Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This article proposes using intermediary sources to understand pre-Christian religion in Scandinavia, highlighting their significance.
The professionalisation of Scandinavian archaeology in mid-twentieth century Europe brought about a rejection of the Old Norse literary sources that had theretofore underpinned the field’s study of pre-Christian religion in Scandinavia. This rejection was predicated on the temporal, social, and religious distance of those sources from the archaeological material they purported to describe: written centuries after Iceland’s conversion, how could Christian fictions represent pre-Christian facts? Archaeology drawing upon this tradition, however, has led not to understanding but, rather, to confusion. In this article, I propose the value of ‘intermediary’ sources, sources that can meaningfully attest to past times despite temporal or cultural distance. The case of the Old Norse term “hof” will serve as the case study, demonstrating how critical but serious engagement with intermediary sources is essential to understand pre-Christian Scandinavian religion and, further, points towards a new approach in the archaeological study of societies which have undergone dramatic cultural change.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Wright (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: