Merovingian or Vendel Period?

1. Introduction

Following the introduction of Oscar Montelius’s eight Scandinavian Iron Age periods ^[1], Norwegian and Swedish scholarship formed different names for period VII: the ‘Merovingian’ and ‘Vendel’ Period. This separation is still retained, even though concordance exists between the other seven period names. As the archaeological material belonging to this time frame is becoming increasingly available in English literature, and other non-Scandinavian languages, the existence of two names is causing some friction. Arbitrary circumstance seems to determine which term is preferred and used; moreover, ‘Merovingian Period’ may connote c. AD 550–750/800 for Scandinavia, while its continental usage refers to c. 450/480–721/751. These confusing aspects have received little attention in academic literature.

Against this backdrop, the following research questions are formulated: What are the main archaeological characteristics of AD 550–750/800 in Norway and Sweden? Why does Norwegian and Swedish scholarship employ different names? Which name is preferable, and why?

The following article revisits key contributions which led to the development of the Norwegian-Swedish divide. This includes a brief presentation of the research history, followed by an up-to-date overview of the period’s diagnostic material, emphasizing animal style, brooches, and weapons. Lastly, the pros and cons of a ‘Merovingian’ as opposed to a ‘Vendel’ period are discussed and further contextualized by the academic and political climates in which they were coined. The aim is to explore whether there exist archaeologically sound reasons to employ different names, or if these are linked to other circumstances.

Most of the concerns and issues presented in this article also apply to Danish period names. These differ significantly from the Norwegian and Swedish ones ^[2]. While the ‘Early’ and ‘Late Germanic Iron Age’ also warrant closer scrutiny, they lie outside this article’s scope.

2. Period Names and Chronologies – Research History

Bo Gräslund has analysed the nineteenth-century major contributions which culminated in Montelius’s cited work ^[3], thus forming the foundation of Scandinavian Iron Age chronology. A key method was typochronology. This involved a meticulous effort in which seasoned archaeologists visited numerous museums and private collections, took notes, and illustrated the various artefacts, charting them in a chronological sequence ^[4]. Even though the efforts of early archaeologists have been criticized for being too focused on artefacts, sometimes referred to as “fetishistic” ^[5], these endeavours have formed a significant baseline for our understanding of the Nordic Iron Age.

While the Viking Age, as a concept, was well established, the earlier parts of the Iron Age were still up for debate. Montelius distilled two periods, VI and VII, following the Roman Iron Age. These were both tied to a Migration Period. Sophus Müller followed suit ^[6]. Both scholars entertained a notion of older and younger phases of the periods falling between AD 400 and 800; they also considered this to be a part of an Early Iron Age, a perception which would be challenged within two decades.

Haakon Shetelig noticed a clear shift in Norwegian material coinciding with the transition into the Later Migration Period, c. AD 600 ^[7]. In a slightly later text, he emphasized the similarities between weapon sets from graves in western Norway and northern Gaul. This break seemed to mark an abrupt change where swords and two spears were replaced by a seax, and a single lance ^[8]. The morphological difference between these implements is that the seax ( scramasax ) is single-edged, unlike the double-edged sword ( spatha ). Spearheads are narrow, with barbs near the neck, whereas lanceheads are wide and without barbs ^[9]. Shetelig suspected close ties to Gaul ^[10], thus introducing the term merovingertid ( Merovingian Period ). The fact that Merovingians were well-documented in works such as Gregory of Tours’s ‘Libri Historiarum’ certainly did not hurt ^[11].

Archaeologists were slowly aligning with Shetelig’s separation of an Early and a Late Iron Age occurring around AD 600. However, as Norwegian archaeologists were beginning to mould and iterate a concept of a Scandinavian Merovingian Period, the grave complexes in Uppland, including the boat graves at Vendel, sparked ideas of a more local, Swedish, dynasty. Thus, the seeds of vendeltid ( Vendel Period ) were sown. Despite appearing in a handful of earlier texts ^[12], the first incident of vendeltid connoting a proper period, covering c. AD 600–800, is in a paper by Nils Åberg ^[13]. It would take slightly longer for the Norwegians to latch onto ‘Merovingian Period’, as demonstrated by at least one scholar’s brief adoption of ‘vendeltid’, before utilizing ‘merovingertid’ ^[14]. Since then, Norwegian and Swedish archaeologists have mostly stuck to their own terms.

Chronological efforts, albeit featuring a wide range of differing methodological conditions, have appeared for several regions in the relevant areas. Many of these are summarized in a broad chronological overview for 500 BC–AD 800 Scandinavia, while also underlining the challenges of a consolidated chronology ^[15]; these persist into the current research climate. For one, it is often difficult to assess whether a study presents an absolute or a relative chronology ^[16]. When these efforts, in turn, relate data and observations from each other, as well as prior studies, the line is further blurred. This problem is present in the three major studies covering northern, south-eastern, and western Merovingian-Period Norway ^[17]. Similarly, Gotland’s main Vendel-Period chronology ^[18] is criticized for not having a clear methodological basis for its proposed dates ^[19]. Despite these issues, the cited literature offers important concerted attempts at synthesizing broad area chronologies.

To the list of influential chronologies, several others bear mentioning. For one, Mogens Ørsnes’s studies of ‘south Scandinavian’ artefacts featuring Salin’s Style II and III still serve as a guiding baseline for chronological assessment of AD 550–750/800 ^[20]. Other important work includes a meticulous typochronological correspondence analysis of Danish and Swedish finds ^[21]; a typochronology of the period’s weapons across Scandinavia ^[22]; and an adjusted, more precise, chronology of the contexts from Uppsala, including Vendel, and Valsgärde ^[23]. All these efforts were recently calibrated in a study emphasizing jewellery ^[24].

In sum, the referenced works constitute the chronological fundament of this article ^[25].

3. Characteristics of the Merovingian/Vendel Period in Scandinavia

Typologically, the cessation of bucket shaped pottery ^[26], gold bracteates ^[27], clasps ^[28], Salin’s Style I ^[29], relief brooches ^[30], as well as lances belonging to the Nerhus group ^[31], marks the end of the Migration Period across Scandinavia, c. AD 550.

Starting with weapon types, a typochronological study of spears and lances covers the Merovingian/Vendel Period as well as the early Viking Age ^[32]. This seems to support Shetelig’s observations concerning a Frankish influence for early lance types, I.3, II, and III.1. However, the suggestion that sharp shifts from the Migration to the Merovingian/Vendel Period occur at different intervals in different areas ^[33] is disputed ^[34]. The two asynchronous, allegedly identical, lance types from western Norway and Gotland, advanced for this hypothesis, are not the same. Thus, a long, shared, transition for western and eastern Scandinavia is suggested. This sets the tone for Anne Nørgård Jørgensen’s weapon chronology ^[35]. Nørgård Jørgensen’s phase I ( AD 520/530–560/570 ) weapon graves typically contain a sword, a lance, a shield boss, and a large combat knife. Some scholars suggest the seax developed from such knives ^[36]. In Nørgård Jørgensen’s study, the seaxes are divided into nine types and range from total lengths of 23,5–30,5 cm ( the short seax ) to 102,5–106,5 cm, apparently increasing with time ^[37]. Seaxes begin to appear in the assemblages from Nørgård Jørgensen’s phase II ( AD 560/570–610/620 ) until her final phase VII ( AD 830/840–900 ), thus broaching the Viking Age. Along with this weapon type, there are twelve types of lances, and two different classes of axes, each constituting seven and five types respectively ^[38]. The accordant axes only appear in Norway and on Gotland, otherwise the weapon types are principally observed throughout all of Scandinavia.

In sum, the idea of a unique connection between northern Gaul and western Norway, based on weapon types, as proposed by Shetelig ^[39], can no longer be supported. Instead, traces of Merovingian influence are discernible throughout Scandinavia and many other parts of Europe. The weapon developments in Scandinavia largely mirror those taking place on the continent ^[40]. Seaxes were likely cheaper to produce than swords and could thus be made in larger quantities to equip more warriors ^[41]. This hypothesis seems feasible and explains the weapon type’s pervasiveness. Although swords still occur in Scandinavia throughout this timespan, they are rarer, and more often include ornate hilts featuring animal style; some hilts are also outfitted with a ring ^[42].

The Vendel grave chronology was eventually developed by comparing artefacts from the assemblages with parallels found on the continent ^[43]. Here, extensive German research played a pivotal role in providing a solid foundation for finer dating ^[44]. A sequence beginning with grave X, XI, XII, and XIV was thus outlined. These correspond with certain contexts from continental Europe, namely at Trier, the Kölner Dom, St Denis, Rübenach, and Schretzheim, and were therefore dated to AD 560–600. Vendel grave I, III, and VII, spanned AD 600–630, 630–720, and 750, all containing Frankish ware. AD 550 constitutes the watershed for a transitional phase to the Vendel Period, thereby marking its beginning. The graves of Gamla Uppsala and Valsgärde fall within a similar 200-year timespan ^[45]; as do the graves from Gotland ^[46], Scania ^[47], and Norway ^[48].

Diagnostic brooch-types occurring in both Norway and Sweden throughout this period, here presented in a rough chronological sequence, include: the transitional equal-armed brooches ^[49], conical brooches ^[50], beak-shaped brooches ^[51], S-shaped brooches ^[52], bird-shaped brooches ^[53], disc-on-bow brooches ^[54], and oval brooches ^[55]. The latter two types last well into the Viking Age. However, their earliest variants exhibit animal styles typical of the seventh through eighth centuries, at worst allowing attribution to a transitional phase ^[56]. Since metal detecting is permitted in Norway ^[57], the count of what was previously considered rare types has grown steadily; these are primarily stray finds discovered in ploughed fields, thereby lacking archaeological contexts.

A traditionally accepted beginning for the Scandinavian Merovingian/Vendel Period is the development of Salin’s Style II ^[58]. This style was introduced around AD 550 ^[59] and is prevalent on the abovementioned brooches, as well as on arms and armour ^[60]. Many examples appeared at Vendel ^[61]; the style was thus given the alternate name vendelstil/vendelstile ^[62]. Style II is also found at other places in Europe ^[63]. Karen Høilund Nielsen points to south Scandinavia for Style II’s origin ^[64]. Meanwhile, Frank Behrens argues that it is currently not possible to emphatically pinpoint a place of origin, since all the earliest known finds featuring Style II are found in many locations around northwestern Europe and can only broadly be dated to the late sixth century ^[65]. The increasing, and considerably largest, corpus of artefacts featuring Style II, however, is found in the geographical area of Denmark ^[66]. This lends credence to the hypothesis of several production centres existing in this territory, thus supporting Høilund Nielsen’s proposition. Sometime around AD 700, Style III was introduced ^[67]. This style lasted until the late eighth century AD, eventually developing into the Gripping-Beast style of the early Viking Age ^[68]. Certain artefacts featuring Gripping-Beast style allow narrow dating. This applies to several moulds for oval brooches from AD 780 found in Ribe ^[69], as well as the Oseberg ship, dendrochronologically dated to AD 820 ^[70].

The abruptness of the archaeologically discernible transition around AD 550 is linked to several causes. In parts of Norway and Sweden, a decline in settlement may be related to the dust veil event of c. AD 536–550 ^[71]. However, recent studies of Inland Norway’s subsistence and settlement during this period cast doubt on the severity of its effects in this area ^[72]. This does not preclude the event’s ideological ramifications ^[73], which may have spurred new modes of social organization and craft.

Dagfinn Skre’s comprehensive analysis of Scandinavian political power structures in the first millennium AD adds important insight ^[74]. In the period between AD 100 and 550, a specific type of leader, referred to as dróttinn by Skre, reigned from the central places featuring high status imports, extensive production, and many houses. This form of rulership was primarily manifested through military power and warfare. Around AD 550, however, a new type of ruler emerged. Skre calls them konungr ( king ). These leaders may have constituted opportunistic dróttnar who seized power over larger areas as competition weakened. They were thus able to consolidate more substantial domains ^[75].

Some scholars have commented on the archaeological similarities between east Norway and central Sweden ^[76]. Uppland’s affluent character could possibly suggest several central places with ties to many other Scandinavian locations; many of these likely constituted restructured rulership domains. Borre, in Vestfold ^[77], and Ridabu/Åker, in Hedmark ^[78], are two Norwegian possibilities; Gjellestad, in Østfold, may be added to this list ^[79]. During the eighth century, coastal commercial centres, often referred to as emporia ^[80], became more specialized, with clear ports in Birka, central Sweden ^[81], Ribe, in Denmark ^[82], and several other places ^[83]. Borre was likely connected to a network including at least one of these places ^[84]. Proposed links between central Sweden and east Norway, on the one hand, and those between east England and Scandinavia, on the other, could point towards an even older continuity ^[85].

In sum, the many changes and developments starting c. AD 550, lasting towards the beginning of the Viking Age, c. AD 750/800, are highly similar across Norway and Sweden ( as well as Denmark ). Accordingly, discrepancy in the archaeological record cannot be the reason for disparate period names.

4. Archaeological Periods

There is an elephant in the room. This has been invited by at least one circumstance. Even though there is clear evidence of Åberg and Shetelig formulating their alternative period names for c. AD 550–750/800, neither scholar provided explicit rationale for their suggestions. The names were simply snuck into papers which would become influential, thereby allowing gradual adoption and establishment in their respective scholarly environments. This is a problem. Published articles, or better yet, a pan-Scandinavian debate, would have been ideal; but since these do not exist, the second-best option entails conjecturing a reasonable explanation on account of residual clues. Alas, these are fragmentary, and will likely result in futile speculation. However, one detail deserves scrutiny: Shetelig never disputed Montelius’s formative chronology. In fact, he adopted it ^[86]. A less reliable clue may be found in the Norwegian scholar Gutorm Gjessing’s expressed indignation to Shetelig’s dismissal of his ‘Hun-hypothesis’. Gjessing maintained the plausibility of seaxes being influenced by Hunnic weapons, right until his death ^[87]. This was likely revitalized by Joachim Werner’s contentious monograph, in which the author identified several alleged Hunnic traits among the fourth and fifth century archaeological material in Europe ^[88]. Gjessing therefore blamed Shetelig’s Anglo- and Francophile inclinations as the primary reasons why this notion was never accepted in Norway. Shetelig’s strong attachment to western European traditions and cultural understanding is also attested elsewhere ^[89]. The description of Shetelig as a Francophile may reveal his eagerness to explain archaeological similarities across western Norway and Gaul as a singular, intimate, association. The archaeologically evident potential Frankish influence in sixth and seventh century Scandinavia was first established decades later. In retrospect, this seems fortuitous, and may explain ‘Merovingian Period’ resilience in Norway.

If there had been a pan-Scandinavian debate, an important premise would have been to address the aspirations of archaeological periods, as well as to ascertain their ideal naming schemes. Despite not having a textual culture, thus constituting a proto-historic era, all the other Scandinavian Iron-Age period names are tied to the discipline of history. Consequently, there is a disconnect between many of the periods’ tangible archaeological features and the primary characteristics attributed to their names from historical sources.

The empirical data presented above aligns well with Montelius’s division. Overall, this still serves as an important baseline for Scandinavian Iron-Age archaeology. Accordingly, its premises mark the main characteristics of archaeological periodization ^[90]. These are distinguished by the abrupt and concomitant introduction or cessation of several important artefact-types in the archaeological record, thereby signaling major change. For the Merovingian/Vendel Period in Scandinavia, AD 600–800 has been altered to AD 550–750/800. Some archaeological sites, such as Lovö ^[91], Barshalder ^[92], and Ribe ^[93], may allow even higher resolution phasing, thereby challenging this bracket further, with small increments here and there. Similarly, rare artefact-types which are loosely tied to transitional phases may require several efforts before they can be securely ascribed to either side of a dividing line ^[94]. However, it is the broad characteristics of a time frame which constitute the main concern, thereby accommodating comprehensive comparative methods and research. Although the spatial distances between archaeological sites across AD 550–750/800 Scandinavia are too large to envision exact synchronous development or uniformity, they are close enough in archaeological content and time to allow common abbreviated brackets, even when these involve shifts of up to several decades.

In sum, the constructed nature of archaeological periods is apparent. Their main purpose is to capture broad patterns, thus allowing extensive comparison. This does not preclude regional variation. It simply enables a common reference against which regional variation may be further scrutinized.

5. Scholarly and Nationalistic Constructs

As Michel Foucault makes apparent, there are many ways to generate, classify, and categorize knowledge ^[95]. Montelius’s typology has a lot in common with natural history; by arranging all known artefacts according to similarities, it is possible to divide them into groups. This allows closer scrutiny of different styles and typological sequencing, thereby facilitating a better understanding of the archaeological record. What does bear mentioning, however, is that what is being observed and qualified as relevant features, and what essentially amounts to knowledge, are human constructs. This also applies to the concept of time and change ^[96]. The constructed brackets are informed by prior, while also instructing future, biases. Accordingly, new knowledge builds on existing knowledge ^[97]. As an example, we can witness how archaeology still draws heavily on the discipline’s pioneering assessments and discoveries, especially its period names and division. The element of constructivism should be iterated: people who lived during the respective periods can scarcely have known they were taking part in events of history which would later be bracketed and defined according to animal styles, brooches, and weapons. Moreover, Norwegian, and Swedish archaeologists today mostly appear to have accepted their disparate period names for AD 550–750/800, perhaps assuming these are warranted.

In this regard, Benedict Anderson’s concept of imagined communities, although expressed in relation to modern society, captures many of the same facets evident in the concept of a Merovingian/Vendel Period ^[98]. Selected criteria may include material culture, language, and imagined borders. Tying such features to current views, whether they concern the Scandinavian Iron Age or the twentieth century, increases accessibility by relating them through a modern lens. It is therefore worth noting how political interests have affected the current situation. Nineteenth and twentieth century endeavours to construct national identities involved linking past with present. Historically, for both Norway and Sweden, this initially amounted to the exploitation of Norse written sources ^[99]. But with the advent of archaeology, and the major discoveries at Gokstad, Oseberg, and Thune in Norway, and Uppland in Sweden, this material was soon embroiled in similar nationalistic narratives. Conferring Magnus Alkarp’s study of academic and political Uppsala, the intricacies and nuances of this enterprise become clear ^[100]. It is no surprise, then, that ‘Vendel Period’ was developed and advanced as an integral part of Swedish national identity. Although first used by Åberg, Swedish scholarship’s recognition of the Vendel complex’s singularity had been and continued to propagate for years ^[101]. Moreover, this transpired during the height of Gustaf Kossinna’s influential, far too rigid, and politically exploitable, Siedlungsgeschichte model ^[102]. Even Åberg was affected ^[103]. For Norway, on the other hand, the scanty AD 550–750/800 material yielded little interest in this period. Instead, viking ships, and saga descriptions of west Norway’s fjord landscape featured heavily in its national romantic movement. Shetelig’s strong voice and western European focus thus endowed his proposed period name with an insuperable layer, remaining unchallenged.

The deep ties between nationalism and history thereby dampened the willingness to consider archaeological evidence outside of modern borders. However, what should be clear to most researchers today, is that the current border between Norway and Sweden is a recent construct. In fact, it should be quite revealing that even the maritime boundary between Denmark and the Scandinavian peninsula throughout most of pre-history was not sufficient to hinder intimate cultural transmission. This is especially true of the Scandinavian Iron Age.

6. Choosing a Name

Although Norwegian and Swedish archaeologists generally seem reluctant to use the other’s period name for AD 550–750/800, some late-twentieth and early twenty-first century contributions written in English reveal instances of both arbitrary and coherent lapses. For example, several recent publications by Swedish scholars employ ‘Merovingian Period’ ^[104]. Conversely, Myhre uses Vendel Period “to avoid confusion with the Continental ‘Merovingian Period.’” ^[105] This merits a closer look at the two period names’ pros and cons.

Martin Welch’s comment on the Merovingian Period in Norway being a “misleading term as no Merovingian king ever ruled there” ^[106] may here serve as a useful point of departure. A similar sentiment is expressed by Bente Magnus and Bjørn Myhre, highlighting Shetelig’s erroneous notion of an exclusive link between Norway and Gaul ^[107]. Accordingly, the period name is ill fitting for its original implication. Moreover, while the similarities in weapon equipment across Scandinavia and the Frankish kingdoms are evident, these do not necessarily indicate specific affiliations. Weapons constitute fundamental pieces in warfare. Technological innovation will therefore be noticed by everyone affected by battle ^[108], including auxiliary mediators simply interacting with participants. This is a likely explanation for the weapon-types’ synchronous appearance. Frankish ware is prevalent across Europe. However, Scandinavian handicraft is also found on the continent ^[109]. If anything, material similarities are evident across north-western Europe throughout most of the Scandinavian Iron Age ( c. 500 BC–AD 1100 ). Linguistically, these connections make perfect sense since the area has been inhabited by and exposed to related languages for a long time ^[110]. This attests to continued contacts. Both tangible and intangible cultural expressions have been transmitted and appropriated reciprocally throughout these areas.

While there can be little doubt of Merovingian influence in Europe, the indented onset of a ‘Scandinavian’ Merovingian Period, beginning c. AD 550, is jarring. There is already a continental Merovingian Period ( Merowingerzeit ). Based on the date of Childeric’s grave and his reign’s duration, this begins c. AD 450/480. Hermann Ament divides the archaeological period into three phases of an older, and three phases of a younger Merowingerzeit ^[111]. While Ament’s end date is set to AD 720, its historical end is marked by Pepin the Short’s royal inauguration in AD 751, introducing the Carolingian dynasty. Therefore, if a period name is supposed to designate AD 550–750/800 Scandinavia, the most logical solution to avoid conflation with the continental period is to eschew the geminate term. Since there is little doubt the Merovingians ruled on the continent, the term is best restricted to this time frame and area. At this point, the pendulum therefore favours a distinct period name.

Before addressing the period names’ pros, it is time to turn to the deficiencies of ‘Vendel Period’. As hinted at above, this name may be considered Swedish-centric. It has become a staple not only in Swedish archaeology, but also a main component in Sweden’s curated cultural heritage. Like culture-, style-, and period-names spawned by type-sites, it is marred by its incidental date of discovery. If Valsgärde had been excavated first, we might have had a ‘Valsgärde Period’ instead. This is not necessarily a problem. There are plenty of similar cases in archaeology, where archaeologists generally accept and adopt antiquated terms, for example the names of Viking-Age styles. This tangent is worth exploring briefly. The scholarly climate which generated the ‘Oseberg’, ‘Borre’, ‘Jelling’, ‘Mammen’, ‘Ringerike’, and ‘Urnes’ styles is exactly the same as the one in which ‘Vendel Period’ was coined. These names may primarily be considered flawed because they have little to do with provenance or centre of gravity; they simply reflect the sites with the first scholarly emphasized examples of significant archaeological material. On the other hand, they have become so established in research that it is easier to continue using them than to insist on change ^[112]. This, too, appears to be paramount to the issue at hand. Norwegian archaeologists prefer ‘Merovingian Period’ because that is what they are accustomed to. However, refusal to adopt ‘Vendel Period’ is also likely explained by a tinge of neighbourly rivalry, spurred by a hefty amount of ideological baggage from nineteenth century political tensions, and vice versa ^[113].

Unlike ‘Merovingian Period’, ‘Vendel Period’ signifies the very essence of Scandinavian AD 550–750/800 artefacts and style. Not only is the entire 250-year timespan represented at Vendel, but also some of the period’s most exquisite artefacts across all of Scandinavia ^[114]. Although brooches and jewellery are conspicuously absent, these helmets, weapons, mounts, and pieces of horse tack paint a clear image of the period’s archaeological content. This seems like a well-qualified consideration for a good archaeological period name. Accordingly, when similar artefacts are discovered elsewhere, it is possible to relate these to a concept of a common time frame.

As far as ‘Merovingian Period’ goes, its main advantage is also one of its weaknesses. It is, by all accounts, a historic period name. It draws on the Merovingian dynasty, well-described by sixth century bishop and historian Gregory of Tours. Images of these Frankish rulers would therefore likely figure as the main association to non-Scandinavians. For a temporal frame of reference, this has certain merits. After all, Scandinavian archaeology has unanimously adopted the ‘Roman Iron Age’ for AD 1–400, signifying the presence and influence of the Roman Empire, even though non-Roman material is considerably more prevalent in the Scandinavian archaeological record. The Merovingians may be more familiar than Vendel to non-Scandinavian readership. Thus, utilizing ‘Merovingian Period’ in non-Scandinavian publications may serve as the simplest solution. The problem with the discordant continental and Scandinavian chronologies, however, would remain unsolved, and seems too big to accept.

If the intent is to avoid confusion, referencing archaeological material found in Scandinavia from AD 550–750/800 is most conveniently accomplished by using ‘Vendel Period’. Unfortunately, Montelius’s neutral period names seem to have been too bland to stick. Otherwise, this bind would not have developed.

The historic and tangible archaeological links between the ‘Roman’ and ‘Viking’ Age are both palpable as far as period names go. The former relates to a huge imperial presence in the geographical area of Europe ( c. AD 1–400 ), while the latter captures later Nordic sporadic activity across much of the same space ( c. AD 800–1100 ). It is difficult to highlight regionally ubiquitous phenomena in similar brevity for c. AD 550–750/800. This could well explain the bracket’s disparate naming schemes across the three Scandinavian countries. Despite this, certain propositions cast an alluring net. Highlighted here, is Skre’s model, in which the archaeological shift is related to regional societal restructuring ^[115]. The applicability of Old Norse terms, such as dróttinn, and especially konungr, may be problematic due to their anachronistic implications. To most modern eyes, ‘king’ connotes some type of monarchy. If, indeed, kings reigned in this era, they would have been comparably ‘petty’ and numerous next to their high and late medieval equivalents ( c. AD 1100–1550 ). Relatively speaking, their domains were thus considerably smaller than any of the current Scandinavian nations. Moreover, it would be careless to suggest direct links between these early domains and the modern states. On the other hand, the idea of reoriented rulerships consolidating comparatively larger domains across Scandinavia in c. AD 550–650 seems plausible.

7. Moving forward – Final remarks

Establishing a common period name for AD 550–750/800 in Norway and Sweden may seem like a lofty ambition. For publications in Scandinavian languages, it may even be unnecessary. After all, Norwegian archaeologists should know what Swedish archaeologists are referencing with ‘Vendel Period’, and vice versa. However, agreeing on a common term for publications in English, German, and other non-Scandinavian languages seems like an accomplishable goal. ‘Vendel Period’ is the least confounding since it is distinct. ‘Merovingian Period’ may constitute a more accessible alternative for a non-Scandinavian readership, but is too easily confused with the noticeably different continental namesake. Of the two, ‘Vendel Period’ may therefore be considered the best option. Nevertheless, a complete lack of extant discourse leading to each name’s twentieth century inception is conspicuous. This begs the question why we should accept either of them today. If it is simply for the sake of convenience or nationalistic tradition, this goes against the spirit of good scholarship. Perhaps it is time to formulate and discuss alternatives, for example ‘Scandinavian Dróttinn Age’. Hopefully this article inspires and stimulates debate.