key bit:
> The authors note that individuals not related to Vikings genetically, such as native Pictish people of Scotland and Ireland, sometimes received traditional Viking burials
so @trekonomics is totally full of crap - the thing he links to defines Vikings in genetic terms https://twitter.com/trekonomics/status/1306391405539983361 …
-
-
4/
@ee_elephant : "Vikings didn't exist" oh - you were finished? Well allow me to retort. This is what we English speakers mean when we use the English noun "viking":pic.twitter.com/48r03iNY7l
Show this thread -
5/ Given that (a) the signifier "viking" exists in our language, and (b) the signified thing existed, yes, vikings DID exist. You're not being pedantic (which implies correct), you're just being wrong, combative, and boring.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Also, it wasn’t uncommon for outsiders to refer to another ethnic group based on their observations of what that group did. This is why we don’t use the term “Eskimo” for the Inuits anymore: that was a name applied to them by other tribes, which meant something akin to cannibal.
-
Demonyms aren’t always self selected, and they’re not always flattering.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.