What's in a Name?

When the initial planning meeting for the Smithsonian's exhibit 'Vikings, North Atlantic Saga' was held, there was considerable discussion, both formally and over drinks in the evenings about the use of the terms 'Viking' and 'Norse'. The thirty or so at the sessions were gathered from the 'big names' in popular VA research, curators of major museums, cultural ministers from all the North Atlantic countries. Pretty high powered talent.

In the end the argument boiled down to this:
On one hand everyone recognized the responsibility we all had as educators to correct stereotypes. To use the correct term NORSE as defining a specific * material culture *.
On the other hand everyone clearly understood the painful truth that 'funding drives the event'. No funding, no exhibit. In the end it came down to simple 'product recognition'. 'Viking' brought in the ticket sales.

The subject resurfaced at the 2000 Viking Millennium Conference in Newfoundland. Curator of the exhibit Bill Fitzhugh did a presentation on the exhibit, and the subject of names came up in questions. That ended up a lot more heated - people actually yelling at each other.

The truth is that major institutions throughout Europe and North America will continue to use the incorrect term 'Viking' - because that is what the general public recognizes and responds to. Many museums make no apologies for this. Richard Hall of the Jorvik * Viking * Centre at York made a special point of featuring the use of advertising as the major reason for the success of that institution in his session at the conference. Good advertising yields large gate revenues, which in turn pay for the research. He made absolutely no apologies.

I certainly do my best to avoid the use of * Viking * as a single word description in all of my own presentation work. If you check over the documentation for World of the NORSE or the NORSE Encampment you will see this. I tend to use * Viking Age *, but that is a known definition used in academic circles. As an example of how my own work has been degraded by mere advertising: The presentation I created for L'Anse aux Meadows was always titled the 'Norse Encampment' in all my production notes and documentation. The agency who commissioned the project was called the 'Viking Trail Tourism Association'. So they (without informing me) changed the name on everything that was published. When Parks Canada assumed control of the presentation (thankfully!) several years latter, they retained the incorrect term in the name for continuity.

A bald truth to museum work - it is "The Art of the Possible".

Historic Interpreter versus Re-enactor

You may have seen me use those terms in past postings. I make a clear distinction between the two.

Re-enactor - is what you are when you are at a closed event with just other re-enactors at it. Generally everyone you see will have some shared framework that is understood.

Historic Interpreter - is what you are when you work in front of the general public. Now there is a very good chance that you are interacting with people who DO NOT have any concept of the historical frame work at all.

The skills of a Historic Interpreter are quite different and much more demanding than that required inside a closed re-enactment. Quite frankly (as someone who trains Living History Interpreters), I find the approach to this fundamental aspect of public presentation sadly lacking in many highly visible * Re-enactment * groups.

For most re-enactors, the stress is placed on physical accuracy of equipment. (Often enforced by 'authenticity officers' who rarely understand the implications of the artifact samples selected.)

For the historic interpreter the stress is on communication method. What does the visitor's question really MEAN - as opposed to what on surface the question may appear. (That cabbage question was really about what kinds of foods were available in the Viking Age - and if ancient cabbage looked like modern supermarket cabbage. It could have been the lead in to a highly successful long conversation if handled correctly. This would have resulted in not only a better educated visitor - but one who would have ended up very pleased with their interactions in camp.)
One of the most effective physical presentations I ever saw used absolutely no actual object at all (in Dublin at the reconstruction based on Woods Quay as it turned out).

For those interested in improving their public presentation skills, I refer you to :

'Past into Present' by Stacy Roth
University of North Carolina Press, 1998
06-05-040302-7654

Knowledge or Wisdom?

One morning Shelagh Rogers was interviewing a fellow who made baskets on the CBC. From out in the Yukon some place. He told a story about learning to pick ash wood from the bush with his grandfather. The two of them got up at the crack of dawn to hit the trail at first light. As they wandered through the bush, the young man would keep pointing out trees to his grandfather. The grandfather would glance over and say 'No - not that one'. After an hour of this, the young fellow was getting pretty tired of it. 'So grandfather, just what IS it you are looking for'? The old man replied 'I'm waiting for a tree to tell me it wants to be made into baskets'.

Ok - if you look at this one way its a story about First Nations wisdom.

Now, I had a situation a couple of years back where I was putting together a museum exhibit. I had a tent to make and a small house replica to build for this presentation. I had a friend work for a week to help me with a lot of the grunt work and raw labour. The tent had a set of ship oars for the frame. The house needed a large number of poles for the rafters. I walked through the bush with Dave to harvest the required timber. He kept going up to saplings and saying 'what about this one?'
Now, I had seen a particular small grove of pines a couple of years back. One cone had hit the ground and a cluster of trees had grown up. They were too close together, so were growing straight, tall and with few branches. I figured they would be just about the right diameter for the oars. Mind you - I could only vaguely remember where the stand of saplings I wanted WAS inside the forest. So I kept saying 'No, not that one', as I kept trying to remember just where that thicket was.

Now - I'm a western European. So my * explanation * was framed in my scientific descriptions. I told Dave about the ideal sapling for the project, and told him about the special situation which would create the grove like the one I had found years before and how now I was now trying to re-trace my steps. I chose to directly impart the * knowledge * based on my own experience to a younger man.

Too often I personally find that First Nations are attributed with * wisdom * merely because of the method being used to transfer raw information. The young man with his grandfather might not understand what it actually is that the old man is looking for. Since the objective here was basket making, there is no doubt that a set of merely technical requirements were being applied. How old the tree, how straight, condition of the wood, and perhaps its location related to other trees. Maybe the young man would never learn what exactly his grandfather was looking for - the factors he was judging that told him 'this tree wants to be taken'. Its hard not to see this as * reducing * the flow of information, and concentrating it in the hands of people with long experience only. Grandfather appears wise, but how effective is he REALLY at communicating his knowledge?

I was willing to give Dave the full measure of my experience. Of course Dave himself is part of that same European heritage - where information is gathered directly through questions and answers.

I find myself constantly applying direct physical experience, often via the senses not apparently involved in a physical situation. I normally do try to explain directly what it is that I'm observing when asked what the heck I'm doing.

I do have knowledge - but does the manner I chose to educate make me less 'wise'?

Norse Weapons - who has what?

(once again modified from a post to Norsefolk)

When you look at the artifacts from the Viking Age, there are quite noticeable differences in terms of 'national preference' against weapon type as found in burials. Viewed as a very rough overall picture (only!)

Norway - swords
Sweden - spears
Denmark - axes

In terms of more of one type that dominates inside the area. All types are of course found, so its not as simple as 'I'm a Swede - so I should use a spear'.

As you might of guessed from the recent series of articles, there are wealth and status considerations to make related to a specific historic character and what weapon to carry. I have not specifically seen any data on the relative frequency of swords in burials overall. Just about everyone had a small tool knife, but my quick gut reaction is to say swords were like modern Rolex watches in terms of distribution through the population.

Generally swords / axes / spears are found only in male burials.
One real big problem with that generalization is the 'male dominant' angle . If there is a weapon found the sex is automaticly determined as male - without further examination into possible gender (converse is glass beads and female). Skeletons are only rarely sexed using methods OTHER than object generalizations as it turns out. There are some obviously female burials which are found with 'male' objects, particularly swords. Are these intended as working tools - or are they instead statements of status (which is more likely)? As I remember , axes are almost never found in female burials for example.

Swords specifically are high cost, special function, tools. Remember than few individuals in Norse society were full time wariors. If you are primarily a farmer who goes on raids a couple of times over your life span, then investing in an axe makes a lot more sense. This would be a tool axe as well - which explains why there are so many more small, multi function head sizes found.

Swords are also herloom objects. So there is scope there to interpet older blades which have been re-hilted. Stories collected on family blades. High quality swords might easily have a larger reputation than the person holding it.

I personally have a real interest in how simple technical factors can combine or interact inside a culture to create the tradtitions and customs that define a people. I think we are seeing how the metalworking problems are shaping the Norse.

(cross posted on the DARC blog)