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

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.

Colors in the Viking Age: Entertainment VS Education

In response to a very well written blog post by Heather about color perception in archaeology, I would like to take the subject a step further and apply it to color representation in historical and archaeological settings. There is something very appealing to displaying past cultures in ways that our modern societies can relate to and interpret very quickly. As per the theme of this blog, to illustrate my point I will use the Vikings as a case study.

By now almost everyone has either heard of or watched the History Channel’s Vikings. While it is ironic that the History Channel should be showing something that is not an accurate representation of history, it is of course not uncommon now. Now, research was certainly done in order to create this TV series, as many things are displayed correctly (as the archaeology shows the culture to be), but it falls short in many aspects with color. First of all, lets examine Ragnar Lothbrok.

The History Channel’s Ragnar Lothbrok

Mainstream culture loves to picture Vikings in dirty leathers, chainmail, furs, and more often than not, that color pallet sits in the earthy browns and blacks. To us, in 2015 AD western society, this coincides with what we like to think Viking culture was – barbaric. Think Conan – furs, leathers, muscle, and aggression. Unfortunately for our delicate range of cultural education, this representation simply falls short of what Viking men actually dressed like and fails to represent the actual culture correctly. Now, while the History Channel may have got some aspects of Ragnar’s clothing right (the cut of his tunics or his boots), lets examine what can be reconstructed based off of archaeological, historical, and artistic finds.

Actual Viking Clothing: Note Eastern Influence Trousers

Bright Colors, Eastern Trousers, Embroidered Hem.

Ah, Pants!

Certainly a few things should be noted here: real pants… not really something that was common – and they were made out of woven cloth – not patches of leather stitched together. Another note on the pants – it heavily dictates which Vikings are from where. Harem like pants were most likely to be from Sweden or the Baltic, as trade interaction with the Middle East was more frequent for Swedish Vikings who sailed east. Chainmail: As much as we love it – it was an extremely expensive commodity. Therefore, Viking raiders would have only regularly had the coif protecting their neck, not a full tunic. Full tunics were for the wealthy and were considerably rare. But lets examine all that COLOR! Brightly woven woolens, linens, and flax were extremely popular during the Viking Age – not dark and dirty furs and leathers. Fantastic embroidery and tablet woven trims and belts were also common – again a use of gaudy colors and contrasting patterns. However, this does not translate well to a mainstream audience. We want the villains and barbarians as we know them: in leathers, furs, dark colors, and immediately recognizable as someone who is not a knight in shining armor. However, this does not depict what would have been the cultural norm for ‘barbaric’ during this period in history. It is what OUR culture perceives it as.

It is a simple method used by artists the world over – whether they be film directors, painters, or authors. There’s a reason Tolkien’s Ring Wraiths are not wearing nicely embroidered and brightly colored tunics. Just imagine how that would look. They certainly would not have been as terrifying as they were.

So why is it that we have a hard time recreating history accurately? Why is it that we love to refine our color pallets into our western sociological understandings? After all, if the TV show Vikings had Ragnar Lothbrok in a brightly colored tunic with fantastic embroidery – would that not help to educate the world in how Scandinavia REALLY was during the Viking Age? Or is it that after all this time, we really prefer not to learn, but to be entertained?

Interested in seeing some historically and archaeologically inspired crafts (along with some nerdy stuff)? Check out this etsy page.

— Images:

History Channel

http://opaquepic.blogspot.dk/2013/06/viking-marked-djupvika-part-2.html?m=1

https://500px.com/photo/1904011/fiord-king-by-krystkowiak

http://vikingsnitt.blogg.no/1392669623_midtvinterblot_hos_st.html

— Sources:

Woven into the Earth by Else Østergård

Viking Clothing by Thor Ewing

Viking: Dress Clothing Garment by Nille Glaesel

Viking Dublin: From Raiders to Pesky Neighbors

With St. Patrick’s Day just around the corner, a brief overview of Viking Dublin was bound to happen. A mutual feeling from around the globe has been this: Everyone loves Ireland, and the Vikings intrigue everyone. So – what’s better than Viking Ireland?

Public knowledge on the Vikings is scant and dwells in the realm of ‘raiders, heathens, barbarians, uncultured, violent…’ and little is widely known about their more cultured business side. To clarify the cultural influence and business oriented side of the Vikings, Dublin, Ireland would be an ideal place to examine.

Before the Vikings inhabited and founded the capitol city of Dublin, Ireland was made up of many kings – all ruling under their own small banners. Political instability, available land, along with unguarded monasteries bearing precious treasures, Ireland was perfect for Viking raids. By 795 AD, the first Viking raids had already begun in Ireland. However, it would take almost another 50 years for the Scandinavians to settle on its shores.

The River Liffey, where the Norse longships sailed up, over a thousand years ago.

To walk the streets of Dublin as they are today, it might be difficult to peel back the layers of history and see the Vikings under it all – as it is now a bustling international city. For instance, a tourist highlight of Dublin has been the Book of Kells – a wonderfully crafted monastic text of the four gospels sits at Trinity College in the heart of the city. Pages upon pages of intricate art with twisting knot work are commonly attributed to being ‘Celtic’ – a term that is technically and archaeologically incorrect, but modern colloquialism has made it stick for Ireland – however, such art styles have been heavily influenced by the Norse presence on the island. Norse’s artistic styles bled into the Irish arts heavily as Dublin grew, as can be seen in pins and brooches from the time – where detecting the differences between Norse and Irish origins becomes difficult and is even a topic of research for archaeologists to this day.

It is important to remember that while the Vikings settled in Ireland, their daily lives were not dedicated to the plunder of the Irish. When settlement occurred, it was for the ease of trade for the Scandinavians. Not only did this convenience birth Ireland’s first city, it also helped the Irish economy. Trade bustled in Dublin, with all manner of goods being crafted, invented, culturally influenced, and sold. Silver gained from the Norse has been found around the entire island, and exotic trade goods gleaned from the extensive Viking trade routes find themselves in almost every major Irish city – especially Dublin.

Streets of Modern Dublin were long ago set by the Viking establishments.

While the Norsemen certainly were a thorn in the collective Irish side, as raiding still continued throughout settlement – their burden also brought wanted goods to Ireland’s shores. Eventually the pros of the burst in trade, the boost in cities established, intermarrying, and cultural blending was outweighed by the cons of a pesky neighbor. Ireland finally and briefly united under one banner at the battle of Clontarf in 1014 AD, driving the Vikings from Ireland.

Even today, linguistic traces of Viking words can be heard in Ireland, as well as the remnants of artistic influence, and most notably its remaining cities that were founded by the raiding Norsemen looking to set up a trade post. So while the Vikings may not have been saints, they intermarried, traded, and prospered with the Irish while leaving their own cultural clues behind for us to enjoy, even in the 21^st century.

— Ancient Ireland: An Explorer’s Guide by Robert Emmet Meagher and Elizabeth Parker Neave

— National Geographic: Ireland by Christopher Somerville

— Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga by William W. Fitzhugh and Elisabeth I. Ward

— Photos by author

Art in Archaeology: Expressionism or Interpretation? The Lewis Chessmen’s Knights

This week I’d like to discuss a topic within archaeological studies that has always been a conundrum to me, as an artist and an archaeologist. I’ve identified as an artist as long as I can remember, with the title of ‘archaeologist’ only being attached to me in the last 6 years. I’ve always wanted to combine the two fields somehow, and have used my background in art in order to understand archaeological finds. However, this stance has seemingly sent me down a rabbit hole of expressionism versus interpretation.

To illustrate my issue more clearly, I will use the Lewis Chessmen’s Knights as an example. These exquisite chessmen are carved from walrus ivory and whale teeth and were found on the Isle of Lewis in Scotland. Though found in Scotland, the chessmen are thought to be Norwegian in origin, and date 1150-1200AD. Their date coincides with the ending of the Viking period in northern Europe. Now, while this is an excellent and rare find, a date has been set, and origin as well, a lot can be ‘deduced’ about the art itself. However, this can be dangerous territory.

For example, my master’s dissertation was on the horse in Viking Iceland. Now, one of my goals within my research was to reconstruct the tack used by Icelandic Vikings at this time. To do so required combining archaeology, written sources, as well as art. While archaeology was the backbone to the evidence I uncovered, art muddled the picture more often than naught. Because the time period I was researching overlapped with the Lewis Chessmen’s Knights – and were also Scandinavian, I looked into interpreting the tack shown on the beautiful ivory horses.

The archaeological evidence for reconstructing saddles in Viking Iceland is almost non-existent, but the ivory knights displayed full saddles, a nice break in my research, or so I thought. I tried to lean on the artistic evidence of saddles, but as an artist I remained hesitant to do so and eventually left that section out of my final work. While this evidence could’ve been quite helpful in my tack reconstruction, I could not ignore that the chessmen still remain as an artistic piece. Did the artist carving these knights ride horses at all? Was their work displaying what they THOUGHT saddles might look like? Did they copy another artist’s (factual/non-factual) illustration of saddles? Were they illustrating a VIKING saddle from Scandinavia, or a saddle from the British Isles, where the set was found? Or, was the artist familiar with saddles and recreated them to the exact detail as they saw them?

Note the basic stirrup irons, and the long saddle blankets.

Note the square cantle.

The answers to these questions are frustratingly vague and quite difficult to answer. The same questions have been asked about the artist representation of archery in the latest youtube hit that turned out to be a fake – with historical artist representations of bows being egregiously wrong, but artistically aesthetic. As an artist and an equestrian, my artistic representations of horses and their tack CAN be extremely accurate for the culture and time I’m representing, however, I know that I have also drawn tack to be what I think looks best. Accurate? No. Expressionistic? Yes.

Thus, in the final stages of my dissertation I did not rely on such evidence on the basis that there was no reliable way to determine whether these artistic renditions were viable for historical and archaeological interpretation or whether they were artistic expressionism. Therefore, the answer for ‘what did saddles in Viking Iceland look like?’ ends up being frustratingly vague and grey.

Reconstruction of the Icelandic Viking saddle based on archaeological finds. (drawn by author)