Does anyone remembers the "Muslim Viking" threads going around a week or so ago?

Btw to the topic of mulim influence in Skandinavia till ca 890 drihmas from transoxania was the most common coin in sweden after that German and english currency took over.
The coins came to the baltics via staraja ladoga

Swastika isn't necessarily a "thunder cross"

How far back do these symbols date from? Can you give a date?

What does it matter if the vikings were influenced by one abrahamic religion if we already know they took inspiration by another?

Keep it up chaim, the goyim are starting to work out your schemes

>till ca 890
Did something happen that kept the Vikings from trading with the Muslims around this time, or did they just become more focused on the West?

Well, sure, but my point is all of them are symbols present side-by-side in a single Baltic region culture

To the best of my knowledge, earliest archaeological finds date to the 7th-8th century, very prevalent and developed by the 9th/10th.

>Swedes are trying this hard to justify the rapes, murders and overall disorder that has come to them from importing thousands of Muslims into their lands.

It is okay Sven, we already know you are Muslim, you don't need to make up history to justify your current situation.

Offa's dinar and Scandinavian pseudo-dinar bracteates (among other western imitations of Arab coinage) were most likely produced not because they were valued as exotic, but because the gold coinage of the Arabic world was the currency of international exchange most frequently encountered in the west outside of Italy (where Arabic and Byzantine gold circulated).

Imitating the design, weight standard and purity of the dinar was a good way to have a coin that was acceptable internationally - the fact that only one dinar of Offa has ever been found, and that it was found at Rome suggests it had some 'international' rather than domestic purpose (unlike the mancus) - either as a currency for international trade or more likely as a component of 'Peter's Pence'.

The rarity also suggests that like the mancus it was a prestige rathet than practical project - it is known that Offa admired and emulated Charlemagne who tried on a larger scale to reintroduce a functional gold coinage to the west.

The funny thing about this is that Larsson isn't even an archaeologist, or someone else who would be qualified to make the conclusions that went viral a few few ago. She's an visual artist who (as far as I can tell) occasionally does some research for art pieces about gestures and culturally-loaded topics. Her claims were literally made out of ignorance and to make a controversial political statement. So this whole thing shouldn't be controversial: an artist said some stupid shit and has been corrected by actual experts now.

But, /pol/ and people here are wrong about what what was behind this. It was intentional, but not from archaeologists, or researchers with actual authority; just a shitty artist making a dumb point. That seems to be a big part of what Dr. Mulder was talking about on Twitter: media outlets running with a controversial story without consulting actual experts.Which is a pretty typical (and sad) pattern nowadays. Five seconds of google was able to show me Larsson's background demonstrate what she was doing, but it seems like almost no one actually bothered to do that.

It was rather odd for the University of Uppsala to release this info on Twitter, though. Surely they must be aware which of their faculty are competent to speak on which field.

>it was rather odd for them to release it on twitter, though
Twitter accounts for universities aren't exactly heavily regulated, user. It probably got posted just because of how surprising it is, I doubt they were actually thinking about the authority of the original author on the subject.

- “People from one culture had contact with people from the other culture”
- “WAAH WAAH YOU ARE JUSTIFYING MURDER AND RAPE!!1”

Not who you're replying to, but here's my two cents.

There's no debate that the Norse had contact with the Arab world. But sensationalist shit like this is pretty blatantly trying to 'liberalize' Viking society. There was the 'warrior woman' buried in Birka, and now there's an unqualified nobody running around saying that there were Muslim Vikings.

In each case, the media completely ignores anything actual experts have to say and just fucking run with it. It feels like it's leading to this precedent where anyone can say anything with the scantiest justification, and if it agrees with mainstream politics on topics such as diversity, gender equality, identity politics, whatever the fuck you want, people will run with it like it's the gospel truth. Meanwhile, if you're a skeptic, or use actual historical evidence to try to open up a dialogue, you're labeled a regressive shitlord.

>In each case, the media completely ignores anything actual experts have to say and just fucking run with it
Welcome to the wonderful world of pop science, friend.

I hate pop history with a burning passion. My sister reads me pop history stuff off of Facebook all the time, and I always ask her the same two questions:

Does it cite any sources?
>No
Does it provide any context beyond just a one-sentence blurb?
>No

Then it's fucking meaningless.

Continuing off this chain of thought: just look at the fucking BBC documentaries they were showing to kids with black Romans... and Celts... and Normans and british common folk in the fourteenth century.

There's very clearly an agenda where people are trying to justify modern liberal policies by liberalizing the past. Ancient societies are misrepresented as being more diverse, more tolerant, more whatever the hell the Left wants them to look like. That way they can look back and make an argument that X has a long, rich history, that it's only been an issue since modern times, etc.

I'm not trying to denigrate liberal politics, mind you. I'm just noticing this trend seems to be mostly driven by the mainstream left. Or, at least, the left have been doing it mostly with the areas of history that I have the most interest in.

>does it cite any sources
>no
Fucking this, holy shit. They taught us in elementary school that you're supposed to cite fucking primary sources when discussing history.

>Does it cite any sources?
>>No
>Does it provide any context beyond just a one-sentence blurb?
>>No
Good rules to throw under the bus 90% of the stuff posted on this board

Inshallah

I honestly did not think that this was a real thing before this - but basically adding made up stuff to make a common Baltic symbol into Arabic? What the fuck.

I do still think it is isolated liberal cunts - as has been mentioned, the woman is not even a historian - not the entire field.

If anything, Dr. Mulder also seems liberal, but, y'know, is not a lier who thinks ends justify the means.

>Ancient societies are misrepresented as being more diverse
i can see your point to a certain extent but a lot of ancient societies were definitely very diverse and probably more diverse than quite a few western societies today. there were tons of different languages and religions in the roman empire for most of its history for example. now this should actually be an uncontroversial fact but people are going to get mad about it because you can't use words like "diverse" in their original senses any more without everyone immediately trying to apply them in current political debates.

this shit goes both ways though with /pol/ representing past societies as the white nationalist's paradise when in reality people didn't give a shit about racial purity etc. until relatively recently

There was in-group preference, always has been, but in the past that usually extended to "the village over are all dicks", which might mean "this slightly browner man not from the village over (who are all dicks) is cool".

>implying Ancient societies weren't diverse

Oh I member
google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/allah-viking-burial-fabrics-false-kufic-inscription-clothes-name-woven-myth-islam-uppsala-sweden-a8003881.html?amp

Because she is full of shit and is obviously projecting modern political thought onto history

>People didn't care about racial purity back in the day
This is the worst type of progressive revisionism, the kind that unironically thinks that heritage and ethnicity weren't concepts shared by ancient people, even though they often killed each other over ethnic tensions.

I'd argue that was certainly present, but to the point that you would also not necessarily like/not murder people of your colour/religion/language.

Point being, folks would be equally suspicious of a stranger regardless whether he was very different from them.

>ethnicity = race
Seems like you're the one engaging in revisionism user

Oh, it's very clearly few and isolated people who are doing this. I have faith that most historians and academics are more interested with coming to a better understanding of the past than they are with promoting modern ideologies at the expense of knowledge.

Academia may have a general leftward-leaning bias, but I doubt that an entire field of study is devoted to some conspiracy or agenda. Hell, if it was, it'd probably be harder to pick stuff like this out. I think the problem lies mostly in the media.

It's true that ancient cultures had contact with their neighbors, people immigrated, and one group of people would be influenced by another. However, when I spoke of forced diversity, I was mainly referring to what you can see in the BBC Kids documentaries about British history, where there are black Picts, black Roman Legionnaires, black Normans, etc.

Diverse societies did exist in history, but that doesn't mean every single one was as diverse as New York City.

But the Roman empire was one of the more diverse societies. Maybe not full of Kangs everywhere diverse, but African black people did exist in the Roman Empire. History is weirder than you think

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait_of_an_African_Man

There's all sorts of weird things. I like this a lot: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abkhazians_of_African_descent

I agree with you there - apart from isolated cases, academia does not seem to have an agenda most of the time, the same cannot be said of the media.

I really like this Muslim Viking case for that reason - truth comes out in the end and dry and boring academia triumphs.

There was never massive amounts of diversity anywhere in the ancient world, and the trick of empires trying to maintain what folk they ruled over was a massive trick.

In certain cities like Rome you had minor amounts of diversity but in the Roman countryside things were different. Ethnicity always mattered to ancient people, miscegenation was not common even if they weren't Nazis. It was just a tribal instinct expressed in everyone that occurred en mass
>Race isn't just a more abstract concept of ethnicity
>Missing the essence of my argument this badly

I'm not arguing that a black Roman citizen is unrealistic.

I'm arguing that a black Roman general, in command of Legionaires and Hadrian's Wall, as was depicted in that BBC Kids thing Veeky Forums shat its pants about a little while ago, is.

>Twitter accounts for universities aren't exactly heavily regulated, user.
This. It's usually just a young faculty members who gets assigned the job and post things they think subscribers will find interesting. In no way are social media communications from universities meant to be official.

Also, Swedish university archaeology programs are notoriously awful. When I was looking at foreign grad school, I constantly saw warnings about how badly run and generally bad all archaeology programs in Sweden were. Swedish archaeologists have trouble finding employment anywhere else because of that. When I asked a professor of mine at the time who was Swedish, he confirmed and explained that all of his university education had been outside of Sweden because he actually wanted his education to be worth something.

>not a lier who thinks ends justify the means.
Larsson isn't even really a liar. She's a completely unqualified artist who made a dumb guess about something to fit the themes of her art. It's just bad reasoning stemming from ignorance. You know, like 90% of what gets posted on this board.

Dude. I'm not a SJW, but I even know the Romans did not care about color of the skin when it came to slavery (anyone could be a slave, even former Roman citiznes) and the people from Ethiopia came into the empire all the time (if you say that cross the west African desert was too big) and when they converted to Christianity the Ethiopians came to Jerusalem all the damn time depending on the political situation.

So yeah... Its unlikely that an African would be in the Senate or in charge of an Army due to them not being born in Rome itself, but the Romans put Nord Cucks, Celts, and Syrians mercenaries into the army, then its not far fetched they'd have a random black dude from Ethiopia somewhere in the army at a border in some god forsake region. Hell they had Celts in Syria to put down the Jewish rebellion so it was a distance factor.

Remember, racial superiority did not happen until nation states formed sometime after the 1700's and even then it wasn't like all whites were better than non-whites but more like German races are better than non-german races (which by the definition most whites in the alt right today are subhumans).

Yes there was plenty of tribal bias, but the Romans didn't kill people based on their skin color or national origin.

>I doubt that an entire field of study is devoted to some conspiracy or agenda
As someone who's spent a lot of time around archaeological academia, I can tell you it's not. People are interested in finding out more about how people lived in the past. More recent research has been trending towards groups of people that weren't talked about as much, but that's not a conspiracy, it's a genuine attempt at better understanding, because we still don't know about how most people lived.

There are a few people with a clear agenda, but most of them aren't real archaeologists (like Larsson), or aren't taken very seriously outside of a small niche. Most research is pretty apolitcal, even stuff a lot of people here would assume to be incredibly biased.

>Race isn't just a more abstract concept of ethnicity
the terms are being conflated in America today but they refer to distinct concepts.
ethnicity is about culture and historically the distinctions between different ethnicities were often tied to specific behaviors or languages rather than biological heritage or a sense of purity. this means that ethnicity is a lot more fluid than race and allows for acculturation processes. the rise of new ethnic identities is a common phenomenon.

Sure, but my point is that identification with religion, language or colour is a rather recent thing - we're really not far from "everyone not in my village should probably be knifed".

If you don't identify as being the same as other white, European pagan folks speaking a Germanic ten miles over, you see an Arab as generally just as foreign - but you don't have bad blood with him (yet), unlike those cunts over there who stole your sheep (probably).

Point being - look at how the Baltic crusades went - Germans come in speaking a different language, looking different and preaching a new god - and immediately find allies, because each of the local tribes hates their neighbours more.

As for when a state is actually a state, not just various smaller, internally conflicting communities occupying a territory - sure, that would be more homogenous, no argument there.

also a person could (and still can in many places today) switch ethnic identities by adopting different cultural or linguistic practices, which could be beneficial in certain situations.

>There was never massive amounts of diversity anywhere in the ancient world
HURR

>The absolute state of progressive revisionists
No, the words "ethnicity" stems from the Greek word "ethnos" which implied genetic tribal heritage.

Heritage is more than speaking a language and having a specific culture.
>Even more progressive lunacy
DURR

Seeing as it was not one person writing and
I'm not entirely sure what you mean with regards to my point that for there to be a "them" along racial/cultural/ethnic lines, there must also be a "us" along those same lines.

Which a lot of the times, at least in pre-Christian Europe, really was not the case.

>Intergenerational heritage being a factor in Pre-Christian Europe didn't exist
>Pagans weren't spergs about ancestry and heritage

user, are you still here? Got any further reading on how bad swedish archaeological programs are?

Did anyone tell you posting pictures make you sound less like a teenager?

They lied.

See the rather clear example I cited of the Baltic crusades - on paper the Curonians have a lot more in common with the Latgalians or the Semigalians. In practice they hate eachother's guts and make a string of alliances with the Germans just to fuck their neighbours overs.

So, /pol/ was right about this in the end?

>Remember, racial superiority did not happen until nation states formed sometime after the 1700's
Lol people have been talking shit about how their group is better for thousands of years. Various Greek and Arab sentiments come to mind.

Yes, but screaming "SJW GET OUT REEE" didn't debunk it, academic scrutiny did.

Diverse in the sense there were different tribes living in the empire. Modern "diversity" is mostly about non whites.

Please don't associate /pol/ with having actual academic integrity, it just gives weight to the people who call them nazis and misogynists for disagreeing with them

>Comparing religion and linguistics to kin strife and ethnic tensions
Except the foreigners are still foreigners based on
>Ethnic
>Heritage

I think you might be misconstruing what I'm saying as "only ethnic ties matter".

>Ethnic tensions and claims of superiority didnt exist until the 1700's
It honestly astounds me how much progressive revisionism gets passed around.

>Got any further reading on how bad swedish archaeological programs are?
Not particularly. It was mostly things I found through googling various graduate programs and finding things people had written on message boards (IIRC, a lot of it was Swedes complaining about how shitty their own school was and warning people to look elsewhere). This was around three years ago, though, so I don't really remember how or where I found a lot of that stuff. And to be honest, a lot of stuff like that is all word of mouth anyway. It seemed to be pretty common knowledge in and around Sweden, though.

This just in Levantines, Arabs, and Egyptians are officially White!

I think it's more impressive how /pol/tards will willfully misconstrue an argument in order to shill for their paticular ideology

Because some cunt don't know what trade or raiding is.

Tons of pop history cite sources and provide tons of context. Lies of omission, half-truths, and only sourcing when convenient to give the illusion of academic rigour are perhaps even worse than Facebook memes and clickbait. The latter is usually not much more than giving normies content to engage them with their friends and families until the next cycle of distraction comes along. The former insulates idealogues into their social and political movements and gives them a false sense of superiority for anti-intellectual attitudes that might challenge or muddle their platform.

/pol/ is always right

great example here

Mass migration apologists in Europe will concoct the most ridiculous shit to justify their national suicide, don't get mad at /pol/ for being the only place on the internet that didn't fall for blatant ideologically tinged click bait.

I think you missed my point. How do Swedes so suddenly have this connection to Arabic people, right at a time when mass immigration of Arabic people is happening in Sweden? Does that not seem a little suspicious? Given this is a pop-science article, wouldn't you agree that given the current geopolitical situation of Sweden in relation to Arabic Countries, this "Discovery" is perfect for the people who want immigration or believe it is a good thing? I guess the way you react depends on your stance on that situation. By your reply, I think I already know what it is.

The social media accounts for most companies are run by 1 or two people with marketing degrees. I doubt universities are that different.
It was listed because it was shocking and therefore interesting, not because the history/archaeology dept thought it was true.

I know there were Roman Late Imperial era coins found in Chinese tombs. Pretty cool stuff.