Interesting thoughts on the word viking! Judith is, of course, correct. All words can change in use and meaning over time, and 'viking' is no different. For me, if someone is really interested in actual vikings, the important thing to try and understand is whether and how THEY used the word in THEIR own time, i.e., during the Viking Age. That's really all that matters because, despite some people's wishes to the contrary, vikings don't exist anymore. Anyone interested in this should check out Judith's 2001 book Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse. In it she discusses the original sources -- runic inscriptions and skaldic poems -- where the word viking is found, and which variously seem to have meant an activity (piracy), the person doing that activity, or sometimes used to describe a member of an in-group but more often seems to have been a pejorative directed toward an outsider.
Additionally, look at the languages used then. In Old Icelandic for instance, the dialect of Old Norse spoken in the Viking Age in Iceland, the word víkingr was used to describe a “freebooter, sea-rover, pirate” -- again a person doing a particular activity. So, the "it's a job" people are not far off the mark. I would also argue that there is consensus, to the extent that it matters, that 'viking' is not an ethnic classification.
Lastly, I'd urge caution in saying we can make words mean whatever we want as long as we can define what we mean when using them first. As you say in this post, someone's definition can frame how the word is being interpreted, which is certainly true, but that does not, ergo, mean they are using the word correctly. At least in the scholarly community I do think we have a general sense of what we mean when we say viking; it's not wide open. And I think we do have to agree there are some objective truths to words and their meanings that are not changeable simply based on who is able to create a definition; the incorrect ethnic classification of 'viking' is a good case in point. If that's not the case, and words can be manipulated so easily, then I'm afraid we'll all be living in an Orwellian nightmare pretty quickly.
I see your point about leaving things too open-ended. My intention here is to push back against the overly rigid, almost militant tendency of keyboard warriors to correct anyone and everyone for how they use the word 'Viking'. Even in the sagas, the usage wasn’t fixed. For example, in Egils saga Skallagrímssonar, the term is used as a verb—“La hann í víkingu ok herjaði.” Funny enough, I have that stanza memorized. But just a few lines later, it appears as a noun describing a group of people. So when people insist “it was a job” with conviction, they’re missing the nuance and the inconsistency even in the primary sources.
As for focusing solely on historical usage, I think that overlooks the 1,000 years of evolution the word has undergone in various languages. Outside academic circles—which is to say, for most people—the term Viking has developed a different meaning in modern English. And I believe that meaning is valid in its own right. It’s like criticizing someone for using a false cognate in English because it doesn't align with the original French. But we’re not speaking French. We’re speaking English, where the word has evolved.
Indeed, I agree that within academia, precision is essential. In general usage, on the other hand, I believe we should acknowledge how words change over time. That doesn’t mean anything goes—if the term is used in a harmful or derogatory way, that deserves to be challenged (to your point, it's not an ethnicity, and we can all agree on that). But correcting people for using a modern, widely accepted meaning feels less like education and more like gatekeeping.
You're welcome! Yeah, then for me I guess it all boils down to the question, "Do you wanna talk about vikings, or do you want to talk about your fantasy of what a viking is?" People may get to determine that on their own (and they often do), based on their own preferences/ideas/desires, but that still doesn't make it real. As I said, though the word still exists, vikings themselves don't exist anymore, and that is something very important to remember. In light of that, I would suggest the evolution of a word is real and valid to acknowledge, but it is a separate thing and is a story about us, now. It's not valid to suggest it references anything to do with what or who those people were 1,000 years ago. I guess my example would be that helmets existed in the Viking Age and they exist now though they have evolved to include horns. There is an evolution there that is valid to acknowledge because it happened, but to say a horned helmet has anything to do the Viking Age? Nah.
PS, I'm an educator who is 100% against gatekeeping. But there's not much learning or educational value to be had, in my mind, to letting people believe whatever they want.
Well said. The "Do you wanna talk about vikings, or do you want to talk about your fantasy of what a viking is?" question is precisely what I was getting at. If the person is describing a fantasy, then why engage?
Your horned helmet analogy is spot on. I suppose the only thing I’d challenge you on there is: did Vikings wear commonly helmets? ;)
😂 Lol. Well, there is surviving evidence of helmets, so they existed back then. That's all I claimed. As to "wear commonly", who knows?! Add it to the list of the 64 million unanswered and unanswerable questions about the Viking Age.
Interesting thoughts on the word viking! Judith is, of course, correct. All words can change in use and meaning over time, and 'viking' is no different. For me, if someone is really interested in actual vikings, the important thing to try and understand is whether and how THEY used the word in THEIR own time, i.e., during the Viking Age. That's really all that matters because, despite some people's wishes to the contrary, vikings don't exist anymore. Anyone interested in this should check out Judith's 2001 book Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse. In it she discusses the original sources -- runic inscriptions and skaldic poems -- where the word viking is found, and which variously seem to have meant an activity (piracy), the person doing that activity, or sometimes used to describe a member of an in-group but more often seems to have been a pejorative directed toward an outsider.
Additionally, look at the languages used then. In Old Icelandic for instance, the dialect of Old Norse spoken in the Viking Age in Iceland, the word víkingr was used to describe a “freebooter, sea-rover, pirate” -- again a person doing a particular activity. So, the "it's a job" people are not far off the mark. I would also argue that there is consensus, to the extent that it matters, that 'viking' is not an ethnic classification.
Lastly, I'd urge caution in saying we can make words mean whatever we want as long as we can define what we mean when using them first. As you say in this post, someone's definition can frame how the word is being interpreted, which is certainly true, but that does not, ergo, mean they are using the word correctly. At least in the scholarly community I do think we have a general sense of what we mean when we say viking; it's not wide open. And I think we do have to agree there are some objective truths to words and their meanings that are not changeable simply based on who is able to create a definition; the incorrect ethnic classification of 'viking' is a good case in point. If that's not the case, and words can be manipulated so easily, then I'm afraid we'll all be living in an Orwellian nightmare pretty quickly.
I see your point about leaving things too open-ended. My intention here is to push back against the overly rigid, almost militant tendency of keyboard warriors to correct anyone and everyone for how they use the word 'Viking'. Even in the sagas, the usage wasn’t fixed. For example, in Egils saga Skallagrímssonar, the term is used as a verb—“La hann í víkingu ok herjaði.” Funny enough, I have that stanza memorized. But just a few lines later, it appears as a noun describing a group of people. So when people insist “it was a job” with conviction, they’re missing the nuance and the inconsistency even in the primary sources.
As for focusing solely on historical usage, I think that overlooks the 1,000 years of evolution the word has undergone in various languages. Outside academic circles—which is to say, for most people—the term Viking has developed a different meaning in modern English. And I believe that meaning is valid in its own right. It’s like criticizing someone for using a false cognate in English because it doesn't align with the original French. But we’re not speaking French. We’re speaking English, where the word has evolved.
Indeed, I agree that within academia, precision is essential. In general usage, on the other hand, I believe we should acknowledge how words change over time. That doesn’t mean anything goes—if the term is used in a harmful or derogatory way, that deserves to be challenged (to your point, it's not an ethnicity, and we can all agree on that). But correcting people for using a modern, widely accepted meaning feels less like education and more like gatekeeping.
Thanks for reading :)
You're welcome! Yeah, then for me I guess it all boils down to the question, "Do you wanna talk about vikings, or do you want to talk about your fantasy of what a viking is?" People may get to determine that on their own (and they often do), based on their own preferences/ideas/desires, but that still doesn't make it real. As I said, though the word still exists, vikings themselves don't exist anymore, and that is something very important to remember. In light of that, I would suggest the evolution of a word is real and valid to acknowledge, but it is a separate thing and is a story about us, now. It's not valid to suggest it references anything to do with what or who those people were 1,000 years ago. I guess my example would be that helmets existed in the Viking Age and they exist now though they have evolved to include horns. There is an evolution there that is valid to acknowledge because it happened, but to say a horned helmet has anything to do the Viking Age? Nah.
PS, I'm an educator who is 100% against gatekeeping. But there's not much learning or educational value to be had, in my mind, to letting people believe whatever they want.
Well said. The "Do you wanna talk about vikings, or do you want to talk about your fantasy of what a viking is?" question is precisely what I was getting at. If the person is describing a fantasy, then why engage?
Your horned helmet analogy is spot on. I suppose the only thing I’d challenge you on there is: did Vikings wear commonly helmets? ;)
😂 Lol. Well, there is surviving evidence of helmets, so they existed back then. That's all I claimed. As to "wear commonly", who knows?! Add it to the list of the 64 million unanswered and unanswerable questions about the Viking Age.