Today, it is difficult to divorce medieval Norsemen from their ships, which enforce an image of raiding Vikings, a powerful concept that defines their society to the modern layman. Modern understanding of Viking culture comes in great part from archaeological analysis of specimens found from that era. Three ships are particularly notable: the Gokstad, the Tune, and the Oseberg ships, while all found in burial mounds, exhibit vast differences in construction and furnishing, making them valuable specimens for studying the role of ships in Viking society and culture, as well as their symbolic significance (A. W. Brogger and Haakon Shetelig). Detailed descriptions of the design and engineering of these three ships appear in the works of Brogger and Shetelig, Unger, and Sprague, but their emphases on certain aspects of the ship demark the focuses of their respective works. Unger and Sprague take a more generalized look at Norse ships, emphasizing their contributions to Scandinavia’s commercial and martial development, respectively, while Brogger and Shetelig, focusing specifically on the three burial ships, analyze their significance in death traditions and their appearances in skaldic poetry and lore. Another volume, The Ship as a Symbol, edited by Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and Birgitte Munch Thye, compiles academic literature that further this examination, covering the abstract meanings of the ship than the other materials pass over for a more concrete, objective review.
The Ship in the Medieval Economy 600-1600, by Richard W. Unger, emphasizes the ship’s commercial and martial roles in the Viking world. Viking sea power rose in 840, when the death of Carolingian emperor Louis the Pious destabilized Western Europe, and open to raids by sea (Richard W. Unger). The Vikings, having plundered and conquered the coasts and waterways, exerted their influence by “ [claiming] sovereignty as kings”—as consequence of this “establishment of monarchical governments on the fringe of Europe,” violence became “less sporadic” and stability partially restored to the region (Richard W. Unger 81). According to Unger, the Vikings’ naval dominance can be attributed to the superiority in design and construction of their ships (Richard W. Unger). The rising population and generally poor farmland of Scandinavia prompted a wave of migration, and thus a need to transport kinsmen, livestock, and supplies over open sea—the “promotion of design improvement” and the influx of exposure to foreign shipbuilding concepts and the invention of “the clinker-built hull…all combined to expand the capability of Scandinavian ships” to fill these demands (Unger 93). Umber argues that this versatility and efficiency in ships gave Scandinavia “superiority in fighting” as well as “an advantage in commerce,”—goods could be moved at a lower cost, increasing profits and thus “ [promoting] the full integration of Scandinavia into a…trading network” (Unger 94). In spite of these advantages, the Viking ship had numerous drawbacks that limited their –designed for speed and agility, they were small and often lacked “…quarters for the crew…” and required nightly stops to camp (Richard W. Unger, 94). From these advantages and disadvantages, Unger suggests that Viking ships were an integral instrument in forming a collective Scandinavia, strengthening a Norse identity, but were “capable of only limited services” and were thus restrained in their scope of martial and economic influence, and fell before larger cargo ships as technology advanced (Unger 95). Similar to Unger’s work, Martina Sprague’s Norse Warfare examines the role of ships in Viking society from a martial and economic viewpoint. She takes a more technical approach, describing in greater detail the engineering behind the ships, the advantages of having sails over oars (less labor-intensive, greater distances traveled) while examining the differences in form and function the oared drakkar and knorr, and then the longship, which had the “dual option of sails and oars [that] made the ships highly mobile” (Martina Sprague 91). As contrast to Unger, Sprague examines the social significance of the ships more, analyzing their value beyond means of transportation and profit acquisition: “the pride felt by a Norse king in command of his ship has been retold in countless [sagas]…a sea-king who lost his ship was suddenly vulnerable and…brought down in disgrace” (Sprague 88). Compared to Unger’s generalized discussion, Sprague engages in case studies of specific ships in Norse lore and Iron Age archaeological sites (Sprague). Her technical and specific analysis of Norse ships offers a deeper understanding of their role in Viking culture, and despite differences in focus and approach, both Sprague and Unger agree that Viking ships, “the culmination of centuries of technical evolution and innovation,” were superior to predicate and derivative vessels, and gave the Vikings “their military superiority” and “dominant force” (Sprague, 100).
Brogger and Shetelig, in The Viking Ships, take both a concrete and abstract approach to examining ships. In their assessment of the Oseberg, Gokstad, and Tune finds, they not only give elaborate descriptions of their construction and definitions of shipbuilding jargon, but also a detailed inventory of their furnishings and burial material, acknowledging their context in burial more so than Sprague or Unger. While Sprague and Unger give a generalized canvass of Iron Age ships, Shetelig and Brogger acknowledge that the three specimens are drastically different—while all three serve are burial sites for distinguished chieftains and represent the pinnacle of Scandinavian ship craft, the Gokstad is powerful and seaworthy, while the Oseberg, though a work of art, is impractical for everyday usage (Haakon Shetelig, 150). He states "The ships in the grave-mounds were not built for warfare, nor for voyages in the high seas, they were intended for travel along the coast, where one could reach port every night," which seems to counter Unger’s suggestion that many Viking ships were limited in this same way (Brogger and Shetelig, 165). In spite of the emphasis on these archaeological specimens, Shetelig, like Sprague and Unger, acknowledge the utility of sagas and skaldic poetry in modern knowledge of ships, which are often impeccably described and praised—however, Shetelig and Brogger acknowledge, as well, the flaws of these texts. Shetelig asserts that "the literary source-material is truly large and comprehensive. But in the nature of the case, it gives a monstrously one-sided picture: “...It is longships we are told of...of all the...prosaic boats--merchant ships, freighters, ferry boats...we learn extremely little," which stands in almost direct contradiction to the detailed discussion of the engineering and design of commercial vessels that Unger provides, especially considering the scarcity of those physical specimens (Brogger and Shetelig, 166). Here lies a glaring limitation on the study of Viking ships—those preserved for modern examination and those glorified in sagas represent the slim few that manifest the idealized Norse image of war and glamour, and the humbler crafts more indicative of everyday life are unlikely to be discovered. Shetelig and Brogger’s The Viking Ships brings the discussion of the ship into specific examples, analyzing the physical specimens and also their context, providing both a concrete and abstract view of the Scandinavian ships history and lore have chosen to preserve.
The scope of the analysis of Viking ships narrows with closer analysis of a peculiarity of the Oseberg ship—the skeletons have been disturbed, but much of the treasures interred with them untouched (A. W. Brogger and Haakon Shetelig). Per Holck, in “The Oseberg Ship Burial, Norway: New Thoughts on the Skeletons from the Grave Mound,” asks how and why the grave robbers were so precise in their theft, and that the robbers “[dragged] the bodies through the gallery and …[removed] the items of greatest value” prompted scholarly debate about the status of the two buried in the Oseberg site, and subsequently, their identites (Per Holck, 190). Holck acknowledges several scholars’ hypotheses and debates on the identities of the bodies—two female skeletons were present, one older and one younger—while discussing the validity of these claims, focusing specifically on those of A.W. Brogger (Holck). Brogger claims that the younger woman was in fact Queen Asa, a figure of Norse sagas who may have lent her name to the Oseberg, and defends his opinion in The Viking Ships, stating that Queen Asa’s lifetime corresponds well with the site, affirming the similarity between the original forms of ‘Asa’ and ‘Oseberg,’ and lastly the conviction that “no lesser person than the mighty Queen Asa could have been buried in the [Oseberg] ship” (Brogger and Shetelig, 169). Holck is skeptical of both Brogger’s examinations, which took place shortly after World War II, and his decision to re-inter the bones shortly after his appraisal was made—Holck interprets this to be Brogger’s eagerness to bolster his own theory by freezing future research (Holck). Holck cites a modern Danish study by Dr. Tom Gilbert that utilizes modern scientific techniques and a quantitative approach to analyzing the bone fragments that were not reburied reveals data that contradicts the midcentury perceptions of the skeletons—the young woman is not young, and both exhibit a DNA profile that suggests an Iranian rather than Norse origin (Holck). In the midst of this new evidence, Holck says “…it is easy to understand how patriotic impulses during the post-war years in Norway could [prompt] re-burials…they…resulted from local historical enthusiasm based on insufficient knowledge,” declaring that “modern scientific methods could tell the story that history…has not, and…confirm [their identities]” (Holck, 207).
In contrast, the articles collected in The Ship as a Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia examine ships as manifestations of abstract concepts in Viking Age society. In a general sense, the articles in this compilation explore the ship’s symbolic relevance in their society, primarily in the context of the same boat graves examined above. While Strague and Unger and Brogger use the mound ships as specimens of engineering and economic study, Zbigniew Kobylinkski in “Ships, Society, Symbols and Archaeologists,” and Jens Peter Schjodt’s “The Ship in Old Norse Mythology and Religion” interpret the burial context as evidence for symbolic meaning, and analyze the ships with a cultural and spiritual bias.
According to Kobylinski, it is important to define symbolism and how objects can become symbols before analysis of that object can begin (Zbigniew Kobylinski). Objects can become symbolic by two mechanisms: by being moved in time or space, or by being “pragmatically distorted” (Kobylinski, 11). Boat-graves, he states, exhibit both of these characteristics, as they are moved away from water, their functional habitat, to underground—“when we find evidence of behavior which is irrational from the point of view of our knowledge, we…look for an explanation…[that includes]…the humanistic factor…of this behavior” (Kobylinski, 11). He cites other potentially symbolic presences of ships in Viking culture—boat-graves, graves simulating boats, intentionally sunk boats, model boats, and boat iconography on coins and rune stones—and in cultures around the world to assert that “the diversity of rituals suggests a complexity of meaning…the wide geographical range and long duration of these phenomena suggest their importance and common acceptance in socio-cultural systems” (Kobylinski, 11). From these, he concludes the ship to be an “archetypal symbol,” and that connection of the ship symbol with water symbolism, and that “[funerary boats are symbols] connected with symbolism of water, and with the transport symbolism of a journey involved in every rite of passage” are valid, universal assertions, regardless of cultural context (Kobylinski, 13). Kobylinski notes that burials were done far from the home—the eagerness to create distance between home and the body, which was believed could rise from the dead, led the Scandinavians to bury beyond a body of water (Kobylinksi). Perhaps it is from this practice that the Norsemen believed “the world of the dead [to be] across a water barrier”—ships would then serve as appropriate transportation (Kobylinksi, 15). Brogger’s observations that the “[Oseberg, Tune, and Gokstad ships] lay with [their prows] pointing…towards the sea” support Kobylinski’s claim where Kobylinski himself does not (Brogger, 88). Indeed, this confirms the Norsemen’s symbolic regard of the ship, but without additional evidence of this nature from other cultures, Kobylinski’s ultimate conclusion that the ship is an archetypal symbol seems weak and overgeneralized.
Schjodt, too, opposes Kobylinski’s methods and conclusions; he believes that to “[investigate] the symbolism of ships in Scandinavia, we must look to the mythic framework” and that “archaeological artefacts [reveal nothing] about this relation” (Jens Peter Schjodt, 22). Contrary to Kobylinski’s assertion that the ship’s status as a universal, archetypal symbol does not rely on cultural context, Schjodt looks directly to the textual evidence, analyzing specific encounters with notable ships in Norse sagas and myth (Schjodt). In spite of Schjodt’s reliance on the text, his findings corroborate with those of Brogger and Shetelig, who state “the grave-mound became…a common property of folk though…the dead man lives in the mound…his home is…the mound, the grave…this belief was ineradicable” (Brogger and Shetelig, 101). Schjodt affirms this symbolic connection between ships, graves, and home—ships belong to the “fertility god, Freyr,” bearing the dead on to “Valhalla, the warrior’s paradise, or Hel,” the final abodes of the dead (Schjodt, 23). To further the connection, Kobylinski describes the prevalence of boat-shaped halls and homes in Scandinavia: grave mounds formed from upturned boats house the corpse, just as buildings for the living bear have arched ceilings resembling the hull of a ship (Kobylinski). This common depiction of the ship as a home represents a divestment from its function as a sea-going vessel—it is useless grounded, and yet, the ship manifests itself in these numerous aspects of Norse life. From here, it is apparent that the ship is a significant aspect of Scandinavian society, transcending its utility in commerce and war to take on a more mythological and symbolic role.
Synthesizing the conclusions of these pieces of secondary literature, which often contradict or disagree with one another, in order to reach a cohesive and adequate understanding of the significance of ships in Viking Age Scandinavia is a serious undertaking. In spite of the multitude of scholarly interpretations and conclusions, the aforementioned works delineate common sources of information, specimens of ships found in burial mounds and the saga text. Analysis of these sources can provide a tentative understanding of the concrete function of ships in their society, but also an abstract view of their roles. By any interpretation and by any method of coming to that interpretation, the ship was a hugely important fixture in Norse society—Dreyers Forlag, in the publisher’s note to Brogger and Shetelig’s The Viking Ships: their Ancestry and Evolution, eloquently states “ships were not only a means of transportation…home life, religion, warfare, arts and crafts—all are reflected in the Viking ships and their furnishings” (Brogger and Shetelig and Forlag, 5). While the scholars may disagree on how that importance can be quantified, or in what ways it can be quantified, they all seem to conclude that ships are a worthy avenue of study in regards to Scandinavian culture, and offer particular insight on their society as a whole.
Works Cited
Brogger, A. W., and Haakon Shetelig. The Viking Ships: their Ancestry and Evolution. Los Angeles: Knud K. Mogensen Publishing, 1953. Print
Holck, Per. “The Oseberg Ship Burial, Norway: New Thoughts on the Skeletons from the Grave Mound.” European Journal of Archaeology. Vol. 9, No. 2-3 (2006): 185-210. Web. 28 Jul. 2013.
Kobylinksi, Zbigniew. “Ships, Society, Symbols and Archaeologists.” The Ship as a Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia. Ed. Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and Birgitte Munch Thye. Copenhagen: the Danish National Museum, 1995. 9-18. Print.
Schjodt, Jens Peter. “The Ship in Old Norse Mythology and Religion.” The Ship as a Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval Scandinavia. Ed. Ole Crumlin-Pedersen and Birgitte Munch Thye. Copenhagen: the Danish National Museum, 1995. 20-24. Print.
Sprague, Martina. Norse Warfare: the Unconventional Battle Strategies of the Ancient Vikings. New York: Hippocrene Books, Inc, 2007. 165-138. Print.
Unger, Richard W. The Ship in the Medieval Economy 600-1600. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1980. 75-113. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment