The textbook says 1066. Denmark's history portal danmarkshistorien.dk says around 1050, Sweden's History Museum gives 1100 for archaeologists, and a farmer on Orkney was still going raiding twice a year around 1170. None of these is a mistake, because each measures something different. This article sets out where 1066 comes from, which end dates circulate for Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Ireland and Scotland, and what Thomsen and Worsaae actually contributed to the period. Why the voyages stopped is a separate question and stays out of this piece. Here the subject is only the date and who sets it.
The Viking Age did not end on any particular day. Nobody in the eleventh century experienced an era closing, because the name did not yet exist; it was only coined in the nineteenth century. What we call the end of the Viking Age is a decision by later specialists about where to cut a long development.
Three dates turn up most often. 1066 is the formula of school books and English-language surveys. Around 1050 is common in Scandinavia, for example on the Danish portal danmarkshistorien.dk and in the Store norske leksikon. Around 1100 is the limit that the History Museum in Stockholm says archaeologists prefer. Anyone who needs one phrase will be most honest with "the mid to late eleventh century, depending on region". Anyone who wants more has to ask two questions back: for which area, and measured by what?
1066 is a date from English history. In the autumn of that year the Norwegian king Harald Sigurdsson fell at Stamford Bridge, and weeks later William of Normandy won at Hastings. Both battles are covered at length in the neighbouring articles. For the question of periods, what matters is which of the two is meant. The historian Alex Woolf points out in "The Viking Paradigm in Early Medieval History" (2025) that the end is often equated not with Hastings but with Harald's defeat at Stamford Bridge, and occasionally with the Dane Svein Estridsson's expedition to the Humber in 1069–70.
The beginning is English too. 793 is the raid on the monastery of Lindisfarne, according to Woolf the earliest certain date for an attack by pagan Scandinavians on English territory. Strictly speaking, then, the bracket 793 to 1066 describes the time between the first certain raid on England and the last great attempt at conquest from Norway. Woolf names Peter Sawyer's "The Age of the Vikings" of 1962 as the classic statement of these limits.
His verdict is blunt: 1066 was not significant for Scandinavia or for most of the Scandinavian diaspora, the settlements outside the North. That is one scholar's sharp position, but it touches a point Danish archaeologists raise as well. Speaking to the portal Videnskab.dk in 2016, Jens Ulriksen said in effect that the usual definition rests on events and battles in England rather than in Scandinavia.
The name that comes up first here is Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, and that is only half right. Thomsen headed the antiquarian collections in Copenhagen from 1816, which later became the National Museum of Denmark, and arranged the finds into a sequence of Stone, Bronze and Iron Ages. He published this three-age system in 1836 in the "Ledetraad til Nordisk Oldkyndighed", a guide to Nordic antiquity.
That gave later scholars the frame into which the Viking Age was eventually hung, but not the Viking Age itself. Thomsen's scheme follows the material of tools. A period named after a group of seafarers follows quite another logic: it comes from narrative, not from the display case. The surveys of Thomsen I have read do not credit him with the Viking Age.
The usual credit goes to Thomsen's pupil Jens Jacob Asmussen Worsaae. It is less firm than it sounds. There are differing accounts.
If even one of the earlier attestations holds, the popular explanation of the word as a reaction to the defeat of 1864 falls. That does not rule out the defeat helping it spread. According to Palmskov, it became a common period label only in the last decades of the nineteenth century. I have not seen Worsaae's or Werlauff's texts myself and rely on Palmskov's thesis and Langer's article, both read only through a retrieval tool. The question has not been checked against the originals.
Worsaae's cut is interesting as well. Palmskov reports, following Klindt-Jensen (1975), that Worsaae divided the Iron Age into three phases: about 200 to 450, 450 to 700, and 800 to 1000. The third later became the Viking Age. If that is right, the period in its early form ended around 1000, two generations before today's textbook date.
In English the term has a different history. Woolf traces "Viking Age", with a cautious "appears", to the Franco-American writer Paul Du Chaillu and his book "The Viking Age" of 1889. Du Chaillu's period was far longer than ours and reached back into Late Antiquity. Charles Francis Keary's book of 1891 seems, according to Woolf, to have been the first in English to use "Viking" in something like a generic, ethnographic sense. Before that, writers spoke of Danes or Northmen; according to Woolf the catch-all label clearly emerged only after the Second World War and came to dominate from the 1970s. More on the word itself is in What does "Viking" mean?.
Worsaae and Du Chaillu do not necessarily contradict each other: the Danish use is attested earlier, and the English book follows decades later. Whether Du Chaillu drew on Worsaae I have not checked. Nor was the end fixed at first in this English tradition. In "The Vikings" (first published 1913; Woolf cites 1930) Allen Mawer had the Viking Age close with the consolidation of the Scandinavian kingdoms in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries. Woolf then documents the fixed bracket to 1066 with Sawyer in 1962.
Every end date presupposes a criterion, and it often goes unspoken. Four yardsticks lead to noticeably different numbers.
That is why someone asking a museum about the end often gets a later number than someone opening a history book. A museum sorts objects, and objects change slowly.
Else Roesdahl sets the matter out most openly for Denmark. Her survey on danmarkshistorien.dk is titled "Vikingetiden ca. 800–1050" and names two candidates grounded in written sources, both from English history: 1042, when the Anglo-Danish king Harthacnut died and Nordic rule over England ended, and 1066 with William's conquest. Around 1050 serves as the middle way. Roesdahl considers it well justified, because from about then the focus in the Nordic countries turned more to internal development.
A question remains: did the realm of Cnut the Great really find its full stop with Harthacnut? Danish fleets kept sailing west. Svein's venture began in 1069 and ended in 1070 with an agreement with William. In 1075 his son Cnut appeared off the English east coast with a large fleet. In 1085 the same Cnut, by then king, gathered an invasion fleet in the Limfjord that never sailed; in July 1086 he was killed in the church at Odense. That effectively ended the Danish threat of invasion to England. For these details I rely on a survey article, not on the chronicles themselves. As a period boundary, 1086 can be argued as well as 1066; it is simply less famous.
The Store norske leksikon gives the Viking Age as "omkring 800 til omkring 1050" and describes Christianisation as a long process across the whole period. It mentions Stamford Bridge in 1066 as an event without declaring the battle the end of the period. That is notable, since Norway of all places supplies the strongest symbol in 1066.
Then there is a man who fits the scheme poorly. Magnus Barefoot took fleets to the Hebrides, Man and Orkney in 1098 and again in 1102, and fell in Ulster in August 1103. Woolf draws attention to the difference between the actors: Harald Sigurdsson and Svein Estridsson were Christian kings on political campaigns, closer to the rulers after 1066 than to the probably pagan plunderers of Lindisfarne. If one follows him, the break lies not between Harald and Magnus but somewhere before them.
For Sweden the range is strikingly wide. The Swedish History Museum writes that archaeologists prefer to date the Viking Age from 750 to 1100, and lets the Iron Age as a whole run to 1100. Course material from Lund University gives "800–1050/1100". Either makes more sense for Sweden than 1066, as the rune stones show: in Sigtuna, according to the local museum, most date from the second half of the eleventh century, the time after the textbook end. Conversion was also drawn out. Britannica mentions King Olof's baptism at Skara around 1000 and the pulling down of the Uppsala temple only at the end of the eleventh century, though the details of that temple are a separate and disputed question.
The boundary suits Gotland even less. Woolf describes the island as a world of its own, whose flourishing ran well past the traditional end with no natural break.
Further east the matter becomes fundamental. Marika Mägi notes in "The Viking Eastern Baltic" (2019) that some Scandinavian researchers put the end around 1000, others in the mid-eleventh century or around 1100. For Finland, the editors of "Fibula, Fabula, Fact" (2014) even proposed a version of its own, 750 to 1250, with a Late Viking Age from 1050. The reviewer Charlotta Hillerdal objects that defining a phase by the absence of something is questionable. The case shows that even a stretch to 1250 is seriously debated, and also that "Viking Age" was stuck onto this region as a foreign label.
Iceland is the case that shifts the question most. The historian Gunnar Karlsson presents two schemes on the Icelandic Web of Science. Jón J. Aðils counted ten periods in 1915, among them the Settlement Age (about 870–930), the Saga Age (930–1030), the early Icelandic church (1030–1152) and the Sturlung Age (1152–1262). Karlsson himself, in his book of 2000, groups everything up to 1262 as "Colonisation and Commonwealth". The words "Viking Age" appear in neither list.
The real Icelandic end date of an era is 1262–64, when the Icelanders submitted to the Norwegian king. It has nothing to do with vikings in the sense of sea raiders. The island also enters history late: Karlsson starts settlement from about 870, Woolf speaks of the decades around 900. Woolf calls Iceland as atypical as it was possible to be, with no native population and few state institutions; only in the twelfth century, he says, did it begin to resemble other Scandinavian polities. To ask for an Icelandic end of the Viking Age, then, is to ask something these schemes of Icelandic history do not ask at all.
In Ireland, 1014 is stubborn. On 23 April of that year the high king Brian Boru fell at Clontarf while his army held the field. From this grew the story that Brian drove the Vikings out of Ireland. Against it stands the simple fact that Dublin continued as a Scandinavian-shaped town and that its king Sigtrygg, who according to surveys did not even fight, ruled until 1036.
Two other frames are more plausible. One is dynastic: Clare Downham's book on the kings of the house of Ívarr carries the limit "to A.D. 1014" in its title, and Woolf too has this family dominate the Irish Sea from the early tenth to the early eleventh century. That is the limit of a dynasty, not of a culture. The other is urban: Seán Duffy's article "Irishmen and Islesmen in the Kingdoms of Dublin and Man, 1052–1171" (Ériu 43, 1992) runs the line to 1171. Normans landed in Ireland in 1169, in October 1171 Henry II came in person, took over Dublin and by 1172 had established English lordship. Anyone measuring the end by the Scandinavian-shaped town thus arrives at around 1170, some 150 years after Clontarf.
The latest common date comes from northern Britain. On 2 July 1266, in the Treaty of Perth, Norway ceded the Hebrides and Man to Scotland for 4,000 marks and an annual payment of 100 marks. It had been preceded in 1263 by the clash at Largs. The BBC called this, as Woolf critically notes, "the last battle of the Vikings". In fact royal troops of two kingdoms fought there. 1266 is therefore a date about state borders. It says when Norway gave up a territory, not when viking activity stopped. Even this boundary is not final: Orkney and Shetland stayed Norwegian and passed to Scotland as a pledge only in 1468–69.
The isles also supply the finest counter-example to any early cut-off. The Orkneyinga saga tells of Sveinn Ásleifarson, a big farmer who according to Woolf died around 1170, a good century after Stamford Bridge.
"Sweyn had in the spring hard work, and made them lay down very much seed, and looked much after it himself. But when that toil was ended, he fared away every spring on a Viking-voyage, and harried about among the southern isles and Ireland, and came home after midsummer. That he called spring-viking. Then he was at home until the cornfields were reaped down, and the grain seen to and stored. Then he fared away on a viking-voyage, and then he did not come home till the winter was one month spent, and that he called his autumn-viking."Orkneyinga saga, c. 114 in the numbering of the English version quoted in "Sutherland and Caithness in Saga-Time" (Project Gutenberg), by that book's bibliography probably G. W. Dasent (Rolls Series); chapter numbers vary, and Woolf cites the passage as ch. 105. Southern isles: the Hebrides.
A saga is no diary, and the details of this passage are later tradition. What stands out is how naturally the narrator uses the word, for an activity rather than an age. In this story-world, going viking was something you did in spring once the seed was in the ground. By the textbook calendar it had long since ended, but the saga knew nothing of that.
I know of no body that fixes a period boundary with binding force. Practice grows out of many separate decisions: museums label cases, encyclopedias need an entry, curricula need a year, publishers need a book title. That is why the Norwegian encyclopedia and the Swedish museum can give different dates without any quarrel.
The label itself is certainly argued over. Henriette Lyngstrøm of the University of Copenhagen proposed speaking of a "Steel Age" instead, because the name ties archaeologists to one track; according to Videnskab.dk she also conceded that renaming is unrealistic. Jens Ulriksen of the Museum of South East Denmark found the name unimportant and the dating more important, and Andres Dobat of Aarhus considered a new name just another analytical box. Woolf goes furthest: he finds the word "viking" for sea raiders useful and attested, but wants to drop the concept of the period and return to the sources. The encyclopedias and museums used here go on using the term. So does this article, because it works as a shared word as long as region and yardstick are stated.
When did the Viking Age end? There is no single date. Common ones are 1066 from the English perspective, around 1050 in Denmark and Norway, and up to around 1100 in Swedish archaeology. Individual regions differ more sharply.
Why do textbooks say 1066? Because the bracket 793 to 1066 comes from English history. It runs from the raid on Lindisfarne to Harald Sigurdsson's defeat, and Woolf treats Sawyer's book of 1962 as its classic statement.
Who coined the term "Viking Age"? In Danish it is usually credited to Worsaae, with attestations from 1873, 1863 or 1849 depending on the account; Langer (2025) gives Werlauff in 1836–37 for the word itself. In English, Woolf traces "Viking Age" to Du Chaillu (1889). Thomsen's share is limited to the three-age system on which the later division rests.
What came after the Viking Age? The Middle Ages, but their start is not uniform either. The Lund course material has the earlier Middle Ages begin in 1100, while specialists on Finland discuss 1250.
Were there vikings after 1066? Yes, at least in the literal sense of the word. The Orkneyinga saga describes Sveinn Ásleifarson's raids in the twelfth century, even though the saga is not a contemporary report.
Stamford Bridge 1066 · Hastings 1066 · What does "Viking" mean? · Lindisfarne · Clontarf 1014 · Largs 1263 and the Treaty of Perth · Magnus Barefoot · The Earls of Orkney · The Gotlanders · The Vendel Period
When Was the Last Viking Raid? Eight Candidates from York to Iona, and the Question of What Counts as a Raid · Stamford Bridge 1066 · The Battle of Hastings · Largs 1263.
All History & Finds articles →
Engern, or Angria, is a name with two faces: for some it stands for the Angrivarii whom Tacitus knew on the Weser, for …
Read more →Most runestones tell of death. One in Uppland tells of a career. Ulf of Borresta, it says, took payment in England …
Read more →Eric Bloodaxe (Old Norse Eiríkr blóðøx) was a son of Harald Fairhair who ruled Norway for only a few years around 930 …
Read more →Erik the Red (Old Norse Eiríkr rauði) was the Icelander who explored Greenland from around 982 and founded its first …
Read more →