The Witcher 3: Archaeology and the Fruit of Entertainment

Upon entering the world of The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, you’re dropped into the well worn shoes of the dashing Geralt of Rivia’s with the daunting task of not only slaying every monster across the map, but more importantly finding your estranged adopted daughter, Ciri. The game itself, I must admit, wasn’t on my list of ‘games I need to play’, as I was pre-occupied with Dragon Age: Inquisition. However, watching my husband play through The Witcher I was taken aback by not only the astounding role playing mechanics, the beauty of the world, the horse mechanics (finally, someone WATCHED a horse before animating it! I know I know… quadruped movement is hard…), but once he arrived in Skellige (the game’s island nation of ‘barbarians’), I knew I had to play it. After all, how could I ignore a game that so obviously did research into what Vikings wore across all of northern Europe? This may be exciting to me because I had just finished my Master’s degree on Vikings… But nonetheless, CD Projekt Red has impressed me. So, without any further ado, here are some of the most striking images of historical representation in Skellige, and why it’s important.

First and foremost, lets talk about the female garb within Skellige. As this is one of my favorite topics in Viking Archaeology, I’ll get this out of the way first. Lets go from head to toe, shall we?

Head dresses you will see women adorning while riding Roach throughout Skellige vary widely, but one of the most recognizable are the temple rings worn on either side of the head. These are not just silly game costumes that CD Projekt Red conjured up, they actually do exist, and were worn by the Rus, Slav, and Baltic Vikings. Such examples were excavated from Starokievksa Hill Grave 30 and are found between 900 AD and 1200 AD predominately. These temple rings vary in style, precious metal, and would have obviously displayed a woman’s wealth openly, as well as held tribal importance on marriage status, familial status, and regional ties.

Another easily recognizable artifact that appears in Witcher is the Dublin/Jorvik hood. These hoods range from silk to wool, depending on the archaeological site, but it’s a simple squared hood with drawstrings. That being said, these hoods are not associated with Scandinavia – but with the Netherlands, and the UK, so regional representation is displayed throughout the game – and often combined. Often female NPC’s will be sporting a Dublin Hood with temple rings, something that most likely wouldn’t have been found in the real Viking Age, but are real artifacts nonetheless.

Further down the body we run into the brooches on a woman’s apron dress. These are very common throughout the Viking Age, as well as throughout Skellige. From Norwegian oval brooches, to Saxon-influenced circle brooches, many are represented throughout the game. Brooches served a practical purpose – holding the apron dress together – but also served as pins for beaded jewelry, a wealth status. This is displayed in The Witcher especially with the wealthier women in Skellige, such as the Jarl’s conniving widow, Birna.

Note: Brooches, beads, Tablet Woven trim.

Note: Broches, beads, Decorative trim.

Aside from brooches and apron dresses, tablet weaving is represented here with patterns that were actually in use during the Viking Age. Tablet weaving (one of my favorite past times), is an ancient form of weaving using cards – or tablets – turning to create intricate patterns. This weaving style typically just produces a strap – not bolts of cloth. These straps were then used as decorative hem. Such decorations were used to border the apron dress, cuffs, necklines, etc. These decorative hems are seen throughout the world of The Witcher but become increasingly prevalent in Skellige.

Tablet Weaving: One of my own, the Birka Sweden, B22 band.

Shoes! Even the shoes adorned successfully flesh out the world of The Witcher, with many representing the Staraya Ladoga shoes.

Alright, enough with the clothes – how about the ritual slaughter of the horse right on the harbor? Its head is cut clean off – a ritual common in the Viking Age and performed for many reasons. If you stick around and listen to the NPCs around the slaughtered horse, you’ll see they’re sacrificing it for a specific reason! (Note: this is right on the harbor where the New Port inn is and where the funeral took place). This is also seen in the funerary rites right as you get to Skellige. Female sacrifice, livestock ritually slaughtered at the end of the boat, shield placed over the body, goods placed about the deceased… sound familiar?

Boat burial, similarly laid out like the Skellige funerary ship.

What about the art? The ring-chain motif can be seen throughout Skellige – a motif taken straight from the Borre Style attributed to Gaut, a Viking who signed his work on the Isle of Man during the Viking Age. Not only does the ring-chain motif appear widely, so does the Ringerike art style – especially on the tapestries and house carvings throughout Skellige.

So you might be thinking, ‘Well of course they included such things, its an eastern European game studio…’ or ‘Okay, so they did their research in order to flesh out the world… so?’. Those are valid questions… and let me explain why, as a Viking archaeologist, I am so excited by it, and why I find it so important:

1: This creates jobs for trained archaeologists and historians. Being on the inside I cant count how many times I thought to myself, ‘I studied all of this, but what does it matter? I cant get a job that actually uses it.’ Not only is this frustrating, but it deters people from studying some pretty obscure subjects rather than going into business or engineering (jobs that are more secure in the USA where I am now). Having this kind of research in an industry that is more successful than film opens up jobs that deviate from just Cultural Resource Management, teaching, or research, all of which are highly insecure. This allows people to use their degree for something that millions of people will benefit from, and learn from while enjoying entertainment. Which brings me to number 2.

2: Most people wont be playing The Witcher just to see some historical and archaeological representation, and I wouldn’t expect them to. They’re playing it because its great entertainment. However, it has started to energize interest in the Baltic myths, legends, archaeology, history, and so forth. The Witcher just might do for Eastern Viking Archaeology what Skyrim did for Vikings in general. Media representation. That might not seem like a big deal, but history and archaeology thrives off demand for knowledge. If people don’t want to know what happened to the Baltic in its history, there will be no demand for research. This stretches beyond the Baltic itself, and is only beneficial. I cant count the times I’ve been playing and had to look up certain myths and legends – which only increases my knowledge of a people, of an area. Which brings me to number 3.

3: The more knowledge about a geographic region or people is spread, the more tolerance and empathy it creates. Now, I am not saying that the one culture who could benefit from being understood is the enormous Baltic/Scandinavian region – as most western people know and love the Vikings anyway. What I am saying is that video games can serve as a great vessel for gateway knowledge about an area. What would the western world learn from having a game akin to The Witcher or Skyrim but placed in the viewpoint of a Syrian? An Afghani? A Nigerian? A Native American? Or someone who’s gay (like the wonderful storyline from Dorian in Dragon Age: Inquisition)? It can serve to open peoples minds, play on empathy, a thirst for knowledge, a stimulation for curiosity, and ultimately compassion – all through a from of entertainment. Propaganda? I don’t see it that way. I see it as entertainment that for once, isn’t mindless.

Image Links/Sources:

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~chrisandpeter/trmain/tr1main.html

http://forum.kaup.ru/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=50

http://www.revivalclothing.com/images/view.aspx?productId=2057

http://vikingdrakt.blogg.no/1239973865_drakter_fra_de_siste_.html

http://game-maps.com/Witcher3/NPC-BIRNA.asp

http://rukomysli.livejournal.com/?skip=60&tag=%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%83%D0%B2%D1%8C

http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/04/16/the-viking-way-of-death/

http://archeurope.eu/index.php?page=gaut-s-interlace

http://www.odinsvolk.ca/dragon.htm

Sólarsteinn: Persistent Myth or Archaeological Truth?

Recently the historical and archaeological news has been rife with ‘new’ research on the wonderful Vikings. Last week it was Iceland’s settlement, this week the sólarsteinn hypothesis once again surfaced. Sólarsteinn, or sunstones, are crystals – or more specifically Icelandic Spar – which allows a seafarer to navigate by the sun in the open ocean, as the sun can be seen through the crystal, even if the sky is overcast. This is due to the polarizing attributes within the crystals – and are first mentioned as navigational tools in the 13th Century. Lets keep in mind, for the remainder of this blog post, that the Viking Age is generally accepted to have begun in 793 AD with the attack on Lindisfarne, and ended for the majority of Europe by 1066 AD, and that the first historical account of these sunstones are between 1200 – 1300 AD. Strongly note the 150 year gap between those time periods.

(History Channel’s Vikings showing Ragnar using a sólarsteinn)

First of all, lets discuss the time that passed from the Viking Age to the time the historical accounts were written. 150 years is plenty of time for knowledge to be warped by current cultural understandings. This bias and cultural interference becomes an outstanding issue when understanding how history is recalled by those writing about an event hundreds of years later. Like a giant game of ‘telephone’, these stories changed consistently and had new information added in order to explain how their ancestors fared the open sea. Think 150 years back in our own timeline. Mid 1800’s, correct? One of the only ways we know how life was is because we have documentation. The Vikings did not leave such useful hints behind, hence the use of archaeology in answering this question.

Secondly, these spars are from Iceland. Now, if they are to be used in Viking navigation on the open ocean, then they’d be primarily used to reach places such as Faroe Islands, Iceland, and Greenland; as you could technically sail the coast of northern Europe, keeping land in sight – and reach the UK (including Orkney and Shetland), and land visibility is one of the best forms of navigation. So, if sunstones were to be used, the primary destinations you’d want to use them for are the three aforementioned. However, the Faroe Islands had human contact as early as the 8th Century (700s AD) – but Iceland did not until 871 AD. So, with these stones  from Iceland, how did the Vikings navigate the open ocean with them BEFORE they reached Iceland? Sure, we could say that they used them after they settled Iceland. By that point, detailed instructions were already known by the Vikings on how to reach the North Atlantic Islands. (ie sail x amount of days x direction and on the x night, you’ll see land).

Land visibility in the North Atlantic

Thirdly, lets examine the proposed archaeological evidence. There have been no sunstones found among grave goods in Viking burials. Now, one of the arguments is that the Vikings cremated their dead, and upon being heated, these crystals explode. Okay… well with the previous note, the Icelandic stones should statistically be found more often in Icelandic graves, yes? Well Icelandic Vikings did not cremate their dead. (Wood was a precious material, and cremating was no longer a viable form of burial). So where are the sunstones in Icelandic Viking graves? And if they’re supposed to shatter, there would still be fragments of the crystal, just not a whole block, so why have fragments not been found when archaeological recovery is delicate and systematic enough to recover such fragments? Another note on the archaeology is that a lot of the inference that Vikings used these stones are based off of a shipwreck from the 1500s – which had the stones among their navigational tools. 1500s. That is over 500 years after the height of the Viking Age. Comparing the two time periods is not only faulty, but fraught with academic peril. Apparently last year fragments of Icelandic Spar were recovered in a Viking settlement, however, the context of this find does not necessitate that the crystal was used for navigation – after all people collect stones for random reasons.

Lastly, there were so many navigational options open to the Vikings that sunstones are not as crucial as popular media would like them to be. Observing migratory whales and birds, like Flóki did in the Landnámabók, observing the weather, bearing dials, gnomons (dials in a bucket of water), shadow sticks, and detailed directions all are sufficient for such navigation across open water.

In conclusion, with the evidence at hand, it is safe to say that the Vikings had no urgent need for the use of Icelandic crystals to navigate the open ocean by and that the stones were not common instruments used by the Vikings. However, I would full heartedly suggest that the stones were a later phenomena – used as supplementary tools along with more advanced sets (Ie lead cannons interfered with magnetic compasses) but not utilized by the Vikings.

Special thank you to Patrick, who was kind enough to share his research of Viking Navigation with me.

Images:

The Viking Sunstone, from Polarization.net. Retrieved February 8, 2007.

History Channel’s: The Vikings

Bergporsson (2000:185)

Sources:

Bergporsson, P. 2000. The Wineland Millennium. Reykjavik, Mal og Menning.

Bernath, B., Blaho M., Egri, A., Barta, A., Kriska, G., and Horvath, G. 2013. Orientation with a Viking sun-compass, a shadow-stick, and two calcite sunstones under various weather conditions. Applied Optics 52, 6185-6194.

Friðriksson, A. (1994) ‘Sagas and Popular Antiquarianism in Icelandic Archaeology’. Worldwide Archaeology Series, VOL. 10.

Jones, G. 1986. The Norse Atlantic Saga. Oxford, Oxford Press.

Keller, C. and Christensen, A. 2003. The Uunartoq Bearing Dial – not an instrument for ocean navigation? In: Lewis-Simpson, S. (ed), Vinland Revisited. St. John’s, Historic Sites Association of NL, 429-442.

Laursen, L. 2011. Vikings navigated with Translucent Crystals? National Geographic (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/11/111111-vikings-sunstones-crystals-navigation-science/) Last viewed: 01/22/2014.

Pálsson, H., Edwards P. (1972) The Book of Settlements: Landnámabók. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Roslund, C., Thirslund, S., and Blondal, S. 2003. A Mathematical Search for Viking Navigational Practices. In Lewis-Simpson, S. (ed), Vinland Revisited. St. John’s, Historic Sites Association of NL, 417-428.

Schledermann, P. 1980. Notes on Norse Finds from the East Coast of Ellesmere Island, N.W.T. Arctic 33, 454-463.

Schledermann, P. and McCullough, K. 2003. Inuit-Norse Contact in the Smith Sound Region. In: Barrett, J. (ed), Contact, Continuity, and Collapse. Turnhout, Brepols, 183-206.

Smith, K.P. (1995) ‘Landnám: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical Perspective.’ World Archaeology, 26(3): 329-347.

Þorgilsson, A. (1123) Íslendingabók. Translated from Icelandic by S. Grønlie. Exeter: Short Run Press Limited.

Úlfar Bragason, 1988. “The Structure and Meaning of ‘Hrafns saga Sveinbjarnarsonar.’Scandinavian Studies Vol. 60, No. 2, Norse Values and Society (SPRING 1988), pp. 267-292. Published by: University of Illinois Press

4 Things to Consider when Discussing the Settlement of Iceland

Recently Iceland Review Online highlighted Kristjan Ahronson who has released a book titled ‘Into the Ocean: Vikings, Irish, and Environmental Change in Iceland and the North’, which challenges the modern archaeological work pointing to 871 ± 2 AD as the settlement for the small arctic nation. This has been a common theme of archaeological efforts in Iceland and has since turned up little evidence in its favor. For those of you not privy to the archaeological and historical debates on the subject, the leading theory – with substantial evidence backing it – is that the Vikings (those from Norway in particular) were the first to settle Iceland, while the theory that has very little concrete evidence argues that Irish (or Celtic, but I am not in favor of using this term) and Scottish monks settled the island before them – around 800 AD. As this particular topic was one of the major points of research in my Master’s degree, I’d like to list a few points that I hope Kristjan answers, or any researcher answers, before putting the latter theory as archaeological fact.

1: First off, when reading any article that claims to be moving the date of settlement to an earlier year, make sure the article states very clearly the purpose behind their research. Archaeological research can get very nationalistic, and this pushes such research into a realm where science no longer is the main leader. Let me make myself clear – it is okay to have a research question, but it is *not* okay to research with a goal such as ‘We wanted to find early Irish settlement’. Such goals are biased, and create an easy route to skew archaeological data. If someone is invested in finding Irish settlement – whether due to their own ancestry or not – it does not take much to convince said research that they’ve found evidence for it. These biases should be considered when Icelandic settlement is discussed.

2: Dating will also be an issue with Iceland. Where most archaeological sites across the globe are dated using carbon, Iceland’s arctic position allows for atmospheric interference which makes C14 dates appear much older than they really are. C14 dating is made even more complex on the island as it is difficult to determine whether the wood being tested is local (trees were more common on the now barren island during the settlement), or whether it is driftwood – which has a remarkably long lifespan in arctic conditions. Therefore a site in Iceland dating using C14 appears much older than 871 AD when in reality it could be younger than 871 AD. While carbon dating is unreliable, tephrochronology is the next best system, but even then the evidence only solidly dates back to the settlement period and not before.

3: Human habitation within manmade caves in southern Iceland are usually brought up as evidence for pre-Norse settlement. However, there are a few hitches to these caves. First, carved crosses are usually presented as evidence for ‘Christian’ settlement, however their typology is scant at best, due to the simplicity of the carvings (simple line crosses). There is nothing about the the ‘art’ of the cross that would solidly place it as ‘Irish’ or within a certain time period. The middens within these caves also only concretely date to the settlement, with the bulk of material only from the last few hundred years. So, unless solid evidence of non-Norse artifacts in situ under the landnám tephra are produced, the evidence here is shaky.

4: Place names are a section of archaeological study that I have always had a real mistrust in. My fellow master’s students always cringed when I brought up the validity of such a study, and I always use strong scrutiny of such evidence. Why? Well, here’s my issue with Icelandic ‘papar’ place names (papar being ‘Gaelic’ for monk). First, papar names are given to landscape features in Iceland – this is a distinctly Norse tradition. Second, within the settlement texts of Landnámabók and Íslendigabók it mentions that the papar were living on the island, but left upon Norse arrival. While this may sound like great evidence for Irish settlement, it doesnt hold up to the scrutiny of archaeology, nor that the papar would have told the Norse all their names for landscape features all over the island before vacating the presence of ‘heathens’. With these place names, one must consider the fact that the settlers of 871 AD were not completely Norse. Norse men commonly took wives from the British Isles – and these wives had different cultural backgrounds and languages. Therefore said cultural mixing is bound to create a mix of cultural place names, which renders the idea of monks pre-settlement more of a myth unless solid evidence can be unearthed.

So, with these points of scrutiny, keep in mind that the settlement of Iceland is a very tricky archaeological subject to approach without first clearing a few points – like those listed above – first. While genetic studies have shown that populations from the British Isles were present with the Scandinavian genes during the settlement, it does not necessitate that those from the British Isles settled the island before 871 ± 2 AD.

Images:

http://www.unreportedheritagenews.com/2010/12/did-scots-visit-iceland-new-research.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_of_Iceland

Sources:

Friðriksson, A., Vésteinsson, O. (2003) ‘Creating a Past: A Historiography of the Settlement of Iceland.’

Friðriksson, A. (1994) ‘Sagas and Popular Antiquarianism in Icelandic Archaeology’. Worldwide Archaeology Series, VOL. 10.

Holt, A., and Guðmundsson, G.J. (1980) ‘Um Manngerða hella á Suðurlandi.’ Framlag til alþýðlegra fornfræða, 1: 1-33.

Olden, T. (1891) ‘The Voyage of St. Brendan.’ The Journal of the Royal Society of Antiquaries of Ireland, Fifth Series, 8(4): 676-684.

Pálsson, H., Edwards P. (1972) The Book of Settlements: Landnámabók. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.

Pétursdóttir, Þ. (2009) ‘Icelandic Viking Age Graves: Lack in Material – Lack of Interpretation?’ Archaeologia Islandica, 7: 22-40.

Price, T.D., Gestsdóttira, H. (2006) ‘The First Settlers of Iceland: An Isotopic Approach to Colonisation.’ Antiquity, 80(307): 130-144.

Sawyer, P. (2000) ‘Scotland, Ireland and Iceland: Norwegian Settlers in the Ninth Century.’ In: Lewis-Simpson, S.: Vínland Revisited: The Norse World at the Turn of the First Millennium. St. John’s: Historic Sites Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, Inc. pp. 29-36.

Smith, K.P. (1995) ‘Landnám: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical Perspective.’ World Archaeology, 26(3): 329-347.

Sveinbjörnsdóttir, A.E., Heinemeier, J., Gudmundsson G. (2004) ‘C14 Dating of the Settlement of Iceland.’ Radiocarbon, 64(1): 387-394.

Sveinbjarnardóttir, G., Dahle, K. et al (2009) ‘The Reykholt Shieling Project: Some Preliminary Reports.’ In: Sigmundsson, S. ed. 2011. Viking Settlements and Viking Society: Papers from the Proceedings of the Sixteenth Viking Congress. Reykjavík: University of Iceland Press. 162-175.

Þórðarson, M. (1931) ‘Mannerðir hellar í Rangárvallasýslu og Árnessýslu.’ Árbók hins íslenzka fornleifafélags, 31: 1-76.

Þorgilsson, A. (1123) Íslendingabók. Translated from Icelandic by S. Grønlie. Exeter: Short Run Press Limited.