Writing 2 Books on Pre-Christian Scandinavia

[sebisalive]

Hey y'all, I already have all of my research questions for my books, but I'm putting this out there to see if anyone else is curious about this specific time period.

I’m working on two non-fiction books that explore pre-Christian Scandinavia:
1. The first dives into the beliefs, values, and worldview of people from what is now Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Poland, and Germany—before Christianity took hold.
2. The second focuses on the role of women in these early belief systems, especially through the lens of Norse goddesses, war, and death.

I’m collecting questions from curious people like you to help guide my research and uncover gaps I may not have thought of. If you’re interested in mythology, paganism, ancient cultures, or storytelling—your questions would be a huge help. Thank you!

 

[Karlin]

What sources are available for this? I get the impression that the societies were mostly non-literate, and that our info is second hand at best. Though there are runes...

 

[Mad Swede]

You do understand how long a period you are looking at, don't you? It took about 1000 years (yes, ten centuries) to convert the whole of Scandinavia - the last conversions took place amongst the Sami peoples in northern Sweden and Norway in the late 1700s.

Beliefs, values and worldview form part of politics, and political motives played a latge part in deciding to convert. How did you intend to handle these aspects? What about economic motives? What about statecraft, as in the ability to better administer a kingdom or clan/kindred - was this also a motivating factor? Did Christianisation bring about additional taxes (to pay for the chruch), and if so did this increase opposition to Christianisation attempts?

Trade was a signficant factor in Scandinavia, and the eastern Norse dialect was spoken in large parts of what are now Russia and the Ukraine as a result of this trade. How did this influence the spread of Christianity?

Trade was much more significant in Scandinavia than wars and raiding, and women played a much bigger and more important role in trade and in the resulting political (read clan or kindred) decisions. What effects did this have on Christianisation in Scandinavia?

Given the lack of primary sources for the early parts of this period (up until about 1350), how are you intending to deal with the varying reliability of the (somewhat limited) secondary and tertiary sources?

 

[Karlin]

...

Given the lack of primary sources for the early parts of this period (up until about 1350), how are you intending to deal with the varying reliability of the (somewhat limited) secondary and tertiary sources?

This reminds me of correspondence I had with a History Professor who also has a podcast (History on Fire, I Highly recommend it.) I suggested doing an episode on Xuanzang ( Tang Dynasty Monk), and the first thing he asked was "what are the primary sources?" In this case, Xuanzang's own account of his travels still exists (and is available in English translation for us barbarians), as is a biography written by his disciple. This is besides mentions in later historical works.

But that is China, with a long literary history. Scandinavia is a different ball game.

Did I mention that I recommend that podcast?

 

[pmmg]

I tend to be skeptical of most things that come out of this era, particularly as it matches the idealized thinking of today's culture. I too would wonder at the sources for this material.

But...I dont really know what questions I would ask without seeing what the books are suggesting.

 

[skip.knox]

That's quite a list of cultures there. It's not like they were all the same before they converted to Christianity. And that leaves aside what "converted" would even mean in a particular time and place.

As for sources, one of the immediate challenges is that the literary sources we have all date from *after* conversion. So you're reading Christian works that deal with pagans. It's not that nothing reliable can be gleaned, but one needs to be very well versed in not just history but literature as well. As in years of study. And even then, there are a thousand cracks through which modern perception and prejudice will pour.

Since you brought it up, though: what are *your* research questions (and how can you tell you have all of them)?

 

[Gurkhal]

If you're serious about this project you should prepare yourself for alot of archaeology as there would be more of such than written sources.

Good luck though and I salute your bravery in attempting this.

 

[xena]

I am curious to know what once made those cultures unique and the role of nature and the environment in Scandinavian beliefs and religious practices. Have you come across any resources on this?

 

[Rexenm]

Is it a travel book, they sell better. You could trace language, back to its roots, or the evolution of tribal gypsies of the lands, or fabricate a lot of evidence. As far as pre-Christian goes, from what source, were they traveling Shaolin monks. I had a fabricated history walk through Atlantis travel book.

 

[Gurkhal]

Is it a travel book, they sell better. You could trace language, back to its roots, or the evolution of tribal gypsies of the lands, or fabricate a lot of evidence. As far as pre-Christian goes, from what source, were they traveling Shaolin monks. I had a fabricated history walk through Atlantis travel book.

I'm not sure I understand this post. Is it s troll post?

 

[Rexenm]

I'm not sure I understand this post. Is it s troll post?

Is this posted in the wrong area. I’m all for education, but I am uneducated. And apparently illiterate - so I used something from my childhood, asked some questions, and thought of a answer.

 

[Gurkhal]

Is this posted in the wrong area. I’m all for education, but I am uneducated. And apparently illiterate - so I used something from my childhood, asked some questions, and thought of a answer.

Ok, trolling it is.

 

[Rexenm]

Ok, trolling it is.

I understand what you mean, but it is a funny subject. The history of a land is paling, in comparison to the religious memory of it. I was merely looking to remain kosher myself, so I chose a favoured memory.

The post is however in a different thread, not our other discussion, so to bear the truth: I will try to stay away from trolling, and flaming, in exchange for qualifying opinions.

 

[coeurdevrai]

Pre-Christian can be quite difficult. Too many times things were either re-written to conform to Christian ideology (e.g. subservient women) or outright destroyed. That doesn't just apply to Scandinavia but most of the world (e.g. the burning of the Aztec codexes). Having and lived and worked in that part of the world, I rather suspect that many of our modern ideas around female equality and worth of the individual regardless of birth begin with the Nordic peoples. Ideas that women should even have rights certainly had nothing to do with the Greeks who thought that women were little more than either prostitutes or breeders. The Romans were a bit better, but still had the "stay home and squeeze out more children" type of ideas. Both the Romans and the Greeks were very class-conscious and thought that the ordinary people were of little value. The Magna Carta came out of a part of England that is still called "Dane Law". If you want to dig into something, dig into that. Take a look at Aud Deep-minded, among others.

I'm from a Native American tribe. We're matrilineal, even still. Not all cultures take well to dealing with strong women who don't defer to men and won't accept mis-treatment ranging from rudeness to attempts at physical abuse. I was quite comfortable in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. A Skraeling among the Vikings, if you will.

 

[Mad Swede]

Pre-Christian can be quite difficult. Too many times things were either re-written to conform to Christian ideology (e.g. subservient women) or outright destroyed. That doesn't just apply to Scandinavia but most of the world (e.g. the burning of the Aztec codexes). Having and lived and worked in that part of the world, I rather suspect that many of our modern ideas around female equality and worth of the individual regardless of birth begin with the Nordic peoples. Ideas that women should even have rights certainly had nothing to do with the Greeks who thought that women were little more than either prostitutes or breeders. The Romans were a bit better, but still had the "stay home and squeeze out more children" type of ideas. Both the Romans and the Greeks were very class-conscious and thought that the ordinary people were of little value. The Magna Carta came out of a part of England that is still called "Dane Law". If you want to dig into something, dig into that. Take a look at Aud Deep-minded, among others.

I'm from a Native American tribe. We're matrilineal, even still. Not all cultures take well to dealing with strong women who don't defer to men and won't accept mis-treatment ranging from rudeness to attempts at physical abuse. I was quite comfortable in Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland. A Skraeling among the Vikings, if you will.

I hate to have to correct you, but the Magna Carta has nothing to do with the Danelaw or any principles from the Nordic countries. It was drawn up by Cardinal Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, in an attempt to create a peace deal between King John and the barons. Canterbury lies in what was the Kingdom of Wessex. The Magna Carta was signed at Runnymede, which is on the south bank of the Thames in the fomer Kingdom of Wessex. The Thames itself formed the border between the Kingdom of Wessex and the Kingdom of Mercia. Neither Canterbury nor Runnymede were ever part of the Danelaw.

The Magna Carta was concerned only with the relationship between the king and his barons, and derives most of it's principles from the way the Norman and later Angevin kings ruled with some input from the (Catholic) Church. Therere is absolutely no evidence that it was based on any ancient principles of freedom, and it certainly was not relevant for what you might call the common people since at the time the absolute majority of these people were tenants of the barons and so were not freemen covered by the Magna Carta.

 

[skip.knox]

It's ok to correct what is incorrect. The exercise is sometimes called teaching. <g>

 

[Mad Swede]

It is skip.knox, but I didn't want to be aggressive about it. coeurdevrai's misconceptions about the Magna Carta are very common, and those misconceptions obscure both the real constitutional importance of the Magna Carta and the equally significant legal and judicial developments that were occurring in England at the same time.

The Magna Carta is incredibly important because it is the first time in the recorded history of the British Isles that anyone tries to define the limits of royal power and the way in which that power could be exercised. Prior to the Magna Carta kings like Richard I had ruled using what in Latin is called vis et voluntas, (force and will) by which the people of the time meant the king taking executive and sometimes arbitrary decisions on the basis that a king was above the law.

It was Henry II, father of Richard I and John, who set up the first proper legal courts in England and began the codification of common and statute law. Henry's real achievement was twofold, firstly in unifying the common law and statute law across the whole kingdom and secondly in sending the royal judges around the country to hear cases. Together these created a common legal framework for the whole country, itself of great constitutional importance because it created the principle that there is a set of laws which apply to everyone. It was also of far more practical importance to the majority of people in the kingdom, because it had a more direct impact on their lives.

These legal and judicial developments in England are parallelled by similar developments in the Nordic countries. At the end of the twelth century (1100s) most of the provincial laws which applied in the various nordic countries had been written down, and the next stage in consitutional development was the introduction of unified national laws (so-called landslag). These national laws define both the law and the division of power in these countries. In Norway this was done by Magnus Håkansson (sometimes called Magnus Lagaböte) in 1274, on Iceland it was done in the Jonsbok in 1281, and in Sweden it was done by Magnus Eriksson in 1352.

To get back to the point I made earlier in response to sebisalive's original post, these developments in England and the Nordic countries were in large part made possible by the development of a literate group of people in through the teaching efforts of the church. Those people could then help administer the kingdoms of the time.

 

[coeurdevrai]

Look at where those barons came from and what their family history was...

 

[skip.knox]

Look at where those barons came from and what their family history was...

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Which barons do you mean? How does their provenance and their family history figure into it?

I'm not asserting that there's no relevance, I'm just asking what relevance you see.

 

[Mad Swede]

I'm afraid I don't understand this. Which barons do you mean? How does their provenance and their family history figure into it?

I'm not asserting that there's no relevance, I'm just asking what relevance you see.

It is relevant skip.knox, but probably not in the way coeurdevrai thinks.

In many respects Henry II judicial reforms and the slightly later Magna Carta (along with John's equally important administrative reforms in England) mark the beginning of the end of feudalism in England.

It's important to understand that the Magna Carta is a response to the almost unlimited power that kings had in the feudal system. That feudal system (along with the king and the nobles) came to England with the Norman conquest, it did not exist in Anglo-Saxon England and never existed in the Nordic countries.

In Normandy it was William the Conqueror's grandfather Richard the Fearless (the first recognised Duke of Normandy) who imposed feudalism in Normandy and in doing so he was adopting a system developed in the Carolingian empire and the later Frankish kingdoms in western Europe. Richard had been brought up in the Frankish county of Flanders so he was familiar with the the feudal system. Richard himself was the grandsaon of Rollo (the first norse ruler of Normandy) and Poppa, daughter of Berengar the Breton Count of Rennes. Richard's ancestry and upbringing illustrates an important point, which is that there were never many norseman is what is now Normandy and that they very quickly intermarried with the local Frankish and Breton nobility.