Hello josephkeithtaylor~
Our main evidence about the Vikings come from church annals. These
aren?t as descriptive as historians wish they were, but they do
provide evidence of Viking invasions. A typical record would list the
year, and then give a very terse description of things that happened
within that year. The fact that they are church records may be
something to recall later.
For years, historians have also pointed to chronicles, such as The
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (which is considered one of the most important,
because it lists what is apparently the first evidence of a Viking
invasion. You can read a bit from it at The Medieval Sourcebook:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/angsax-chron1.html )
From such records, we know that the Vikings pillaged certain places.
For example, Lindisfarne (See ?A Brief History and Virtual Tour:
http://www.faculty.de.gcsu.edu/~dvess/ids/medieval/lindis/lindisfarne.shtml
) Lindisfarne is thought to be the first place in Britain the Vikings
attacked. According to records, they were attacked at least three
times, and each time monks were killed and treasure was taken from the
monastery. That last part may also prove important.
The main problem with documenting the Vikings is that we have no
Viking records; we only know what their victims and enemies thought of
them. In addition, the chronicles of their victims were written years
afterward, and therefore are no doubt inaccurate to a degree. For
example, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that the first Viking raid
was in 793 AD?but the Chronicle doesn?t record this until 892 AD.
Given that the history was passed down by word of mouth before this
time, omissions and exaggerations are likely.
Other evidence, such as these photographs of the skull of a murder
victim, are far less compelling: ?Evidence of Viking Age Violence,?
The Mosefell Archeological Project:
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/faculty/walker/Iceland/mosfell16.html No one
can say for certain that a Viking killed this man; and even if he was
killed by a Viking, we do not know the circumstances of his death.
Perhaps it was justifiable.
There?s also fairly strong evidence that the Vikings settled in
Britain, Ireland, Iceland, Greenland, and possibly North America,
(?Ancient History of the Viking,?
http://riri.essortment.com/ancienthistory_rgix.htm and ?A Viking
Chapter in American History,? ABC News,
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/vikings_000428.html )
and that they were great traders. So clearly, the Vikings weren?t all
war and bloodshed.
Some assume that Vikings only plundered and killed ?towards the
religious insitutions (and royals who relied on them for influence
over the peasantry) which spoke of hatred and dismissal towards their
heathenry.? (?Viking,? Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking
) This might possibly make some sense, since they attacked Christian
areas, and regularly pillaged monostaries and churches.
Still, it cannot be proved.
So nobody can say with real certainly just what the Vikings were
about. We do know that they dill pillage and kill. We also know that
they seemed to have lived peacefully among non-Vikings.
Regards,
Kriswrite
KEYWORDS USED:
Evidence Viking ?mars
://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=Evidence+Viking+-mars&btnG=Search |
