Video documentaries are popular secondary sources. Secondary sources are one of the many instruments of knowledge that historians examine and interpret to gain an understanding of history. Vikings is documentary series release in 2012 that was written and narrated by Neil Oliver from the BBC Network. In the documentary, Oliver analyzes the massive history of the Vikings from prehistoric times to the end of the Viking Age. A large emphasis is place on artifacts and travel since Oliver is an archeologist. As a film, it provides a window into the world of the Vikings and who they were. Overall, Neil Oliver’s Vikings is an outstanding example of a secondary source film because of its strong argument, supporting evidence, and historical accuracy.
…show more content…
He begins the documentary by asking who the Vikings are. In the documentary, Oliver supports his argument by analyzing and interpreting the various activities that the Vikings participated in such as trading, farming, and exploring. Also in the documentary, there is a large emphasis on archeology. Oliver himself is an archeologist. He presents numerous relics and artifacts from Viking society and explains their historical significance while at the same time explaining how they were part of the aspects that constituted the foundations of Viking society. Another way that the filmmaker strengthens his argument is by traveling to several countries. Oliver travels throughout Scandinavia, Constantinople, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East. By traveling to all these foreign lands, the filmmaker is able to explain the influence that the Vikings had and how far their influence was. Another way that Oliver supports his argument is by participating in activities that the Vikings did. For example, he sleeps in a replica Viking home and tries food that the Vikings would have consumed. The most significant activity that he participates in is pushing a Viking ship across land. It is a classic case of showing instead of telling. With that, Oliver is able to show what Viking life was like, which furthermore strengthens his …show more content…
To start off, something that worked was the narrator’s great understanding of archeology. He goes in depth on the historical significance of the relics and artifacts that he presents in the documentary. Using these relics and artifacts shows the viewer items that Vikings had in their lives, which also strengthens his argument. Another thing that worked was Oliver’s argument and how he reinforces it with concrete evidence. Something else that works in the documentary is its organization. This documentary is well organized as it perfectly blends the various aspects of Viking society with the locations Oliver visits. Where this documentary fails is its lack of historical content. As mentioned earlier, the narrator places a large emphasis archeology and because of that, historical content takes a backseat. Oliver should have included the point of view of other historians (similar to other documentaries). Another thing that did not work was skimming over topics that include warfare. There is no doubt that the Vikings engaged in a significant amount of was that would brand them as medieval terrorists. It is puzzling that Oliver chose to skim passed this aspect of Viking society. Something that does not work in the documentary is the overuse of fancy cinematography, however, that is just nitpicking. In the end, the good outweighs the
He begins the documentary by asking who the Vikings are. In the documentary, Oliver supports his argument by analyzing and interpreting the various activities that the Vikings participated in such as trading, farming, and exploring. Also in the documentary, there is a large emphasis on archeology. Oliver himself is an archeologist. He presents numerous relics and artifacts from Viking society and explains their historical significance while at the same time explaining how they were part of the aspects that constituted the foundations of Viking society. Another way that the filmmaker strengthens his argument is by traveling to several countries. Oliver travels throughout Scandinavia, Constantinople, Russia, and even parts of the Middle East. By traveling to all these foreign lands, the filmmaker is able to explain the influence that the Vikings had and how far their influence was. Another way that Oliver supports his argument is by participating in activities that the Vikings did. For example, he sleeps in a replica Viking home and tries food that the Vikings would have consumed. The most significant activity that he participates in is pushing a Viking ship across land. It is a classic case of showing instead of telling. With that, Oliver is able to show what Viking life was like, which furthermore strengthens his …show more content…
To start off, something that worked was the narrator’s great understanding of archeology. He goes in depth on the historical significance of the relics and artifacts that he presents in the documentary. Using these relics and artifacts shows the viewer items that Vikings had in their lives, which also strengthens his argument. Another thing that worked was Oliver’s argument and how he reinforces it with concrete evidence. Something else that works in the documentary is its organization. This documentary is well organized as it perfectly blends the various aspects of Viking society with the locations Oliver visits. Where this documentary fails is its lack of historical content. As mentioned earlier, the narrator places a large emphasis archeology and because of that, historical content takes a backseat. Oliver should have included the point of view of other historians (similar to other documentaries). Another thing that did not work was skimming over topics that include warfare. There is no doubt that the Vikings engaged in a significant amount of was that would brand them as medieval terrorists. It is puzzling that Oliver chose to skim passed this aspect of Viking society. Something that does not work in the documentary is the overuse of fancy cinematography, however, that is just nitpicking. In the end, the good outweighs the