For me as an archaeologist (nordic arcaeology), it's always interesting to watch or attend lectures on the subjects by academic historians. Commonly they do know what they're talking about, but at the same time they're not. See, the viking age doesn't play out during the historic era - in the rest of europe, the historic era is full on, but up here in the north, it doesn't start until after the viking age, when we fully buy in to "the European concept" (litterally, we fall - for better and worse - in the hands of Rome, the Catholic church and the Vatican). Meanwhile, as I said, during the viking era, the rest of Europe, the parts that had already hundreds of years before, in the beginning of the millennium, been invaded by Rome, the historic era is in full bloom since almost 500 years or so. THerefore, the vikings isn't really part of a historians focus - it's pre-history, it's in archaeological times. But at the same time, the Vikings didn't stay quiet up here in the north - they went out, they saw the world, they slaughtered and pillaged and raped and traded - and they settled, and signed in as mercinaries in Konstantinopel. And then they buggered off, back up north. So a historian dealing with early European historic time can't ignore them, they make way too much resonating noise on their trips and raids to possibly be ignored. Still, we're talking about academics and people able to comprehend times of past through thought - not trough dates and lists of kings. But I watch this from an archaeologists point of view - a scandinavian archaeology archaeologist and I notice some .... let's say... anomalies. Nothing major (yet - I've only watched half so far), but still - dubious claims. I'm talking specific about the german use of "Esche Men" hailing from "the Viking ship being made from Asch-wood". First of all, let me say this: I'm not saying my claim here is the 100% correct one, because I've never heard the term "Esche Men" before and I've not done any studies on it's true origin. How ever, straight off the bat, it doesn't ring true, and not even plausable in any greater extend that the reason for this term would be the Viking ships and the reasons why NOT, I'd say, are weighted higher than the reasons FOR. Here's why: Yes, Asch wood occurs in boats from the Viking Age. BUT, not commonly. The _by far_ most commonly used wood types found in Viking age long ships in the archaeological material is oak. Along with a combination of oak and deal. This bears the question: why would one name a group of people by the type of wood that _sometimes_, but in comparison, rarely occures as buildingmaterial in their trademark ships? Why not call them "Eiche Men" (Eiche - german: Oak) or even "Föhre Men" (Föhre, german: Deal/Pine).. No, it doesn't ring very true to me. And again, I'm NOT an expert on Viking age ships, nor german etymology, and I might be wrong on this one, but I'd say that if the germans called the Vikings "Ash Men", it seems far more likely that the "Ash" they're refering to, isn't the rarely used ash in their ships, but rather some other ash, connected to the norsemen. And as it just so happens, there's not just _one_ ash connected to these raiders from north, but several! Most notably I'd say, the ash that's in the very center of the creation, the center of existence: the ash tree Yggdrasil, holding within it's canopy all the worlds of all the creatures: living and dead, human and divine and all inbetween. Besides Yggdrasil, Ash also happens to be the name of the very first human to the norsemen. Created by Odin and his brothers Vile and Ve from a branch, found on the ground along a shore, of an ash tree. Again, I can't stress this enough I feel: I'm not saying any of these are the true origin of the german "Esche Men". I'm just saying that any of the two, right off hand, appears far more likely than one of the lesser types of wood used in ship building.
I had the same thought regarding the use of ash in ship building. Like most people in northern Europe, the so called Vikings made their ships, primarily of oak. However, the ash, as you pointed out, has a big place in Norse religion and culture. I must disagree that historians commonly get everything wrong. While i agree with the specific point you made regarding ash, I also think you have a particular philosophy of history, that disagrees with other approaches but is not, objectively speaking, THE correct view or approach. I am not an archaeologist or a historian but a musician and novelist with a strong interest in both archaeology and history. I am trying to understand rather than planting a positional flag. I am not sure just how much significance to give the ash point. it does not seem to indicate that the lecturer is all wrong. From my reading, it appears that archaeologists and historians play a big role in helping each other to have a larger deeper understanding. Historians are, necessarily, limited to written sources, Which often were not written by the people being studied. That is a limitation but archaeology has its interpretation problems. I am a bit confused by this sentence, "Commonly they do know what they're talking about, but at the same time they're not." I am assuming the sentence wasn't finished, something easy to do in a comment section. My impression is that you feel historians have nothing relevant to say regarding Scandinavians pre 12th century. Do correct me if that is not your intention. I'm a student, not a professional or holder of degrees in either history, anthropology, or archaeology.
@@macnutz4206 Ah! Well, let's see now, where to start... First: I must say that you are very perseptive, which is surprisingly uncommon amongst youtube comments (not that people arn't perseptive, I just find it rarely being the focus of comments - somehow, commenting on youtube seems to have become a place where one states ones claims of truth and knowledge rather than perception and development through sharing of thought. Any way, I degress) I do however get the feeling that I'm being somewhat missunderstood (my english capabilities can vary from exelent to "what the frigg is this one trying to say", depending on .... well, my form of the day.). And, as you point out: it's easy when commenting to do so in a manner that gives extra way to clumpsy ways of expressing oneself. Though I already feel this day might not be the best for me to answer, I'll give it a try and, being a conversation, the comment section is always open if things seems strange or in need of explanation. Let's see now.... yes, or no, I'm not saying that historians gets _everything_ wrong regarding pre-historic time. And I should also be clear and point out that I'm in large speaking from the point of view of being an academic, with a dubble degree (archaeology and egyptology), and as such, during my years as a student at the university, besides courses in these two subjects, I also took courses in a multitude of other subjects. Among those were history. I can't speak for other countries since I did all of my studies in Sweden. But what became clear to me when studying history were this phenomenon of history touching on the viking age, but not focusing on it. Therefore the information given by the lecturer were a mix of valid knowledge and commonly held myths (I noted this studying art history as well - so not only in history). I attribute this little phenomenon to historians being well versed in historic thought, but less so in the interpretation of archaeological sources as well as the fact that time before 1050 C.E. is a period of time that's only hastily approached in order to give the historic era a backdrop - the surface is scratched, but as an academic you don't scratch the surface: you drill down to the core of the subject and take it from there. As an archaeologist and egyptologist, I do this with ... well, everything: not only those two subjects. It's my default go to manner of viewing the world: past, present and future. I'm not going to dig into it here and now, but as an example: Trumps presidency - why and what to expect? If you ask me that, my brain will swooch back to the big bang, rusch trough the first billions of years, slow down when man starts walking upright and from there and onwards, I'll analyze the situation. I find that historians rarely do this, and my interpretation of that is that it's due to how they approach their material and what that material consists of. ..... And I'm afraid I've lost myself - where were we...? Well... Sorry, I'm embarrased, hm.... Well, I think I at least (tried to) explained what I meant by historians getting it wrong. Which is: they don't always get it wrong and they DO have some knowledge about time before historic times, but since they learn about it in a different way and they lack deeper knowledge as well as not being trained in how to read the archaeological material, it's easy for them to misinterprete or misunderstand the information they're given. Did I manage to explain myself or did I just confuse things even more...?`In that case: just ask (or tell me: "Hey, you're rambling, you answered nothing of importance or interest. Get back in your seat and do it right this time!") =)
Overhead projector. I haven't seen those in use since 90's. Ruotsi is Sweden in finnish. Nice to know why we call Sweden so diffenrent than others. Ps. I check it out. Finns did call swedish vikings as Rus (plural) Rusit.
First of all to understand the Norse you need to study their cosmology ; then as Charlemagnes descendent ( who instigated the Scandinavians revenge ) " stand in front of " RAGNAR or Ivar and insult them by informing of their inability to leave you historical evidence ; you may live long enough to hear : THE EAGLE.!!!!!
I was gonna say. Lots of people are commenting like this prof is so good etc, but im on the 9th lecture and it could all be condensed into a half hour or less of facts without all the timewasting
