A Sami hat and how it affected my view of culture

Photo by Elisabeth Eriksson, Nordiska museet

I have not posted in awhile due to a deadline of a grad school application on Monday (August 1st 2016). My PhD project involve Viking colonialism and therefore the concept of culture is at its center. It has a long tradition in archaeology and has from time to time been slightly misused, but more on that later, because first I want to tell you a little story.

The hat in the photo above is part of the Sami exhibition Sápmi at Nordiska museet (Nordic Museum) in Stockholm and it had a great influence on my view of cultural interactions. It is a traditional Samish hat intended to be borne by a little girl and it dates to the 1930's (or maybe 1940's, I do not remember the exact date the guide told us.). It is traditional in every way, but an older lady taking the same tour as myself seemed really surprised by the images from Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937) in the front. She claimed it was not Sami, but the tour guide informed her that the Sami people did not live in any kind of vacuum either in the 1930's or today. They are just as much a part of the modern world as anyone else and like we are influenced by other cultures, so are they.

I had been influenced by Postcolonial Theory before this incident, so I was used to the hybrid concept of culture that they talk about, but I think this was the time when I realised how to define the term and also how it probably is best to view it.

The concept of culture as we know it today is actually to a greater extent a product of European imperialism and the foundation of the nation state in the 19th century. The archaeologist Bruce G. Trigger has made a very good overview both on the origin and development of the concept in his book A History of Archaeological Thought (2nd edition 2006, Cambride) which I found to be fruitful both for archaeologists and others. With time it was combined with Charles Darwin's theories about evolution given the concept a biological foundation. The borders of a culture was also equalled to the borders of a Nation State proclaiming its origin in a homogenous, biological entity (or a race). The biological evolution shown by Darwin was also used as model for cultural evolution and they were classified in a hierarchical structure from simple to complex (Of course with Western cultures on top!). (In a post from about a month ago I discussed how this imperialistic perspective also has shaped our view of the Stone Age.) This "biological" definition of culture has really had some terrible consequences throughout the last 200 years and I think it is about time that we talked about this issue.

What most people do not know is that Sweden was actually sort of "the inventor" of Scientific Racism as a academic discipline. The first institute in the world was opened in Uppsala in 1922 and was then spread across the world, not least to Nazi-Germany. So it has had really terrible consequences indeed...

Back to the Sami children's hat from the photo above. It is one of those artefacts that really can show us how cultures interact. It is made according to Sami tradition, but its use of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs makes it unique because it shows how traditions changes in the meeting with influences from some place else. Snow White was a popular children's movie when it first came out in 1937 just as any Disney film of today is. Therefore it should not be so surprising that even a Sami girl has seen it and probably liked it (Why would the maker otherwise include it in the hat?). To me it shows that cultures is much better seen as entirely social. I think it is ongoing negotiations of what works socially in different settings. Anything that carries a social value will be picked up and only the phenomena that looses their social value will disappear. It gives us a much more flexible and open-minded view of cultures which hopefully will not cause any trouble for anyone in the future.

And on that note: To me the biggest problem with Snow White on the Sami hat is that Snow White seems to be much smaller than the dwarfs...


Photo from http://digitaltmuseum.se/011023761482?query=m%C3%B6ssa%20samisk&pos=7

My Heroines: Katarina Örnfot

A union of the Nordic countries called the Kalmar union, was established by Queen Margareta in 1397 and in 1997 there was therefore a big jubliee in the Swedish town Kalmar (which gave its name to the union.
Swedish Television (SVT) has usually a special show for children in the mornings during the summer holidays. In 1997 the plot of that show told the story about Nils Svensson who has a great interest in knights and travels to Kalmar in 1997 to take part of the jubilee and through his mobile phone ends up in Kalmar 1397. There he befriends Erik of Pomerania who was crowned king in the last episode and the rather clumsy knight Riddare Rosenstråle. His best friend, however, is Katarina Örnfot (Anna Rydgren).

Katarina is the daughter of the knight Bengt Örnfot and most of her other family died from the plague. She has had a brother named Karl too. He was a squire. Bengt was injured in the war against the, so called, mecklenburgarna* and cannot fulfil his duties as a knight. Because of this Karl is given the task of representing him so the family can keep their position in the nobility. The big problem is that Karl died in battle with mecklenburgarna. This is kept a secret between Katarina and her father to not jeopardise their social position. Also because of this, Katarina takes on the role as squire and becomes the best rider in all of Kalmar. The reason why it has to be kept a secret is because women were not allowed to become knights, something they also clearify many times in the show. However Katarina's story might not have been so fictive as you might have thought.

The general picture of the woman in the Middle Ages have changed a lot in recent years and Katarina seems to reflect this. The portrayal of the woman in the Middle Ages was actually one of the main problems I had with SVT:s julkalender (christmas calender) Tusen år till julafton (1000 years to christmas eve) last year (2015).

Tusen år till julafton depicted the medieval woman as precluded from society, trapped in some castle all the time and boring in general. A picture that has been questioned a lot by researcher of the last decades. Katarina is a strong contrast to this picture. She is actually quite the opposite: colourful and independent. She takes an active role in her society and she is never overshadowed by her male companions in the show.

I like the plotpoint of her being a squire and later dubbed as a knight in her own name. I can also oversee with the anachronism of this because they explained that women were not allowed to become knights so much. It is a perfect example of how you, inside the frame of a fictive historical narrative can problematize an issue from the time period in which the story takes place. It legitimize the liberties taken by the people behind the story. This is one of the biggest issues (besides showing an outdated picture of the medieval woman) that I have with Tusen år till julafton as well. In the episode that portrayed the noble classes of the Middle Ages, they had both a woman being a knight and also a girl training to become one and they never revealed anything about the fact that women could not become knights! (In fact they were often rather hard on real historic girls in that calender, but that is a topic for another entry.)

In recent years a lot of research has shown that Katarina might not have been alone. There are quite a lot of female warriors and not least female defenders throughout the Middle Ages (There is actually a Swedish website called Kvinnliga krigare about them.). In fact Erik of Pomerania was surrounded by them. Margareta's way to all the Nordic thrones did not come easy and Erik's wife Philippa/Filippa (daughter of Henry IV of England) is known to have defended Copenhagen during an attack from the Hanseatic league in 1428. The medieval, European society seems to have required a man even during times when they were not present. A fact that Katarina depicts beautifully.

Unlike, for example, the character Brienne in Game of Thrones, Katarina is not reduced to being "just one other tomboyish female who gets to play knight" either. She also has a side to her that would probably be seen as traditionally female. She is caring and from time to time also quite motherly towards the boys in the show. She is allowed to show a much better and varied picture of a female character and I love characters like that! They are not reduced to stereotypes, which I think makes them seem more real. I also love how much research really seems to have gone into the show. Nils meets people that did really live in Kalmar during the late 14th century! They also seemed to have a plan on what they wanted to tell and how. It was more than just entertainment. Like with Horrible Histories, they wanted to educate children and managed to do so very well. It is a shame that there was not so much follow up to the interest the show got from the audience.

The theme of the show was the 14th century ballad Douce Dame Jolie by Guillaume de Machaut.

The autograph I got from the actress Anna Rydgren who
played Katarina.

I know I kind of bashed Tusen år till julafton a lot in this entry, but I was kind of disappointed even though they managed pretty good we a lot of things (e.g. with explaining the estates of the realm during the 17th century). My measurements for good educational shows about history are Salve and Horrible Histories and Katarina and the medieval women Horrible Histories portrays (for example Jeanne d'Arc and Black Agnes) are really so much better representations of what a woman of that time period was like. This is really why I have so much problem with the calendar's portrayal of them which I felt was prejudiced and also somewhat condescending.


*Mecklenburgare is the term used for the supporter of  Albrekt of Mechlenburg who ruled over Sweden before Margareta seized also the Swedish throne. They are depicted as the antagonists of the show.

Conn Iggulden - Wars of the Roses. Stormbird

The Wars of the Roses is a difficult period in the history of England. Conn Iggulden starts his series about the period with the death of Edward III in 1377. After that event, there was a messy fight for power among his sons that split the family into many different branches. York and Lancaster are the most important ones to understand the Wars of the Roses.

The power struggle after Edward's death led to Henry IV (part of the Lancaster branch) took the throne from his cousin Richard II. Henry was the father of Philippa who married the Nordic union king Erik of Pomerania in 1406 (I will return to her in later blog posts.). His oldest son Henry V inherited the English throne after him.

Henry V is seen as a hero by the English for beating the French in the battle of Agincourt in 1415. He, however, died young in 1422 leaving the throne to his very young son Henry VI. The latter is the king of England when Stormbird starts off in 1443.

Henry VI is nothing like his father. He is  young and sickly and wants peace. His spymaster Derry Brewer therefore gets the idea to marry him off to the French princess Margaret of Anjou in exchange for a truce and parts of France that had been counquered by the English during the 100 years war that Edward III started. This because he understands that Henry never will be able to keep them. Derry is one of a few fictional characters in Stormbird and Iggulden explains why he chose to follow this part at the end of the book in an appendix called  Historical notes (The main reason he gives is that Henry would have needed a person who knew the ways of the French court.)

Henry and Margaret marries and a fragile truce is initiated. The Frenchmen are, however pretty violent in their ways to take back controll over the parts Henry has returned to them and they meets some serious resistance in the English settlers (eg Thomas Woodchurch and his son Rowan). Henry's father's second cousin (if I have correctly understood the family tree), Richard, Duke of York gets upset over the whole affair and starts gathering support for claiming his right to the throne.

Henry is depicted as a credulous and mild man who does not quite grasp the life outside of the castle walls. This leads to courtiers surrounding him, taking liberties and titles and his subjects suffer. This is where the character Jack Cade walks into the story. He is the leader of a revolt in Kent and manages to get to London. Iggulden depicts him as if he could be a very good leader, but his abuse of alcohol makes him volatile. If he had managed in making the Londoners part of his revolt, he might have succeded better, but instead, he loots the city, turning them against him.

Iggulden tells the story from many different characters. This gets confusing from time to time and I think it would have been better if he used one character's perspective for an entire chapter (kind of like in the A Song of Ice and Fire books). At the same time the story also benefits from this changing perspective, giving the reader a chance to see the different types of power that comes into conflict.

The character I personally likes most to follow is queen Margaret. She has got a bad reputation in history because of Yorkish propaganda and I like that Iggulden has chosen to get away from the picture of her as "The she-wolf of France". Instead he portrays her as a product of the power vaccum in England at the time. She develops from a 14 year old princess to a strong queen prepared to fight for her position, her marriage and her son. Unfortunately, she is the only female among the main characters in a very male oriented plot (Richard of York's wife Cecily do appear from time to time, but seems less important to the plot.). This might have historical reasons, but I still think there most have been some other women present at the time.

The portrayal of violence is pretty good, but I mostly enjoyed how Iggulden takes a more humanistic approach to the events of the time. The scenes between Margaret and Henry and between Thomas Woodchurch and Rowan is depicted with tenderness and love and is a nice interruption to the otherwise pretty raw power struggles the book depicts.

Jennifer Kent - The Babadook

Essie Davis in The Babadook

The Babadook is an Australian horror film by Jennifer Kent and was also the first time I (consciously) saw Essie Davis who plays the main character Amelia.

Amelia is a single mother and has a six year old son named Samuel (Noah Wiseman). She was widowed when her husband died in a car crash while they were on the way to the hospital when Samuel was born. Samuel is quite difficult and gets expelled from school for bringing his homemade weapons. One day the mother and son find a book about the Babadook and start reading it. This is when you can say that all hell breaks loose for them.

Like so many others have done, I really enjoyed this film. I enjoyed that it left a lot to the imagination of the audience and did not use jump scares so much. I also enjoyed how psychological it was. I found the film scary from time to time, but the main feeling I had was sadness. I felt so sorry for Amelia and her son. They were pretty much isolated from the rest of the world and most people were quite mean to both of them. It is also a very beautiful film.

Essie Davis and Noah Wiseman in The Babadook

I can go on and on about how much I love Essie Davis as an actress (but I will not). I think she is amazing and as I said before, this was the film where I discovered her talents. If I had not read it I would not have thought that she was the same actress as is playing Phryne Fisher who I discovered because of this film, but who I today love even more. Noah Wisman is also wonderful! At first you get really angry and irritated since Samuel is very annoying, but as the film moves on and Amelia starts to get more and more insane, you start feel sorry for him.

I see the film more symbolically than literally and this might be why I was more sad than scared. To me it is a very good exploration of depression and repressed feelings. It shows a single parents struggle with life and a difficult child while suffering from sleep deprivation. I myself, grew up with a single mother and I can guarantee I have had many ups and downs throughout my life.

The film also reminded me of an episode in my hometown a couple of years back: A depressed single mother lost welfare help and first kept her two young sons home from school and then drowned them in the lake.

Essie Davis in The Babadook

Depression is really terrible. It changes everything inside you to an extent that is not entirely obvious to someone who has never been affected by it. Most often, you do not realise that you are depressed until it is too late. It is a hard condition and takes a long time to get better. The Babadook strives towards the light though. The ending is quite happy even though it also shows that the monsters do not go away all together.


I borrowed the pictures in this entry from the official Babadook site and I hope that was okay.

Savage Stone Age 2

One of the Motala skulls
Photo: Fredrik Hallgren,
Stiftelsen Kulturmiljövård

This post will be a follow up to the last one because I really want to tell you what I think we can learn from the Stone Age. I am mostly familiar with Scandinavia and this will reflect my point of view.

A couple of years ago I participated in an archaeological excavation of a settlement and burial site from the Mesolithic period in Motala in South-Eastern Sweden. The site is called Kanaljorden and you can find more information (in Swedish) here. Today the site consisted of a peat bog, but during the Mesolithic it was a shallow lake. In this lake was a large stone packing and among other some human skulls were found. At least some of these skulls seem to have been placed on sticks. To us, living in the Western world today, this might seem confusing, scary and awful, but it might not have been to the Mesolithic people that gathered in Motala 8000 years ago.

I do not think we should talk about evolution as something that is constantly striving to get better. This gives a hierarchy to cultures and societies both in the past and present and history is reduced to being a constant struggle to evolve (in a unilinear way and with our contemporary Western society as the norm for ultimate goal of evolution). I think it is better to think in terms of cultural differences. The Stone Age people were not more stupid than us. They just lived different lives.

But why do we need to study the Stone Age? Is it really relevant to us today? It was so long ago and their societis were so different.

Well first of all, not all Stone Age societies were hunter-gatherers. Remember the Neolithic was a time of farming. Besides there were cities in the Middle East and the Egyptians built their famous pyramids during the Stone Age. But there is a special way in which the Stone Age can be very useful for us today. We live in a time of climate change and the Stone Age people did the same. They were forced to invent a new way of living and looking at the world. That is something I think we all need to consider today as well. The big question is if we are willing to do so.