From a modern point of view, it seems that the frequency of various types of sword
hilts shows clear regional peculiarities. It is possible to suggest that some types were
much more popular in Denmark, others in Sweden and some in Norway (Androshchuk
2003 : 43 ; 2004 c; Martens 2003 : 56 – 7 ). At last there are some technological peculiar-
ities testifying that swords were produced in Scandinavia (Stalsberg 1989 : 451 ;
Kirpichnikov et al. 2001 : 231 ; Martens 2003 , 2004 ). A find of a deposition of five blades
with inscriptions without hilts on the island of Öland (Thålin Bergman and Arrhenius
2005 : 51 ) on the one hand, and also unfinished pieces of sword hilts on Gotland and
Birka make it possible to conclude that some imported blades could be assembled in
Sweden with the hilts made according to local tastes.
During the 1970 s the approach to the ‘Varangian problem’ moved from a focus on
Scandinavian artefacts to their contextual analysis. For a long time, it was discussions
concerning the problem of the adjacent location of such centres as Gnëzdovo and
Smolensk, Rjurikovo Gorodishche and Novgorod, Sarskoe and Rostov. Such cases were
interpreted from a theoretical point of view that towns were ‘moved’, hence someone
(a king) decided to move a town to a new site. In 1974 an important Soviet article on
the relationship between Scandinavia and Rus’ was published (Bulkin and Lebedev
1974 ). Entitled ‘Gnëzdovo and Birka’, its purpose was to subdivide among the eastern
European sites from the Viking Age a distinctive type of trade settlement similar to
the northern trade centres of Ribe, Hedeby, Kaupang and Birka. Although most of the
‘characteristic peculiarities’ of these centres that were subdivided in the article
(especially the absence of fortification and chaotic planning) did not get support during
further excavations, it was a first attempt to put eastern European material into a
wider geographical context. As it seems now, the topography and functions
of these centres are different. Some of them have the same topography but completely
different functions and ‘fates’ (e.g. Gnëzdovo compared with Kiev and Chernihiv).
Others have both different topography and functions (e.g. Ladoga, Rjurikovo, Sarskoe,
Timërevo). The only thing that unites all these centres is the presence of Scandinavian
artefacts.
It has also been argued that centres like Rjurikovo, Gnëzdovo and Shestovitsa were
the centres of great princely power, -pogosts, for the collecting of tribute and were in areas
where powerful centres of local tribes existed (Novgorod, Smolensk, Chernihiv respec-
tively) (Petrukhin and Pushkina 1979 ; Melnikova 1996 : 71 ). However, as dating of the
‘tribal centres’ shows, they were established later than pogosts. On the other hand, their
interpretation as military centres contradicts the large number of female Scandinavian
artefacts.
During the 1930 s– 60 s some Scandinavian scholars believed that it was possible to see
a process of state formation in archaeological data (Nerman 1958 : 174 ). It was pointed
out that a large amount of Scandinavian artefacts were concentrated mainly along the
eastern coast of the Baltic Sea, especially at Elbla ̨g in Poland, Wiskiauten in Prussia and
Grobin ̧a in Curonia and an opinion was expressed that they represented colonies of
natives from Denmark, central Sweden and Gotland. Even Viking activity in the Rus’
realm has been considered as deliberate political actions of the Swedish state (Nerman
1936 : 88 ). One feature that characterises these works is the belief that the activities
of Sweden on the Baltic Sea coast were large-scale political actions by the Swedish
kingdom (Nerman 1936 : 81 ). However, modern historians believe that it is not possible
to talk about a Swedish state earlier than the second half of the twelfth and the
–– chapter 38 : The Vikings in the east––