It seems some Vikings might have been Muslims or were influenced by contact with Islamic civilisation.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/viking-allah-silk-burial-clothes-uppsala-university-sweden-trade-why-kufic-a7997976.html

Unlike what some modern revisionists might tell you the Middle Ages were more complicated (and more chromatic) that you might think:

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/13/250184740/taking-a-magnifying-glass-to-the-brown-faces-in-medieval-art

https://www.facebook.com/medievalpoc/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/14/2017 08:49PM by anybody.

Or it could be much ado about nothing. Apparently, references to Allah were actually based on extensions that Larsson herself added, which would have doubled the actual width of the woven band. More to the point, Larsson's extensions, and resulting extrapolations, are not borne out by the pattern and construction of the band.

A post by Carolyn Priest-Dorman, a textile specialist:

http://stringgeek.blogspot.de/2017/10/viking-age-tablet-weaving-kufic-or-not.html

Another take, including analysis by Stephennie Mulder, a professor of Islamic Art and Architecture, at the bottom of the article:

https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/10/16/sorry-internet-vikings-not-actually-muslim/

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Another take, including analysis by Stephennie
> Mulder, a professor of Islamic Art and
> Architecture, at the bottom of the article:
>
> https://www.redstate.com/streiff/2017/10/16/sorry-
> internet-vikings-not-actually-muslim/


The analysis will (and should be) argued about by historians and archeologists.

However, that last reference is, to put it mildly, a steaming pile of bullshit.

The author of the piece paraphrases the original article horribly, making statements that "it says" that simply aren't even implied in the original article.

Then ends by listing a bunch of tweets as "how scholarship should be done." Um, no, scholarship is done in peer-reviewed articles, not on twitter.

That article adds nothing useful whatsoever to any scholarly debate on what these textiles say, or what they mean. It's a dishonest, juvenile hit piece.

The point is that Larsson's work wasn't peer-reviewed either; and the media she went to either wasn't told by Larsson, didn't understand, or didn't care that what they were reporting was based on what Larsson added to the woven band's pattern, and not on the existing pattern itself. Isn't that the kind of shoddy research and reporting that should be called out, particularly if it has already gone viral and nobody else is saying, "Whoa, whoa. Let's look at your methodology, Larsson, before you make a fool out yourself and anybody else who jumps on this bandwagon."?

EDIT: Another article refuting Larsson's claims; this one focusing on Larsson's claim that the text is Arabic written in square Kufic. The comments, particularly by someone who teaches Kufic calligraphy is interesting. Definitely something that should be looked into by a experts who have greater knowledge of square Kufic than Larsson apparently possesses.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/allah-viking-burial-fabrics-false-kufic-inscription-clothes-name-woven-myth-islam-uppsala-sweden-a8003881.html



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/17/2017 09:42AM by GregS.

GregS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The point is that Larsson's work wasn't
> peer-reviewed either; and the media she went to
> either wasn't told by Larsson, didn't understand,
> or didn't care that what they were reporting was
> based on what Larsson added to the woven band's
> pattern, and not on the existing pattern itself.

So point out how bad non-peer-reviewed claims are by making non-peer-reviewed claims? Really? You think that's reasonable?

And that "...not on the existing pattern itself..." part is no more established than Larsson's explanation. Once again, countering what you think are unsupportable claims by making your own unsupportable claims is both hypocritical and rather silly.

> Isn't that the kind of shoddy research and
> reporting that should be called out, particularly
> if it has already gone viral and nobody else is
> saying, "Whoa, whoa. Let's look at your
> methodology, Larsson, before you make a fool out
> yourself and anybody else who jumps on this
> bandwagon."?

Again, calling out "shoddy research" by doing "shoddy internet tweeting" is rather silly and entirely hypocritical. There's a team at Uppsala working on the textiles, and the DNA of the people they were found with, and they're preparing a paper. Once it's published, the research can be examined and, if it's "shoddy," pointed out. As far as the press, a number of outlets reported accurately on the work, and some (of course) didn't and went "sensational." That's neither Larsson's fault nor the university's.

None of that excuses the flat-out dishonesty in that link you posted. It's almost like "redstate.com" was more than happy to lie to promote a particular political agenda or something...

And how is the RedState article flat-out dishonest? Yes, the author is dismissive of Larsson's, and for the reasons noted in Priest-Dorman and Mulder's responses.

Also, the author agrees with you about the need for this to be debated in a proper forum (but that argument was made moot by Larsson herself):

"What is the most egregious thing about this episode is that the proper path for academic arguments to be made is by publication in a peer reviewed journal followed by study and debate by experts in the field. That Larsson has elected to go the popular media route indicates there is less to her discovery that meets the eye."

Because of the path that Larsson took without proper peer review, it is being reported as an established fact that Larsson has irrefutable evidence that Islam had a significant influence on Viking culture. The jury is still out on that, but the results of any future study and debate will be drowned out by this premature initial report in the popular media.

The media isn't asking whether the evidence is valid and compelling, but why did Vikings write "Allah" on their burial clothes. No intellectual curiosity. No scientific method and debate. Just straight into unsubstantiated, foregone conclusions as though there's no reason whatsoever to doubt Larsson. Just as you question RedState's agenda, perhaps you should question Larsson's, as well, since she didn't want to wait for the academic arguments to run their course. She and media have already unnecessarily tainted the discussion. Why?