See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335210353

Viking Age Art Styles: Keys to the Past

Preprint · December 2017

CITATIONS READS

0 2,207

1 author:

Jim Gritton
University of Greenwich
25 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Viking Studies View project

Living Leadership View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jim Gritton on 16 August 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mammen Axe (Credit: Copenhagen National Museum, Denmark)

Viking Age Art Styles: Keys to the Past

by Jim Gritton
Introduction
Historical accounts of the Vikings’ ferocity and brutality range of crafts, which included jewellery, pottery and carving.
abound in medieval annals, for example the Anglo-Saxon Such aesthetic sophistication stands in stark contrast to the
Chronicle (cited in Stanton, 2015, passim), Annals of Ulster, stereotypical portrayal described above, for “away from
and Symeon of Durham’s history of English Kings, Historia their barbaric image, theVikings’art stands apart as a pierc-
Regum Anglorum (cited in Woolf, 2007: 44-45). Typically, ing, bright light in the Dark Ages, defined by beautiful,
such depictions paint a terrifying image of the Vikings, intricate and distinctly Scandinavian styles” (BBC, 2014).
hell-bent on pillage, slaughter and wanton destruction. But what are these styles and what can we learn about
These powerful images have doubtless influenced modern Viking Age society from them?
day conceptions of who the Vikings were and what the
In this paper, the main styles of Viking Age art will be defined
Viking Age was like, a portrayal that largely dominates
using examples from a range of artefactual sources. The
popular discourse today and provides a thrilling, if not
importance of an understanding of Viking Age art styles
always factual, basis for television series such as Vikings.
will also be argued, not just from the perspective of an
However, this is a somewhat one-dimensional represen- art historian but anyone who wants to develop a more
tation of the Vikings and Norse people that masks a more holistic understanding of the Viking Age.
complex and rounded assessment of their achievements
that belies their bellicose reputation. We know that Vikings
excelled as warriors, sailors, explorers and traders, but
they were also exceptional boat builders who decorated
their ships with abstract, animal forms. They were story-
tellers, poets, artisans and artists, who excelled at wood-
Jelling Motif (Credit: Jonas Lau Markussen)
work and metalwork. Indeed, they were masters of a wide

Page 1
Of Viking Age and Viking Art
Before we direct our attention to Viking Age art styles, it is
important we are clear about what we mean by the Viking
Age as this has implications for our understanding and
definition of Viking Age art styles. In much of the literature,
the Viking Age is defined as a period of approximately 250
years that extends from the late 8th to mid-11th centuries
(Barrett, 2008: 671; Brink, 2008: 4; Tvauri, 2012: 18). However,
this implies a degree of consensus about the chronology
of the Viking Age that belies disagreement within the aca-
demic community. For example, Ambrosiani (1998, cited
in Steuer, 2010: 58) argues that for archaeologists the Viking
Age begins around 760 whereas historians lean towards
800. Ambrosiani’s viewpoint is shared by Myhre (1993: 198)
who opines that “the starting point of the Viking Period
could be fixed at any of several points along a timescale
running from AD 700 to 800, depending on the criteria
chosen.” Graham-Campbell (2013:10), an archaeologist,
is more conservative and suggests that the Viking Age
extended from the late 8th to late 11th century, yet acknow-
ledges that “early Viking art” found at Birka conflicts with
this and points to an earlier start date (ibid: 19). Finally,
Barnes (2012:66), a runologist, argues that the Viking Age
extended from around 700-1050, and as late as 1130 in
Sweden. Barrett et al (2000: 2) sum up the problem suc-
cinctly: “there is no simple answer to the question ‘when
did the Viking Age happen?’” However, when discussing
art styles, this poses a conundrum which I propose to re-
solve by using the mid 8th to early 12th century as a working
definition in this paper. The relevance of this will become
clear when discussing the various art styles later in the
paper.
As with the Viking Age, we also need to be clear about what
we mean by art as this is a broad term which encom-
passes many fields of creative endeavour. Most modern
definitions take fine art as a starting point for definition:
In pl. Originally: the creative arts, including the visual
arts, poetry, music, rhetoric, etc., whose products
are intended to be appreciated primarily or solely
for their aesthetic, imaginative, or intellectual con-
tent; (now usually) spec. the visual arts, esp. paint-
ing and sculpture, viewed in this way (OED, 2017).
However, this excludes activity that today might loosely
be categorised as craft. This is problematic as the Vikings
were not only feared warriors but also superb craftsmen
(Wallberg, 2010: 664). In the past, art “covered not only
architecture or sculpture, but also carpentry, tailoring and
many other productive abilities which today we would
call crafts” (Tatarkiewicz, 1971: 134). Graham-Campbell
(2013: 6) is more inclusive, arguing that most Viking art
was functional and decorative and designed to be used
rather than just admired. However, even this definition
excludes ornamented runestones, many of which were
commemorative rather than functional. For the purposes
of this paper, then, Viking art will be defined as some-
thing that is both visual and decorative – this includes
ornamented runestones – but which excludes poetry,
music and textiles as these lie beyond the scope of this
paper.
Most of our knowledge of Viking art derives from objects
that have survived since the Viking Age, particularly as
grave goods, although these decline in number following
conversion to Christianity. Durable objects such as stone
and ornamental metalwork have fared best, but organic
materials such as wood, bone and textiles have been
more susceptible to deterioration over the years which
means our knowledge of Viking art remains incomplete
(Graham-Campbell et al, 2003).
Viking Age Art Styles
For the sake of simplicity, style is defined as those stylistic
features that characterise an art era or works of an artist
(Bertelsen, 2006: 32). However, in practice relatively few
objects will manifest all the stylistic features of a given
style. This may be a result of artistic idiosyncrasy or, con-
versely, the person who commissions the art may impose
design restrictions on the artist. To complicate matters,
not all archaeologists or art historians agree on where the
boundaries should be drawn between one style and an-
other. Ditto chronology. That said, when appraising Viking
art, a number of elements are frequently used as a basis for
analysis and/or identification: shape, outline, flow, pattern,
composition and motifs (Wilson, 2008; Steuer, 2010; Graham-
Campbell, 2013).
As has been hinted already, defining Viking art styles is
dependent, in part, on when the Viking Age began and
ended. Most academics agree that six main art styles char-
acterise the Viking Age: Oseberg, Borre, Jelling, Mammen,
Ringerike, and Urnes. However, this presupposes a start
date of about 800. If we adopt a looser working definition
of the Viking Age, i.e. mid 8th to early 12th century, we must
also include Style III/E in this brief survey of art styles.
Viking Age art styles have their roots in a tradition of German
animal ornamentation which can be traced back to the late
4th century (Graham-Campbell, 2013: 25). Although this pre-
dates the Viking Age by about 400 years, it is important to
understand that later art styles evolved from this tradition.
Following analysis of decorative motifs on objects created
between the 4th-9th centuries, Salin (1904) developed a
simple classification system for pre-Viking Age art: Styles
I, II and III. Space precludes further explication of the
three styles, but suffice to say Styles II and III were sub-
divided by Arwidsson (1942, cited in Wilson, 2008: 323)
into three further styles: C, D and E.
Page 2
Styles C and D laid the foundation for Style E (also referred
to as Style III/E), which in turn paved the way for the
development of 8th century Germanic art in Scandinavia
(Graham-Campbell, 2013: 26) and the genesis of the six
main art styles that evolved during the Viking Age.
Four of the six art styles, i.e. Oseberg, Borre, Jelling and
Mammen, are named after Viking grave finds. Ringerike
derives its name from an area north of Oslo and Urnes is
named after a stave church (Fuglesang, 2017: 694). Wilson
and Klindt-Jensen (1966) are largely responsible for the
classification system that we use today, although other
scholars such as Fuglesang (1980) have augmented our
understanding of the six main styles. Before we look more
closely at each of the styles, it is perhaps worth reiterating
that there is both a stylistic and chronological overlap
between the styles, so much so that Style III/E is occasion-
ally referred to as Broa, Oseberg, or even Oseberg/Broa
(Graham-Campbell et al, 2003), although Markussen (2018),
in his forthcoming book, does distinguish between Ose-
berg and Broa. The chronological overlap can be seen in
Figure 1 below.
Despite the overlap, the styles can be distinguished on the
basis of their overarching design features and composi-
tional frequency. They can be observed throughout the
Scandinavian regions on monuments, metalwork, wood
carvings, and objects made from bone. “Pure” examples
of Viking Age art can also be found in the British Isles as
can insular variants of Scandinavian motifs (Kershaw, 2010).
Table 1 overleaf provides both visual examples and a brief
summary of each of the Viking Age art styles.
So far discussion of Viking Age art styles has focused on the
broad rather than specific. However, it would be remiss not
to mention the pioneering work of Gräslund (2006, 2015)
who devised a simple but effective classification system
for dating runestones based on zoomorphic principles,
e.g. design of the runic animal’s head, design of its feet
and tail, serpentine loops, and decorative pattern.
Figure 1: Chronology of Viking Age Art Styles
Whilst her classification system may not be applicable to
Viking art generally, it is nevertheless a taxonomy of art
styles that enhances our understanding of Viking Age art
and complements the more mainstream Wilson/Klindt-
Jensen (1966) classification system. Space precludes further
discussion of Gräslund’s work, but it is worth noting that
Styles B-e-v (Bird’s-eye-view or fågelperspektiv in Swedish)
and Pr 1-2 (Pr denotes Profile) correspond with the Mammen
and Ringerike styles (Gräslund, 2015: 43), whilst Styles Pr 3-5
correspond with the Urnes style (Gräslund, 2006: 128).
Why an Understanding of Viking Art Is Important
In a sense, to ask why anyone other than an art historian
needs to understandViking Age art styles is to ask the wrong
question. What we should perhaps be asking is why do
students of the Viking Age need to study Viking art? There
are many reasons but let us begin with a pragmatic one.
At its simplest, “art from the past holds clues to life in the
past” (The Met, 2012). Viking art tells us about the culture
that produced it, the people who created it and those
who owned it. It also tells us about where they may have
lived or travelled. Viking art styles shed light on the Vikings’
influence on other cultures, and vice versa. The Hvoshcheva
sword found in Ukraine during the late 19th century is an
apposite example. The sword is thought to have been
crafted locally but reflects many diverse cultural influences,
e.g. Ringerike art style, a Western European mode of in-
scription and Cyrillic lettering on the pommel. The conclu-
sion is that the sword “was produced in a Danish context
in Britain or in a part of present-day Sweden influenced
by Denmark” (Androschchuk, 2003:35) – probably during
the latter years of the Viking Age. But had the weapon been
more elaborately decorated such as the double-edged
sword found near Södertälje in Sweden (Historiska museet,
2011), we might also have concluded that it belonged
once to someone of high status during the Viking Age.
The artistic style of an object can thus be a valuable status
marker. Continued on Page 5
Page 3
Table 1: Examples of Viking Age Art Styles

1 2

3 4

5 6

7 8

1. Style III/E Steinsvik Sword Hilt 2. Broa Harness Mount 3. Oseberg Style Brooch 4. Borre Pendant 5. Jelling Ornamentation
6. Mammen Axe Head 7. Ringerike Weathervane in Bronze 8. Urnes Buckle.

Page 4
 Table 2: Key Characteristics of Viking Age Art Styles
Style III/E is characterised by a complex series of animal
motifs which include a double-contoured creature with
a stylised triangular body, another with a rounded head,
long lappet and small claws, and third, a creature that
came to be known as a “gripping beast” which often grips
its own body. Ribbon shapes and elongated, intertwined
bodies also characterise this style which merges into
Broa/Oseberg.
Broa shares many of the characteristics of Style III/E, e.g.
open hips, limbs that are rendered as elongated, inter-
twined tendrils, and a head depicted in profile. It is some-
times referred to as the Broa style because 22 gilt-bronze
harness mounts were found in a man’s grave at Broa,
on Gotland, but Wilson (2008: 323) labels it as Style E.
Oseberg is identical in many respects to Style III/E but
Graham-Campbell (2013: 48) prefers to distinguish it “to
mark the full establishment of the Viking Age”. Its main
features are the semi-naturalistic, gripping beast motif
and sinuous animal form which can be seen in a brooch
found in a female grave at Kaupang in Norway. The style
is best known for the quality of wood carvings on a ship
burial found at Oseberg.
Borre overlaps with Oseberg and Jelling which notionally
follows it. The fascination with gripping beasts contin-
ues, usually depicted alone, with a triangular head and
cat-like face as can be seen on the silver pendant from
Uppland. Symmetrical interlaced patterns are also typ-
ical of the style, which spread from Norse regions to
the British Isles where it appeared on metal and stone-
work (Parker, 2014: 136).
Jelling, as a style, emerges at the onset of the 10th century
and is closely related to Borre, although the two rarely
Continued from Page 3
Viking art styles can also inform our understanding of
migration, trade routes, and even acculturation, as trans-
portable artefacts which are closely associated with their
owners “may be taken to indicate movements of people”
(Jesch, 2015:15). Brooches, pendants and scabbard chapes
decorated in Borre and Jelling styles have been found
to the north and west of Kiev (Androshchuk, 2008:528).
Although we cannot be sure how they got there, it is not
unreasonable to surmise that they are the result of Viking
expansion, trade in the east, or even settlement “after
having visited Byzantium, the Bulgars and the Hungarians”
(ibid: 535). What the art styles tell us, within very broad
parameters, is when the items found their way to the east
– Borre after c. 850 and Jelling after c. 900. Another example
of possible acculturation is a “bilingual” slate found in
Dublin. On one side Ringerike decoration can be found
and Irish ornamentation on the other, suggesting the
possible “dissemination of Scandinavian culture from its
carriers into a wider world (Abrams, 2012: 32).
merge. It is characterised by ribbon and S-shaped ani-
mals which can be seen on the fitting from Gotland.
Unlike Borre, Jelling animal heads are usually depicted
in profile.
Mammen evolved from the Jelling style and was promi-
nent during the latter part of the 10th and early 11th cen-
turies. Naturalistic lions and birds are frequently observed
as are serpents and leaf-like patterns. The Jelling name
derives from an axe head found at a grave site in Mammen,
Denmark. One side of the axe head is decorated with a
leaf-like pattern while the other side features a stylised,
ribbon-like bird with tendrils on the wings and tail.
Ringerike emerged around the beginning of the 11th
century from an area north of Oslo where carvings on
sandstones were found. The Vang stone (not shown) with
its stylised lion is often used to define the style (Wilson,
2008: 331). Not surprisingly, lions are often seen on
Ringerike objects. One of the most distinctive features
of this style is the use of plant motifs and leaf-like pat-
terns shown on the copper-gilt weather-vane found at
Söderala, Sweden.
Urnes, as a style, coincides with the end of the Viking
Age, and takes its name from carved wooden panels
on a Stave church at Urnes in Norway. Sinuous animals
with almond-shaped eyes adorn the panels creating
complex, interlaced patterns as can be seen in the
buckle above. Designs are seldom symmetrical and it
is not uncommon for the animals to bite each other in
seemingly combative fashion.
Sources: Graham Campbell et al (2013); Wilson (2008);
Graham Campbell (2013); Markussen (2018).
One of the most useful affordances to be gained from an
understanding of Viking art styles is the ability, within reason,
to date decorative objects. Alongside other chronological
markers, e.g. the date of a runic inscription, art styles can
also be used for the purpose of triangulation, to cross-verify
evidence from more than one source, as the following
example demonstrates.
In 1852, a grave slab was found in St. Paul’s Cathedral
churchyard in London. On its side is a two-line runic in-
scription carved in Younger Futhark. Given that Younger
Futhark was used across the full Viking Age (Düwel, 2008:
95), we have a provisional but very broad date range of
c. 700-1050 for the tombstone. However, the slab is also
decorated with a lion fighting a serpent, the styling of
which identifies the object as Ringerike. Together with
the runic evidence, it is now possible to narrow the date
of the tombstone to the first half of the 11th century. The
overt Christian location of the find, the quality of carving
Page 5
and stylised decoration clearly point to a high status burial,
and tell us something about attitudes to death. However,
we might also conjecture that as the stonemason was
familiar with contemporary Scandinavian art styles and
Old Norse, s/he may have been a Viking who had spent
time in England (Holman, 2017).
Chronology undoubtedly plays an important role in our
understanding of artefacts as does dating which can be
achieved using stylistic, typological and scientific methods
(Jesch, 2015: 15). However, Kershaw (2013: 12) counsels
caution: reliance on stylistic evidence alone to date objects
is problematical because of the degree of overlap between
some styles and their chronology, although ironically she
herself relies on stylistic evidence when dating a collection
of Jelling-style brooches from the Danelaw (2009: 303).
According to Thomsen (n.d.) at the Vikingeskibsmuseet in
Roskilde, stylistic and typological dating only arranges
objects “in the correct time sequence relative to each
other”. In order to arrive at a more precise date, scientific
methods have to be used.
The final reason why an understanding of Viking Age art
styles is important is purely aesthetic. It stimulates the
senses, encourages greater sensitivity, engages emotion,
and fosters empathy (Gritton et al, 2016); it acts as an
emotional conduit between us and others (Tolstoy, 1897).
Understanding Viking art styles enables the student of the
Viking Age to appreciate and value ornamented objects,
and other crafted materials, thus facilitating better under-
standing of the various times and contexts in which they
were produced.
References
Abrams, L. (2012) ‘Diaspora and Identity in the Viking Age’,
Early Medieval Europe, 20 (1), pp. 17-38
Androschchuk, F. (2003) ‘The Hvoshcheva Sword. An
Exampleof Contacts Between Britain and Scandinavia in
the Late Viking Period’, Fornvännen, 98 (1), pp. 35-43
Androschchuk, F. (2008) ‘The Vikings in the East’. In The
Viking World. ed. by Brink, S. and Price, N. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 517-542
Arwidsson, G. (1942) Valsgärdestudien 1. Vendelstile: Email
und Glas im 7.–8. Jahrhundert. (Acta Musei antiquitatum
septentrionalium Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis 2).
Uppsala: Almqvist.
Barnes, M. (2012) Runes: A Handbook. Woodbridge: Boydell
Press
Barrett, J. (2008) ‘What caused the Viking age?’, Antiquity,
82 (317), pp. 671-685
Barrett, J., Beukens, R., Simpson, I., Ashmore, P., Poaps,
S., and Huntley, J. (2000) ‘What Was the Viking Age and
When Did It happen? A View from Orkney’, Norwegian
Archaeological Review, 33 (1), pp. 1-39
Conclusion
The beauty and refinement of Viking Age art stands in
stark contrast to the popular image most people have of
Vikings. They may have been ferocious warriors but they
were also skilled artisans whose achievements in wood,
metal and stonework stand comparison with the best
today. Much of their output has its roots in a tradition
of German animal ornamentation which evolved into a
number of distinct but overlapping art styles during the
Viking Age. Whether Style III/E and Broa are sufficiently
distinct to be categorised as styles in their own right is a
matter for debate, but most people agree that Oseberg,
Borre, Jelling, Mammen, Ringerike and Urnes were the
pinnacle of Viking Age art styles.
The development of a sound awareness of Viking Age art
styles is a prerequisite for an informed and holistic under-
standing of the Viking Age. The capacity to distinguish
between the six main art styles yields a number of affor-
dances, the most important of which arguably is the ability
to date objects, albeit within broad parameters. Knowledge
of the styles opens a window to a better understanding
of the culture of Viking society and those who created
and owned art objects. Last but not least, Viking art styles
also inform our understanding of Viking expansion, pat-
terns of migration, trade routes, and even acculturation. ✍
Jim Gritton
December 2017
BBC (2014) Viking Art: Beyond Barbarians. Available from
<http://www.bbc.com/culture/stor y/20140530-
beyond-barbarians-viking-art> [21 November 2017]
Bertelsen, G. (2006) ‘On Öpir’s pictures’. In Runes and their
Secrets: Studies in Runology. ed. by Stoklund, M., Nielsen,
M. L., Holmberg, B. and Fellows-Jensen, G. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 31-64
Brink, S. and Price, N. (2008) The Viking World. Abingdon:
Routledge
Düwel, K. (2016). Runenkunde. Berlin & Heidelberg:
Springer-Verlag
Fortuna, R. and Ursem, K. (1995) Mammen Style Axe. The
National Museum of Denmark [online] Available from
< h t t p : / / s a m l i n g e r. n a t m u s. d k / D O / a s s e t / 2 3 5 9 /
thumbnail/1280> [7 December 2017]
Fuglesang, S. H. (1980) Some Aspects of the Ringerike Style.
A Phase of 11th Century Scandinavian Art (Mediaevel Scan-
dinavia. Supplements 1) Odense: Odense University Press
Fuglesang, S. H. (1993, 2017) ‘Viking Art’. In Medieval
Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia. ed. by Pulsiano, P. and
Wolf, K. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 694-700
Page 6
Graham-Campbell, J. (2013) Viking Art. London: Thames
& Hudson
Graham-Campbell, J., Fuglesang, S. H., Jansson, I. and Clarke,
H. (2003) ‘Viking Art’. In Grove Art [online] Available from
<https://doi.org/10.1093/gao/9781884446054.article.
T089503> [8 December 2017]
Gräslund, A. S. (2006)‘Dating the Swedish Viking-Age Rune
Stones on Stylistic Grounds’. In Runes and Their Secrets:
Studies in Runology. ed. by Stoklund, M., Nielsen, M.
L., Holmberg, B. and Fellows-Jensen, G. Copenhagen:
Museum Tusculanum Press, pp. 117-140
Gräslund, A. S. (2015) ‘The Late Viking Age Runestones
of Västergötland: On Ornamentation and Chronology’,
Lund Archaeological Review, 20 (20), pp. 39-53
Gritton, J., Stewart, J., Jeavons, C., Mehmet, N., & La Placa,
V. (2016) ‘Movies in the Classroom: Lessons for Curriculum
Design’, Compass: Journal of Learning and Teaching, 8 (12).
Available from <http://dx.doi.org/10.21100/compass.
v8i12.272> [4 December 2017]
Hallgren, S. (1995) Ringerike Style Vane.The Swedish History
Museum [online] Available from <http://catview.historiska.
se/catview/media/highres/16507> [7 December 2017]
Hildebrand, G. (2013a) Jelling Style Fitting. The Swedish
History Museum [online] Available from <http://catview.
historiska.se/catview/media/highres/350653>[7
December 2017]
Hildebrand, G. (2013b) Urnes Style Buckle. The Swedish
History Museum [online] Available from <http://catview.
historiska.se/catview/media/highres/350634>[7
December 2017]
Hildebrand, G. (2015) Borre Style Pendant. The Swedish
History Museum [online] Available from <http://catview.
historiska.se/catview/media/highres/350653>[7
December 2017]
Historiska museet (2011) Item 263123. SHM 20981. Available
from <http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=263123>
[9 December 2017]
Holman, K. (2007) The Northern Conquest: Vikings in Britain
and Ireland. Oxford: Signal Books
Jansson, G. (1995) Broa Style Fitting. The Swedish History
Museum [online] Available from <http://catview.historiska.
se/catview/media/highres/350653> [7 December 2017]
Johnsen, E. (2017) Style III/E Sword. Museum of Cultural
History[online]Availablefrom<http://ww.no/felles/bilder/
web_hent_bilde.php?id=12746061&type=jpeg>[7
December 2017]
Kershaw, J. (2009) ‘Culture and Gender in the Danelaw:
Scandinavian and Anglo-Scandinavian Brooches’, Viking
and Medieval Scandinavia, 5, pp. 295-325
Kershaw, J. (2010) Viking-Age Scandinavian Art Styles and
Their Appearance in the British Isles. Part 1: Early Viking-Age
Art Styles.The Finds Research Group AD700-1700. Available
from <http://bit.ly/2EABD5g> [21 November 2017]
Kershaw, J. F. (2013) Viking Identities: Scandinavian Jewellery
in England. Oxford: OUP
View publication stats
Kulturhistorisk Museum (2017) Oseberg Style Brooch.
Museum of Cultural History [online] Available from
<http://www.unimus.no/foto/imageviewer.html#
/?id=1820620&type=jpeg> [10 December 2017]
Markussen, J. L. (2018, forthcoming) The Anatomy of Viking
Art. [Pre-publication Draft, eBook). Available from <http://
jonaslaumarkussen.com/vikingartbook> [26 November
2017]
Metropolitan Museum of Art, The (2012) Why Study Art
from the Past? Available from <https://www.metmuseum.
org/blogs/teen-blog/renaissance -portrait/blog/
studying-art-from-the-past> [9 December 2017]
Myhre, B. (1993) ‘The Beginning of the Viking Age – Some
Current Archaeological Problems’. In Viking Revaluations:
Viking Society Centenary Symposium, 14-15 May 1992.
London: Viking Society For Northern Research, pp. 182-204
OED Online (2017) Fine Art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Available from <http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/70365>
[29 November 2017]
Parker, P. (2014) The Northmen’s Fury: A History of the Viking
World. London: Random House
Stanton, C. D. (2015) Medieval Maritime Warfare. Barnsley:
Pen and Sword Books
Steuer, H. (2010) ‘Zur archäologischen Korrelation von
Awarenzeit, Karolingerzeit und Wikingerzeit’, Antaeus,
31–32, pp. 53–80
Tatarkiewicz, W. (1971) ‘What Is Art? The Problem of
Definition Today’, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 11 (2),
pp. 134-153
Thomsen, M. (n.d.) Dating Methods. Roskilde:Vikingeskibsmuseet.
Available from <https://www.vikingeskibsmuseet.dk/en/
professions/education/viking-knowledge/archaeology-
and-history/dating-methods/> [8 December 2017]
Tolstoy, L. (1897, 1995). What is Art? London: Penguin
Tvauri, A. (2012) The Migration Period, Pre-Viking Age, and
Viking Age in Estonia. Tartu: University of Tartu Press
Wallberg, K. (2010) ‘The Saga of Vikings and Trade Marks’,
Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 5 (9), pp.
663-667
Wilson, D. (2008) ‘The Development of Viking Art’. In The
Viking World. ed. by Brink, S. and Price, N. Abingdon:
Routledge, pp. 323-338
Wilson, D. and Klindt-Jensen, O. (1966, 1980) Viking Art.
London: Allen and Unwin
Woolf, A. (2007) From Pictland to Alba, 789-1070. Edinburgh:
Edinburgh University Press
Page 7