local basis by a process of ‘urbanisation’. While this evolutionary perspective adds an
important dimension, it tends to disregard a vital aspect of communication.
Viking trade operated as a network. Long-distance exchange took place in bulk
along routes between specific localities, where large cargoes are loaded or unloaded.
Archaeology shows that the distribution of imports, as well as crafts with imported
raw materials, such as bronze casting, define a small group of sites as centres on quite
another scale than other possible trading places (Figure 9. 3 ). It is not trade as such that
distinguishes these hubs from lesser sites. The latter were obviously important for local
trade and communicated with the nodal points – but not with the long-distance traffic
between them (Sindbæk 2006 ).
The nodal points were spatial and temporal buffers between different traffics.
Hence, most were situated in locations where a topographical barrier caused a break in
traffic and demanded a transshipment and perhaps a temporary storage of goods. In the
Scandinavian climate, season was a critical factor, which may have affected more than
the choice of location: the need for temporal buffers between inland transport, mostly
carried out in the winter when grounds were firm and frozen, and sea-traffic, which took
place in summer, may have been a decisive reason why permanently settled trading
towns replaced the seasonal markets that seem to have prevailed earlier in the Iron Age.
The geographical structure of exchange networks ultimately derived from the choice
of individuals: each participant in a long-distance exchange will have had a significant
incentive to seek out what was considered the most favourable, safe and active places
for trading. To a traveller spending weeks or months on the journey a few days extra
were inessential compared to the ultimate objective of encountering suitable exchange
partners. This would compel most travellers to seek the same few sites. The geographical
outcome of these concerns would be exactly the situation that we seem to find: a ranked
network with a few sites acting as hubs or nodal points for long-distance traffic within a
widespread web of more local contacts.
COMMUNITIES, POLITICS AND PROTECTIONCommercial long-distance relations were rare connections in a network held together by
personal and mostly local ties. Could we have asked a Viking Age person about his or her
involvement in trade and exchange, we should very possibly have found long-distance
connections to have been a marginal interest. Instead, our informant might have
answered at length about the local exchange of essentials such as hay, cattle, food or
textiles. Most of these, unfortunately, are perishable; even when found, there is usually
little way of telling whence or in what way they were acquired.
Written sources are even less informative about local than about long-distance
exchange. We are therefore left with little evidence to reflect on this obviously impor-
tant subject. Interesting observations on scale and extent have emerged from studies on
the hinterlands of towns and trading sites (Bäck 1997 ; Müller Wille 2002 ; Palmer
2003 ). A few other enlightening cases have been discussed (Resi 1987 ; Zachrisson
1997 ). But a comprehensive reconstruction of Viking Age rural exchange is still
lacking.
Even commercial relations were preferably established within a frame of social ties.
Where possible, trade was conducted in connection with assembly sites or magnates’
residences, in which peace and protection were buttressed by political authority or
–– Søren Michael Sindbæk ––