The marketing of Birka, as performed by the ideologists of its museum, shows a hardly digestible and even offensively ethnocentric (nationalistic-scandinavianistic, that is) interpretation of the role, development and ending of Birka. Birka is thus reduced to the private "souvenir boutique" of the local "king".
Nobles buried in splendid khazaric dress, and in a typical turkic manner, are made the "kings" courtiers by depiction. The general geological elevation of land and the fancy of the local "king" become the exclusive and mutually contradictive explanations to the recession and decline of Birka!
The "Kings" men or Khazar warriors?
These regionalistic archaeologists avoid the very international historical context, they evidently should relate to. They are ignorant of the significance of the development of the Silkroad in the Baltic area, during the early medieval period (the so called "Viking era").
The leading role of the Khazarian empire, as its originator, organizer, instigator and subsequently as a general model for mercantile, military and political organisation of society in the area, is continuously and often voluntarily neglected. They also seem reluctant or unable to comprehend the following crisis and turbulation of the post-birka period from around 970.
We may hope that this is more due to a general lack of archaeological traces of silk, than to a general tendency among these archaeologists to embrace national romanticism, or worse, to an opportunistical adjustment to the demands of the markets of tourism, sponsors and media.
However, the ancient and honourable archaeologists like Holger Arbman, T. J. Arne & Co, and also professor Hugo Valentin, had, due to a congenial tradition of the early 20th century, a perspective of international exchange, thus very correctly interpreting Birka as part of a broad international economo-political context, betwixt east and west.
Who, alas, will cherish their scientifical legacy again?
Next page, What is Birka?
