Epistemology of The Philosophical Experiments within the 9th and 10th Century Archaeological Constraints
Firstly, let me be honest. I am not trained or academically taught.
I am by nature an enthusiast of the Viking era set in the time. Not as a historian but as embodied interest, specifically around the idea of the normal man. Not the warrior or the Jarl or King, but the Blacksmith, the Worker who runs his home as best as he can. I have done re-enactment but felt a sense of emptiness in the performance and static expression of the artifact. I am not, what I think, pretentious or someone who believes they hold all the knowledge. I do however feel, in my own way, that archaeological and historical expression and evolution to be constricting and rigid in the ability to further explore the time beyond what is being discovered.
Side note: I dislike the word Epistemology in itself, as it’s a conflated word that, whilst means an entire concept, still sounds nothing like its meaning. So, what I mean is simple…What are the rules in which I conduct my physical and philosophical exploration of my chosen realm.
I have set myself, through active participation in this before the rules revealed themselves to me, 3 Determining Rules of Engagement.
Rule 1: Material constraints
We know through artifacts and separate accounts of cultures in contact with the Danelaw of the British Isles of what production was being undertaken and what tools were used. The mastermyr chest, being one the best well-rounded artifacts. Though there are other hoards and great artifacts that show more, however for this it is just an example of the reasoning in which I conduct myself. We also know what resources were available, for example; clay, metals with a range of carbon content and some not, earth, wood, fire and water. (The band does not appear unfortunately in this document) Through this I can say to myself "OK' here is my tool list, and my materials which are available to me in order to carry out the work that needs to be done.
Rule 2: Cognition of Human Reasoning as the foreground for the validity of applications.
It stands to reason that a person from 2026 who has limited self-taught experience of only approximately 2 years is able to use the material constraints to overcome a need, use or problem then it is entirely logically possible to assume that people of the era also did. The point being that skills and practices where generational, a smith’s son would be the next smith and would take the knowledge passed down and adapt and add to it. We would be hitting the realm of ignorance to think that people from the era are in anyway less capable of problem solving in a field they did not just work but inhabit and exist within. A smith did not start at 9 and finish at 5 with holiday pay and sick leave. They worked as they lived and lived as they worked.
Rule 3: Lack of Evidence is Not Evidence of Absences
This is the rule that requires the most abstract viewing within the most logical frame, and it can be reworded to something more easily grasped by the everyday person. Just because we can’t see something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Archeologically what is considered recorded history is a mere fraction of everything that did exist. A logical thought experiment would be to think about your last 10 hours of existence and write down what has happened, now think about how many people exist. If at least one person doesn’t write it down, you have a hole in evidence therefore you would say that time is unaccounted for but not that it never happened. The same goes for archaeological history of the era. Though Rule 1 and Rule 2 keep this Rule grounded and within what is possible and probable authenticity