European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019, 523–541
This 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, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
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 early
burials from Norway containing Insular metalwork. By focusing on the geographical distribution of this
material and applying the concept of locational and social knowledge, the importance of establishing
cognitive landscapes to facilitate the Viking expansion is highlighted. It is argued that the first recorded
Viking attacks were only possible after a phase in which Norse seafarers had acquired the necessarily
level 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 may
represent pre-Lindisfarne exploration voyages, carried out by seafarers along the sailing route of
Nordvegr.
Keywords: Early Viking Age, Vikings, Insular, Norway, Nordvegr, maritime mobility
INTRODUCTION
For over a century, the earliest Viking
activity in Britain and Ireland (the `Insular
area` referred to in this paper) has been
the topic of intense scholarly discussion.
The written and archaeological evidence
have been regularly reviewed, most
recently by Emer Purell (2015) and Clare
Downham (2017) who have studied the
first generation of Vikings in Ireland and
the written sources for the earliest Viking
activity in England, respectively.
The purpose of this article is to consider
the Norwegian evidence in light of the
current discussions into initial direct
contact across the North Sea. First, it
reviews the chronology and geographical
distribution of 16 early burials containing
Insular metalwork, including new finds
© European Association of Archaeologists 2019
Manuscript received 29 June 2018,
accepted 18 March 2019, revised 17 December 2018
and data which have not been included in
previous debates about the earliest Viking
activity. Second, the article examines the
nature of the initial phase of contact with
a focus on maritime mobility and environmental knowledge, which must have been
vital aspects but remain under-investigated
components of the initial phase of contact.
Finally, the article brings together these
elements and proposes a model of movement and maritime communication for the
earliest voyages across the North Sea.
THE EARLIEST RECORDED RAIDS AND
THE BEGINNING OF THE VIKING AGE
Over the years, many scholars have
expressed different views about when the
earliest direct contact between Norway
doi:10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
524
and the Insular world took place and the
nature of this interaction. The relationship
between the archaeological evidence and
information recorded in the Irish annals
and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle has been
central to these discussions.
The first written record of a Viking
attack on Insular land took place in
Portland, Dorset, in AD 789—or sometime
during the reign of King Beorthric of
Wessex between AD 786 and 802 if we
base the dating on a cautious use of the
sources (Dumville, 2008: 356). According
to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, three ships
of Northmen arrived near a royal residence, where they killed the king’s reeve
who rode out to meet them. While the
earliest source refers to the Northmen as
‘Dani’ (a general term for Scandinavians),
later versions of the Chronicle (Versions
D, E, and F) identify the ships as originating from Hordaland in the western part
of present-day Norway (Dumville, 2008:
356, Downham, 2017: 1). Possibly after
the altercation in Portland, the earliest
Viking raid on an ecclesiastical location is
the well-known attack on the monastery
on Lindisfarne in north-eastern England
in June 793, recorded in the Northern
recension of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
versions D and E (Downham, 2017: 2).
In the following decade, the Insular
sources record repeated raids around the
shores of Britain and Ireland. This
includes the sacking of the monastery at
the ‘mouth of the River Don’ (possible
Jarrow, or a monastery in South
Yorkshire) and raids throughout the
Hebrides in AD 794, on the islands of
Iona, Inishmurray, Inishbofin, and Rechru
(probably Lambay Island, Co. Dublin) in
AD 795, while mainland Scotland (Argyll)
and Ireland were targeted from AD 796
onwards (Dumville, 2008; Downham,
2000). While the annals and Chronicle
show an emphasis on early raids on
Ireland and northern Britain, other written
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
sources including letters, foreign chronicles, and charters, suggest that large parts
of southern England were also targeted by
‘pagans’ around the same time. These
accounts are however somewhat supressed
in the Chronicle, which mainly records
the Vikings as a regular threat to southern
England from c. AD 830 and onwards. It
appears that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is
somewhat biased towards King Alfred and
his family by playing down the impact
of the Vikings before the reign of King
Ecgberht, King Alfred’s grandfather
(Downham, 2017: 12).
Since the early twentieth century, the
earliest recorded raids have generally been
regarded as the starting point of contact
across the North Sea. By tradition, this
has led to the widespread notion that any
Insular metalwork could only have reached
Scandinavia after these events. This principle is often referred to as the ‘Shetelig
axiom’ and has been both influential and
much debated. While early researchers
were also open to the idea of direct preViking contact, this topic became the
subject of lively scholarly discussion in the
1990s. Instead of viewing the Lindisfarne
attack as the first time the ‘Norwegian’
Vikings entered the Insular world, it was
strongly argued that a pre-Viking phase of
migration and trade to Atlantic Scotland
took place from the early to mid-eighth
century or even earlier (e.g. Myhre, 1993,
1998, 2000; Weber, 1994, 1996; Solli,
1996). This view is sometimes referred to
as the ‘Myhre’ model because of Bjørn
Myhre’s influential role in these discussions. As summarized elsewhere (see
Barrett, 2008: 418–21), the debate principally centred around four aspects of the
archaeological evidence: 1) Viking graves
with early types of brooches or weapons in
Scotland; 2) early combs from Orkney
made of Scandinavian reindeer antler; 3)
pollen analysis on Faroe indicating a preViking presence; and 4) early Insular
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
objects in Norwegian graves. The first of
these pieces of evidence has since been
largely dismissed because the early
brooches show clear signs of wear and
repair and because of the difficulties of
dating Scottish graves on the basis of
Norwegian typologies (e.g. Morris, 1998:
88; Owen, 2004). The presence of
Scandinavian reindeer antler from Orkney
has also been reviewed and has shown that
the arrival of this material cannot be
securely dated to before the early ninth
century (Ashby, 2009; von Holstein et al.,
2014). The evidence for a pre-Viking Age
presence on the Faroes has recently been
confirmed by new pollen evidence and
dates. These results are interpreted as ‘firm
evidence for the human colonisation of the
Faroes by people of unknown geographical
and ethnic origin some 300–500 years
before the large-scale Viking colonisation
of the ninth century’ (Church et al., 2013:
231–32). While not forming part of the
original discussion, an early date from a
site in Norwick, Shetland, obtained in
2003, has also been used to suggest Norse
settlement before AD 793 (Ballin Smith,
2007). However, the date was obtained
from carbonized food deposits and could
easily be a result of marine reservoir effects
on cooked fish, or even statistical chance,
since the remaining dates from the site
largely suggest a later settlement date
(Barrett, 2010: 291). At present, there is
little archaeological evidence to support
the hypothesis of a Norse settlement in
the Scottish Isles before the mid-ninth
century (see Barrett, 2008, 2010).
As shown above, much of the Insular
evidence of possible pre-Viking contact has
been thoroughly reviewed, and in some
cases dismissed, in the last two decades. In
the following section, I shall focus on the
fourth, and perhaps least studied, element
of evidence for early Scandinavian activity
in the west: Insular metalwork found in
early burials in Norway.
525
THE EARLIEST INSULAR METALWORK:
COMPOSITION
Over forty years ago, Egil Bakka discussed
the chronology of a group of eleven early
graves from Norway with Insular metalwork, all of which also contained brooches
of the late Vendel/Merovingian periods or
transitional types that survived into the
Early Viking Age (Bakka, 1973; see also
Wamers, 1998: 51–54). To this group,
five further finds, from Ytre Kvarøy, Skei,
Geite, Myklebost, and Farmen, can be
added (Figure 1 and Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, the Insular metalwork comprises twenty-three objects from
sixteen graves representing fourteen female
and two male burials. The most significant
piece is the complete reliquary from a
woman’s burial in Melhus (see Figure 6),
one of only twelve largely complete Insular
house-shaped shrines to have survived in
Europe. The grave contained a further
Insular find in the form of a reworked
ecclesiastical mount, which was probably
used as a brooch to fasten the deceased’s
fur cloak (see Heen-Pettersen & Murray,
2018 for a recent presentation of this
find). Such decorative and gilded copperalloy mounts are by far the most common
object type in the early Insular material,
with fifteen pieces known from fourteen
locations. Three of these, from Oseborg
(Møre and Romsdal county) (Figure 2),
Grande, and Fosse are harness mounts, all
of which were reworked into dress accessories (Wamers, 1985: 93–96). While the
metalwork from Store Kongsvik cannot be
ascribed to an identified parent object, the
remaining examples were probably once
mounted on ecclesiastical objects. This
includes an Anglo-Saxon book mount from
Bjørke (Figure 2) that served as a pendant
suspended from a bead-necklace worn by
the deceased (Wamers, 1985: 95).
The metalwork from Sanddal, Farmen,
and Myklebust is identified as hinges from
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
526
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
Figure 1. Distribution of the earliest Insular finds found in Norway.
Map by Astrid Lorentzen, Trondheim University Museum.
reliquary shrines (Wamers, 1985: 19, 95;
Aannestad, 2015: 80). Further pieces from
either reliquary shrines or other reliquaries
are represented by the mounts from
Skjervum, Melhus, Skei, and Svennevik.
On five of these pieces, secondary perforations, sometimes associated with the
remains of pin fittings and/or textiles,
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
527
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, 2
copper-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 book
mount from Bjørke, Ørsta.
Photograph by permission of University Museum of Bergen/Svein Skare.
suggest that these were adapted for use as
brooches (see Stenvik, 2001: 33;
Aannestad, 2015: 307). The remaining
ecclesiastical pieces belong to a group of
mounts which may originally have been
altar or tabernacle decorations, or
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
528
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
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.
decorations on processional crosses. This
includes the hemispherical and flanged
boss from Vangsnes and the metalwork
from Fure (Figure 3). The latter belongs
to a group of hollow, cast mounts in the
shape of a truncated pyramid, similar to
the mounts decorating the ‘Antrim Cross’.
These two pieces were also reworked and
probably worn as dress ornaments
(Wamers, 1985: 96).
Finally, the Insular finds from Ytre
Kvarøy, Geite, and Skei were various
items used for serving food and drink.
The only hanging-bowl from this corpus
comes from Skei, where it formed part of
a fine set of serving equipment, together
with a large bronze ladle and a small,
bronze-bound bucket (Stenvik, 2001). The
large Insular bowls from Ytre Kvarøy (see
Figure 7) and Geite belong to a group of
copper-alloy vessels, which can be isolated
from the hanging-bowl series since they
lack suspension devices. The Geite grave
also included two drinking horn terminals
of Insular origin.
CHRONOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES
The material from the earliest burials,
which provides the best indication of
deposition dates, consists of decorated
dress ornaments and weapon types, since
other plain and undiagnostic finds are
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
more difficult to place within a narrower
time frame (see e.g. Bakka, 1973; Stenvik,
2001; Heen-Pettersen & Murray, 2018
for details about these further grave
goods). As for beads, the work of Callmer
(1977) still forms the main typology for
the Norwegian material. However, in our
case, the problem with using his classification is the fact that Callmer explicitly used
the ‘Shetelig Axiom’ when building his
chronology and, therefore, presumed a
post-Lindisfarne date for beads found
with early Insular material (see e.g.
Callmer, 1977: 77). Likewise, when Bakka
discussed the early graves with Insular
metalwork in 1973, he had to deal with
the ‘problem’ of early styles of ornamented
brooches in burials with imports. His solution was to propose that the styles continued in use until around AD 800 and that
the deposition of Insular metalwork,
therefore, largely corresponded with the
‘Shetelig Axiom’ (Bakka, 1973: 16-17).
Since then, a number of researchers have
studied and suggested various chronologies
for the brooches of late Vendel-period
Scandinavia, including transitional types
surviving into the early Viking Age (e.g.
Shetelig, 1927; Ørsnes, 1966; Jansson,
1985; Myhre, 1993; Klæsøe, 1999;
Rundkvist, 2010). The difficulties within a
fine chronology have yet to be resolved,
especially since these brooches were in use
in the decades before and after the first
recorded overseas raids.
Five of the graves in this study contained pairs of thin-shelled brooches of
R640/JP 4 type (Figure 4). While older
research grouped these brooches collectively under the type name R640, it is now
generally agreed that they can be divided
into two main types: The Small Plain type
and the Large Plain brooches. All our
examples belong to the latter group, with
a suggested deposition date of c. AD 770–
840 (see Rundkvist, 2010: table 10). A
further four burials contained pairs of type
529
Figure 4. Oval brooches of R640 type from
Bjørke, Ørsta.
Photograph by permission of University
Museum of Bergen/Svein Skare.
R643 brooches. This group is also believed
to date to the late eighth and early ninth
century (see Rundkvist, 2010: 135). A
similar date is suggested for the animalshaped brooches of the rare ‘Stor-Skogmo’
type found in the richly-furnished cremation burial from Geite, which has recently
been confirmed by radiocarbon dates (see
below).
Two further pairs of oval brooches from
Vangsnes and Farmen (types JP7 and
JP17) are classed as ‘transition types’ (TT)
(Rundkvist, 2010: finds catalogue).
Petersen (1928) certainly suggested a
slightly later manufacturing sequence for
the Norwegian TT examples compared
with the simple, thin-shelled R640 and
R643 brooches. While he regarded JP7 as
an early type going back to the end of the
eighth century, JP17 was defined by
Petersen as one of the earliest Viking-age
types based on the ‘gripping beast’ motif.
Rundqvist has however suggested a
bipartition of this decoration, where the
beasts used on the earliest types (such as
JP17) may pre-date the Lindisfarne raid
by a few decades (Rundkvist, 2010:
159–60).
A late eighth-century production date is
also argued for the late types of buttonon-bow brooches from Melhus and Fure
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
530
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
Table 2. Geite, Levanger: calibrated dates.
Sample code
Radiocarbon age
(BP)
δ13C (‰) AMS
Calibrated date (95.4% probability) using
OxCal 4.2.4 (Bronk Ramsey, 2013)
TRa-12567 (a)
1255 ± 20
−19.1 ± 0.8 ‰
AD
TRa-12567 (b)
1190 ± 30
−18.7 ± 2.1 ‰
AD
676–776 (95.4%)
727–738 (1.7%)
768–896 (91.2%)
AD 928–942 (2.4%)
AD
TRa-12567 (c)
1230 ± 20
−22.0 ± 0.4 ‰
692–747 (36.9%)
762–780 (14.8%)
AD 787–876 (43.7%)
AD
AD
TRa-12567 (average)
1225 ± 25
693–746 (51.0%)
763–779 (18.9%)
AD 791–867(25.5%)
-
AD
AD
TRa-12568 (a)
1230 ± 20
−19.7 ± 0.4 ‰
699–747 (36.9%)
762–780 (14.8%)
AD 787–876 (43.7%)
AD
AD
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%)
766–879 (82.2%)
AD
TRa-12568 (average)
1220 ± 15
-
725–739 (7.9%)
766–780 (14.6%)
AD 787–877 (73.0%)
AD
AD
(Gjessing, 1934; Glørstad & Røstad,
2015: 186–88). Finally, while representing
a slightly later find, an early date is also
indicated by the find of a Berdal type 1a
brooch with a gripping beast ornament
from Skei. It has been suggested that production of this brooch type began during
the mid-eighth century, based on the finds
of moulds in Ribe, Jutland (Myhre, 1993:
186). There has, however, been considerable debate regarding the chronology of
the layers associated with these finds.
Feveile and Jensen (2000: 17–18) have
reassessed the dating evidence and argued
that the date of the earliest occurrence of
Berdal brooches in Ribe must be adjusted
to c. AD 780–790.
None of the above burials has previously
been dated by radiocarbon analysis. In
connection with this study, two samples
were obtained from cremated animal
bones from the base of the Insular bowl in
the Geite burial. Since no collagen was
preserved, the results were obtained by
measuring the carbonate fraction in cremated bones (bio apatite). Each of the two
samples was tested three times (see
Table 2 and Figure 5) and the best estimates for the age are the average of the
three measurements (at 95.4% probability):
cal AD 693–867 (Tra-12567) and cal AD
725–877 (Tra-12568). However, a closer
look at the individual results indicate a
narrower timeframe. Only one measurement gave an early date of cal AD 676–776
(95.4% probability), while three samples
provided 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 of
sometime after AD 766 therefore seems
most likely, but the results also underline
the methodological difficulties in obtaining the necessarily chronological resolution
to confidently date burials to before or
after the first recorded raids.
While this group of finds represents the
earliest evidence of direct contact across
the North Sea, it is also clear that both
the typological and radiocarbon dates are
coarse and offer us room to interpret the
finds as either supporting or speaking
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
531
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) is
one of only twelve complete Insular house-shaped
shrines to have survived in Europe.
Photograph by permission of Norwegian
University of Science and Technology
Museum, Trondheim/Åge Hojem.
against the ‘Shetelig axiom’. Since it is difficult to achieve fine-grained dating, the
methodological and theoretical framework
Figure 7. The large bowl from Ytre Kvarøy,
Lurøy, is the most northerly find of early Insular
metalwork from Norway. Bowl diameter: 31 cm.
Photograph by permission of Tromsø
University/Mari Karlstad.
against which the imports can be interpreted becomes essential. This is especially
true for interaction models, which have
implications for the chronology and characterisation of the earliest Norse activity in
Britain and Ireland.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
532
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
MODELS
OF
MOVEMENT
Today, there is general agreement that some
form of pre-Lindisfarne contact must have
existed (e.g. Barrett, 2010: 297), but there
have been few attempts to suggest new
models of how this interaction took place
since the discussions led by Myhre. Since
the 1990s, the evidence to support a preViking period of well-established connections has been significantly weakened, especially by Ashby’s (2009) dismissal of the
reindeer comb evidence which was used as
one of the principal pieces of evidence in
these models. The main problem is still the
lack of archaeological evidence for such early
activity on either side of the North Sea.
Admittedly, John Hines has argued convincingly for a phase of small-scale immigration
from western Norway to south-eastern
England in the fifth and sixth centuries,
based on parallel stylistic elements found on
square-headed brooches and other types of
dress jewellery in these two areas (Hines,
1992, 1996). This contact does, however,
not seem to have continued into the following centuries (Hines, 1996: 27). Moreover,
the small amount of western glassware in
early eighth-century Scandinavian contexts
are generally believed to have reached
Scandinavia through the continental route
(Myhre, 1993: 189 and citations therein).
While there are indications that the
continental route to southern England
may have been known, I follow Ashby
(2009: 27) in believing that ‘we still lack
the smoking gun’ of early contact between
Norway and the Insular world of northern
Britain and Ireland. This calls for a revision or certainly a modification in the
characterisation of the earliest, direct
Norse activities. The following section
focuses on the geographical distribution of
the Norwegian material, acknowledging
the revised status of other archaeological
evidence for early contact in an attempt to
search for and propose a model of
movement for the earliest Norse voyages
across the North Sea.
FINDS DISTRIBUTION AND THE
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE NORDVEGR
The location of early Insular material is
often considered to be an indicator of
where the first Vikings originated
(Wamers, 1998: 52; Barrett, 2010: 293;
Baug et al., 2018). Most early Insular
finds are found in western Norway, in
Hordaland to Sunnmøre, but there is also
a number of notable finds from further
north, including Trondheimsfjord, Melhus
in Overhalla (Figure 6), and Kvarøya in
Lurøy (see distribution in Figure 1). These
finds show that the earliest oversea
voyages were not exclusively a westernNorway phenomenon.
The overall finds concentration falls
within the geographical area of Norway
traditionally referred to as ‘Nordafjells’,
representing the area north and west of
Langfjella, a mountain chain on the southern Norwegian peninsula. These mountains separated the Nordmenn—the men
from the north—from the Austmenn, the
men from east of the mountains. This
geographical division probably stems from
at least the Viking Age (Skre, 2014:
34–35). Apart from two finds from
Farmen and Svennevik, the area ‘east of
the mountains’ is remarkably lacking in
early Insular finds. The overall distribution
pattern clearly strengthens the impression
that these objects reached Norway along a
direct route over the North Sea, rather
than via Denmark and continental
Europe. This is further supported by the
lack of early finds of Insular metalwork
from Denmark (see Baastrup, 2013).
The sailing route which connected the
lands north of the mountains was called
Nordvegr, ‘the northern way’ and stretched
for more than 1000 km from Rogaland in
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
the south-west to Lofoten, north of the
Arctic circle (Skre, 2014: 35). In this part
of Scandinavia, seafarers mastered ‘shipbuilding, seamanship and naval warfare to
a level that was difficult to match for
anyone in Northern Europe’ (Skre, 2014:
43). The most northerly find in our finds
group, a bowl from a cemetery at Ytre
Kvarøy (Figure 7), is located just to the
south of where the traveller Othere, who
visited the court of King Alfred in the late
ninth century, is reported to have come
from (Storli, 2007: 81–84). This may also
be one of the earliest finds in the current
study, based on the early type of decorated
sword (Petersen special type 1) found
together with the bowl in a plough furrow.
The sword is discussed by Vinsrygg (1979:
67–69), who has identified it as a probable
import from the Frankish Rhine area and
suggests a deposition date towards the
middle or late eighth century. This date
fits well with the other eleven graves from
this cemetery which are typologically dated
from the late sixth to the end of the
eighth century (Vinsrygg, 1979: tables I–
VIII). Further imported finds from Ytre
Kvarøy included cowry shells from the
Maldives, a piece of gold-plated metalwork with a Latin inscription, as well as
beads and brooches probably produced in
southern Scandinavians towns such as
Ribe and Birka (Vinsrygg, 1979: 67–70;
Sindbæk, 2011: 58–59). These finds show
that the population of a small northern
Norwegian island had the means, seafaring
skills and connections to acquire objects
from far-away places.
The early maritime mobility of these
parts of Norway is further emphasized by
the presence of reindeer antler, used for
comb making which was recovered from
early town layers in Ribe, indicating the
existence of direct trade links already from
the late eighth century (Ashby et al.,
2015). Likewise, Baug et al. (2018) have
recently shown how there was a ‘steady
533
supply’ of ‘Mostadmarka’ type whetstones
from Trøndelag to markets in southern
Scandinavia from at least the early eighth
century. These results also suggest increasing economic activity in the North Sea
area which drew large parts of Norway
into supra-regional networks in the
decades before and after the first recorded
Viking attacks (as underlined by Myhre,
1993, and Baug et al., 2018). Frisian
Tating ware is found as far north as Borg
in Lofoten (Holand, 2003: 203–09), and
seventh- and eighth-century Frankish
coins were recently recovered in excavations at Ranheim, Trøndelag (Grønnesby
& Heen-Pettersen, 2015: 176). Further,
the Skei burial mentioned earlier contained fragments of rare Frankish textiles
as well as a Berdal 1A brooch probably
produced in Ribe (Stenvik, 2001: 31–37).
Through such long-distance voyages,
Scandinavians along the Nordvegr became
well aware of the Insular lands, either
first-hand (as demonstrated by the incident in Dorset, possibly carried out by men
from Hordaland), or through information
gained second-hand on their journeys to
continental Europe. This activity not only
moved goods, it also facilitated the movement of knowledge and improved navigational ability, which ultimately may have
encouraged voyages of exploration further
west over the sea (see Sindbæk, 2011:
58–59).
ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE AND THE
EARLIEST NORTH SEA CROSSINGS
An awareness of the Insular land through
increased interaction with continental
Europe would not have been enough to
transform the North Sea passage from a
body of water to ‘the highway to the Irish
Sea’ (to borrow an expression used by
Barrett, 2010: 297). This process also
involved a phase where people along the
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
534
Nordvegr started to travel in unfamiliar
maritime environments and, therefore, had
to acquire and make use of new environmental knowledge. This issue is often
implied in discussions concerning the
earliest Viking activity but is rarely considered as a primary factor in the origin of
the Viking Age. Rockman (2003: 4–9) has
emphasized the need to examine the
importance of different types of environmental knowledge when constructing
general models of movement in archaeological research; and, in the following, I
will consider the importance of two of
these aspects: locational and social knowledge (Rockman, 2003: 13–14). While primarily developed as a tool in colonisation
archaeology, a modified version of this
model may prove fruitful as a framework
for conceptualizing the nature of the earliest North Sea crossings.
Locational knowledge refers to knowledge of the spatial and physical characteristics of new landscapes and particular
resources present in new environments. It
includes the ability to find places and
resources again after their initial discovery
(Rockman, 2003: 4–5). For the earliest
Viking raiders, this included locational
information of desired resources and
favourable locations to attack, such as
lightly defended places with accumulated
portable wealth and potential slaves. It
also comprised the right maritime skills
and nautical knowledge needed to cross
the North Sea and move around in the
challenging coastal waters of the Northern
British Isles. Locational knowledge is
closely linked to social knowledge, where
the latter may be understood as the processes and experiences that serve as a
means of transforming unfamiliar environments into a social landscape, for instance
through the attribution of names,
meaning, and experiences to landscapes
features in a new environment (Rockman,
2003: 5–7). This approach is comparable
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
to Sindbæk’s concept of ‘routinisation’ in
the Viking Age, which emphasizes how
establishing geographical routes was very
much a matter of social practice that had
to be experienced and ‘worked out’
(Sindbæk, 2005: 32, 274–75).
For Scandinavians in the eighth and
early ninth centuries, expeditions to the
west must have been daunting experiences,
when ‘relatively small open vessels, in the
beginning probably with quite limited
ability to survive severe weather, carried
fairly small groups of men with few provisions’ (Bill, 2010: 38). The passage from
western Norway to the Northern Isles is
approximately 170 nautical miles long and,
with the use of sail in good weather conditions, the crossing could have taken a day
or two (Wamers, 1998: 52). The question
of when the sail was adopted in the Norse
homelands and how this affected the
beginning of the earliest overseas voyages
has been hotly debated. Some scholars
support the idea that sails were used in
Scandinavia long before the Viking Age,
while a mid to late eighth-century date
has been the generally accepted opinion
(see Bill, 2010; Westerdal, 2015: 18). One
of the two vessels discovered at Salme in
Estonia in 2008 and 2010, dates to
around AD 750 and is the earliest evidence
of a combined rowing/sailing vessel used
by the Scandinavians (Price et al., 2016).
For Norway, the use of sail is not archaeologically attested before the Oseberg ship
which was constructed in AD 820 (Bill,
2010: 27–28), although it is unlikely to
have been the first sailing vessel in
Norwegian waters. Nevertheless, the introduction of the sail and developments in
shipbuilding technology during the Viking
Age in this setting should be regarded as
improvements and adaptions in response
to new uses rather than the result of revolutionary inventions (Barrett, 2010: 290).
While Denmark and continental
Europe could largely be reached by sea
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
passages in sight of land, the situation was
quite different when crossing the open
North Sea, where land could at times
remain out of sight for days. Undertaking
such a journey represented a far greater
risk and required different skills and
methods for estimating a ship’s position
and speed, such as latitude sailing achieved
by using the sun and the stars to estimate
direction. Successful landings and return
voyages also involved knowledge of the
northerly coastline and the behaviours of
the North Sea currents to avoid drifting
off course or arriving in hostile environments (Van de Noort, 2011: 141). This
was very much a cognitive and personal
experience: ‘Memorized characteristics of
coasts and waters, helped along by
descriptive toponyms, were essential navigation aids, and pilots with local knowledge were always valuable’ (Bill, 2008:
178–79). This practice is especially visible
in Orkney and mainland Scotland, where
a large number of Norse landmarks are
named after their distinctive features
visible from the sea (see Jesch, 2009 for
examples). Many of these probably reflect
‘the voyages that preceded settlement’ and
expresses the visual perception and geographical knowledge of the early Norse
seafarers (Jesch, 2009: 78). Maritimeoriented communities, such as the
Nordvegr, must have been especially receptive to the cognitive character of such
environmental learning (Bill, 2008: 179;
Van de Noort, 2011: 136–42).
The North Sea was very much a fluctuating and unpredictable force, which was
given an ‘other-than-human’ agency with
its own will, intentions, and emotions
(Van de Noort, 2011: 231–33). After
navigating this open seascape, the shortest
and most direct route would take the
Norwegian seafarers to the archipelagic
waters of Shetland or Orkney, an area
with persistent sea fogs, strong tidal currents, and many skerries and submerged
535
reefs (Crawford, 1987: 19–23). Some of
the dangers of sailing in northern waters
are expressed in a number of eleventh- to
thirteenth-century poems and sagas which
describe the hazardous conditions facing
seafarers, as well as the wrecks of ships
and ships caught in storms (see Jesch,
2015). For instance, the waters of the
southern tip of Shetland are known as
Dynrøst (roaring whirlpool), where tidal
currents and strong winds have caused difficulties for many sailors. According to
The Saga of Håkon Håkonsson, this is
where Harald Olavsson, King of Man,
and his bride Cecilia (the daughter of
King Håkon Håkonsson) probably
drowned when their ship was lost in AD
1248 (HHS: 295, chp. 261). The seafarers who sailed south from Orkney to
mainland Scotland also had to avoid the
whirlpool Svelkie in the Pentland Firth,
one of the most powerful tidal currents in
the world. Many ships are known to have
been lost there, possibly also that of Earl
Håkon of Lade, which The Saga of Olaf
Haraldsson tells us disappeared in this
area when returning to Norway from
England in AD 1029 (Crawford, 1987:
21; OHS, chp. 184).
Without doubt, there must have been
many other Scandinavians who met a
similar fate along the coasts of Britain and
Ireland, and the success of the earliest wave
of Vikings must have depended on an intimate knowledge of the maritime landscape
along the northern coastline. Wayfinding
based on such cognitive mapping was not a
skill acquired overnight, but emerged over
time as a dynamic process where new information was gradually added in the minds of
individuals (see Golledge, 2003: 31–33).
Consequently, and following Rockman
(2003: 4–5) and Sindbæk (2005: 30–33), as
more knowledge was accumulated and
natural features in the new land named and
understood, the journey became routinized
and the Insular land was gradually
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
536
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
transformed from an unfamiliar territory to a
socialized landscape.
A revised model of movement
Do the observations made above allow us to
propose a revised model of movement and
maritime communication for the earliest
voyages to northern Britain and Ireland?
First, regarding chronology, it is clear
that we still lack the methods and conclusive archaeological material that would
provide a fine dating of the earliest evidence
of Viking North Sea crossings. However, it
is argued here that the revised status of the
‘reindeer comb evidence’ should be incorporated into a current model of contact.
Second, concerning the importance of
maritime communication, the distribution
analysis has shown that most of the early
Insular finds are found in areas along the
Nordvegr, which indicates early maritime
mobility and sometimes early links with
urban networks further south in
Scandinavia. This observation is in accordance with Sindbæk’s (2011) and Baug
et al.’s (2018) suggestions that pre-Viking
journeys to such urban markets may have
facilitated the movement of knowledge
and improved maritime mobility, which
ultimately led to the Viking expansion.
Finally, it has been argued here that the
earliest recorded Viking attacks were only
possible after a phase in which people
along the Nordvegr had acquired a sufficient level of environmental knowledge to
navigate in new seascapes and coastal
environments. It also included the ability
to re-locate places with accumulated
wealth and resources after their initial discovery. As Purcell (2015, 54) puts it, the
questions involved were ‘where the target
sites were in relation to one another; how
to get there; how long it would take; what
supplies were necessary to conduct the
attack and to ensure sufficient resources to
complete the return journey, or indeed to
make it to the next target.’
When constructing a model of maritime
movement, these observations may be formalized, although somewhat simplified, as
a suggested process involving three main
stages:
1. Information stage: Seafarers along the
Nordvegr became increasingly informed
about the Insular land on their journeys
to markets further south in Scandinavia
and continental Europe (around ad
750/770)
2. Environmental learning: Consequently,
this activity triggered maritime expansion, ultimately leading to voyages of
exploration further west over the sea,
where some seafarers gained first-hand
experience with the sea routes and maritime landscape along northern Britain
and Ireland (around ad 770/790)
3. The earliest recorded raids: The attack
on Lindisfarne and other targets off
the coast of Ireland and Britain from
AD 793 onwards could only have happened after a period of reconnaissance
and preparation. This necessarily
involved a level of a priori environmental knowledge and perhaps also a conceptual ‘conquest’ of the open seascape.
While the nature of the second phase of
‘environmental learning’ would leave few
traces in the archaeological material, it also
opens the possibility that some of the
earliest Insular metalwork may have
reached Norway as a result of such
contact, presuming that this stage could
involve small-scale exchange or even
plunder. While clearly favouring the
notion of pre-Lindisfarne communication,
this model does however not suggest that
there was a long period of well-established
migration and trade between Norway and
the northern Insular areas from as far back
as the early to mid-eighth century.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
Through these early voyages, seafarers
developed the necessary environmental
knowledge, which, in addition to a range
of social and political causes (see Barrett,
2010; Ashby, 2015; Baug et al, 2018 for
recent summaries or discussions), must
have been a vital precondition for the
successful attacks from the last decade of
the eighth century onwards. These experiences were materialized in distinctive
foreign goods brought back to the Norse
homelands, creating a visual distinction
between families involved in overseas ventures and others within their community
(Aannestad, 2015).
537
desire to explore’ (Dugmore et al., 2010:
213). As shown by the distribution of the
earliest Insular finds from Norway, such
motivation seems to have been particularly
strong amongst the seafaring communities
along the Nordvegr.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am most grateful to the four anonymous
referees for their constructive and useful
feedback, and to Martin Callanan, Unn
Pedersen, Randi Bjørshol Wærdahl and
Philip Wood for their valuable help in
commenting on the original draft of the
paper.
Concluding thoughts
While this article has proposed an interaction model which opens up a period of
Pre-Viking contact, it is primarily with
the first recorded raids from AD 793
onwards, that the Viking activity on
Insular land becomes visible. Indeed,
much of our modern image of the earliest
interaction across the North Sea is affected
by the numerous references to the devastation and chaos caused by ‘Gentiles’,
‘Northmen’ and ‘Danes’ in the late eight
and early ninth centuries. However, the
written sources concerning the ‘earliest
wave’ of Viking activity give the impression of well-organized attacks were at least
some of the crewmembers must have had
first-hand experience with the sea route
across the North Sea, the northerly coastline and favourable locations to attack. As
such, the success of the earliest raids was
not purely the result of superior warfare
techniques and ship technology, but also
very much a matter of maritime mobility
and environmental knowledge where
open-sea crossings were encouraged by
‘motivation and the related human factors
such as people’s knowledge of the sea,
their skills, willingness to embrace risk and
REFERENCES
Primary sources
HHS = Håkon Håkonssons Saga, by Sturla
Porðarson. Translated and revised by
Anne Holtsmark (2008). Trondheim:
Aschehough & Co.
OHS = The Olaf Haraldsson Saga. In: Snorre
Sturluson, 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 gjenstander i vikingtid. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Oslo University.
Ashby, S.P. 2009. Combs, Contact and
Chronology: Reconsidering Hair Combs
in Early-Historic and Viking-Age Atlantic
Scotland. Medieval Archaeology, 53: 1–33.
https://doi.org/10.1179/007660909X1245
7506806081
Ashby, S.P. 2015, What really caused the
Viking Age? The social content of raiding
and exploration. Archaeological Dialogues,
https://doi.org/10.1017/
22:
89-106.
S1380203815000112
Ashby, S.P., Coutu, A.N. & Sindbæk, S.M.
2015. Urban Networks and Arctic
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
538
Outlands: Craft Specialists and Reindeer
Antler in Viking Towns. European Journal
of Archaeology, 18: 679–704. https://doi.
org/10.1179/1461957115Y.0000000003
Baastrup, M.P. 2013. Continental and Insular
Imports in Viking Age Denmark,
Distribution and circulation. Zeitschrift für
Archäologie des Mittelalters, 41: 85–205.
Bakka, E. 1973. Eit gravfunn frå Fosse i
Meland, Hordaland og det arkeologiske
periodskiljet mellom merovingertid og
vikingtid. Suomen Muinaisnuistoyhdistyksen
Aikakauskirja, 75: 9–17.
Ballin Smith, B. 2007. Norwick: Shetland’s
First Viking settlement? In: B.B. Smith,
S. Taylor & G. Williams, eds. West Over
Sea: Studies in Scandinavian Sea-borne
Expansion and Settlement before 1300.
Leiden: Brill, pp. 287–98.
Barrett, J.H. 2008. The Norse in Scotland. In:
S. Brink & N. Price, eds. The Viking
World. London & New York: Routledge,
pp. 411–27.
Barrett, J.H. 2010. Rounding up the Usual
Suspects: Causation and the Viking Age
Diaspora. In: A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett &
K.V. Boyle, eds. The Global Origins and
Development of Seafaring. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, pp. 289–302.
Baug, I., Skre, D., Heldal, T. & Ø.J. Jansen.
2018. The Beginning of the Viking Age
in the West. Journal of Maritime
Archaeology (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 Seafaring
in the West. In: I.S. Klæsøe, ed. Viking
Trade and Settlement in Continental
Western Europe. Copenhagen: Museum
Tusculanum Press, pp. 19–42.
Bronk Ramsey, C. 2013. Recent and Planned
Developments of the Program OxCal.
Radiocarbon 55: 720–30. https://doi.org/
10.1017/S0033822200057878
Callmer, J. 1977. Trade Beads and Bead Trade
in Scandinavia ca. 800–1000 AD (Acta
Archaeologica 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
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
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 Early
Middle Ages 2: Scandinavian Scotland.
Leicester: Leicester University Press.
Downham, C. 2000. An Imaginary Viking
Raid on Skye in 795? Scottish Gaelic
Studies, 20: 192–96.
Downham, C. 2017. The Earliest Viking
Activity in England? The English Historical
Review, 132: 1–12. https://doi.org/10.
1093/ehr/cex066
Dugmore, A., Casely, A.F., Keller, C. &
Mcgovern, T.H. 2010. Conceptual
Modelling of Seafaring, Climate and
Early
European
Exploration
and
Settlement of the North Atlantic Islands.
In: A. Anderson, J.H. Barrett & K.V.
Boyle, eds. The Global Origins and
Development of Seafaring. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research, pp. 213–28.
Dumville, D.N. 2008. Vikings in Insular
Chronicling. In: S. Brink & N. Price, eds.
The Viking World. London & New York:
Routledge, pp. 350–67.
Feveile, C. & Jensen, S. 2000. Ribe in the 8th
and 9th Century: A Contribution to the
Archaeological Chronology of North
Western Europe. Acta Archaeologica, 71:
9–24.
Gjessing, G. 1934. Studier i norsk merovingertid. Kronologi og oldsakformer. Oslo: Det
Norske Videnskaps-Akademi.
Glørstad, Z.T. & Røstad, I.M. 2015. Mot en
ny tid? Merovingertidens ryggknappspenner som uttrykk for endring og
erindring. In: M. Vedeler & I. M. Røstad,
eds. Smykker. Personlig pynt i kulturhistorisk
lys. Trondheim: Museumsforlaget, pp.
181–210.
Golledge, R. 2003. Human Wayfinding and
Cognitive Maps. In: M. Rockman & J.
Steele, eds. Colonization of Unfamiliar
Landscapes: The Archaeology of Adaption.
London: Routledge, pp. 44–58.
Grønnesby, G. & Heen-Pettersen, A. 2015.
Gården i yngre jernalder – et spørsmål om
erkjennelse? Belyst ved utgravningen av et
yngre jernalders gårdstun på Ranheim.
Viking, 169–88.
Heen-Pettersen, A.M & Murray, G. 2018. An
Insular Reliquary from Melhus: The
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
Significance of Insular Ecclesiastical
Material in Early Viking-Age Norway.
Medieval Archaeology, 62: 52–81. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00766097.2018.1451522
Hines, J. 1992. The Scandinavian Character of
Anglian England: An Update. In: M.O.H
Carver, ed. The Age of Sutton Hoo.
Woodbridge: Boydell Press, pp. 315–29.
Hines, J. 1996. Tidlig kontakt over Nordsjøen
og 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 in
Lofoten. A Chieftain’s Farm in North
Norway. Trondheim: Tapir Academic
Press. pp. 199–213.
Jansson, I. 1985. Ovala spännbuclor, En studie
av vikingtidas standartssmycken med utgangaspunkt från Björkö-fynden. Uppsala:
Institutionen för arkeologi.
Jesch, J. 2009. Naming and Narratives:
Exploration and Imagination in the Norse
Voyages Westwards. In: K. Dekker, K.
Olsen & T. Hofstra, eds. The Worlds of
Travellers. Exploration and Imagination.
Leuven: Peeters, pp. 61–80.
Jesch, J. 2015. The Threatening Wave: Norse
Poetry and the Scottish Isles. In: J.H.
Barrett & S.J. Gibbons, eds. Maritime
Societies of the Viking and Medieval World.
Wakefield: Maney, pp. 320–32.
Klæsøe, I.S. 1999. Vikingetidens kronologi –
en nybearbejdning af det arkærlogiske
materiale.
Aarbøger
for
Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie, 1997: 89–142.
Morris, C.D. 1998. Raiders, Traders and
Settlers: The Early Viking Age in
Scotland. In: H.B. Clarke, M. Ní
Mhaonaigh & R. Ó Floinn, eds. Ireland
and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age.
Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 73–103.
Myhre, B. 1993. The Beginning of the Viking
Age – Some Current Archaeological
Problems. In: A. Faulkes & R. Perkins,
eds. Viking Revelations. Birmingham:
Viking Society for Northern Research, pp.
182–216.
Myhre, B. 1998. The Archaeology of the
Early Viking Age in Norway. In: H.B.
Clarke, M. Ní Mhaonaigh & R. Ó
Floinn, eds. Ireland and Scandinavia in the
Early Viking Age. Dublin: Four Courts,
pp. 3–36.
539
Myhre, B. 2000. The Early Viking Age in
Norway. Acta Archaeologica, 71: 35–47.
Ørsnes, M. 1966. Form og stil i
Sydskandinaviens yngre germanske jernalder
(Nationalmuseets skrifter, Arkæologiskhistorisk
række
11).
København:
Nationalmuseets.
Owen, O. 2004. The Scar Boat Burial – and
the Missing Decades of the Early Viking
Age in Orkney and Shetland. In: J.
Adams & K. Holman, eds. Scandinavia
and Europe 800–1350. Contact, Conflict
and 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 of
the Salme Ship Burials in Pre-Viking Age
Estonia. Antiquity, 90: 1022–37. https://
doi.org/10.15184/aqy.2016.106
Purcell, E. 2015. The First Generation in
Ireland, 795–812: Viking Raids and
Viking Bases? In: H.B. Clarke & R.
Johnson, eds. The Vikings in Ireland and
Beyond. Before and After the Battle of
Clontarf. Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 41–55.
Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Warren
Beck, J., Blackwell, P.G., Bronk
Ramsey, C., et al., 2013. IntCal13 and
Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration
Curves
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 Learning
in the Archaeology of Colonization. In:
M. Rockman & J. Steele, eds.
Colonization of Unfamiliar Landscapes: The
Archaeology
of
Adaption.
London:
Routledge, pp. 3–24.
Rundkvist, M. 2010. Domed Oblong
Brooches of Vendel Period Scandinavia.
Uppåkrastudier, 11: 127–80.
Shetelig, H. 1927. Tidsbestemmelser i vikingtidens 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 and
Social Ties: Long-Distance Interaction,
Long-term Investment – and Why the
Viking Age Happened. In: J. Graham-
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
540
Campbell, S.M. Sindbæk & G. Williams,
eds. Silver Economies, Monetisation and
Society in Scandinavia, AD 800–1100. Aarhus:
Aarhus University Press, pp. 41–66.
Skre, D. 2014. Norðvegr – Norway: From
Sailing Route to Kingdom. European
Review, 22: 34–44. https://doi.org/10.
1017/S1062798713000604
Solli, B. 1996. Narratives of Encountering
Religions: On the Christianization of the
Norse Around AD 900–1000. Norwegian
Archaeological Review, 29: 89–113.
Stenvik, L.F. 2001. Skei - et maktsenter frem
fra
skyggen.
Trondheim:
Tapir
Akademiske Forlag.
Storli, I. 2007. Othere and his World – A
Contemporary Perspective. In: J. Bately &
A. Englert, eds. Ohthere’s Voyages: A Late
9th-Century Account of Voyages along the
Coasts of Norway and Denmark and its
Cultural Context. Roskilde: Viking Ships
Museum, pp. 76–99.
Van de Noort, R. 2011. North Sea
Archaeologists. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Vinsrygg, S. 1979. Merovingartid i NordNoreg. Studie i utvalt materiale frå gravfunn. Unpublished Masters dissertation,
Bergen University.
Von Holstein, I.C.C., Ashby, S.P., van
Doorn, N.L., Sachs, S.M., Buckley, M.,
Meiri, M. et al. 2014. Searching for
Scandinavians in pre-Viking Scotland:
Molecular
Fingerprinting
of
Early
Medieval Combs. Journal of Archaeological
Science, 41: 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jas.2013.07.026
Wamers, E. 1985. Insularer Metallschmuck in
wikingerzeitlichen Gräbern Nordeuropas.
Neumunster: Wachholtz.
Wamers, E. 1998. Insular Finds in Viking
Age Scandinavia and the State Formation
European Journal of Archaeology 22 (4) 2019
of Norway. In: H.B. Clarke, M. Ní
Mhaonaigh & R. Ó Floinn, eds. Ireland
and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age.
Dublin: Four Courts, pp. 36–72.
Weber, B. 1994. Iron Age Combs: Analyses
of Raw Material. In: B. Ambrosiani & H.
Clarke, eds. Developments Around the
Baltic and the North Sea in the Viking Age.
Stockholm: Birka Project for the Swedish
National Heritage Board, pp. 190–93.
Weber, B. 1996. Handel mellom Norge og
Orknøyene 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 Cognitive
Roles of Viking Age Ships. In: J.H.
Barrett & S.J. Gibbons, eds. Maritime
Societies of the Viking and Medieval World.
Wakefield: Maney, pp. 14–24.
BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Aina Heen-Pettersen is a PhD student in
the Department of Historical Studies,
Trondheim University in Norway. Her
research focuses on Insular-Scandinavian
interaction in the Viking Age and the use
of Insular artefacts after they arrived in the
Norse homelands.
Address: Aina Margrethe Heen-Pettersen,
Department of Historical Studies, The
Norwegian University of Science and
Technology, Trondheim, Norway. [email:
aina.pettersen@ntnu.no]
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 type
insulaire sert de base à la présente étude sur la chronologie et la nature des premières activités des
Vikings. La répartition géographique de ce matériel et l’application de concepts liés aux connaissance
sociales et aux connaissances des lieux permet de mettre l’accent sur l’importance de la mise en place de
paysages cognitifs facilitant l’expansion viking. L’auteur soutient que les premières attaques vikings
connues n’ont été possibles qu’à la suite d’une phase dans laquelle les navigateurs scandinaves avaient
acquis un niveau suffisant de connaissances sur l’environnement maritime pour pouvoir se déplacer dans
de nouveaux paysages marins et environnements côtiers. Ce modèle d’interaction permet de penser que
certains objets précoces de type insulaire découverts en Norvège soient parvenus en Norvège au terme
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19
Heen-Pettersen – The Earliest Wave of Viking Activity?
541
d’expéditions d’exploration avant le pillage de Lindisfarne menées par des navigateurs le long de la voie
maritime connue sous le nom de Nordvegr. Translation by Madeleine Hummler
Mots-clés: époque viking précoce, Vikings, objets de type insulaire, Norvège, Nordvegr, mobilité
maritime
Die erste Welle der Wikingerbewegungen? Eine Neubewertung von norwegischen
Angaben
In diesem Artikel werden die Chronologie und die Eigenschaften der frühen Wikingerbewegungen aufgrund einer Gruppe von frühen Bestattungen mit Metallgegenständen insularen Typus aus Norwegen
untersucht. Das Verbreitungsbild dieses Metallhandwerks und die Anwendung von Konzepten, die mit
räumlichen Kenntnissen und sozialem Wissen verbunden sind, verdeutlichen, wie bedeutend die
Erschaffung von kognitiven Landschaften für die Ausdehnung der Wikingerwelt war. Es wird hier
vorgeschlagen, dass die ersten Wikingerangriffe erst nach einer Phase, in welcher die altnordischen
Seefahrer den erforderlichen umweltlichen Kenntnisstand, neue Seelandschaften und Küstenbereiche zu
befahren erreicht hatten, stattfanden. Bei diesem Interaktionsmodell ist es möglich, dass einige frühe
insulare Funde aus Norwegen auf Entdeckungsreisen von Seefahrern entlang der Nordvegr
Schifffahrtsroute in einem Zeitraum vor der Plünderung von Lindisfarne hinweisen. Translation by
Madeleine Hummler
Stichworte: frühe Wikingerzeit, Wikinger, Metallhandwerk insularen Typus, Norwegen,
Nordvegr, Seeverkehr
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Nor. Uni. of Science and Technology, on 08 Nov 2019 at 14:15:38, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/eaa.2019.19