In the modern world, there is a vast number of cultures, ethnic groups, societies, tribes, states, religions, beliefs, foundations, and traditions. An outside spectator can discover an even wider variety of approaches to life in the past of humanity. However, all cultures have an equal right to claim the truth and correctness of their ethics and worldview. Some traditions may be notable for their cruelty, others could be incomprehensible, and some may seem unacceptable from an aesthetic point of view.
The scientific world has developed a distinctive approach to the perception of all this diversity. This approach is called “cultural relativism,” allowing one to prescind from the norms and ethics of the native culture and to perceive the world as it is. It also helps in making decisions regarding morality or immorality more consciously and maturely. In this paper, the torture practice “bloody eagle,” which is an integral part of the Viking culture, will be examined while using the cultural relativism approach.
The “bloody eagle” torture practice could be subjected to an enemy or a traitor. The man was put on his knees with bound limbs, and the executioner made incisions on his back to separate the skin and flesh that hide the ribs (LipiĹ„ska 13). Then the executioner took a special ritual ax, and with its help, he broke out the ribs, revealing the lungs of a man who should have been conscious all this time. Then he pulled out the lungs and laid them on the shoulders of the traitor so that from the side, the man looked like an eagle spreading its wings in flight. Then the man was left alone to bleed until he died.
It should be noted that the Vikings had a strict system of laws and regulations, according to which all members of the community lived. The use of specific types of punishments, clearly spelled out in this system of laws, was dictated by the need to ensure the safety of the community and its peaceful existence (Hardwick and Lister 184). The main occupancy of the Vikings was the war with the neighboring states. It was reflected in their beliefs and perception of the world.
They worshiped Odin, Freya, Frigg, Idun, Siff, Loki, Thor, Baldr, Heimdall, Bragi, Ull, and other Gods and Goddesses. The Vikings did not doubt the presence of a soul in every human and the posthumous being’s existence. If the Viking died on the battlefield, the Valkyries immediately took his soul to Valhalla (Puchalska 96). Viking beliefs and devotion to ancient Gods influenced the formation of their unique ethics and culture.
Since most of the Vikings were fearless warriors, their attitude to enemies should have been fearsome enough to prevent the endless alternation of rulers and the accession to the throne of warriors hungry for glory. However, such qualities as bloodthirstiness, ambitiousness, pride, treachery, cowardice, deceitfulness, and disrespect for the Gods were considered vicious (Winroth 43). The punishments symbolized the cleansing of vices, necessary to step on the threshold of Valhalla and feast there with the Gods and glorious heroes.
The Vikings believed that vices made a person vulnerable, and therefore tried to avoid them in every way. Methods of killing on the battlefield or in the equal battle could indicate specific qualities of the murdered. Thus, the throat cut could indicate that the warrior was a conspirator or a liar. At the same time, if the blow of the sword fell on the stomach, this could mean that a man did not rise above the animal instincts in his spiritual development (Winroth 38).
It can be assumed that the main vice of a person developed throughout their life at the level of a certain chakra and made a corresponding part of the body vulnerable. Moreover, death on the battlefield could be considered a sufficient reason for the Viking to get into Valhalla, even if he had previously committed a serious crime, although there were different opinions on this subject in the Viking society.
There are no pieces of evidence that the “bloody eagle” was a judicial punishment. This ritual is usually described in sagas, and scientists disagree, whether it was real or legendary torture practice. However, any judicial punishment could be applied in the Viking community at the request of the offended person, and the whole community made the decision whether to implement it by voting (Hardwick and Lister 185-195). Thus, it was possible to avoid injustice to the condemned, assuming that all members of the community could not be hostile to the perpetrator without good reason.
Besides that, there were less severe types of punishment for less serious crimes. The culprit could be tied to a pillory in the central square while other people were throwing stones at him or have his head shaved and covered with tar and feathers (Hardwick and Lister 193-195). Thus, one should not assume that the punishments were carried out without good reason and the necessary grounds.
The Vikings lived in a free society with equal rights for men and women. They could freely choose their marriage partners, a place to live; they could leave the community and return to it, they could, at their discretion, participate in military campaigns (Puchalska 95-96). The Vikings did not have a caste system, could engage in any activity, and have any number of children. For any contentious issue, they could demand justice from the ruler. On the other hand, the realization of these equal rights rested on brute force.
Speaking about the extent to which, in my opinion, the principle of moral, cultural relativism can be applied to “bloody eagle” torture practice, let us pay some attention to the following aspect. In ancient states, where martial art was highly valued, one can often find a great variety of punishments and executions comparing to the states, cultures, tribes, and communities that lived a predominantly peaceful life. Moreover, such a tendency to war could be dictated by the geographical position of a state or community (Bartlet 40). For example, the main reason for the raids of Vikings on neighboring countries was an insufficient amount of resources like food, water, and fertile lands.
For a modern person, the use of executions and torture in the system of justice can be shocking and cause assumptions about the bloodthirstiness of the cultures in which they were practiced. However, the very concept of “human rights” appeared not so long ago (Hardwick and Lister 3). UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights was proclaimed only in 1948, after the end of World War II, which took millions of lives. The purpose of this declaration was to provide an opportunity for the peaceful development of the world, which would be based on the principles of humanity, and where human rights would be protected.
In my opinion, such cruelty in Viking’s attitude to their enemies may have been only legendary; moreover, the “bloody eagle” torture practice could have been carried out only on rare occasions. All the decisions on sentences against the Viking criminals were made in the presence of the whole community, while everyone could express their opinion on any issue (Hardwick and Lister 185). This democratic approach was a much-needed safeguard for dictatorship in Viking society.
The Viking “bloody eagle” torture practice was examined in terms of cultural relativism. The methodological cultural relativism was used to describe the practice. It does not seem to be a judicial punishment, as it was subjected only to captured enemies or traitors. It is thought to be one of the cruelest torture practices in the culture of the Vikings, and scientists disagree whether it existed as a matter of fact. Therefore, it can be assumed that even if the practice existed, it was seen more as a way of intimidating external and internal enemies than as a real way of torture and execution.
The necessity of such intimidation was dictated by the need to ensure the safety of the community. This way, I can apply the moral, cultural relativism approach to this practice and justify its existence. Its existence could be even more justifiable considering that in the Middle Ages, endless wars with neighboring states were the norm and that this could influence the ethics of societies of that time.
Works Cited
Bartlet, William B. King Cnut, and the Viking Conquest of England 1016. Amberley Publishing Limited, 2016.
Hardwick, Paul, and Kate Lister, editors. Vikings and the Vikings: Essays on Television’s History Channel Series. McFarland, 2019.
LipiĹ„ska, Beata. “The Sign of the Hanged and the Battle-Fallen: Beasts of Battle in Old English Poetry.” Acta Philologica, vol. 51, 2017, pp. 7-18.
Puchalska, Joanna K. “Vikings Television Series: When History and Myth Intermingle.” The Polish Journal of the Arts and Culture, vol. 15, no. 3, 2015, pp. 89-105.
Winroth, Anders. The Age of the Vikings. Princeton University Press, 2016.