{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01499531396438613, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.2823529411764705, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Concepts of imitatio and translatio: Perceptions of a Viking‐Age Past

The identification of historically known individuals and the reconstruction of historical events are favourite practices within historical archaeology. But there is the danger that archaeology will cease to operate as an independent discipline: losing its own methods and becoming part of historical research. The interpretation of two outstanding burials and their re‐assessment may illustrate this key problem within historical archaeology. The case studies used here are Hedeby‐Busdorf and Jelling, both of which belong to the small group of Viking Age elite burials. These two graves are special not only because of their rich furnishings, but particularly because of their capacity to tell a story. Both graves have been linked to stories that support certain interpretations concerning the grave goods and the burial rite. The key question is: can there be more than one story in each case? This paper suggests alternative interpretations that are not tied to an imitatio or translatio.