafarers had acquired the necessarilylevel of a priori environmental knowledge needed to move in new seascapes and coastal environments.This interaction model opens the possibility that some of the early Insular finds from Norway mayrepresent pre-Lindisfarne exploration voyages, carried out by seafarers along the sailing route ofNordvegr.

Keywords: Early Viking Age, Vikings, Insular, Norway, Nordvegr, maritime mobility

INTRODUCTION

For over a century, the earliest Vikingactivity in Britain and Ireland (the `Insulararea` referred to in this paper) has beenthe topic of intense scholarly discussion.The written and archaeological evidencehave been regularly reviewed, mostrecently by Emer Purell (2015) and ClareDownham (2017) who have studied thefirst generation of Vikings in Ireland andthe written sources for the earliest Vikingactivity in England, respectively.The purpose of this article is to consider

the Norwegian evidence in light of thecurrent discussions into initial directcontact across the North Sea. First, itreviews the chronology and geographicaldistribution of 16 early burials containingInsular metalwork, including new finds

and data which have not been included inprevious debates about the earliest Vikingactivity. Second, the article examines thenature of the initial phase of contact witha focus on maritime mobility and environ-mental knowledge, which must have beenvital aspects but remain under-investigatedcomponents of the initial phase of contact.Finally, the article brings together theseelements and proposes a model of move-ment and maritime communication for theearliest voyages across the North Sea.

THE EARLIEST RECORDED RAIDS AND

THE BEGINNING OF THE VIKING AGE

Over the years, many scholars haveexpressed different views about when theearliest direct contact between Norway

European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019, 523–541This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

© European Association of Archaeologists 2019 doi:10.1017/eaa.2019.19Manuscript received 29 June 2018,accepted 18 March 2019, revised 17 December 2018

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 54.39.106.173, on 17 Feb 2021 at 12:06:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3008-7018

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms

https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19

https://www.cambridge.org/core

and the Insular world took place and thenature of this interaction. The relationshipbetween the archaeological evidence andinformation recorded in the Irish annalsand the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has beencentral to these discussions.The first written record of a Viking

attack on Insular land took place inPortland, Dorset, in AD 789—or sometimeduring the reign of King Beorthric ofWessex between AD 786 and 802 if webase the dating on a cautious use of thesources (Dumville, 2008: 356). Accordingto the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, three shipsof Northmen arrived near a royal resi-dence, where they killed the king’s reevewho rode out to meet them. While theearliest source refers to the Northmen as‘Dani’ (a general term for Scandinavians),later versions of the Chronicle (VersionsD, E, and F) identify the ships as origin-ating from Hordaland in the western partof present-day Norway (Dumville, 2008:356, Downham, 2017: 1). Possibly afterthe altercation in Portland, the earliestViking raid on an ecclesiastical location isthe well-known attack on the monasteryon Lindisfarne in north-eastern Englandin June 793, recorded in the Northernrecension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,versions D and E (Downham, 2017: 2).In the following decade, the Insular

sources record repeated raids around theshores of Britain and Ireland. Thisincludes the sacking of the monastery atthe ‘mouth of the River Don’ (possibleJarrow, or a monastery in SouthYorkshire) and raids throughout theHebrides in AD 794, on the islands ofIona, Inishmurray, Inishbofin, and Rechru(probably Lambay Island, Co. Dublin) inAD 795, while mainland Scotland (Argyll)and Ireland were targeted from AD 796onwards (Dumville, 2008; Downham,2000). While the annals and Chronicleshow an emphasis on early raids onIreland and northern Britain, other written

sources including letters, foreign chroni-cles, and charters, suggest that large partsof southern England were also targeted by‘pagans’ around the same time. Theseaccounts are however somewhat supressedin the Chronicle, which mainly recordsthe Vikings as a regular threat to southernEngland from c. AD 830 and onwards. Itappears that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle issomewhat biased towards King Alfred andhis family by playing down the impactof the Vikings before the reign of KingEcgberht, King Alfred’s grandfather(Downham, 2017: 12).Since the early twentieth century, the

earliest recorded raids have generally beenregarded as the starting point of contactacross the North Sea. By tradition, thishas led to the widespread notion that anyInsular metalwork could only have reachedScandinavia after these events. This prin-ciple is often referred to as the ‘Sheteligaxiom’ and has been both influential andmuch debated. While early researcherswere also open to the idea of direct pre-Viking contact, this topic became thesubject of lively scholarly discussion in the1990s. Instead of viewing the Lindisfarneattack as the first time the ‘Norwegian’Vikings entered the Insular world, it wasstrongly argued that a pre-Viking phase ofmigration and trade to Atlantic Scotlandtook place from the early to mid-eighthcentury or even earlier (e.g. Myhre, 1993,1998, 2000; Weber, 1994, 1996; Solli,1996). This view is sometimes referred toas the ‘Myhre’ model because of BjørnMyhre’s influential role in these discus-sions. As summarized elsewhere (seeBarrett, 2008: 418–21), the debate princi-pally centred around four aspects of thearchaeological evidence: 1) Viking graveswith early types of brooches or weapons inScotland; 2) early combs from Orkneymade of Scandinavian reindeer antler; 3)pollen analysis on Faroe indicating a pre-Viking presence; and 4) early Insular

524 European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019





objects in Norwegian graves. The first ofthese pieces of evidence has since beenlargely dismissed because the earlybrooches show clear signs of wear andrepair and because of the difficulties ofdating Scottish graves on the basis ofNorwegian typologies (e.g. Morris, 1998:88; Owen, 2004). The presence ofScandinavian reindeer antler from Orkneyhas also been reviewed and has shown thatthe arrival of this material cannot besecurely dated to before the early ninthcentury (Ashby, 2009; von Holstein et al.,2014). The evidence for a pre-Viking Agepresence on the Faroes has recently beenconfirmed by new pollen evidence anddates. These results are interpreted as ‘firmevidence for the human colonisation of theFaroes by people of unknown geographicaland ethnic origin some 300–500 yearsbefore the large-scale Viking colonisationof the ninth century’ (Church et al., 2013:231–32). While not forming part of theoriginal discussion, an early date from asite in Norwick, Shetland, obtained in2003, has also been used to suggest Norsesettlement before AD 793 (Ballin Smith,2007). However, the date was obtainedfrom carbonized food deposits and couldeasily be a result of marine reservoir effectson cooked fish, or even statistical chance,since the remaining dates from the sitelargely suggest a later settlement date(Barrett, 2010: 291). At present, there islittle archaeological evidence to supportthe hypothesis of a Norse settlement inthe Scottish Isles before the mid-ninthcentury (see Barrett, 2008, 2010).As shown above, much of the Insular

evidence of possible pre-Viking contact hasbeen thoroughly reviewed, and in somecases dismissed, in the last two decades. Inthe following section, I shall focus on thefourth, and perhaps least studied, elementof evidence for early Scandinavian activityin the west: Insular metalwork found inearly burials in Norway.

THE EARLIEST INSULAR METALWORK:COMPOSITION

Over forty years ago, Egil Bakka discussedthe chronology of a group of eleven earlygraves from Norway with Insular metal-work, all of which also contained broochesof the late Vendel/Merovingian periods ortransitional types that survived into theEarly Viking Age (Bakka, 1973; see alsoWamers, 1998: 51–54). To this group,five further finds, from Ytre Kvarøy, Skei,Geite, Myklebost, and Farmen, can beadded (Figure 1 and Table 1).As shown in Table 1, the Insular metal-

work comprises twenty-three objects fromsixteen graves representing fourteen femaleand two male burials. The most significantpiece is the complete reliquary from awoman’s burial in Melhus (see Figure 6),one of only twelve largely complete Insularhouse-shaped shrines to have survived inEurope. The grave contained a furtherInsular find in the form of a reworkedecclesiastical mount, which was probablyused as a brooch to fasten the deceased’sfur cloak (see Heen-Pettersen & Murray,2018 for a recent presentation of thisfind). Such decorative and gilded copper-alloy mounts are by far the most commonobject type in the early Insular material,with fifteen pieces known from fourteenlocations. Three of these, from Oseborg(Møre and Romsdal county) (Figure 2),Grande, and Fosse are harness mounts, allof which were reworked into dress acces-sories (Wamers, 1985: 93–96). While themetalwork from Store Kongsvik cannot beascribed to an identified parent object, theremaining examples were probably oncemounted on ecclesiastical objects. Thisincludes an Anglo-Saxon book mount fromBjørke (Figure 2) that served as a pendantsuspended from a bead-necklace worn bythe deceased (Wamers, 1985: 95).The metalwork from Sanddal, Farmen,

and Myklebust is identified as hinges from

Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity? 525





reliquary shrines (Wamers, 1985: 19, 95;Aannestad, 2015: 80). Further pieces fromeither reliquary shrines or other reliquariesare represented by the mounts from

Skjervum, Melhus, Skei, and Svennevik.On five of these pieces, secondary perfora-tions, sometimes associated with theremains of pin fittings and/or textiles,

Figure 1. Distribution of the earliest Insular finds found in Norway.Map by Astrid Lorentzen, Trondheim University Museum.






suggest that these were adapted for use asbrooches (see Stenvik, 2001: 33;Aannestad, 2015: 307). The remaining

ecclesiastical pieces belong to a group ofmounts which may originally have beenaltar or tabernacle decorations, or

Table 1. Overview of the early burials containing Insular material.

Site Type of Insular object Diagnostic grave-goods

Ytre Kvarøy, Lurøy Copper-alloy bowl Sword, Petersen special type 1

Melhus, Overhalla Reliquary shrine, copper-alloy mount (ecclesiastical) Button-on-bow brooch, R643A x 2

Skei, Steinkjer Copper-alloy ladle, hanging bowl, bucket, 2copper-alloy mounts (ecclesiastical)

Berdal 1A

Geite, Levanger Copper-alloy bowl, 2 drinking horn terminals Animal-shaped brooches of the‘Stor-Skogmo’ type

Grande, Ørlandet Harness mount R640 x 2

Oseborg, Ørsta Harness mount R640 x 2

Bjørke, Ørsta Copper-alloy mount (book mount) R640 x 2

Sanddal, Gloppen Hinge of a reliquary shrine R643A x 2

Myklebost, Fjaler Hinge of a reliquary shrine Axe (JP type A or B)

Vangsnes, Vik Copper-alloy mount (ecclesiastical) JP7

Skjervum, Vik Copper-alloy mount (ecclesiastical) R640 x 2, R643 x 1

Fure, Askvoll Copper-alloy mount (ecclesiastical) Button-on-bow brooch

Store Kongsvik, Tysnes Copper-alloy mount, original function uncertain R640 x 2

Fosse, Meland Harness mount R643A x 2

Svennevik, Grimstad Copper-alloy mount (from reliquary shrine) R641 x 2

Farmen, Larvik Hinge of a reliquary shrine JP17

Figure 2. Left: back and front of harness-mount from Oseborg, Ørsta. Right: Anglo-Saxon bookmount from Bjørke, Ørsta.Photograph by permission of University Museum of Bergen/Svein Skare.






decorations on processional crosses. Thisincludes the hemispherical and flangedboss from Vangsnes and the metalworkfrom Fure (Figure 3). The latter belongsto a group of hollow, cast mounts in theshape of a truncated pyramid, similar tothe mounts decorating the ‘Antrim Cross’.These two pieces were also reworked andprobably worn as dress ornaments(Wamers, 1985: 96).Finally, the Insular finds from Ytre

Kvarøy, Geite, and Skei were variousitems used for serving food and drink.The only hanging-bowl from this corpuscomes from Skei, where it formed part ofa fine set of serving equipment, togetherwith a large bronze ladle and a small,

bronze-bound bucket (Stenvik, 2001). Thelarge Insular bowls from Ytre Kvarøy (seeFigure 7) and Geite belong to a group ofcopper-alloy vessels, which can be isolatedfrom the hanging-bowl series since theylack suspension devices. The Geite gravealso included two drinking horn terminalsof Insular origin.

CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES

The material from the earliest burials,which provides the best indication ofdeposition dates, consists of decorateddress ornaments and weapon types, sinceother plain and undiagnostic finds are

Figure 3. Left: the flanged boss from Vangsnes, Vik. Right: the mount from Fure, Askvoll.Photograph by permission of University Museum of Bergen/Svein Skare.






more difficult to place within a narrowertime frame (see e.g. Bakka, 1973; Stenvik,2001; Heen-Pettersen & Murray, 2018for details about these further gravegoods). As for beads, the work of Callmer(1977) still forms the main typology forthe Norwegian material. However, in ourcase, the problem with using his classifica-tion is the fact that Callmer explicitly usedthe ‘Shetelig Axiom’ when building hischronology and, therefore, presumed apost-Lindisfarne date for beads foundwith early Insular material (see e.g.Callmer, 1977: 77). Likewise, when Bakkadiscussed the early graves with Insularmetalwork in 1973, he had to deal withthe ‘problem’ of early styles of ornamentedbrooches in burials with imports. His solu-tion was to propose that the styles contin-ued in use until around AD 800 and thatthe deposition of Insular metalwork,therefore, largely corresponded with the‘Shetelig Axiom’ (Bakka, 1973: 16-17).Since then, a number of researchers havestudied and suggested various chronologiesfor the brooches of late Vendel-periodScandinavia, including transitional typessurviving into the early Viking Age (e.g.Shetelig, 1927; Ørsnes, 1966; Jansson,1985; Myhre, 1993; Klæsøe, 1999;Rundkvist, 2010). The difficulties within afine chronology have yet to be resolved,especially since these brooches were in usein the decades before and after the firstrecorded overseas raids.Five of the graves in this study con-

tained pairs of thin-shelled brooches ofR640/JP 4 type (Figure 4). While olderresearch grouped these brooches collect-ively under the type name R640, it is nowgenerally agreed that they can be dividedinto two main types: The Small Plain typeand the Large Plain brooches. All ourexamples belong to the latter group, witha suggested deposition date of c. AD 770–840 (see Rundkvist, 2010: table 10). Afurther four burials contained pairs of type

R643 brooches. This group is also believedto date to the late eighth and early ninthcentury (see Rundkvist, 2010: 135). Asimilar date is suggested for the animal-shaped brooches of the rare ‘Stor-Skogmo’type found in the richly-furnished crema-tion burial from Geite, which has recentlybeen confirmed by radiocarbon dates (seebelow).Two further pairs of oval brooches from

Vangsnes and Farmen (types JP7 andJP17) are classed as ‘transition types’ (TT)(Rundkvist, 2010: finds catalogue).Petersen (1928) certainly suggested aslightly later manufacturing sequence forthe Norwegian TT examples comparedwith the simple, thin-shelled R640 andR643 brooches. While he regarded JP7 asan early type going back to the end of theeighth century, JP17 was defined byPetersen as one of the earliest Viking-agetypes based on the ‘gripping beast’ motif.Rundqvist has however suggested abipartition of this decoration, where thebeasts used on the earliest types (such asJP17) may pre-date the Lindisfarne raidby a few decades (Rundkvist, 2010:159–60).A late eighth-century production date is

also argued for the late types of button-on-bow brooches from Melhus and Fure

Figure 4. Oval brooches of R640 type fromBjørke, Ørsta.Photograph by permission of UniversityMuseum of Bergen/Svein Skare.






(Gjessing, 1934; Glørstad & Røstad,2015: 186–88). Finally, while representinga slightly later find, an early date is alsoindicated by the find of a Berdal type 1abrooch with a gripping beast ornamentfrom Skei. It has been suggested that pro-duction of this brooch type began duringthe mid-eighth century, based on the findsof moulds in Ribe, Jutland (Myhre, 1993:186). There has, however, been consider-able debate regarding the chronology ofthe layers associated with these finds.Feveile and Jensen (2000: 17–18) havereassessed the dating evidence and arguedthat the date of the earliest occurrence ofBerdal brooches in Ribe must be adjustedto c. AD 780–790.None of the above burials has previously

been dated by radiocarbon analysis. Inconnection with this study, two sampleswere obtained from cremated animalbones from the base of the Insular bowl inthe Geite burial. Since no collagen waspreserved, the results were obtained bymeasuring the carbonate fraction in cre-mated bones (bio apatite). Each of the two

samples was tested three times (seeTable 2 and Figure 5) and the best esti-mates for the age are the average of thethree measurements (at 95.4% probability):cal AD 693–867 (Tra-12567) and cal AD

725–877 (Tra-12568). However, a closerlook at the individual results indicate anarrower timeframe. Only one measure-ment gave an early date of cal AD 676–776(95.4% probability), while three samplesprovided very similar results of cal AD

768–896 (91.2% probability), AD 769–887(95.4% probability) and cal AD 766–879(82.2% probability). A deposition date ofsometime after AD 766 therefore seemsmost likely, but the results also underlinethe methodological difficulties in obtain-ing the necessarily chronological resolutionto confidently date burials to before orafter the first recorded raids.While this group of finds represents the

earliest evidence of direct contact acrossthe North Sea, it is also clear that boththe typological and radiocarbon dates arecoarse and offer us room to interpret thefinds as either supporting or speaking

Table 2. Geite, Levanger: calibrated dates.

Sample code Radiocarbon age(BP)

δ13C (‰) -AMS

Calibrated date (95.4% probability) usingOxCal 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey, 2013)

TRa-12567 (a) 1255 ± 20 −19.1 ± 0.8 ‰ AD 676–776 (95.4%)

TRa-12567 (b) 1190 ± 30 −18.7 ± 2.1 ‰ AD 727–738 (1.7%)AD 768–896 (91.2%)AD 928–942 (2.4%)

TRa-12567 (c) 1230 ± 20 −22.0 ± 0.4 ‰ AD 692–747 (36.9%)AD 762–780 (14.8%)AD 787–876 (43.7%)

TRa-12567 (average) 1225 ± 25 - AD 693–746 (51.0%)AD 763–779 (18.9%)AD 791–867(25.5%)

TRa-12568 (a) 1230 ± 20 −19.7 ± 0.4 ‰ AD 699–747 (36.9%)AD 762–780 (14.8%)AD 787–876 (43.7%)

TRa-12568 (b) 1205 ± 20 −26.7 ± 0.4 ‰ AD 769–887 (95.4%)

TRa-12568 (c) 1220 ± 15 −25.4 ± 0.4 ‰ AD 720–742 (13.2%)AD 766–879 (82.2%)

TRa-12568 (average) 1220 ± 15 - AD 725–739 (7.9%)AD 766–780 (14.6%)AD 787–877 (73.0%)






against the ‘Shetelig axiom’. Since it is dif-ficult to achieve fine-grained dating, themethodological and theoretical framework

against which the imports can be inter-preted becomes essential. This is especiallytrue for interaction models, which haveimplications for the chronology and char-acterisation of the earliest Norse activity inBritain and Ireland.

Figure 5. Geite, Levanger: calibrated dates using OxCal 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey, 2013; Reimer et al.,2013).

Figure 6. The reliquary from Melhus,Overhalla, (length: 118 mm; height: 83 mm) isone of only twelve complete Insular house-shapedshrines to have survived in Europe.Photograph by permission of NorwegianUniversity of Science and TechnologyMuseum, Trondheim/Åge Hojem.

Figure 7. The large bowl from Ytre Kvarøy,Lurøy, is the most northerly find of early Insularmetalwork from Norway. Bowl diameter: 31 cm.Photograph by permission of TromsøUniversity/Mari Karlstad.






MODELS OF MOVEMENT

Today, there is general agreement that someform of pre-Lindisfarne contact must haveexisted (e.g. Barrett, 2010: 297), but therehave been few attempts to suggest newmodels of how this interaction took placesince the discussions led by Myhre. Sincethe 1990s, the evidence to support a pre-Viking period of well-established connec-tions has been significantly weakened, espe-cially by Ashby’s (2009) dismissal of thereindeer comb evidence which was used asone of the principal pieces of evidence inthese models. The main problem is still thelack of archaeological evidence for such earlyactivity on either side of the North Sea.Admittedly, John Hines has argued convin-cingly for a phase of small-scale immigrationfrom western Norway to south-easternEngland in the fifth and sixth centuries,based on parallel stylistic elements found onsquare-headed brooches and other types ofdress jewellery in these two areas (Hines,1992, 1996). This contact does, however,not seem to have continued into the follow-ing centuries (Hines, 1996: 27). Moreover,the small amount of western glassware inearly eighth-century Scandinavian contextsare generally believed to have reachedScandinavia through the continental route(Myhre, 1993: 189 and citations therein).While there are indications that the

continental route to southern Englandmay have been known, I follow Ashby(2009: 27) in believing that ‘we still lackthe smoking gun’ of early contact betweenNorway and the Insular world of northernBritain and Ireland. This calls for a revi-sion or certainly a modification in thecharacterisation of the earliest, directNorse activities. The following sectionfocuses on the geographical distribution ofthe Norwegian material, acknowledgingthe revised status of other archaeologicalevidence for early contact in an attempt tosearch for and propose a model of

movement for the earliest Norse voyagesacross the North Sea.

FINDS DISTRIBUTION AND THE

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NORDVEGR

The location of early Insular material isoften considered to be an indicator ofwhere the first Vikings originated(Wamers, 1998: 52; Barrett, 2010: 293;Baug et al., 2018). Most early Insularfinds are found in western Norway, inHordaland to Sunnmøre, but there is alsoa number of notable finds from furthernorth, including Trondheimsfjord, Melhusin Overhalla (Figure 6), and Kvarøya inLurøy (see distribution in Figure 1). Thesefinds show that the earliest overseavoyages were not exclusively a western-Norway phenomenon.The overall finds concentration falls

within the geographical area of Norwaytraditionally referred to as ‘Nordafjells’,representing the area north and west ofLangfjella, a mountain chain on the south-ern Norwegian peninsula. These moun-tains separated the Nordmenn—the menfrom the north—from the Austmenn, themen from east of the mountains. Thisgeographical division probably stems fromat least the Viking Age (Skre, 2014:34–35). Apart from two finds fromFarmen and Svennevik, the area ‘east ofthe mountains’ is remarkably lacking inearly Insular finds. The overall distributionpattern clearly strengthens the impressionthat these objects reached Norway along adirect route over the North Sea, ratherthan via Denmark and continentalEurope. This is further supported by thelack of early finds of Insular metalworkfrom Denmark (see Baastrup, 2013).The sailing route which connected the

lands north of the mountains was calledNordvegr, ‘the northern way’ and stretchedfor more than 1000 km from Rogaland in






the south-west to Lofoten, north of theArctic circle (Skre, 2014: 35). In this partof Scandinavia, seafarers mastered ‘ship-building, seamanship and naval warfare toa level that was difficult to match foranyone in Northern Europe’ (Skre, 2014:43). The most northerly find in our findsgroup, a bowl from a cemetery at YtreKvarøy (Figure 7), is located just to thesouth of where the traveller Othere, whovisited the court of King Alfred in the lateninth century, is reported to have comefrom (Storli, 2007: 81–84). This may alsobe one of the earliest finds in the currentstudy, based on the early type of decoratedsword (Petersen special type 1) foundtogether with the bowl in a plough furrow.The sword is discussed by Vinsrygg (1979:67–69), who has identified it as a probableimport from the Frankish Rhine area andsuggests a deposition date towards themiddle or late eighth century. This datefits well with the other eleven graves fromthis cemetery which are typologically datedfrom the late sixth to the end of theeighth century (Vinsrygg, 1979: tables I–VIII). Further imported finds from YtreKvarøy included cowry shells from theMaldives, a piece of gold-plated metal-work with a Latin inscription, as well asbeads and brooches probably produced insouthern Scandinavians towns such asRibe and Birka (Vinsrygg, 1979: 67–70;Sindbæk, 2011: 58–59). These finds showthat the population of a small northernNorwegian island had the means, seafaringskills and connections to acquire objectsfrom far-away places.The early maritime mobility of these

parts of Norway is further emphasized bythe presence of reindeer antler, used forcomb making which was recovered fromearly town layers in Ribe, indicating theexistence of direct trade links already fromthe late eighth century (Ashby et al.,2015). Likewise, Baug et al. (2018) haverecently shown how there was a ‘steady

supply’ of ‘Mostadmarka’ type whetstonesfrom Trøndelag to markets in southernScandinavia from at least the early eighthcentury. These results also suggest increas-ing economic activity in the North Seaarea which drew large parts of Norwayinto supra-regional networks in thedecades before and after the first recordedViking attacks (as underlined by Myhre,1993, and Baug et al., 2018). FrisianTating ware is found as far north as Borgin Lofoten (Holand, 2003: 203–09), andseventh- and eighth-century Frankishcoins were recently recovered in excava-tions at Ranheim, Trøndelag (Grønnesby& Heen-Pettersen, 2015: 176). Further,the Skei burial mentioned earlier con-tained fragments of rare Frankish textilesas well as a Berdal 1A brooch probablyproduced in Ribe (Stenvik, 2001: 31–37).Through such long-distance voyages,Scandinavians along the Nordvegr becamewell aware of the Insular lands, eitherfirst-hand (as demonstrated by the inci-dent in Dorset, possibly carried out by menfrom Hordaland), or through informationgained second-hand on their journeys tocontinental Europe. This activity not onlymoved goods, it also facilitated the move-ment of knowledge and improved naviga-tional ability, which ultimately may haveencouraged voyages of exploration furtherwest over the sea (see Sindbæk, 2011:58–59).

ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE

EARLIEST NORTH SEA CROSSINGS

An awareness of the Insular land throughincreased interaction with continentalEurope would not have been enough totransform the North Sea passage from abody of water to ‘the highway to the IrishSea’ (to borrow an expression used byBarrett, 2010: 297). This process alsoinvolved a phase where people along the






Nordvegr started to travel in unfamiliarmaritime environments and, therefore, hadto acquire and make use of new environ-mental knowledge. This issue is oftenimplied in discussions concerning theearliest Viking activity but is rarely consid-ered as a primary factor in the origin ofthe Viking Age. Rockman (2003: 4–9) hasemphasized the need to examine theimportance of different types of environ-mental knowledge when constructinggeneral models of movement in archaeo-logical research; and, in the following, Iwill consider the importance of two ofthese aspects: locational and social knowl-edge (Rockman, 2003: 13–14). While pri-marily developed as a tool in colonisationarchaeology, a modified version of thismodel may prove fruitful as a frameworkfor conceptualizing the nature of the earli-est North Sea crossings.Locational knowledge refers to knowl-

edge of the spatial and physical character-istics of new landscapes and particularresources present in new environments. Itincludes the ability to find places andresources again after their initial discovery(Rockman, 2003: 4–5). For the earliestViking raiders, this included locationalinformation of desired resources andfavourable locations to attack, such aslightly defended places with accumulatedportable wealth and potential slaves. Italso comprised the right maritime skillsand nautical knowledge needed to crossthe North Sea and move around in thechallenging coastal waters of the NorthernBritish Isles. Locational knowledge isclosely linked to social knowledge, wherethe latter may be understood as the pro-cesses and experiences that serve as ameans of transforming unfamiliar environ-ments into a social landscape, for instancethrough the attribution of names,meaning, and experiences to landscapesfeatures in a new environment (Rockman,2003: 5–7). This approach is comparable

to Sindbæk’s concept of ‘routinisation’ inthe Viking Age, which emphasizes howestablishing geographical routes was verymuch a matter of social practice that hadto be experienced and ‘worked out’(Sindbæk, 2005: 32, 274–75).For Scandinavians in the eighth and

early ninth centuries, expeditions to thewest must have been daunting experiences,when ‘relatively small open vessels, in thebeginning probably with quite limitedability to survive severe weather, carriedfairly small groups of men with few provi-sions’ (Bill, 2010: 38). The passage fromwestern Norway to the Northern Isles isapproximately 170 nautical miles long and,with the use of sail in good weather condi-tions, the crossing could have taken a dayor two (Wamers, 1998: 52). The questionof when the sail was adopted in the Norsehomelands and how this affected thebeginning of the earliest overseas voyageshas been hotly debated. Some scholarssupport the idea that sails were used inScandinavia long before the Viking Age,while a mid to late eighth-century datehas been the generally accepted opinion(see Bill, 2010; Westerdal, 2015: 18). Oneof the two vessels discovered at Salme inEstonia in 2008 and 2010, dates toaround AD 750 and is the earliest evidenceof a combined rowing/sailing vessel usedby the Scandinavians (Price et al., 2016).For Norway, the use of sail is not archae-ologically attested before the Oseberg shipwhich was constructed in AD 820 (Bill,2010: 27–28), although it is unlikely tohave been the first sailing vessel inNorwegian waters. Nevertheless, the intro-duction of the sail and developments inshipbuilding technology during the VikingAge in this setting should be regarded asimprovements and adaptions in responseto new uses rather than the result of revo-lutionary inventions (Barrett, 2010: 290).While Denmark and continental

Europe could largely be reached by sea






passages in sight of land, the situation wasquite different when crossing the openNorth Sea, where land could at timesremain out of sight for days. Undertakingsuch a journey represented a far greaterrisk and required different skills andmethods for estimating a ship’s positionand speed, such as latitude sailing achievedby using the sun and the stars to estimatedirection. Successful landings and returnvoyages also involved knowledge of thenortherly coastline and the behaviours ofthe North Sea currents to avoid driftingoff course or arriving in hostile environ-ments (Van de Noort, 2011: 141). Thiswas very much a cognitive and personalexperience: ‘Memorized characteristics ofcoasts and waters, helped along bydescriptive toponyms, were essential navi-gation aids, and pilots with local knowl-edge were always valuable’ (Bill, 2008:178–79). This practice is especially visiblein Orkney and mainland Scotland, wherea large number of Norse landmarks arenamed after their distinctive featuresvisible from the sea (see Jesch, 2009 forexamples). Many of these probably reflect‘the voyages that preceded settlement’ andexpresses the visual perception and geo-graphical knowledge of the early Norseseafarers (Jesch, 2009: 78). Maritime-oriented communities, such as theNordvegr, must have been especially recep-tive to the cognitive character of suchenvironmental learning (Bill, 2008: 179;Van de Noort, 2011: 136–42).The North Sea was very much a fluctu-

ating and unpredictable force, which wasgiven an ‘other-than-human’ agency withits own will, intentions, and emotions(Van de Noort, 2011: 231–33). Afternavigating this open seascape, the shortestand most direct route would take theNorwegian seafarers to the archipelagicwaters of Shetland or Orkney, an areawith persistent sea fogs, strong tidal cur-rents, and many skerries and submerged

reefs (Crawford, 1987: 19–23). Some ofthe dangers of sailing in northern watersare expressed in a number of eleventh- tothirteenth-century poems and sagas whichdescribe the hazardous conditions facingseafarers, as well as the wrecks of shipsand ships caught in storms (see Jesch,2015). For instance, the waters of thesouthern tip of Shetland are known asDynrøst (roaring whirlpool), where tidalcurrents and strong winds have caused dif-ficulties for many sailors. According toThe Saga of Håkon Håkonsson, this iswhere Harald Olavsson, King of Man,and his bride Cecilia (the daughter ofKing Håkon Håkonsson) probablydrowned when their ship was lost in AD

1248 (HHS: 295, chp. 261). The sea-farers who sailed south from Orkney tomainland Scotland also had to avoid thewhirlpool Svelkie in the Pentland Firth,one of the most powerful tidal currents inthe world. Many ships are known to havebeen lost there, possibly also that of EarlHåkon of Lade, which The Saga of OlafHaraldsson tells us disappeared in thisarea when returning to Norway fromEngland in AD 1029 (Crawford, 1987:21; OHS, chp. 184).Without doubt, there must have been

many other Scandinavians who met asimilar fate along the coasts of Britain andIreland, and the success of the earliest waveof Vikings must have depended on an intim-ate knowledge of the maritime landscapealong the northern coastline. Wayfindingbased on such cognitive mapping was not askill acquired overnight, but emerged overtime as a dynamic process where new infor-mation was gradually added in the minds ofindividuals (see Golledge, 2003: 31–33).Consequently, and following Rockman(2003: 4–5) and Sindbæk (2005: 30–33), asmore knowledge was accumulated andnatural features in the new land named andunderstood, the journey became routinizedand the Insular land was gradually






transformed from an unfamiliar territory to asocialized landscape.

A revised model of movement

Do the observations made above allow us topropose a revised model of movement andmaritime communication for the earliestvoyages to northern Britain and Ireland?First, regarding chronology, it is clear

that we still lack the methods and conclu-sive archaeological material that wouldprovide a fine dating of the earliest evidenceof Viking North Sea crossings. However, itis argued here that the revised status of the‘reindeer comb evidence’ should be incorpo-rated into a current model of contact.Second, concerning the importance of

maritime communication, the distributionanalysis has shown that most of the earlyInsular finds are found in areas along theNordvegr, which indicates early maritimemobility and sometimes early links withurban networks further south inScandinavia. This observation is in accord-ance with Sindbæk’s (2011) and Bauget al.’s (2018) suggestions that pre-Vikingjourneys to such urban markets may havefacilitated the movement of knowledgeand improved maritime mobility, whichultimately led to the Viking expansion.Finally, it has been argued here that the

earliest recorded Viking attacks were onlypossible after a phase in which peoplealong the Nordvegr had acquired a suffi-cient level of environmental knowledge tonavigate in new seascapes and coastalenvironments. It also included the abilityto re-locate places with accumulatedwealth and resources after their initial dis-covery. As Purcell (2015, 54) puts it, thequestions involved were ‘where the targetsites were in relation to one another; howto get there; how long it would take; whatsupplies were necessary to conduct theattack and to ensure sufficient resources to

complete the return journey, or indeed tomake it to the next target.’When constructing a model of maritime

movement, these observations may be for-malized, although somewhat simplified, asa suggested process involving three mainstages:

1. Information stage: Seafarers along theNordvegr became increasingly informedabout the Insular land on their journeysto markets further south in Scandinaviaand continental Europe (around ad750/770)

2. Environmental learning: Consequently,this activity triggered maritime expan-sion, ultimately leading to voyages ofexploration further west over the sea,where some seafarers gained first-handexperience with the sea routes and mari-time landscape along northern Britainand Ireland (around ad 770/790)

3. The earliest recorded raids: The attackon Lindisfarne and other targets offthe coast of Ireland and Britain fromAD 793 onwards could only have hap-pened after a period of reconnaissanceand preparation. This necessarilyinvolved a level of a priori environmen-tal knowledge and perhaps also a con-ceptual ‘conquest’ of the open seascape.

While the nature of the second phase of‘environmental learning’ would leave fewtraces in the archaeological material, it alsoopens the possibility that some of theearliest Insular metalwork may havereached Norway as a result of suchcontact, presuming that this stage couldinvolve small-scale exchange or evenplunder. While clearly favouring thenotion of pre-Lindisfarne communication,this model does however not suggest thatthere was a long period of well-establishedmigration and trade between Norway andthe northern Insular areas from as far backas the early to mid-eighth century.






Through these early voyages, seafarersdeveloped the necessary environmentalknowledge, which, in addition to a rangeof social and political causes (see Barrett,2010; Ashby, 2015; Baug et al, 2018 forrecent summaries or discussions), musthave been a vital precondition for thesuccessful attacks from the last decade ofthe eighth century onwards. These experi-ences were materialized in distinctiveforeign goods brought back to the Norsehomelands, creating a visual distinctionbetween families involved in overseas ven-tures and others within their community(Aannestad, 2015).

Concluding thoughts

While this article has proposed an inter-action model which opens up a period ofPre-Viking contact, it is primarily withthe first recorded raids from AD 793onwards, that the Viking activity onInsular land becomes visible. Indeed,much of our modern image of the earliestinteraction across the North Sea is affectedby the numerous references to the devasta-tion and chaos caused by ‘Gentiles’,‘Northmen’ and ‘Danes’ in the late eightand early ninth centuries. However, thewritten sources concerning the ‘earliestwave’ of Viking activity give the impres-sion of well-organized attacks were at leastsome of the crewmembers must have hadfirst-hand experience with the sea routeacross the North Sea, the northerly coast-line and favourable locations to attack. Assuch, the success of the earliest raids wasnot purely the result of superior warfaretechniques and ship technology, but alsovery much a matter of maritime mobilityand environmental knowledge whereopen-sea crossings were encouraged by‘motivation and the related human factorssuch as people’s knowledge of the sea,their skills, willingness to embrace risk and

desire to explore’ (Dugmore et al., 2010:213). As shown by the distribution of theearliest Insular finds from Norway, suchmotivation seems to have been particularlystrong amongst the seafaring communitiesalong the Nordvegr.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am most grateful to the four anonymousreferees for their constructive and usefulfeedback, and to Martin Callanan, UnnPedersen, Randi Bjørshol Wærdahl andPhilip Wood for their valuable help incommenting on the original draft of thepaper.

REFERENCES

Primary sources

HHS =Håkon Håkonssons Saga, by SturlaPorðarson. Translated and revised byAnne Holtsmark (2008). Trondheim:Aschehough & Co.

OHS = The Olaf Haraldsson Saga. In: SnorreSturluson, Snorres Kongesagaer (Heimskringla).Translated and revised by Anne Holtsmark& Didrik Seip (1985). Gjøvik: Gyldendahl.

Secondary sources

Aannestad, H. L. 2015. Transformasjoner.Omforming og bruk av importerte gjen-stander i vikingtid. Unpublished PhD dis-sertation, Oslo University.

Ashby, S.P. 2009. Combs, Contact andChronology: Reconsidering Hair Combsin Early-Historic and Viking-Age AtlanticScotland. Medieval Archaeology, 53: 1–33.https://doi.org/10.1179/007660909X12457506806081

Ashby, S.P. 2015, What really caused theViking Age? The social content of raidingand exploration. Archaeological Dialogues,22: 89-106. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000112

Ashby, S.P., Coutu, A.N. & Sindbæk, S.M.2015. Urban Networks and Arctic



https://doi.org/10.1179/007660909X12457506806081

https://doi.org/10.1179/007660909X12457506806081

https://doi.org/10.1179/007660909X12457506806081

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000112

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000112

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1380203815000112




Outlands: Craft Specialists and ReindeerAntler in Viking Towns. European Journalof Archaeology, 18: 679–704. https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000003

Baastrup, M.P. 2013. Continental and InsularImports in Viking Age Denmark,Distribution and circulation. Zeitschrift fürArchäologie des Mittelalters, 41: 85–205.

Bakka, E. 1973. Eit gravfunn frå Fosse iMeland, Hordaland og det arkeologiskeperiodskiljet mellom merovingertid ogvikingtid. Suomen MuinaisnuistoyhdistyksenAikakauskirja, 75: 9–17.

Ballin Smith, B. 2007. Norwick: Shetland’sFirst Viking settlement? In: B.B. Smith,S. Taylor & G. Williams, eds. West OverSea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-borneExpansion and Settlement before 1300.Leiden: Brill, pp. 287–98.

Barrett, J.H. 2008. The Norse in Scotland. In:S. Brink & N. Price, eds. The VikingWorld. London & New York: Routledge,pp. 411–27.

Barrett, J.H. 2010. Rounding up the UsualSuspects: Causation and the Viking AgeDiaspora. In: A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett &K.V. Boyle, eds. The Global Origins andDevelopment of Seafaring. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, pp. 289–302.

Baug, I., Skre, D., Heldal, T. & Ø.J. Jansen.2018. The Beginning of the Viking Agein the West. Journal of MaritimeArchaeology (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-018-9221-3

Bill, J. 2008. Viking Ships and the Sea. In: S.Brink & N. Price, eds. The Viking World.London & New York: Routledge, pp.170–80.

Bill, J. 2010. Viking Age Ships and Seafaringin the West. In: I.S. Klæsøe, ed. VikingTrade and Settlement in ContinentalWestern Europe. Copenhagen: MuseumTusculanum Press, pp. 19–42.

Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. Recent and PlannedDevelopments of the Program OxCal.Radiocarbon 55: 720–30. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057878

Callmer, J. 1977. Trade Beads and Bead Tradein Scandinavia ca. 800–1000 AD (ActaArchaeologica Lundensia Series, 40).Bonn: Rudlf Habelt.

Church, M.J., Arge, S.V., Ascough, P.L.,Bond, J.M., Cook, G.T., Dockrill, S.J.et al. 2013. The Vikings Were Not the

First Colonizers of the Faroe Islands.Quaternary Science Review, 77: 228–32.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.06.011

Crawford, B. 1987. Scotland in the EarlyMiddle Ages 2: Scandinavian Scotland.Leicester: Leicester University Press.

Downham, C. 2000. An Imaginary VikingRaid on Skye in 795? Scottish GaelicStudies, 20: 192–96.

Downham, C. 2017. The Earliest VikingActivity in England? The English HistoricalReview, 132: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cex066

Dugmore, A., Casely, A.F., Keller, C. &Mcgovern, T.H. 2010. ConceptualModelling of Seafaring, Climate andEarly European Exploration andSettlement of the North Atlantic Islands.In: A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett & K.V.Boyle, eds. The Global Origins andDevelopment of Seafaring. Cambridge:McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch, pp. 213–28.

Dumville, D.N. 2008. Vikings in InsularChronicling. In: S. Brink & N. Price, eds.The Viking World. London & New York:Routledge, pp. 350–67.

Feveile, C. & Jensen, S. 2000. Ribe in the 8thand 9th Century: A Contribution to theArchaeological Chronology of NorthWestern Europe. Acta Archaeologica, 71:9–24.

Gjessing, G. 1934. Studier i norsk merovinger-tid. Kronologi og oldsakformer. Oslo: DetNorske Videnskaps-Akademi.

Glørstad, Z.T. & Røstad, I.M. 2015. Mot enny tid? Merovingertidens ryggknapp-spenner som uttrykk for endring ogerindring. In: M. Vedeler & I. M. Røstad,eds. Smykker. Personlig pynt i kulturhistorisklys. Trondheim: Museumsforlaget, pp.181–210.

Golledge, R. 2003. Human Wayfinding andCognitive Maps. In: M. Rockman & J.Steele, eds. Colonization of UnfamiliarLandscapes: The Archaeology of Adaption.London: Routledge, pp. 44–58.

Grønnesby, G. & Heen-Pettersen, A. 2015.Gården i yngre jernalder – et spørsmål omerkjennelse? Belyst ved utgravningen av etyngre jernalders gårdstun på Ranheim.Viking, 169–88.

Heen-Pettersen, A.M & Murray, G. 2018. AnInsular Reliquary from Melhus: The



https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000003

https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000003

https://doi.org/10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000003

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-018-9221-3

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-018-9221-3

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11457-018-9221-3

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057878

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057878

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033822200057878

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2013.06.011



https://doi.org/10.1093/ehr/cex066






Significance of Insular EcclesiasticalMaterial in Early Viking-Age Norway.Medieval Archaeology, 62: 52–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2018.1451522

Hines, J. 1992. The Scandinavian Character ofAnglian England: An Update. In: M.O.HCarver, ed. The Age of Sutton Hoo.Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 315–29.

Hines, J. 1996. Tidlig kontakt over Nordsjøenog de baken –forliggende årsaker. In: J.F.Kroger & H. Naley, eds. Nordsjøen:Handel, Religion og Politikk. Stavanger:Dreyer Bok, pp. 19–30.

Holand, I. 2003. Pottery. In: G.S. Munch, O.S. Johansen & E. Roesdahl, eds. Borg inLofoten. A Chieftain’s Farm in NorthNorway. Trondheim: Tapir AcademicPress. pp. 199–213.

Jansson, I. 1985. Ovala spännbuclor, En studieav vikingtidas standartssmycken med utgan-gaspunkt från Björkö-fynden. Uppsala:Institutionen för arkeologi.

Jesch, J. 2009. Naming and Narratives:Exploration and Imagination in the NorseVoyages Westwards. In: K. Dekker, K.Olsen & T. Hofstra, eds. The Worlds ofTravellers. Exploration and Imagination.Leuven: Peeters, pp. 61–80.

Jesch, J. 2015. The Threatening Wave: NorsePoetry and the Scottish Isles. In: J.H.Barrett & S.J. Gibbons, eds. MaritimeSocieties of the Viking and Medieval World.Wakefield: Maney, pp. 320–32.

Klæsøe, I.S. 1999. Vikingetidens kronologi –en nybearbejdning af det arkærlogiskemateriale. Aarbøger for NordiskOldkyndighed og Historie, 1997: 89–142.

Morris, C.D. 1998. Raiders, Traders andSettlers: The Early Viking Age inScotland. In: H.B. Clarke, M. NíMhaonaigh & R. Ó Floinn, eds. Irelandand Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age.Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 73–103.

Myhre, B. 1993. The Beginning of the VikingAge – Some Current ArchaeologicalProblems. In: A. Faulkes & R. Perkins,eds. Viking Revelations. Birmingham:Viking Society for Northern Research, pp.182–216.

Myhre, B. 1998. The Archaeology of theEarly Viking Age in Norway. In: H.B.Clarke, M. Ní Mhaonaigh & R. ÓFloinn, eds. Ireland and Scandinavia in theEarly Viking Age. Dublin: Four Courts,pp. 3–36.

Myhre, B. 2000. The Early Viking Age inNorway. Acta Archaeologica, 71: 35–47.

Ørsnes, M. 1966. Form og stil iSydskandinaviens yngre germanske jernalder(Nationalmuseets skrifter, Arkæologisk-historisk række 11). København:Nationalmuseets.

Owen, O. 2004. The Scar Boat Burial – andthe Missing Decades of the Early VikingAge in Orkney and Shetland. In: J.Adams & K. Holman, eds. Scandinaviaand Europe 800–1350. Contact, Conflictand Coexistence. Turnhout: Brepols, pp.3–34.

Petersen, J. 1928. Vikingtidens smykker.Stavanger: Dreyers grafiske anstalt.

Price, T., Peets, J., Allmäe, R., Maldre, L. &Oras, E. 2016. Isotopic Provenancing ofthe Salme Ship Burials in Pre-Viking AgeEstonia. Antiquity, 90: 1022–37. https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.106

Purcell, E. 2015. The First Generation inIreland, 795–812: Viking Raids andViking Bases? In: H.B. Clarke & R.Johnson, eds. The Vikings in Ireland andBeyond. Before and After the Battle ofClontarf. Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 41–55.

Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., WarrenBeck, J., Blackwell, P.G., BronkRamsey, C., et al., 2013. IntCal13 andMarine13 Radiocarbon Age CalibrationCurves 0–50,000 Years cal BP.Radiocarbon, 55: 1869–87. https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947

Rockman, M. 2003. Knowledge and Learningin the Archaeology of Colonization. In:M. Rockman & J. Steele, eds.Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: TheArchaeology of Adaption. London:Routledge, pp. 3–24.

Rundkvist, M. 2010. Domed OblongBrooches of Vendel Period Scandinavia.Uppåkrastudier, 11: 127–80.

Shetelig, H. 1927. Tidsbestemmelser i viking-tidens stilhistorie. In: C.A. Nordman, ed.Nordiska arkeologmøtet i Helsingfors 1925.Helsinki: Suomen Aikakauskirja, pp.106-12.

Sindbæk, S. 2005. Ruter og rutinisering.Vikingtidens fjernhandel i Nordeuropa.København: Multivers.

Sindbæk, S. 2011. Silver Economies andSocial Ties: Long-Distance Interaction,Long-term Investment – and Why theViking Age Happened. In: J. Graham-



https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2018.1451522

https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2018.1451522

https://doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2018.1451522

https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.106

https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.106

https://doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.106

https://doi.org/10.2458/azu_js_rc.55.16947






Campbell, S.M. Sindbæk & G. Williams,eds. Silver Economies, Monetisation andSociety in Scandinavia, AD 800–1100. Aarhus:Aarhus University Press, pp. 41–66.

Skre, D. 2014. Norðvegr – Norway: FromSailing Route to Kingdom. EuropeanReview, 22: 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798713000604

Solli, B. 1996. Narratives of EncounteringReligions: On the Christianization of theNorse Around AD 900–1000. NorwegianArchaeological Review, 29: 89–113.

Stenvik, L.F. 2001. Skei - et maktsenter fremfra skyggen. Trondheim: TapirAkademiske Forlag.

Storli, I. 2007. Othere and his World – AContemporary Perspective. In: J. Bately &A. Englert, eds. Ohthere’s Voyages: A Late9th-Century Account of Voyages along theCoasts of Norway and Denmark and itsCultural Context. Roskilde: Viking ShipsMuseum, pp. 76–99.

Van de Noort, R. 2011. North SeaArchaeologists. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Vinsrygg, S. 1979. Merovingartid i Nord-Noreg. Studie i utvalt materiale frå grav-funn. Unpublished Masters dissertation,Bergen University.

Von Holstein, I.C.C., Ashby, S.P., vanDoorn, N.L., Sachs, S.M., Buckley, M.,Meiri, M. et al. 2014. Searching forScandinavians in pre-Viking Scotland:Molecular Fingerprinting of EarlyMedieval Combs. Journal of ArchaeologicalScience, 41: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.026

Wamers, E. 1985. Insularer Metallschmuck inwikingerzeitlichen Gräbern Nordeuropas.Neumunster: Wachholtz.

Wamers, E. 1998. Insular Finds in VikingAge Scandinavia and the State Formation

of Norway. In: H.B. Clarke, M. NíMhaonaigh & R. Ó Floinn, eds. Irelandand Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age.Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 36–72.

Weber, B. 1994. Iron Age Combs: Analysesof Raw Material. In: B. Ambrosiani & H.Clarke, eds. Developments Around theBaltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age.Stockholm: Birka Project for the SwedishNational Heritage Board, pp. 190–93.

Weber, B. 1996. Handel mellom Norge ogOrknøyene før norrøn bosetning? In: J.F.Kroger & H. Naley, eds. Nordsjøen:Handel, Religion og Politikk. Stavanger:Dreyer Bok, pp. 31–40.

Westerdahl, C. 2015. Sails and the CognitiveRoles of Viking Age Ships. In: J.H.Barrett & S.J. Gibbons, eds. MaritimeSocieties of the Viking and Medieval World.Wakefield: Maney, pp. 14–24.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Aina Heen-Pettersen is a PhD student inthe Department of Historical Studies,Trondheim University in Norway. Herresearch focuses on Insular-Scandinavianinteraction in the Viking Age and the useof Insular artefacts after they arrived in theNorse homelands.

Address: Aina Margrethe Heen-Pettersen,Department of Historical Studies, TheNorwegian University of Science andTechnology, Trondheim, Norway. [email:[email protected]]

Une première vague d’activité viking ? Un réexamen de données norvégiennes

Un groupe de sépultures en Norvège de l’époque viking précoce contenant des objets en métal de typeinsulaire sert de base à la présente étude sur la chronologie et la nature des premières activités desVikings. La répartition géographique de ce matériel et l’application de concepts liés aux connaissancesociales et aux connaissances des lieux permet de mettre l’accent sur l’importance de la mise en place depaysages cognitifs facilitant l’expansion viking. L’auteur soutient que les premières attaques vikingsconnues n’ont été possibles qu’à la suite d’une phase dans laquelle les navigateurs scandinaves avaientacquis un niveau suffisant de connaissances sur l’environnement maritime pour pouvoir se déplacer dansde nouveaux paysages marins et environnements côtiers. Ce modèle d’interaction permet de penser quecertains objets précoces de type insulaire découverts en Norvège soient parvenus en Norvège au terme



https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798713000604

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798713000604

https://doi.org/10.1017/S1062798713000604

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jas.2013.07.026



mailto:[email protected]




d’expéditions d’exploration avant le pillage de Lindisfarne menées par des navigateurs le long de la voiemaritime connue sous le nom de Nordvegr. Translation by Madeleine Hummler

Mots-clés: époque viking précoce, Vikings, objets de type insulaire, Norvège, Nordvegr, mobilitémaritime

Die erste Welle der Wikingerbewegungen? Eine Neubewertung von norwegischenAngaben

In diesem Artikel werden die Chronologie und die Eigenschaften der frühen Wikingerbewegungen auf-grund einer Gruppe von frühen Bestattungen mit Metallgegenständen insularen Typus aus Norwegenuntersucht. Das Verbreitungsbild dieses Metallhandwerks und die Anwendung von Konzepten, die miträumlichen Kenntnissen und sozialem Wissen verbunden sind, verdeutlichen, wie bedeutend dieErschaffung von kognitiven Landschaften für die Ausdehnung der Wikingerwelt war. Es wird hiervorgeschlagen, dass die ersten Wikingerangriffe erst nach einer Phase, in welcher die altnordischenSeefahrer den erforderlichen umweltlichen Kenntnisstand, neue Seelandschaften und Küstenbereiche zubefahren erreicht hatten, stattfanden. Bei diesem Interaktionsmodell ist es möglich, dass einige früheinsulare Funde aus Norwegen auf Entdeckungsreisen von Seefahrern entlang der NordvegrSchifffahrtsroute in einem Zeitraum vor der Plünderung von Lindisfarne hinweisen. Translation byMadeleine Hummler

Stichworte: frühe Wikingerzeit, Wikinger, Metallhandwerk insularen Typus, Norwegen,Nordvegr, Seeverkehr






the earliest wave of viking activity? the norwegian ... · 356, downham, 2017: 1). possibly after...

Documents