The KRS Hoax - Part 1
Martin Reboul
Here we go.. this is what I think is the most likely explanatiion of how the
KRS came to be and why I think that. This is my opinion and open to debate
of course, based on no 'new evidence' or startling discovery, just my own
reasoning, logic and analysis of all I have seen to date.
'Evidence' and the 'Facts'.
What do we have then? A 200lb slice of greywacke rock, inscribed with a
message in Nordic runes, apparently carved by a party of Scandinavian
explorers who found themselves in a rather tight spot in Minnesota in the
year 1362.
Personally, I think it most likely the KRS was made in the late 19th
century, by person or persons so far unidentified positively. The reason
that they decided to do this is open to debate at present, but I suspect it
was probably meant as a joke on the Swedish community in Minnesota at the
time. My thoughts on this at the end.
There are of course arguments for and against the veracity of the KRS as a
14th century artefact, and here they briefly are as I see them.
FOR
1) The type of runes used on the KRS were unknown in the late 19th century,
so it couldn't have been made then. They are genuinely 14th century, but
this was only discovered within the last few decades, as the result of
research into the Swedish National Archives and archaeological discoveries
in Greenland. This is the strongest argument for the KRS - that the
inscription shows some historical knowledge that could not have been known
about in 19th Century Minnesota.
2) When the KRS was discovered, it was tangled in the roots of a tree. These
roots were flattened, indicating it had been in place under the tree for
many years before being unearthed, and there are root marks on the stone
itself. The age of the tree is unknown for certain, but it was certainly
several decades old - were a potential hoaxer to have planted it there, they
would not have known when it might have been discovered, if ever.
3) The language and grammar used in the runic inscription are consistent
with it being carved in the 14th century.
4) The KRS shows signs of weathering and erosion that are inconsistent with
it being carved in the 19th century, placing at an age when the land was
unnoccupied by white settlers.
5) The inscription includes 14th C expressions, and includes the letters
'AVM' - a 'Catholic' prayer which 14th C Norsemen would be likely to have
used. That was unlikely to have been known about by any Minnesotan forger
who din't have substantial historical knowledge.
6) Scandinavian explorers could have reached Minnesota in the 14th century.
I have serious problems with most of these claims. I shall deal with these
first, then go on to the arguments for the KRS *not* being a genuine 14th
century runestone and my thoughts on the subject.
1) I am not an expert on runes, so I am prepared to accept that the 'KRS
runes' were indeed used in the 1360's. Even so, I notice that there is
considerable controversy about the matter amongst experts, and that the KRS
runes are generally agreed to be 'unusual'
I add my personal observation that the most controversial runes include the
'number 10' and 'oe', and both figures include curved or circular
components. In other words, they appear more likely to have been copied from
a written document, since the 'futhark' and most other runestyles are made
up of straight lines to make them easy to carve. The 'backward K' for k also
looks a bit too good to be true?
However, that is not the most serious objection I have for 1) being
considered as 'proof', as it doesn't matter if the runes are genuinely 14th
century.
This 'defence' of the KRS completely relies on the assumption this knowledge
was not available to anybody in late 19th century Minnesota. This is
patently impossible to state with certainty, in fact I'd go as far as saying
it seems rather likely..
Fact A): The Swedish archives, which certainly contained all the information
necessary for someone to forge the KRS, were accessed and potentially
available to scholars and academics during the 18th and 19th centuries -
this happened.
Fact B): After the disastrous fire of 1697, some salvaged documents
undoubtedly fell into private hands or were kept as souveniers.
Fact C): Many Swedes, Danes and Norweigans who had settled in 19th century
Minnesota, were keen and active historians, both amateur and proffessional.
The Minnesota Historical Society is evidence of this, as are the prescence
of Scandinavian History Departments at American Universities.
Fact D): A lively correspondence existed between these scholars and their
counterparts in Sweden, using the postal service. Academics also travelled
between the two countries - there was plenty of contact.
Fact E): (One I haven't mentioned before). Even before the fire, documents
were available from the archives and were studied. Many more were in private
hands and libraries. If anyone has any doubts about this, I quote this from
an excellent source who wishes to remain anonymous for obvious reasons.
"The responsibility for the multi-volume edition of medieval documents,
Svenskt Diplomatarium (Diplomatarium Suecanum) lies with a department
within the Riksarkivet (National Archives) with the same name as the
publication. This publication has been going on has been going on on and
off for a long time. As you will see from this link to the Royal Library
catalogue (Libris), several parts were published already in the mid 19th
century:
http://websok.libris.kb.se/websearch/search?INDEX_L772_OR=9901138841+119728+
02841959
(The main search page: http://www.libris.kb.se/ has an English version.)
The webpage of the Diplomatarium is here:
http://www.ra.se/ra/diplomat.html
Links to photographs of 14th c. documents:
http://www.ra.se/ra/diplomat10_3.html
In addition it should be mentioned that antiquarians had made substantial
collections of copies of many of those Medieval documents destroyed in the
castle fire in 1697. And the archival system was by no means as centralized
at that time as IEJ wants you to believe. Many documents existed in private
repositories, in the university libraries in Uppsala and Lund and other
places. It was not unusual for learned amateurs in the 18th and 19th
centuries to spend time as guests at aristocratic country estates and copy
documents in the family archives. and there were really quite many such
learned amateurs."
Yes - I too have anonymous sources Inger (and this is but one of them!).
I struggled with the language a bit, but a Swedish friend helped me out -
worth a look to any who still have any doubts.
The upshot of all this is that Inger's claim is nonsense. Obvious enough of
course, but the fact is that ONE SINGLE document from the 14th century would
have been quite enough to base the KRS inscription on. In view of the
'controversial runes' I think that even more likely.
Conclusion: Refuted.
2) (Roots) This might have some relevance if there were any hard evidence.
Unfortunately, all that remains are written affadavits from those who
witnessed the discovery of the KRS, and these were taken over ten years
after the event. The vital tree stump and roots were destroyed in the
interim, and were never even photographed.
Much is made of the 'flattened roots' and the root marks on the back of the
KRS (apparently found 'face down' amongst them). Most stones that have lain
near trees exhibit such markings, so they may date to any time or any tree
from the last few millenia. Without the matching roots, they are not
evidence of it having lain on Olaf Ohman's land for any time.
Furthermore, there are significantly NO root marks on any inscribed part of
the stone - more of this in 4). The flattening of the roots may of course
been caused by obstructions that were removed when the KRS was 'planted'.
Conclusion: Not acceptable evidence.
3) (Grammar and Spelling in message) Once again there is controversy about
this, but I don't know any Scandinavian languages so I can't comment, other
than to say the experts disagree.
Conclusion: Inconclusive.
4) (Weathering) This might well have been the best scientific proof of the
age of the inscription, but unfortunately the stone has been extensively
tinkered with since it was discovered, and any 'evidence' resulting from
expert examination will be at best questionable.
Personally, I'd go further and upgrade that to 'useless'. The stone has been
scrubbed, cleaned with chemicals and been largely re-cut for clarity and the
inscription has been marked out with charcoal and graphite. None of this was
done for devious purposes, but such treatment has seriously damaged and
compromised any chemical or structural evidence that might have existed.
This may all be irrelevant anyway, as any potential hoaxer would no doubt
have artificially 'weathered' the stone with abrasives and chemicals.
Greywacke is vulnerable to acid - all the materials needed were commonly
available in 19th C Minnesota.
Conclusion: Evidence compromised and unreliable.
5) The content of the message is peculiar, unique and open to
interpretation. Having to rely on a translation, I suspect the passage "ten
men red with blood and dead" may allude to 'Red Indians' - a distinctly 19th
century idea. The whole 'tone' of the message seems designed to confuse and
be vague - mention of irrelevant trivia and a pointless 'story' rather than
anything else. Not the sort of thing that lonely, frightened men far from
home would leave as a record. More of this later. it just doesn't seem
likely.
Conclusion: Even if the language and grammar is 'perfect', the message
itself is dubious IMO.
6) (Vikings in Minnesota) I have no problem believing this could have
happened, though others do.
Those are my thoughts about the arguments in favour - please add any more I
haven't seen or considered.
............................................................................
....................................................................
What evidence suggests a hoax?
AGAINST
1) Position. The stone was found half way down a wooded hill, buried a few
inches under the ground on its 'face'. In view of the fact such a thing
would only have been made so someone might see it in the future, the top of
the hill (not far away) would surely the place to leave it? It cannot have
fallen and slid from there to where it was found.
Conclusion: Suspicious.
2) Perhaps this should be 1A)? The land on which the KRS was found had been
scheduled for clearance and ''mprovement' for some time, as shown on 1880's
maps. This meant it would be cleared of trees at some point.
In other words, by carefully 'planting' it amongst the roots of a tree it
would almost certainly turn up in the near future.. which I think is what
probably happened.
Conclusion: Highly suspicious.
3) Size and shape. The KRS is very unusual amongst runestones, in that it
resembles an 18th/10th century tombstone. Most genuine runestones are carved
to fit the inscription into the natural shape of the rock, not written out
like an essay on a piece of paper. In view of the message, it seems unlikely
that panic stricken explorers fearing for their lives would bother to
carefull square off and dress the stone as has obviously been done, they
would have flatted off the face as quickly as possible and left their
message. Also, the KRS is not too heavy for one strong man to move with
difficulty, or two men (or women!) to move with ease. Its 'flatness' may be
another clue that it was specifically designed to be 'slotted' into the
comples root stucture of a tree - most runestones are nothing like this in
shape or size.
Conclusion: Highly suspicious.
4) Olaf Ohman's discovery of the KRS. Strange coincides do happen in this
world, no doubt about it, but when combined with so many other suspicious
circumstances, they seem somehow far more remote. I think it was no
coincidence at all that a Swede discovered the KRS, he was meant to.
If a party of Norsemen had roamed across the northern USA in 1362, the
chances of them leaving a runestone on land that would be owned by one of
their fellow countrymen five centuries later is somewhat remote to say the
least. Even so, it isn't impossible.
Conclusion: Very unlikely.
5) Lack of supportative archaeological evidence. This is about the most
damning thing of all IMO. There are no satisfactory records of any 14th C
Norse artefacts being found in the area, or in the thousands of square miles
to the east, despite extensive searches and a lot of digging.
The frequently mentioned 'mooring holes' can be dismissed - if they aren't
dynamiting holes, water levels don't seem to match. I also find it hard to
believe that anyone would take the time to carefully drill such things in
the 14th C whilst on a mission of exploration in small boats. Even then, the
Vikings weren't the only people who could have made such holes, and they are
impossible to date. Nothing has been found - not even a body.
Conclusion: So incredibly suspicious, 'extremely' won't do!
6) Political events at the time in Scandinavia and in Minnesota, and 7):
What happened after the stone was found, I shall cover in detail in the next
part, as well as going into what I think probably happened, why and likely
suspects. I think that's more than enough for now.
Cheers
Martin
David J. Starr
Martin Reboul wrote:
>
> The KRS - Final Solution
>
> 6) (Vikings in Minnesota) I have no problem believing this could have
> happened, though others do.
>
I have a good deal of trouble believing that Vikings could get to
Minnesota the 14th Century. The only feasible route would be up the St.
Lawrence into the Great Lakes. One should observe the La Chine rapids
at Montreal. La Chine is so bad that boats and deep sea shipping could
not ascend the St. Lawrence until the Seaway was built in the 1950's.
After managing La Chine, you have to get UP Niagara Falls.
The thought of portaging a 50 foot Viking knorr around La Chine and
Niagara using just Indian portage paths fit for birch bark canoes is
daunting to say the least. And they would be compelled to take the ship
with them. The ship is their only way home. Should it be captured or
damaged by bad weather or the Skraelings, they are marooned in a hostile
wilderness 3000 miles from home. I cannot imagine an expedition leader
taking the risk of leaving his vessels behind and proceeding overland on
foot.
Consider the distances. From Aix-La-Chapel at the mouth of the St.
Lawrence, to Duluth Minnesota is 2000 miles by water. This is inland
waterway, mostly up stream, without the steady ocean winds to propel the
ship.
So, I have serious reservations about KRS based just upon the
difficult of getting as fat inland as Minnesota, starting at Iceland or
even Aix-La-Chapel.
David Starr
Kel Rekuta
David J. Starr wrote:
>
> Martin Reboul wrote:
>
>> The KRS - Final Solution
>
>
>>6) (Vikings in Minnesota) I have no problem believing this could have
>>happened, though others do.
>>
>
>
> I have a good deal of trouble believing that Vikings could get to
> Minnesota the 14th Century.
No David. Hudson Bay Company explorers drew furs from a good part of the
central plains south of Winnepeg. There were and are extensive river
and lake routes into the interior. It is a very long way from Winnepeg
to Minnesota but much closer than from the St. Lawrence. Swedish traders
travelled farther into the Russian interior.
My problem with this circumstance is why they would bother to struggle
so far into the interior of North America. (nothing like Constantinople
to reach) Inger thinks it is a stupid question which leads me to believe
she can't answer it. It would upset her house of cards.
Good argument though. You just missed the geography of north central
Canada. Inger made me refresh my knowledge of it. There was some good in
the time her "private messages" caused me to waste.
Kel Rekuta
DE Wolf
>
> David J. Starr wrote:
>>
>> Martin Reboul wrote:
>>> The KRS - Final Solution
>>
>>> 6) (Vikings in Minnesota) I have no problem believing this could have
>>> happened, though others do.
>>
>> I have a good deal of trouble believing that Vikings could get to
>> Minnesota the 14th Century.
>
> No David. Hudson Bay Company explorers drew furs from a good part of the
> central plains south of Winnepeg. There were and are extensive river
> and lake routes into the interior. It is a very long way from Winnepeg
> to Minnesota but much closer than from the St. Lawrence. Swedish traders
> travelled farther into the Russian interior.
[schnipt]
I also have no problem accepting the idea that Vikings may
have ranged far deeper into the North American continent
than is normally accepted. I mean, family legend seems to
indicate that this happened, but family legend ISN'T
provable fact, and even THAT places such activity as being
somewhere around the 10th century, IIRC.
Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
point me toward the correct information, please?
Have a good one all,
Wolf,
Bard
--
**************************************
Magnus frater spectat te...
Or wants to be.
**************************************
Hoc nomen meum verum non est.
**************************************
Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis
habes.
**************************************
The most exciting phrase to hear in
science, the one that heralds the
most discoveries, is not "Eureka!"
(I found it!) but "That's
funny...
- Isaac Asimov
**************************************
http://www.rahul.net/starwolf/shm
erilar
<capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote:
> Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
> believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
> I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
> Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
> 1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
> point me toward the correct information, please?
It's not a strange impression at all. By the 13th century, when most of
the sagas were being written down, the viking expeditions had mostly
petered out, and by the 14th century were over. This sort of reality
check has never bothered KRS acolytes generally, much less Inger and her
co-religionists.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Yuri Kuchinsky
> In article <3F01AE9D...@monarchy.modusvarious.com>, DE Wolf
> <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
> > believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
> > I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
> > Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
> > 1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
> > point me toward the correct information, please?
>
> It's not a strange impression at all. By the 13th century, when most of
> the sagas were being written down, the viking expeditions had mostly
> petered out, and by the 14th century were over. This sort of reality
> check has never bothered KRS acolytes generally, much less Inger and her
> co-religionists.
You really don't know what you're talking about now, erilar, do you?
Actually, the Viking age was over by the 12th century... The Vikings had
nothing to do with the KRS.
Are you one of them Conspiracy Buffs?
Yuri.
Yuri Kuchinsky -=O=- http://www.trends.ca/~yuku
Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to believe.
Soren Larsen
"Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4elMa.1470$6B4.40...@news.nnrp.ca...
> In soc.history.medieval erilar <erila...@spamchibardun.net.invalid>
wrote:
>
> > In article <3F01AE9D...@monarchy.modusvarious.com>, DE Wolf
> > <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
> > > believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
> > > I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
> > > Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
> > > 1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
> > > point me toward the correct information, please?
> >
> > It's not a strange impression at all. By the 13th century, when most
of
> > the sagas were being written down, the viking expeditions had mostly
> > petered out, and by the 14th century were over. This sort of reality
> > check has never bothered KRS acolytes generally, much less Inger and
her
> > co-religionists.
>
> You really don't know what you're talking about now, erilar, do you?
She does! You otoh know nothing of runes, scandinavian language and
history as your site evidently shows.
I will gladly put up some authentic wellknown runeiscriptions
for you to identify.
.
This is really easy. No transcription, No translation,
Just identification of wellknown authentic rune inscriptions.
How about it Yuri? Wanna talk about the details?
BTW Yuri she said the vikings had nothing to do with the KRS.
Did yopu even bother to read Erilar' post?s
Sigvaldi Eggertsson
> In article <3F01AE9D...@monarchy.modusvarious.com>, DE Wolf
> <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote:
>
> > Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
> > believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
> > I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
> > Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
> > 1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
> > point me toward the correct information, please?
>
> It's not a strange impression at all. By the 13th century, when most of
> the sagas were being written down, the viking expeditions had mostly
> petered out, and by the 14th century were over. This sort of reality
> check has never bothered KRS acolytes generally, much less Inger and her
> co-religionists.
Viking activiy was mostly over by the year 1000. Most of the people
involved were not vikings but traders and travellers.
DE Wolf
>
> David J. Starr wrote:
>>
>> Martin Reboul wrote:
>>
>>> The KRS - Final Solution
>>
>>> 6) (Vikings in Minnesota) I have no problem believing this could have
>>> happened, though others do.
>>
>> I have a good deal of trouble believing that Vikings could get to
>> Minnesota the 14th Century.
>
> No David. Hudson Bay Company explorers drew furs from a good part of the
> central plains south of Winnepeg. There were and are extensive river
> and lake routes into the interior. It is a very long way from Winnepeg
> to Minnesota but much closer than from the St. Lawrence. Swedish traders
> travelled farther into the Russian interior.
[schnipt]
I also have no problem accepting the idea that Vikings may
have ranged far deeper into the North American continent
than is normally accepted. I mean, family legend seems to
indicate that this happened, but family legend ISN'T
provable fact, and even THAT places such activity as being
somewhere around the 10th century, IIRC.
Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
point me toward the correct information, please?
Have a good one all,
David J. Starr
Kel Rekuta wrote:
>
>
> No David. Hudson Bay Company explorers drew furs from a good part of the
> central plains south of Winnepeg. There were and are extensive river
> and lake routes into the interior. It is a very long way from Winnepeg
> to Minnesota but much closer than from the St. Lawrence. Swedish traders
> travelled farther into the Russian interior.
Yes indeed. But the voyageurs traveled by birchbark canoe, a vessel so
light that a single man can portage one for miles over nothing more than
a game trail. The Vikings come across the ocean, from Greenland, or
beyond, in a large, seagoing ship. You don't portage one of those on
your head like a canoe. Nor do you just park such a vessel and press on
inland on foot. You worry about skraeling pirates, sudden gales
dragging the anchor, a bad storm driving the ship onto the rocks, or
dropping trees on one pulled up on the beach. The skipper and crew know
that the ship is their only way home. If wrecked, they are marooned in
a hostile wilderness. It is inconceivable that they would press on
inland without the ship, and I cannot conceive of any way of getting the
ship up La Chine or up Niagara. It is possible to get out on Lake Huron
by going up the Ottawa river, this gets you past Niagara, but that
passage is obscure and hard to find. It took the voyageurs some 50
years to discover it. And it still requires some heroic portages,
although not as bad as portaging La Chine or Niagara.
>
> My problem with this circumstance is why they would bother to struggle
> so far into the interior of North America.
>
Good point too. These guys have already done the North Atlantic to
America. How much additional hardship do they want to take on?
David Starr
Kel Rekuta
David J. Starr wrote:
>
> Kel Rekuta wrote:
>
>
>>No David. Hudson Bay Company explorers drew furs from a good part of the
>> central plains south of Winnepeg. There were and are extensive river
>>and lake routes into the interior. It is a very long way from Winnepeg
>>to Minnesota but much closer than from the St. Lawrence. Swedish traders
>>travelled farther into the Russian interior.
>
>
> Yes indeed. But the voyageurs traveled by birchbark canoe, a vessel so
> light that a single man can portage one for miles over nothing more than
> a game trail. The Vikings come across the ocean, from Greenland, or
> beyond, in a large, seagoing ship. You don't portage one of those on
> your head like a canoe. Nor do you just park such a vessel and press on
> inland on foot. You worry about skraeling pirates, sudden gales
> dragging the anchor, a bad storm driving the ship onto the rocks, or
> dropping trees on one pulled up on the beach. The skipper and crew know
> that the ship is their only way home. If wrecked, they are marooned in
> a hostile wilderness. It is inconceivable that they would press on
> inland without the ship, and I cannot conceive of any way of getting the
> ship up La Chine or up Niagara. It is possible to get out on Lake Huron
> by going up the Ottawa river, this gets you past Niagara, but that
> passage is obscure and hard to find. It took the voyageurs some 50
> years to discover it. And it still requires some heroic portages,
> although not as bad as portaging La Chine or Niagara.
>
>
David. Do a web search on the Hudson Bay Company history, specifically
York boats. Although nineteenth century designs, they were not canoes.
Shallow draught for river travel and sturdy enough for open water. Not
that it has anything to do with this KRS nonsense, but it is conceivable
that the North American interior can be accessed by water.
Now then, we get back to...
>
>
>
>>My problem with this circumstance is why they would bother to struggle
>>so far into the interior of North America.
>>
>
> Good point too. These guys have already done the North Atlantic to
> America. How much additional hardship do they want to take on?
>
A couple weeks in ships is little hardship compared to exploring a land
where everyone you meet is likely to be unhappy to see you on "their"
land. And have you ever had a strip torn off you by a deer fly? There
are trillions of them in Northern Canada. You'd be happy to be back on
the boat. ;-}
Actually, these theoretical explorers would have needed food, timber, or
something to trade back to "civilization". The Greenland colonies were
not self sufficient, especially in the 14thC. Do you think it likely
they would have passed up all the opportunities along the coast of
modern Labrador, northern Quebec and the interior of Hudson's Bay to
trudge thousands of kilometres into the interior? Not that they were any
less capable than fur traders three hundred years later, but why would
they have bothered?
Is this such a difficult question?
Kel
Inger E Johansson
unfortunatly for you you seem to be unaware of the fact that the Vikings at
least did manage to go upstreams in much more difficult riverfalls than
those you have in NA. If their descendants the Norse Greenlander or the
Swedes did later on that's what the documents say.
Anyhow if you on daily bases could transport ships upstreams in Trollhättan,
yes today there are lock-system but it wasn't until Modern Days. The fall to
get thru in Trollhättan was and is 32 metres, of course Niagara is 54 metres
but I guess you all know that it's the princip that was known and used on
daily bases not necessarily the same hight each time...
Inger E
"David J. Starr" <dst...@theworld.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3F022EDC...@theworld.com...
erilar
sig...@binet.is (Sigvaldi Eggertsson) wrote:
Oh, I know that 8-) So were the "vikings", for that matter, depending
on time and place. I was being bad and oversimplfying. "viking" tends to
be a rather amorphous term.
David J. Starr
The York boat is a good design, nice boat. But the point is, the
Vikings crossed the Atlantic in fairly sizable ships. Bunch of
Icelandic enthusiasts built a replica of the Gokstad ship (a long ship
about 70 foot) and sailed it over to Boston a couple of summers ago. I
went on board and schmoozed with the crew. But looking at it, tied up
at the Aquarium wharf, it is clear that portaging something like that
through virgin Canadian forest, is gonna be tough. The vessel is way to
heavy to heave up on the shoulders of the crew. You would have to build
some kind of wagon, out of native timber, and then clear a dirt road
about 10 foot wide through maybe 20 miles of forest. Cut the stumps low
enough for so you don't get hung up. For a 30-40 man crew, that's a
whole summer's work.
>
> Now then, we get back to...
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>My problem with this circumstance is why they would bother to struggle
> >>so far into the interior of North America.
> >>
> >
> > Good point too. These guys have already done the North Atlantic to
> > America. How much additional hardship do they want to take on?
> >
>
> A couple weeks in ships is little hardship compared to exploring a land
> where everyone you meet is likely to be unhappy to see you on "their"
> land. And have you ever had a strip torn off you by a deer fly? There
> are trillions of them in Northern Canada. You'd be happy to be back on
> the boat. ;-}
>
> Actually, these theoretical explorers would have needed food, timber, or
> something to trade back to "civilization". The Greenland colonies were
> not self sufficient, especially in the 14thC. Do you think it likely
> they would have passed up all the opportunities along the coast of
> modern Labrador, northern Quebec and the interior of Hudson's Bay to
> trudge thousands of kilometres into the interior? Not that they were any
> less capable than fur traders three hundred years later, but why would
> they have bothered?
In view of the hardships, why indeed. Iceland was settled from
Norway, but Greenland was discovered and settled from Iceland. Vinland
was discovered from Greenland, but for one reason or another (long
supply routes, skraeling resistance, take your pick) settlement didn't
work out. Now, had the Norse established a base at Montreal or Quebec
on the St Laurence, then I could see them ranging inland all the way to
Duluth and beyond. But I cannot see an expedition starting from Norway
or even Greenland, getting past La Chine at Montreal.
David Starr
David J. Starr
Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
>
> Anyhow if you on daily bases could transport ships upstreams in Trollhättan,
> yes today there are lock-system but it wasn't until Modern Days. The fall to
> get thru in Trollhättan was and is 32 metres, of course Niagara is 54 metres
> but I guess you all know that it's the princip that was known and used on
> daily bases not necessarily the same hight each time...
>
It's not the height of the falls that matters. It's the roughness of
the country through which you have to drag the ship to get around the
falls. In North America we are talking about wall-to-wall trees, old
growth trees 6-10 foot in diameter at the ground. Packed close
together. To get a ship through you have to cut the trees down. Felling
a 10 foot thick tree with a modern chain saw is work, doing it with ax
and crosscut saw is harder. The forest floor is littered with big heavy
old deadfalls that you have to move to get the ship through. It's not
impossible, but the level of effort is so high that I cannot conceive of
real people doing it.
David Starr
David J. Starr
Inger E Johansson wrote:
>
>
> Anyhow if you on daily bases could transport ships upstreams in Trollhättan,
> yes today there are lock-system but it wasn't until Modern Days. The fall to
> get thru in Trollhättan was and is 32 metres, of course Niagara is 54 metres
> but I guess you all know that it's the princip that was known and used on
> daily bases not necessarily the same hight each time...
>
Kel Rekuta
David J. Starr wrote:
>
> Kel Rekuta wrote:
>
>
> The York boat is a good design, nice boat. But the point is, the
> Vikings crossed the Atlantic in fairly sizable ships. Bunch of
> Icelandic enthusiasts built a replica of the Gokstad ship (a long ship
> about 70 foot) and sailed it over to Boston a couple of summers ago. I
> went on board and schmoozed with the crew. But looking at it, tied up
> at the Aquarium wharf, it is clear that portaging something like that
> through virgin Canadian forest, is gonna be tough. The vessel is way to
> heavy to heave up on the shoulders of the crew. You would have to build
> some kind of wagon, out of native timber, and then clear a dirt road
> about 10 foot wide through maybe 20 miles of forest. Cut the stumps low
> enough for so you don't get hung up. For a 30-40 man crew, that's a
> whole summer's work.
Yes, it was an excellent reconstruction. Lots of neat things to look at
on board.
You do seem stuck on the St. Lawrence route though. There is very
limited forestation along the Hudson Bay route. Plenty of small rivers
as well. Aside from the horrors of insect life and probable native
encounters, it is a plausible route inland to, say Lake Winnipeg, but
not much farther. Not that I think 14thC Greenlanders did travel that
far.... It just isn't inconceivable. Whatever.
>>>
>>>>My problem with this circumstance is why they would bother to struggle
>>>>so far into the interior of North America.
>>>>
>>trudge thousands of kilometres into the interior? Not that they were any
>>less capable than fur traders three hundred years later, but why would
>>they have bothered?
>
>
> In view of the hardships, why indeed. Iceland was settled from
> Norway, but Greenland was discovered and settled from Iceland. Vinland
> was discovered from Greenland, but for one reason or another (long
> supply routes, skraeling resistance, take your pick) settlement didn't
> work out. Now, had the Norse established a base at Montreal or Quebec
> on the St Laurence, then I could see them ranging inland all the way to
> Duluth and beyond. But I cannot see an expedition starting from Norway
> or even Greenland, getting past La Chine at Montreal.
>
> David Starr
Iceland - no timber after a few generations of settlement
Greenland - no timber, period! Precious little firewood to scavenge.
Labrador (Markland?) plenty of trees, game, fresh water, close to Greenland
If the locals on a rocky spit of wasteland in Northern NFLD can drive
off a couple boatloads of Greenlanders, what did they have to expect in
better lands along the St. Lawrence? Presumably a larger population of
equally unpleasant locals displeased with tree felling and hunting on
their lands?
I agree, they wouldn't have gotten far up the St. Lawrence.
Kel
Soren Larsen
"Kel Rekuta" <kre...@sympatico.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3F043B1E...@sympatico.ca...
Piggybacking to David and ansvering Kel as well
> David J. Starr wrote:
> >
> > Kel Rekuta wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > The York boat is a good design, nice boat. But the point is, the
> > Vikings crossed the Atlantic in fairly sizable ships. Bunch of
> > Icelandic enthusiasts built a replica of the Gokstad ship (a long
ship
> > about 70 foot)
pics and sites
http://images.google.com/images?q=Islendingur&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search
>and sailed it over to Boston a couple of summers ago. I
> > went on board and schmoozed with the crew. But looking at it, tied
up
> > at the Aquarium wharf, it is clear that portaging something like
that
> > through virgin Canadian forest, is gonna be tough.
And the Norse wouldn't have used a Gokstad type ship anyway but
an even heavier knarr
> The vessel is way to
> > heavy to heave up on the shoulders of the crew. You would have to
build
> > some kind of wagon, out of native timber, and then clear a dirt road
> > about 10 foot wide through maybe 20 miles of forest. Cut the stumps
low
> > enough for so you don't get hung up. For a 30-40 man crew, that's a
> > whole summer's work.
Aspings or monoxyla build on site would be the ansver.
On rivertravelling in Russia
http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/dai2.html
snip
>
>
> >>trudge thousands of kilometres into the interior? Not that they were
any
> >>less capable than fur traders three hundred years later, but why
would
> >>they have bothered?
Absolutely mindbogling. It was the middle of nowhere
snip
>
> Iceland - no timber after a few generations of settlement
> Greenland - no timber, period! Precious little firewood to scavenge.
> Labrador (Markland?) plenty of trees, game, fresh water, close to
Greenland
>
> If the locals on a rocky spit of wasteland in Northern NFLD can drive
> off a couple boatloads of Greenlanders,
That was a group of farmers who had no intention of fighting
but came out on top anyway.
>what did they have to expect in
> better lands along the St. Lawrence? Presumably a larger population of
> equally unpleasant locals displeased with tree felling and hunting on
> their lands?
Frankly the locals would not have known what hit them if they
tried anything funny with a boatload of Norse warriors/soldiers.
A first contact with Euro warriors was tried somewhat later
by Cortez against a more organised enemy in a climate hostile
to europeans.
>
> I agree, they wouldn't have gotten far up the St. Lawrence.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Kel Rekuta
Soren Larsen wrote:
> "Kel Rekuta" <kre...@sympatico.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:3F043B1E...@sympatico.ca...
>
>
> Piggybacking to David and ansvering Kel as well
>
>
>
>>what did they have to expect in
>>better lands along the St. Lawrence? Presumably a larger population of
>>equally unpleasant locals displeased with tree felling and hunting on
>>their lands?
>
>
> Frankly the locals would not have known what hit them if they
> tried anything funny with a boatload of Norse warriors/soldiers.
>
No doubt. Steel weapons are a great advantage against stone age
equipment available to the natives. Unfortunately, there weren't a lot
of warrior/soldiers populating the Greenland colonies in the 14th C,
were there? It is an important point in a military confrontation but not
relevant for hunting/ fishing/ gathering expeditions mounted by
farmers and fishermen.
> A first contact with Euro warriors was tried somewhat later
> by Cortez against a more organised enemy in a climate hostile
> to europeans.
>
> Cheers
> Soren Larsen
>
Ah, yes. Let's compare a military conquest by professional soldiers to a
hunting-gathering expedition. I will concede the argument as this entire
thread has gotten just plain silly.
I am curious what you think happened to the Greenland colonists in the
14-15thC. (A dose of sanity and reason would be welcome in this discussion.)
Cheers!
Kel
ED...@gyldendal.dk
wrote:
>
>No doubt. Steel weapons are a great advantage against stone age
>equipment available to the natives. Unfortunately, there weren't a lot
>of warrior/soldiers populating the Greenland colonies in the 14th C,
>were there? It is an important point in a military confrontation but not
> relevant for hunting/ fishing/ gathering expeditions mounted by
>farmers and fishermen.
>
The Greenlanders simply had no motivation to go to America.
It was too far away from both their cultural background and markets
in Europe and from their hunting grounds for luxury items such
as ivory and white polar fur/falcons.
Their population was also too small to supply a split-of colony
in America.
>> A first contact with Euro warriors was tried somewhat later
>> by Cortez against a more organised enemy in a climate hostile
>> to europeans.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Soren Larsen
>>
>
>Ah, yes. Let's compare a military conquest by professional soldiers to a
>hunting-gathering expedition. I will concede the argument as this entire
>thread has gotten just plain silly.
I was thinking more in terms of the proposed KRS expedition.
That would have had experienced figters in it..... if it ever
occured.
>
>I am curious what you think happened to the Greenland colonists in the
>14-15thC. (A dose of sanity and reason would be welcome in this discussion.)
I think the Greenland colonies were gradually depopulated.
Ivory went out of fashion in Europe and african ivory started
to arrive in quantity in the 14th c.
At the same time a lot of land became available in Iceland
because of the plague and since we know that there was
marriage bonds between iceland and Greenland, the greenlanders
could have raised claims of inheritance. Anyway the plague
in Iceland would have made the greenlandic workforce very
valuable if they moved back.
Maybe some old people stayed to die at home and a few of
the young folks too bit all in all I think the demise of the
Greenland colonies were no more dramatic than depopulation
of rural areas in mountains and islands today.
Really nothing to write down in sagas and yearbooks.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Kel Rekuta
ED...@gyldendal.dk wrote:
> Really nothing to write down in sagas and yearbooks.
>
> Cheers
> Soren Larsen
I am in complete agreement with you.
Kel
Seppo Renfors
Soren Larsen wrote:
>
> "Yuri Kuchinsky" <yu...@clio.trends.ca> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:4elMa.1470$6B4.40...@news.nnrp.ca...
> > In soc.history.medieval erilar <erila...@spamchibardun.net.invalid>
> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <3F01AE9D...@monarchy.modusvarious.com>, DE Wolf
> > > <capta...@monarchy.modusvarious.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wouldn't it be better to say that it is somewhat hard to
> > > > believe that VIKINGS got *anywhere* in the *14th* century?
> > > > I was under the rather strange impression that Vikings and
> > > > Viking activity (at least as we know it) ceased prior to
> > > > 1300. If this is wrong could someone, other than Inger,
> > > > point me toward the correct information, please?
> > >
> > > It's not a strange impression at all. By the 13th century, when most
> of
> > > the sagas were being written down, the viking expeditions had mostly
> > > petered out, and by the 14th century were over. This sort of reality
> > > check has never bothered KRS acolytes generally, much less Inger and
> her
> > > co-religionists.
> >
> > You really don't know what you're talking about now, erilar, do you?
>
> She does! You otoh know nothing of runes, scandinavian language and
> history as your site evidently shows.
Really! All I see her resort to is abuse usually. Quite frankly she
doesn't know what she talks about. She claims "viking expeditions had
mostly petered out" by the 13th century, and "by the 14th century were
over" - that is to say she claims "Vikings" lasted till the 14th
century! WRONG! The Viking era finished 1050 AD! Supporting ignorance
has a tendency to stain the supporter's credibility as well!
[..]
Tomi A
news:3F06CF1F...@not.ollis.net.au:
> Really! All I see her resort to is abuse usually. Quite frankly she
> doesn't know what she talks about. She claims "viking expeditions had
> mostly petered out" by the 13th century, and "by the 14th century were
> over" - that is to say she claims "Vikings" lasted till the 14th
> century! WRONG! The Viking era finished 1050 AD! Supporting ignorance
> has a tendency to stain the supporter's credibility as well!
In the Baltic Vikings used to mean pirates and piracy was far from over by
14th century; the old tradition lived on very strongly. "Viking age" is a
later constructed name for an certain era whose dating is rather arbitrary
particularly when talking about the Baltic sea. That said, I wouldn't call
a bunch of Norwegians and Gotlanders sailing to America in 14th century
Vikings, that would be against all historical labelling practices I'm
familiar with.
--
T: Tomi
Inger E Johansson
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:3F06CF1F...@not.ollis.net.au...
We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there were NO
VIKINGS AT ALL.
Inger E
>
>
>
>
> [..]
Inger E Johansson
"Tomi A" <tomi...@huuhaa.inet.fiba> skrev i meddelandet
news:Xns93AFA8E...@192.89.123.233...
> Seppo Renfors <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote in
> news:3F06CF1F...@not.ollis.net.au:
>
> > Really! All I see her resort to is abuse usually. Quite frankly she
> > doesn't know what she talks about. She claims "viking expeditions had
> > mostly petered out" by the 13th century, and "by the 14th century were
> > over" - that is to say she claims "Vikings" lasted till the 14th
> > century! WRONG! The Viking era finished 1050 AD! Supporting ignorance
> > has a tendency to stain the supporter's credibility as well!
>
> In the Baltic Vikings used to mean pirates and piracy was far from over by
> 14th century;
Sorry Tomi, the Baltic Viking Age ended much further than the other - No one
before the Communistgroup in Russia and the Baltic(observe not the ordinary
Baltic people) started to deny the Swedes in older history, and that didn't
happen before WW2, no scholar at all spoke of Baltic Vikings that's late
constructions and dreams.
Inger E
Soren Larsen
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:hKKNa.15310$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
>
> "Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3F06CF1F...@not.ollis.net.au...
> >
> > Really! All I see her resort to is abuse usually. Quite frankly she
> > doesn't know what she talks about. She claims "viking expeditions
had
> > mostly petered out" by the 13th century, and "by the 14th century
were
> > over" - that is to say she claims "Vikings" lasted till the 14th
> > century! WRONG! The Viking era finished 1050 AD! Supporting
ignorance
> > has a tendency to stain the supporter's credibility as well!
>
> We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
were NO
> VIKINGS AT ALL.
Really?
That would have surpriced Svein Asleifarson.
"'This was how Svein used to live. Winter he would spend at home on
Gairsay, where he entertained some eighty men at his own expense. His
drinking hall was so big, there was nothing in Orkney to compare with
it. In the spring he had more than enough to occupy him, with a great
deal of seed to sow which he saw to carefully himself. Then when that
job was done, he would go off plundering in the Hebrides and in Ireland
on what he called his 'spring-trip', then back home just after
mid-summer, where he stayed till the cornfields had been reaped and the
grain was safely in. After that he would go off raiding again, and never
came back till the first month of winter was ended. This he used to call
his 'autumn-trip'.'
Orkneyinga Saga, chapter 105"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/loot_06.shtml?site=history_vikings
Svein was killed during a raid on Dublin 1171.
BTW 1066 had nothing to do with Vikings.
Soren Larsen
Tomi A
news:INKNa.15311$mU6....@newsb.telia.net:
> Sorry Tomi, the Baltic Viking Age ended much further than the other -
> No one before the Communistgroup in Russia and the Baltic(observe not
> the ordinary Baltic people) started to deny the Swedes in older
> history, and that didn't happen before WW2, no scholar at all spoke of
> Baltic Vikings that's late constructions and dreams.
The Baltic Sea, not the Baltic countries.
"Viking" being such a hazy word, I can't say whether it's righ or wrong to
talk about "Baltic Vikings", but there were Baltic tradesmen, pirates, and
other violent groups and efforts outside Sweden. Anyway, I didn't write a
word about Baltic Vikings (meaning Vikings from what now are the Baltic
countries).
I'm under the impression that you can find the word "Viking" in medieval
Swedish texts meaning about the same as "pirates" - there is an article
about it somewhere on the Web. The tradesmen - fearing Vikings - were
called Varangians, although I'm sure that Varangians could easily turn into
pirates and vice versa.
Communists have little to do with "rewriting" the Baltic or Swedish
history. The controversy has been going on since at least 17th century,
Swedes (and other "Germanics") on the other side and Russians (and other
Slavs) on the other trying to write the history so that it would better
suit their then exsisting power aspirations or identity crisis. The history
of other cultures in an unfortunate position between the two very
expansionist realms got ground up to almost non-exsistence.
It's rather amazing how slowly this ancient "paradigm" has been changing.
On the other hand, perhaps it just tells that states are not anymore
desperately trying to "steal" history to themselves; prehistorians are
occupied with collecting facts instead of glorifying their countries' past.
Perhaps one day we'll see a new, more balanced synthesis, though. A
synthesis which, for example, will take into account the fact that there
are burial grounds in the eastern Baltic outside Sweden (or Russia) showing
wealth - not size though - comparable to Birka, or that Sweden and Russia
are in fact to a remarkable degree anachronistic concepts.
And Inger, you should really consider changing your views on the Baltic
(pre)history (the area around the eastern Baltic sea). There seems to be
gaping holes in your knowledge regarding these things and strange
anachronistic views ... and besides, you're not actually making friends
acting the way you do.
--
T: Tomi
ED...@gyldendal.dk
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Soren Larsen wrote...
>>
>> BTW 1066 had nothing to do with Vikings.
>
>Harald Hardrada might have had something to say about that!
Would you call him a viking (pirate) to his face?
He was there as the king of Norway leading an invasionarmy.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Inger E Johansson
<ED...@gyldendal.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:3f0965d6...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Apart from that Harald Hardrada died in 1066.....
are Martin trying to say that he lived on as a ghost?
Inger E
>
> Cheers
> Soren Larsen
Martin Reboul
<ED...@gyldendal.dk> wrote in message
news:3f0965d6...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:13:20 +0100, "Martin Reboul"
> <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >
> >Soren Larsen wrote...
> >>
> >> BTW 1066 had nothing to do with Vikings.
> >
> >Harald Hardrada might have had something to say about that!
>
> Would you call him a viking (pirate) to his face?
Not if he really was 6'6" tall! Mind you, he wouldn't have understood me?
> He was there as the king of Norway leading an invasionarmy.
I have seen his force described as 'vikings' here and there over the years.
What actually is the definition of 'Viking' officially? The word seems to be
bandied about to describe any Norse raider from Roman times to the late 15th
century?
Cheers
Martin
Seppo Renfors
...and your story has what relevance exactly?
ED...@gyldendal.dk
<Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
>> were NO
>> > VIKINGS AT ALL.
>>
>> Really?
>> That would have surpriced Svein Asleifarson.
>>
>> "'This was how Svein used to live. Winter he would spend at home on
>> Gairsay, where he entertained some eighty men at his own expense. His
>> drinking hall was so big, there was nothing in Orkney to compare with
>> it. In the spring he had more than enough to occupy him, with a great
>> deal of seed to sow which he saw to carefully himself. Then when that
>> job was done, he would go off plundering in the Hebrides and in Ireland
>> on what he called his 'spring-trip', then back home just after
>> mid-summer, where he stayed till the cornfields had been reaped and the
>> grain was safely in. After that he would go off raiding again, and never
>> came back till the first month of winter was ended. This he used to call
>> his 'autumn-trip'.'
>> Orkneyinga Saga, chapter 105"
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/loot_06.shtml?site=history_vikings
>>
>> Svein was killed during a raid on Dublin 1171.
>>
>> BTW 1066 had nothing to do with Vikings.
>
>
>...and your story has what relevance exactly?
Inger:
" We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
were NO VIKINGS AT ALL."
A) There was indeed vikings after 1066 AD
B) The events of 1066 did not involve vikings.
Soren Larsen
ED...@gyldendal.dk
<mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
><ED...@gyldendal.dk> wrote in message
>news:3f0965d6...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 13:13:20 +0100, "Martin Reboul"
>> <mar...@reboul1471.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Soren Larsen wrote...
>> >>
>> >> BTW 1066 had nothing to do with Vikings.
>> >
>> >Harald Hardrada might have had something to say about that!
>>
>> Would you call him a viking (pirate) to his face?
>
>Not if he really was 6'6" tall! Mind you, he wouldn't have understood me?
He would probably have understood the 'viking' part.
>
>> He was there as the king of Norway leading an invasionarmy.
>
>I have seen his force described as 'vikings' here and there over the years.
And the US army in Iraq is 'crusaders' ;-)
Sometimes the word 'Viking' is used as an ethnic description of
Scandinavians in general but that is not very precise since the
real viking armies also had eg anglosaxons and frisians in the
ranks and only a minority of the Sc's participated in the viking
business.
>What actually is the definition of 'Viking' officially?
Searaider/Seawarrior - not neccesarily negatively loaded but
you shouldn't loosely label your king as 'viking' .
>the word seems to be
>bandied about to describe any Norse raider from Roman times to the late 15th
>century?
If you go for the loose definition of 'viking' then at least Svein
Estrithsens intervention and deal we William and Canute the
Holy's aborted invasion of England should count as post 1066
viking activity.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Inger E Johansson
Problem is that I never before heard Svein being called a Viking. He was
called many things in his life and he wasn't raiding Dublin 1171. He was
trying to retake Dublin lost before. According to some he was about to make
it when he lost his life.
As for 1066 the year do have relevans to the Vikings. According to most
History books the Viking Age ended with Olav Kyrre become Norwegian King.
That he did in 1067 according to most sources.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
<ED...@gyldendal.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:3f096f26...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
You are Danish and thus you have forgotten that Viking Age ended when Olav
Kyrre became King of Norway. That happened in 1067, thus 1066 do have
relevance.
And no there were no Vikings mentioned in Prime sources after 1067, only
Norwegian, Bergener, Orkney Norse, Greenlanders, Danes and Swedes.
Inger E
Inger E Johansson
<ED...@gyldendal.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:3f09702d...@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
Problem with that one. Svein Estrithsen/Estridsen never ever was mention in
his lifetime as a Viking. He was called many things but I never seen him
mentioned in Prime source material as a Viking the way for example
Anluf/Olav Haraldson was.
In some sources an other date than 1066 are mentioned and that is 1050. Same
as you can see in the Norwegian Askers' kommuns page:
http://www.asker.kommune.no/SYMFONI/PUBLIKASJONER.NSF/.vieShowWeb/FF703200DB
3E1BC5C1256D2B0041EEF2?OpenDocument
and in the Royal Norwegian Copenhagen Ambassad's homepage:
www.norsk.dk/cgi-bin/wbch3.exe?d=2250&p=2515
Inger E
Soren Larsen
A) We are discussing when there was no more vikings around not when the
viking age ended.
B) There is no official end of the viking age. Some historians might
use 1067 in their books other particulary older English books would use
1066 .
Most older Danish historians use 1085.
Most modern historians use 'the second half of the 11th c' or something
to that effect.
But all this is of course irrelevant to your braindead claim that after
1066: " there were NO VIKINGS AT ALL."
You have just been given an example of a 12th c viking; Svein
Asleifarson
> And no there were no Vikings mentioned in Prime sources after 1067,
only
> Norwegian, Bergener, Orkney Norse, Greenlanders, Danes and Swedes.
Idiot! You know, I know that material better than you. So why do you
lie?
Heimskringla; (Scaldic verse) on Sigurd Jorsalsfarer post 1110
"Wretched vikings steered against the the mighty king"
Eriksdrapa; (Scaldic verse) on Erik Ejegod post 1095
" The king decisively stopped viking."
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
>
>> > >What actually is the definition of 'Viking' officially?
> >
> > Searaider/Seawarrior - not neccesarily negatively loaded but
> > you shouldn't loosely label your king as 'viking' .
> >
> > >the word seems to be
> > >bandied about to describe any Norse raider from Roman times to the
late
> 15th
> > >century?
> >
> > If you go for the loose definition of 'viking' then at least Svein
> > Estrithsens intervention and deal we William and Canute the
> > Holy's aborted invasion of England should count as post 1066
> > viking activity.
>
> Problem with that one. Svein Estrithsen/Estridsen never ever was
mention in
> his lifetime as a Viking. He was called many things but I never seen
him
> mentioned in Prime source material as a Viking the way for example
> Anluf/Olav Haraldson was.
That my dear Inger is exactly the point. Why should we call king Harald
Hardrada in 1066 a viking, when nobody calls king Canute or Svein
Estrithsen vikings.
All of them where legit christian kings persuing
legit christian king goals in invading the rogue state of England,
trying to depose the tyrants in charge. There might even have been
wmd's involved allthough none have turned up sofar.
>
> In some sources an other date than 1066 are mentioned and that is
1050. Same
> as you can see in the Norwegian Askers' kommuns page:
>
>
http://www.asker.kommune.no/SYMFONI/PUBLIKASJONER.NSF/.vieShowWeb/FF703200DB
> 3E1BC5C1256D2B0041EEF2?OpenDocument
Sure.
And here I give you the local history page of Bremdal, Denmark
http://www.bremdal.com/lokal/frame2-5-2.html
Which claim that the vikingage ended in 1085.
Sofar all we have shown is that localhistorians in Norway read
Norwegian books and that their counterparts in Denmark read
Danish books.
>
> and in the Royal Norwegian Copenhagen Ambassad's homepage:
> www.norsk.dk/cgi-bin/wbch3.exe?d=2250&p=2515
>
And here the danish portal 'The study zone"
http://www.studiezonen.dk/noter/historie/de_haerger_og_de_braender.htm
Going for 1085
It is completely arbitrary.
Soren Larsen
Kåre A. Lie
wrote:
>> And no there were no Vikings mentioned in Prime sources after 1067,
>only
>> Norwegian, Bergener, Orkney Norse, Greenlanders, Danes and Swedes.
>
>Idiot! You know, I know that material better than you. So why do you
>lie?
>
>Heimskringla; (Scaldic verse) on Sigurd Jorsalsfarer post 1110
>
>"Wretched vikings steered against the the mighty king"
Since there are those who only accept "Prime sources", here is the
relevant verse:
Svo segir Halldór skvaldri:
Og fádýrir fóru,
Fjölnis hróts, að móti,
vígásum hlóð vísi,
víkingar gram ríkum.
Náði her að hrjóða,
hlaut drengja vinr fengi,
fyrðum hollr, þar er félla
fátt lið, galeiðr átta.
Yours,
Kåre A. Lie
http://alberlie.home.online.no
------------------------------------------------------
Að forðast allt hið illa, fullkomna sig í góðleikanum
og hreinsa hugsanir sínar - þetta er kenning hinna Vöknuðu.
Soren Larsen
"Kåre A. Lie" <albe...@online.no> skrev i en meddelelse
news:oa7jgv4jaq17iostr...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:31:21 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >> And no there were no Vikings mentioned in Prime sources after 1067,
> >only
> >> Norwegian, Bergener, Orkney Norse, Greenlanders, Danes and Swedes.
> >
> >Idiot! You know, I know that material better than you. So why do you
> >lie?
> >
> >Heimskringla; (Scaldic verse) on Sigurd Jorsalsfarer post 1110
> >
> >"Wretched vikings steered against the the mighty king"
>
> Since there are those who only accept "Prime sources", here is the
> relevant verse:
>
> Svo segir Halldór skvaldri:
>
> Og fádýrir fóru,
> Fjölnis hróts, að móti,
> vígásum hlóð vísi,
> víkingar gram ríkum.
> Náði her að hrjóða,
> hlaut drengja vinr fengi,
> fyrðum hollr, þar er félla
> fátt lið, galeiðr átta.
Thanks
We would not want to disappoint those picky people.
So here goes from Eriksdrapa:
Vorgum eyddi Vinða fergir.
Víking hepti konungr fíkjum.
Þjófa hendr lét þengill stýfa.
Þegnum kunni ósid hegna
From Jesch.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Inger E Johansson
"Kåre A. Lie" <albe...@online.no> skrev i meddelandet
news:oa7jgv4jaq17iostr...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 17:31:21 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >> And no there were no Vikings mentioned in Prime sources after 1067,
> >only
> >> Norwegian, Bergener, Orkney Norse, Greenlanders, Danes and Swedes.
> >
> >Idiot! You know, I know that material better than you. So why do you
> >lie?
> >
> >Heimskringla; (Scaldic verse) on Sigurd Jorsalsfarer post 1110
> >
> >"Wretched vikings steered against the the mighty king"
>
> Since there are those who only accept "Prime sources", here is the
> relevant verse:
>
> Svo segir Halldór skvaldri:
>
> Og fádýrir fóru,
> Fjölnis hróts, að móti,
> vígásum hlóð vísi,
> víkingar gram ríkum.
> Náði her að hrjóða,
> hlaut drengja vinr fengi,
> fyrðum hollr, þar er félla
> fátt lið, galeiðr átta.
>
> Yours,
> Kåre A. Lie
Kåre och du vet vad jag tycker om Isländska sagor, samma gäller för de
norska kungasagorna.... icke samtida, inte Primär källor!
Inger E
Tomi A
> Kåre och du vet vad jag tycker om Isländska sagor, samma gäller för de
> norska kungasagorna.... icke samtida, inte Primär källor!
Every source is a primary source.
--
T: Tomi
Soren Larsen
Which is why we are presenting you with _scaldic verses_ wich are
concidered contemporary primary sources!
Soren Larsen
Inger E Johansson
"Tomi A" <tomi...@huuhaa.inet.fiba> skrev i meddelandet
NO TOMI !!!
A Prime source is always a contemporary source and in History if we are to
speak of strict terms a Prime source is a first hand source - a witness
'report' of an event.
Inger E
>
> --
> T: Tomi
Tomi A
>> Every source is a primary source.
>
> NO TOMI !!!
> A Prime source is always a contemporary source and in History if we are
> to speak of strict terms a Prime source is a first hand source - a
> witness 'report' of an event.
But an non-contemporary source is an impossibility. Me writing: "viking" is
a contemporary source telling that I know the word here and now ...
[speculations on philosophy of history pre-snipped].
--
T: Tomi
Inger E Johansson
"Tomi A" <tomi...@huuhaa.inet.fiba> skrev i meddelandet
Tomi now you are kidding, aren't you????
A primary source of an event in the past is always an eyewitness account of
the event. We can use other contemporary sources(contemporary of the event)
as our 'prime source' that's not the same thing.
Secondary sources are sources where someone else wrote down what an
eyewitness saw. Most contemporary sources of an event are secondary sources,
no matter if they are used as if they were Prime sources.
Modern works are Modern works and nothing else.
Tomi A
My point was to point out - in an unnecessery complicated manner - that the
Icelandic sagas are contemporay in the sense that they are at least telling
about the author and what he knew and thought - about Vikings - in the 13th
century. Thus: whether a source is primary or not depends on the questions
asked not the source itself.
But I will not object if you tell me that I changed the subject. I suppose
I did; I was thinking about the idea of "Vikingness" during the Middle Age
while others were apprently talking about the Vikings themselves and their
disappearance.
--
T: Tomi
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Speaking from total ignorance (and not being able to understand them
anyway), when were they written and what period do they refer to?
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Which is why we are presenting you with _scaldic verses_ wich are
>concidered contemporary primary sources!
Surely these are no more 'prime sources' than is the Illiad a 'prime
source' for the seige of Troy.
The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be guaranteed
if they have been passed from bard to bard over centuries. No doubt
the bards feel obliged to maintain the essential core of the story but
it is likely that many have yielded to the tempation to make the story
even better.
That they are both the oldest and the best sources that we have for
the events they describe, does not automatically make them 'prime
sources'.
Eric Stevens
Soren Larsen
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
news:efkjgvoava0v9fht6...@4ax.com...
1110 and around 1100
Contemporary praises for Sigurd Jorsalsfarer(Jerusalemsfarer)
and Erik Ejegod (Evergood).
Kings defeating vikings
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
news:ulkjgv81hckjpm17q...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:24:07 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >Which is why we are presenting you with _scaldic verses_ wich are
> >concidered contemporary primary sources!
>
> Surely these are no more 'prime sources' than is the Illiad a 'prime
> source' for the seige of Troy.
Bollocks.
The Illiad is supposed to be composed afair 4-500 y after the event it
describes.
Are you suggesting that these verses was composed around 15-1600AD?
>>> The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be guaranteed
> if they have been passed from bard to bard over centuries.
They have not.
Eriksdrapa is around 1100 and Sigurd's verse is from around 1110
well _within_ the litterary tradition. and at the _end_ of the scaldic
tradition.
> No doubt
> the bards feel obliged to maintain the essential core of the story but
> it is likely that many have yielded to the tempation to make the story
> even better.
Scaldic verses are indeed concidered mostly unaltered from
even older periods.
They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
it preserves archaic language.
>
> That they are both the oldest and the best sources that we have for
> the events they describe, does not automatically make them 'prime
> sources'.
To the existence of vikings during the reign of these kings they are.
The value of a source depends on what you are trying to establish.
Anyway. I would only be happy if you could show that later
scalds concidered it a royal deed to fight vikings.
Sadly the Scaldic verse tradition _ends_ in this period, so
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:ulkjgv81hckjpm17q...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:24:07 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Which is why we are presenting you with _scaldic verses_ wich are
>> >concidered contemporary primary sources!
>>
>> Surely these are no more 'prime sources' than is the Illiad a 'prime
>> source' for the seige of Troy.
>
>Bollocks.
>
>The Illiad is supposed to be composed afair 4-500 y after the event it
>describes.
>
>Are you suggesting that these verses was composed around 15-1600AD?
Don't be bloody silly!
>
>
>>>> The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be guaranteed
>> if they have been passed from bard to bard over centuries.
>
>They have not.
Well, that answers to my objection.
I don't know why you seem to substitute rancour for reason.
>
>Eriksdrapa is around 1100 and Sigurd's verse is from around 1110
>well _within_ the litterary tradition. and at the _end_ of the scaldic
>tradition.
>
>> No doubt
>> the bards feel obliged to maintain the essential core of the story but
>> it is likely that many have yielded to the tempation to make the story
>> even better.
>
>Scaldic verses are indeed concidered mostly unaltered from
>even older periods.
That's OK if you can establish that by older written sources. While
I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
necessarily applies to bards.
>
>They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>it preserves archaic language.
I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
where all this started.
>
>>
>> That they are both the oldest and the best sources that we have for
>> the events they describe, does not automatically make them 'prime
>> sources'.
>
>To the existence of vikings during the reign of these kings they are.
>The value of a source depends on what you are trying to establish.
No argument. However, for example, the sagas are not prime sources for
the events in Iceland and Greenland. They are prime sources for the
text of the sagas only.
>
>Anyway. I would only be happy if you could show that later
>scalds concidered it a royal deed to fight vikings.
I don't know why I should want to do that.
>
>Sadly the Scaldic verse tradition _ends_ in this period, so
Eric Stevens
Soren Larsen
> >>
> >> Surely these are no more 'prime sources' than is the Illiad a
'prime
> >> source' for the seige of Troy.
> >
> >Bollocks.
> >
> >The Illiad is supposed to be composed afair 4-500 y after the event
it
> >describes.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that these verses was composed around 15-1600AD?
>
> Don't be bloody silly!
You see no difference between a contemporary source and one composed
half a millenium after the event?
Who is bloody silly?
> >
> >
> >>>> The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be
guaranteed
> >> if they have been passed from bard to bard over centuries.
> >
> >They have not.
>
> Well, that answers to my objection.
>
> I don't know why you seem to substitute rancour for reason.
> >
> >Eriksdrapa is around 1100 and Sigurd's verse is from around 1110
> >well _within_ the litterary tradition. and at the _end_ of the
scaldic
> >tradition.
What is rancid in the above?
> >
> >> No doubt
> >> the bards feel obliged to maintain the essential core of the story
but
> >> it is likely that many have yielded to the tempation to make the
story
> >> even better.
> >
> >Scaldic verses are indeed concidered mostly unaltered from
> >even older periods.
>
> That's OK if you can establish that by older written sources. While
> I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
> history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
> necessarily applies to bards.
Not many later scalds in this tradition so the point is irrelevant.
> >
> >They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
> >and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
> >it preserves archaic language.
>
> I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
> establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
> where all this started.
Bollocks. The crosschecking supports the validity of the verses.
Anyway this is concerning older verses.
> >
> >>
> >> That they are both the oldest and the best sources that we have for
> >> the events they describe, does not automatically make them 'prime
> >> sources'.
> >
> >To the existence of vikings during the reign of these kings they are.
> >The value of a source depends on what you are trying to establish.
>
> No argument. However, for example, the sagas are not prime sources for
> the events in Iceland and Greenland. They are prime sources for the
> text of the sagas only.
Please try to understand this very simple point:
The scaldic verses are contemporary and are describing what was
expected of a particular king or what he had done. Either way the
verses supports the existence of vikings around 1100.
The sagas are totally irrelevant.
> >
> >Anyway. I would only be happy if you could show that later
> >scalds concidered it a royal deed to fight vikings.
>
> I don't know why I should want to do that.
Neither do I, but you seem to suspect that the verses are younger
than 1100. Be my guest.
Torsten Poulin
> Scaldic verses are indeed concidered mostly unaltered from
> even older periods.
>
> They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
> and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
> it preserves archaic language.
Yes, there is no doubt those features helped preserve them. The
desire and ability to preserve tradition in oral cultures, even
without such "techniques", is probably underestimated in our
times.
In "Eskimoiske Eventyr og Sagn" published in 1866, H. Rink notes
that of a number of tales recorded in Labrador and Greenland,
about half are more or less in agreement. Furthermore, he wrote
that, "In certain aspects of the tales, for example when a
person is quoted, the agreement is so astonishing that one could
be tempted to assume that the differences arose only by an
imperfection of the *last* storyteller, after whom or by whom
the legend has been written down [...]. Because if even a very
slight desire to embellish the old legends had asserted itself,
they would have been bound to become utterly different over the
course of 1000 years, and no likeness between the Greenlandic
and Labradorian ones would be recognizable."
Since I am not much of a translator, here is the same excerpt
in Rink's own words: "Paa enkelte Punkter af Fortællingerne,
f. Ex. naar en Person anføres talende, er Overeensstemmelsen
endog saa forbausende, at man skulde fristes til at antage at
Ulighederne kun ere opstaaede ved en Ufuldkommenhed hos den
*sidste* Fortæller, efter hvem eller af hvem Sagnet er opskrevet
[...]. Thi hvis en nok saa ringe Lyst til at udsmykke de gamle
Sagn havde gjort sig gjældende, maatte de jo i Løbet af 1000
Aar være blevne aldeles forskjellige, og ingen Lighed mellem de
grønlandske og de labradorske mere kjendelig."
--
Torsten
Inger E Johansson
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i meddelandet
news:h0pjgvgsf4brqfuec...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:14:56 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
> >news:ulkjgv81hckjpm17q...@4ax.com...
> >> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 20:24:07 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Which is why we are presenting you with _scaldic verses_ wich are
> >> >concidered contemporary primary sources!
> >>
> >> Surely these are no more 'prime sources' than is the Illiad a 'prime
> >> source' for the seige of Troy.
> >
> >Bollocks.
> >
> >The Illiad is supposed to be composed afair 4-500 y after the event it
> >describes.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that these verses was composed around 15-1600AD?
>
> Don't be bloody silly!
> >
> >
> >>>> The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be guaranteed
> >> if they have been passed from bard to bard over centuries.
> >
> >They have not.
>
> Well, that answers to my objection.
>
> I don't know why you seem to substitute rancour for reason.
> >
> >Eriksdrapa is around 1100 and Sigurd's verse is from around 1110
> >well _within_ the litterary tradition. and at the _end_ of the scaldic
> >tradition.
That's not correct at all. It's believed that they were traded oraly from
those periods up to that point what Soren say is partly correct, but if you
read Prof. Gustav Storm's 'Monumenta Historica Norvegiae, Latinske
Kildeskrifter till Norges Historie i Middelalderen, Kristiania 1880,
and in
Johan Schreiner's Tradisjon og saga om Olav den hellige, Oslo 1926,
the scholars directly say that none of the King's Saga's Norway's were
written down before more than 100 years had passed since the event. For
older Kings such as Saint Olav it's believed that there might have existed
an early version. Later Kings' sagas aren't the same in that respect.
Inger E
Brian M. Scott
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
[...]
>While
>I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
>history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
>necessarily applies to bards.
That has to be one of your silliest statements yet. Who better
than persons with trained memories?
>>They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>>and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>>it preserves archaic language.
>I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
>establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
>where all this started.
Rubbish. *All* evidence must be cross-checked; do you hold
therefore that there are no 'prime sources'?
[...]
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
>"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> skrev i en meddelelse
>news:h0pjgvgsf4brqfuec...@4ax.com...
>
>> >>
>> >> Surely these are no more 'prime sources' than is the Illiad a
>'prime
>> >> source' for the seige of Troy.
>> >
>> >Bollocks.
>> >
>> >The Illiad is supposed to be composed afair 4-500 y after the event
>it
>> >describes.
>> >
>> >Are you suggesting that these verses was composed around 15-1600AD?
>>
>> Don't be bloody silly!
>
>You see no difference between a contemporary source and one composed
>half a millenium after the event?
>
>Who is bloody silly?
I would suggest that it might be the person who cannot tell the
difference between something composed at the time by an eyewitness and
an author who wrote down a story that had been passed on orally for
several centuries.
>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >>>> The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be
>guaranteed
>> >> if they have been passed from bard to bard over centuries.
>> >
>> >They have not.
>>
>> Well, that answers to my objection.
>>
>> I don't know why you seem to substitute rancour for reason.
>> >
>> >Eriksdrapa is around 1100 and Sigurd's verse is from around 1110
>> >well _within_ the litterary tradition. and at the _end_ of the
>scaldic
>> >tradition.
>
>What is rancid in the above?
'rancour' = 'anger' or 'bad temper'. I don't know whether you mean it
or not but you come through to me as being harsh and agressive.
>
>
>> >
>> >> No doubt
>> >> the bards feel obliged to maintain the essential core of the story
>but
>> >> it is likely that many have yielded to the tempation to make the
>story
>> >> even better.
>> >
>> >Scaldic verses are indeed concidered mostly unaltered from
>> >even older periods.
>>
>> That's OK if you can establish that by older written sources. While
>> I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
>> history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
>> necessarily applies to bards.
>
>Not many later scalds in this tradition so the point is irrelevant.
Once it is written down the problem ceases. The question is about the
distortion which might already be incorporated.
>
>
>> >
>> >They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>> >and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>> >it preserves archaic language.
>>
>> I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
>> establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
>> where all this started.
>
>Bollocks. The crosschecking supports the validity of the verses.
>
>Anyway this is concerning older verses.
If they were the original there wouold be nothing to cross check them
against. Unless of course several bards wrote about the same events.
>
>
>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> That they are both the oldest and the best sources that we have for
>> >> the events they describe, does not automatically make them 'prime
>> >> sources'.
>> >
>> >To the existence of vikings during the reign of these kings they are.
>> >The value of a source depends on what you are trying to establish.
>>
>> No argument. However, for example, the sagas are not prime sources for
>> the events in Iceland and Greenland. They are prime sources for the
>> text of the sagas only.
>
>Please try to understand this very simple point:
>
>The scaldic verses are contemporary ...
That's what I didn't know and is the point I have already accepted.
> ... and are describing what was
>expected of a particular king or what he had done. Either way the
>verses supports the existence of vikings around 1100.
>
>The sagas are totally irrelevant.
But not to the question of what is and what is not a 'prime source'.
>
>
>> >
>> >Anyway. I would only be happy if you could show that later
>> >scalds concidered it a royal deed to fight vikings.
>>
>> I don't know why I should want to do that.
>
>Neither do I, but you seem to suspect that the verses are younger
>than 1100. Be my guest.
I thought they were. I have since accepted your correction.
>
>> >
>> >Sadly the Scaldic verse tradition _ends_ in this period, so
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:38:24 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>While
>>I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
>>history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
>>necessarily applies to bards.
>
>That has to be one of your silliest statements yet. Who better
>than persons with trained memories?
This is a typical stupidly belligerent statement from you. People with
trained meories are fine but did you not understand what I meant when
I previously wrote:
"The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be
guaranteed if they have been passed from bard to bard
over centuries. No doubt the bards feel obliged to maintain
the essential core of the story but it is likely that many have
yielded to the tempation to make the story even better.
That they are both the oldest and the best sources that we
have for the events they describe, does not automatically
make them 'prime sources'. "
>
>>>They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>>>and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>>>it preserves archaic language.
>
>>I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
>>establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
>>where all this started.
>
>Rubbish. *All* evidence must be cross-checked; do you hold
>therefore that there are no 'prime sources'?
We were discussing scaldic verses. If you have multiple copies then
obviously you may not have the original.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Søren Larsen wrote:
>
>> Scaldic verses are indeed concidered mostly unaltered from
>> even older periods.
>>
>> They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>> and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>> it preserves archaic language.
>
>Yes, there is no doubt those features helped preserve them. The
>desire and ability to preserve tradition in oral cultures, even
>without such "techniques", is probably underestimated in our
>times.
The discussion started with the question of what is and what is not a
'prime source'. My concern has never been with the accuracy of scaldic
verses once they have been written down but with what might have
happened to the story before that. This is why I questioned whether or
not they should be regarded as 'prime sources'.
>
>In "Eskimoiske Eventyr og Sagn" published in 1866, H. Rink notes
>that of a number of tales recorded in Labrador and Greenland,
>about half are more or less in agreement. Furthermore, he wrote
>that, "In certain aspects of the tales, for example when a
>person is quoted, the agreement is so astonishing that one could
>be tempted to assume that the differences arose only by an
>imperfection of the *last* storyteller, after whom or by whom
>the legend has been written down [...]. Because if even a very
>slight desire to embellish the old legends had asserted itself,
>they would have been bound to become utterly different over the
>course of 1000 years, and no likeness between the Greenlandic
>and Labradorian ones would be recognizable."
>
>Since I am not much of a translator, here is the same excerpt
>in Rink's own words: "Paa enkelte Punkter af Fortællingerne,
>f. Ex. naar en Person anføres talende, er Overeensstemmelsen
>endog saa forbausende, at man skulde fristes til at antage at
>Ulighederne kun ere opstaaede ved en Ufuldkommenhed hos den
>*sidste* Fortæller, efter hvem eller af hvem Sagnet er opskrevet
>[...]. Thi hvis en nok saa ringe Lyst til at udsmykke de gamle
>Sagn havde gjort sig gjældende, maatte de jo i Løbet af 1000
>Aar være blevne aldeles forskjellige, og ingen Lighed mellem de
>grønlandske og de labradorske mere kjendelig."
Eric Stevens
Brian M. Scott
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:15:52 GMT, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
>wrote:
>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:38:24 +1200, Eric Stevens
>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>While
>>>I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
>>>history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
>>>necessarily applies to bards.
>>That has to be one of your silliest statements yet. Who better
>>than persons with trained memories?
>This is a typical stupidly belligerent statement from you. People with
>trained meories are fine but did you not understand what I meant when
>I previously wrote:
> "The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be
> guaranteed if they have been passed from bard to bard
> over centuries. No doubt the bards feel obliged to maintain
> the essential core of the story but it is likely that many have
> yielded to the tempation to make the story even better.
I understood it. Part of it is irrelevant -- the verses under
discussion were not 'passed from bard to bard over centuries' --
and part of it is a demonstration of ignorance both of the nature
of the bardic tradition and of the evidence for accurate
transmission. You appear to be investing them with modern
motivations.
[...]
>>>>They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>>>>and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>>>>it preserves archaic language.
>>>I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
>>>establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
>>>where all this started.
>>Rubbish. *All* evidence must be cross-checked; do you hold
>>therefore that there are no 'prime sources'?
>We were discussing scaldic verses. If you have multiple copies then
>obviously you may not have the original.
So what? Or are you relying on Inger the Ignorant for your
definitions?
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:20:57 +1200, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 22:15:52 GMT, b.s...@csuohio.edu (Brian M. Scott)
>>wrote:
>
>>>On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 09:38:24 +1200, Eric Stevens
>>><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>>While
>>>>I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to convey
>>>>history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
>>>>necessarily applies to bards.
>
>>>That has to be one of your silliest statements yet. Who better
>>>than persons with trained memories?
>
>>This is a typical stupidly belligerent statement from you. People with
>>trained meories are fine but did you not understand what I meant when
>>I previously wrote:
>
>> "The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be
>> guaranteed if they have been passed from bard to bard
>> over centuries. No doubt the bards feel obliged to maintain
>> the essential core of the story but it is likely that many have
>> yielded to the tempation to make the story even better.
>
>I understood it. Part of it is irrelevant -- the verses under
>discussion were not 'passed from bard to bard over centuries' --
Interestingle enough, Soren Larsen was able to tell me that this was
the case without implying stupidity on my part.
> ... and part of it is a demonstration of ignorance both of the nature
>of the bardic tradition and of the evidence for accurate
>transmission.
I don't share the single minded view that you seem to have on this
matter. There are some circumstances when oral transmission can be
very accurate but this is not the case when telling a good story is
one of the objectives. Enhancements of many such stories are known and
academic careers have been made distinguishing the add-ons from the
original of Homer.
>You appear to be investing them with modern
>motivations.
They were human.
>
>[...]
>
>>>>>They can be crosschecked when they are cited in different works
>>>>>and the rigid nature of the verses make them hard to change and
>>>>>it preserves archaic language.
>
>>>>I take your point with respect to that but the need for cross-checking
>>>>establishes that they are not necessarily 'prime sources' which is
>>>>where all this started.
>
>>>Rubbish. *All* evidence must be cross-checked; do you hold
>>>therefore that there are no 'prime sources'?
>
>>We were discussing scaldic verses. If you have multiple copies then
>>obviously you may not have the original.
>
>So what? Or are you relying on Inger the Ignorant for your
>definitions?
Logic.
How can you be sure you have the original if there are multiple copies
in existence?
Eric Stevens
Thomas McDonald
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gfkkgvsoovda4siut...@4ax.com...
Eric,
Doesn't this seem to be the kind of thing one could ask about? You seem
to be thinking that the 'bards' we're talking about were the sort of folks
who go from hearth-fire to hearth-fire, with a primary intent to entertain,
perhaps adding entertainment value by spicing the story up a bit.
I'd like to know if that is the case with the class of bards under
discussion. Certainly, for the Druids, bards were a class of Druids who
both learned by heart the history of the past, in detail, and without
variation; and also composed poetry for various purposes (one type being to
belittle powerful men who abused their authority--these guys were powers in
their own right). Also, some of the African oral historians maintained
extremely accurate histories of their people for spans of hundreds of years.
In both these cases, the position of story-teller was combined with that of
historian; and one got to be a revered person by absolute accuracy of
recall, not by spicing the story up.
I'd like to ask those as might know what the tradition of scaldic bards
was at the relevant time; and, if known, what genre the verses we are
discussing belong to. That could tell us what we need to know to understand
the primacy of the sources; they might indeed be the equivalent of copies of
a written narrative from an earlier time. If they are, they can be
considered as much primary sources as, for instance, a 5th century copy of
the Septuagenet (sp?).
Tom McDonald
Inger E Johansson
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:4VtOa.256$zu1....@reggie.win.bright.net...
Sorry Tom,
but bards and druids can be as good as possibilities give them a chance to
be - they can on the other hand never ever be valued as a prime source of an
event they never themself seen. Reason for this is in their function. They
weren't supposed to give an objective view on an event. Some of them were
hired to present a view in the likeing of their employer. This was the case
with some of the Norwegian Kings. One of them had two bards employed but
neither of them were brought with him on the voyages we today hear refered
to. Some other were good observators but you have to know if the skaldir or
bard that are given the credit of this and that text ever met or had a
chance to meet a first hand witness. If they didn't the value of the drapa
etc is zero. If they had you might be able to track part of the truth, but
only might be able to you can never be sure without text-valuation. In
neither case their values are low very very low.
Inger E
>
> Tom McDonald
>
>
Brian M. Scott
You've changed your tune a bit since your response to him.
You're also confusing ignorance with stupidity.
>> > ... and part of it is a demonstration of ignorance both of the nature
>> >of the bardic tradition and of the evidence for accurate
>> >transmission.
>> I don't share the single minded view that you seem to have on this
>> matter.
Single-minded? No, I just happen to know a little about the
subject, though certainly not so much as Soren.
>>There are some circumstances when oral transmission can be
>> very accurate but this is not the case when telling a good story is
>> one of the objectives.
That obviously depends on the storytelling tradition. In many
cases what you have are traditional bits of poetry embedded in
prose.
[...]
>> >You appear to be investing them with modern
>> >motivations.
>> They were human.
Indeed. Have you the slightest idea how *little* that says? How
much variation there is in human culture over space and time?
(Probably not; I don't remember that you were much bothered by
Steve's ancient Egyptian 'military-industrial complex'.)
> Doesn't this seem to be the kind of thing one could ask about? You seem
>to be thinking that the 'bards' we're talking about were the sort of folks
>who go from hearth-fire to hearth-fire, with a primary intent to entertain,
>perhaps adding entertainment value by spicing the story up a bit.
As the term is usually used now, the skalds were basically court
poets. Skaldic poetry is extremely complex and artificial,
subject to very rigid rules; this alone tends to guard it against
casual change. (The amazing thing is that anyone could
understand some of this stuff as it was spoken: in some forms you
get parts of several sentences interweaving and have to keep them
straight.)
[...]
Brian
Brian M. Scott
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
[...]
>>>We were discussing scaldic verses. If you have multiple copies then
>>>obviously you may not have the original.
>>So what? Or are you relying on Inger the Ignorant for your
>>definitions?
>Logic.
>How can you be sure you have the original if there are multiple copies
>in existence?
Ah. You're relying on ItI. Never mind.
Thomas McDonald
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:iCuOa.15560$mU6....@newsb.telia.net...
Inger,
We are speaking of specific scaldic verses here. Do you know if those
specific verses were composed by someone who was an eye-witness, and then
passed down via strict word-for-word repetition in a specific tradition that
valued accuracy over novelty? Or were these specific verses composed by
someone who _was told about the event by a participant_, and then made the
verses? If you know, I'd like to hear it. If you don't know specifically
about these verses, I don't see how your comment is relevant.
Tom McDonald
Inger E Johansson
Their value is always low if we look at them from a text-valuation
perspective. I have proven that myself for specific texts but it was far
better proven long ago by the Professors Weibull, brothers and sons.
Inger E
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>The amazing thing is that anyone could
>understand some of this stuff as it was spoken: in some forms you
>get parts of several sentences interweaving and have to keep them
>straight.
I get the impression that a lot of internet discussions seem that way
to you. :-(
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>
Pellion on Ossa.
How many nits can you pick on the head of a pin?
Eric Stevens
Torsten Poulin
> Skaldic poetry is extremely complex and artificial, subject to
> very rigid rules; this alone tends to guard it against casual
> change. (The amazing thing is that anyone could understand some
> of this stuff as it was spoken: in some forms you get parts of
> several sentences interweaving and have to keep them straight.)
Indeed. Consider this dróttkvætt stanza by Þjóðólfr Hvinverski:
Þyrmðit Baldrs of barmi,
berg, solgnum þar dolgi,
hritusk björg ok brustu,
brann upphiminn, manna;
mjök frák móti hrøkkva
myrkbeins Haka reinar,
þás vígligan, vagna
vátt, sinn, bana þátti.
Let's change the word order to that of prose:
Baldrs of barmi þyrmðit Baldur's brother did not spare
þar solgnum dolgi manna; the fierce enemy of man there;
berg hritusk ok björg brustu; mountains shook and rocks broke;
upphiminn brann; the sky burned;
ek frá Haka vagna I know that Haka's wagons'
reinar myrkbeins vátt field's dark bone's witness
hrøkkva mjök móti, þá es moved violently in position, when he
þátti sinn vígligan bana. saw his warlike slayer.
It basically boils down to: Thor did not spare the giant,
mountains shook and rocks broke, the sky burned; I have heard
that Hrungnir was prepared when he saw Thor.
It really should be evident to anybody who takes the time to
compare Þjóðólf's stanza and the rearranged version, that it is
*very* hard to change without ruining it. As Brian wrote, the
sentences are interwoven.
Sá er óðinn skal vandan velja,
velr svá mörg í kvæði at selja
hulin fornyrði, at trautt má telja;
tel ek þenna svá skilning dvelja.
Vel því at hér má skýr orð skilja,
skili þjóðir minn ljósan vilja,
tal óbreytiligt veitt af vilja:
vil ek, at kvæðið heiti Lilja.
(Eysteinn Ásgrímsson, Lilja)
--
Torsten
Bryn Fraser
<t_usen...@hotmail.com> writes
That's a keeper... Thanks
--
Bryn Fraser
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" Bill Clinton
The Good Old Days...
Seppo Renfors
ED...@gyldendal.dk wrote:
>
> On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 12:46:17 GMT, Seppo Renfors
> <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> >
> >> > We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
> >> were NO
> >> > VIKINGS AT ALL.
> >>
> >> Really?
> >> That would have surpriced Svein Asleifarson.
> >>
> >> "'This was how Svein used to live. Winter he would spend at home on
> >> Gairsay, where he entertained some eighty men at his own expense. His
> >> drinking hall was so big, there was nothing in Orkney to compare with
> >> it. In the spring he had more than enough to occupy him, with a great
> >> deal of seed to sow which he saw to carefully himself. Then when that
> >> job was done, he would go off plundering in the Hebrides and in Ireland
> >> on what he called his 'spring-trip', then back home just after
> >> mid-summer, where he stayed till the cornfields had been reaped and the
> >> grain was safely in. After that he would go off raiding again, and never
> >> came back till the first month of winter was ended. This he used to call
> >> his 'autumn-trip'.'
> >> Orkneyinga Saga, chapter 105"
> >>
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/lj/conquestlj/loot_06.shtml?site=history_vikings
> >>
> >> Svein was killed during a raid on Dublin 1171.
> >>
> >> BTW 1066 had nothing to do with Vikings.
> >
> >
> >...and your story has what relevance exactly?
>
> Inger:
>
> " We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
> were NO VIKINGS AT ALL."
>
> A) There was indeed vikings after 1066 AD
> B) The events of 1066 did not involve vikings.
>
> Soren Larsen
First of all I'm not Inger, secondly how about answering the question,
eh? It wasn't too hard for you was it?
Soren Larsen
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> skrev i en meddelelse
news:3F0AE08B...@not.ollis.net.au...
>
>
> ED...@gyldendal.dk wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >...and your story has what relevance exactly?
> >
> > Inger:
> >
> > " We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
> > were NO VIKINGS AT ALL."
> >
> > A) There was indeed vikings after 1066 AD
> > B) The events of 1066 did not involve vikings.
> >
> > Soren Larsen
>
>
> First of all I'm not Inger,
Nah You are Seppo the Clown. Do you do birthdays?
I know this dobermann who deserves a bit of fun on his big day.
BTW Look carefully Seps and you will discover a colon after
'Inger'. I was not adressing you but quoting Inger.
> secondly how about answering the question,
> eh? It wasn't too hard for you was it?
Read the post again pinhead. If you fail to see the
relevance again then it is too bad. Everybody else
in the thread got it the first time.
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
"Bryn Fraser" <br...@finhall.demon.co.uk> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1nza$mL2FrC$Ew...@finhall.demon.co.uk...
If you liked that, then take a look at this site:
http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/
It is incredible what this guy has up.
I'm drooling over the online 'lexicon poeticum' Old Norse to Danish.
But there is a lot of other interesting stuff in English
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Thomas McDonald
Eric,
Perhaps not quite as many as you can.
Tom McDonald
>
>
>
> Eric Stevens
erilar
(Brian M. Scott) wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 15:20:57 +1200, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> >I previously wrote:
>
> > "The accuracy and reliability of scaldic verses cannot be
> > guaranteed if they have been passed from bard to bard
> > over centuries. No doubt the bards feel obliged to maintain
> > the essential core of the story but it is likely that many have
> > yielded to the tempation to make the story even better.
>
> I understood it. Part of it is irrelevant -- the verses under
> discussion were not 'passed from bard to bard over centuries' --
> and part of it is a demonstration of ignorance both of the nature
> of the bardic tradition and of the evidence for accurate
> transmission. You appear to be investing them with modern
> motivations.
Not only that, but he has obviously never raad any real skaldic poetry
or he'd know it can't be changed without destroying it!
We spent a whole two-hour Hauptseminar session unraveling four lines
more than once with partial success when I was studying it in Bochum.
--
Mary Loomer Oliver(aka erilar)
Erilar's Cave Annex:
http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo
Grethe Bachmann
"Torsten Poulin" <t_usen...@hotmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:bee8j9$42otf$1...@ID-89913.news.dfncis.de...
Thank you! That's a keep too!
Cheers
Grethe
Soren Larsen
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003 23:58:18 +0200, "Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That's OK if you can establish that by older written sources. While
> >> I'm an advocate of the ability of mouth to mouth tradition to
convey
> >> history in the correct circumstances, I'm not too sure that that
> >> necessarily applies to bards.
> >
> >Not many later scalds in this tradition so the point is irrelevant.
>
> Once it is written down the problem ceases. The question is about the
> distortion which might already be incorporated.
Actually the written versions have their problems too.
The scribes in the written tradition was not scalds and they might
have introduced errors exactly because they and their audience
did not know the rigid rules of scaldic poetry.
But the scaldic verses are concidered good material by
the proffesionals:
Judith Jesch on her book 'Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age' in the
article 'Sea-battles in skaldic poetry', 2002.
" My work is closely focused on the period c. 950-1110,"
Note Jesch's period for the late viking age!! She continues:
And is based entirely on what are certainly or argueably
contemporary sources from that period: runic inscriptions
and skaldic verse"
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Soren Larsen
"Thomas McDonald" <ts...@wwt.net> skrev i en meddelelse
news:4VtOa.256$zu1....@reggie.win.bright.net...
>
>
> Eric,
>
> Doesn't this seem to be the kind of thing one could ask about?
You seem
> to be thinking that the 'bards' we're talking about were the sort of
folks
> who go from hearth-fire to hearth-fire, with a primary intent to
entertain,
> perhaps adding entertainment value by spicing the story up a bit.
Nope. The were high status types who hanged around kings and other
magnates. They would absolutely put a positive spin on events when
they made "praise poems" for their patrons.
But they would not invent episodes that never happened since these
poems was meant to be performed in front of the actual participants.
The scalds themselves would in many cases double as fighters in
the kings retinue.
Snorri Sturlasson in the preface to Heimskringla after expressing
some doubts regarding the family sagas.
"We took most information from the (scaldic) verses that was
performed for the chiefs or their sons. Everything in these poems
about battles and travels we regarded as truthful.
It might be the way of the scald to praise the man he is
facing, but nobody will praise a man for something he never
did when all the listeners knows it to be nothing but lies
and bragging. That would be mocking not praise.
My paraphrase
>
> I'd like to know if that is the case with the class of bards under
> discussion. Certainly, for the Druids, bards were a class of Druids
who
> both learned by heart the history of the past, in detail, and without
> variation; and also composed poetry for various purposes (one type
being to
> belittle powerful men who abused their authority--these guys were
powers in
> their own right).
The scalds would do this too.
> Also, some of the African oral historians maintained
> extremely accurate histories of their people for spans of hundreds of
years.
> In both these cases, the position of story-teller was combined with
that of
> historian; and one got to be a revered person by absolute accuracy of
> recall, not by spicing the story up.
>
> I'd like to ask those as might know what the tradition of scaldic
bards
> was at the relevant time; and, if known, what genre the verses we are
> discussing belong to. That could tell us what we need to know to
understand
> the primacy of the sources; they might indeed be the equivalent of
copies of
> a written narrative from an earlier time. If they are, they can be
> considered as much primary sources as, for instance, a 5th century
copy of
> the Septuagenet (sp?).
The topics was very limited in the scaldic verses: battles, travels,
generosity
and other king stuff. But the battles and travels are usually
verifiable.
King Erik is mentioned as fighting the Wends in Eiriksdrapa.
We know from other sources and archaeology that he did this.
Likewise Knutrsdrapa is preoccupied with the conquest of England.
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Torsten Poulin
>> Sá er óðinn skal vandan velja,
>> velr svá mörg í kvæði at selja
>> hulin fornyrði, at trautt má telja;
>> tel ek þenna svá skilning dvelja.
>> Vel því at hér má skýr orð skilja,
>> skili þjóðir minn ljósan vilja,
>> tal óbreytiligt veitt af vilja:
>> vil ek, at kvæðið heiti Lilja.
>> (Eysteinn Ásgrímsson, Lilja)
> Thank you! That's a keep too!
In case anybody wonders what Eysteinn's stanza means, here is a
feeble attempt at translating it:
He who chooses to compose a poem,
chooses to present in the poem so many
obscure old words, that hardly can be counted;
I say that he thus delays understanding.
Because one can understand the clear words well,
people will catch my clear will,
familiar speech given with delight:
I want this poem to be called Lily.
--
Torsten
Thomas McDonald
"Soren Larsen" <soh...@tiscali.dk> wrote in message
news:bef37o$45s2h$1...@ID-131301.news.dfncis.de...
Soren,
When scalds composed their praise-poems about actual events, could they
in any way be compared to scribes who write down the statements of persons
who participated in historical events? IOW, could the poems be used as
primary souces in the same way as when an illiterate person dictated a
narrative of a historical event to a scribe (with the same kind of spin that
anyone might put on their own story)?
If the answer is "yes", ISTM that that sort of scaldic verse could be
broadly considered to be historical evidence of rather high quality.
Always, of course, maintaining the need to be able to evaluate the source
for possible bias or inaccuracy.
Tom McDonald
Brian M. Scott
<erila...@SPAMchibardun.net.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>Not only that, but he has obviously never raad any real skaldic poetry
>or he'd know it can't be changed without destroying it!
>We spent a whole two-hour Hauptseminar session unraveling four lines
>more than once with partial success when I was studying it in Bochum.
I sympathize; BTDT. The local şing tends to leave those bits for
the şinggoği, since he's had more experience than any of the rest
of us.
Brian
Bryn Fraser
<soh...@tiscali.dk> writes
Excellent... The only Danish I know is:
Her er mit grønne forsikringskort!
Bryn Fraser
<soh...@tiscali.dk> writes
>
I trust Snorri, if he were not truthful he would not have been
assassinated... :)
Besides in the absence of other information...
Soren Larsen
> >
> >http://www.hi.is/~eybjorn/ugm/
> >
> >It is incredible what this guy has up.
> >I'm drooling over the online 'lexicon poeticum' Old Norse to Danish.
> >But there is a lot of other interesting stuff in English
>
> Excellent... The only Danish I know is:
>
> Her er mit grønne forsikringskort!
Ok thats it!
What do you prefer; guns or swords?
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Bryn Fraser
<soh...@tiscali.dk> writes
>
Edam?
>
--
Bryn Fraser
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman!" Bill Clinton
The Good Old Days, Days of Innocence...
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>> How many nits can you pick on the head of a pin?
>
>Eric,
>
> Perhaps not quite as many as you can.
I use BIG pins. :-)
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
Certainly they will be excellent sources. My only point was that (on
the basis of my limited knowledge) I would hesitate to accept them as
'prime sources', which is where this discussion started.
Eric Stevens
Soren Larsen
Primary sources of what?
Cheers
Soren Larsen
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>> Certainly they will be excellent sources. My only point was that (on
>> the basis of my limited knowledge) I would hesitate to accept them as
>> 'prime sources', which is where this discussion started.
>
>Primary sources of what?
Not of themselves, but the events they describe.
That doesn't mean that I would refuse to accept them as prime sources.
but that I would want to first determine the circumstances under which
they were written.
Eric Stevens
David B
>>contemporary sources from that period: runic inscriptions
>>and skaldic verse"
>
>Certainly they will be excellent sources. My only point was that (on
>the basis of my limited knowledge) I would hesitate to accept them as
>'prime sources', which is where this discussion started.
Is there any chance we can come to some agreement about the difference
between "prime sources" and "primary sources"?
"Prime" means (leaving aside special uses like "prime number") "first in a
list in rank/merit order" (e.g. "prime minister"); "primary" means "first
in a list getting further and further from an origin" (e.g. "primary
education"). A _primary_ source is as close as possible to the original
event- which means, of course, the testimony of a participant or
eyewitness, or a piece of physical evidence of the event. If all _primary_
sources are lost, then the best available source could be called the
_prime_ source (though something like _best_ source would avoid a lot of
confusion).
So it would be acceptable to say that the Orkneyinga Saga is the _prime_
source for information about the "viking" activities of Svein Asleifarson
of Orkney in the 12th century, but unless the author of the saga was a
witness to the events described (unlikely given that it is an Icelandic
compilation from several sources) it is not a _primary_ source. On the
other hand, a poem by Icelandic leader/diplomat Markus Skeggjason about a
King of Denmark is (always assuming it is not a forgery...) a _primary_
source for information about Markus Skeggjason's perception of the world
c1105, though probably not even the _prime_ source for the life of the
Danish King.
Inger E Johansson
rules or no rules - skaldic poetry is poetry and not historic facts. They
can never ever be used as Prime source to what actually happened in the
past!
Inger E
"Torsten Poulin" <t_usen...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:bee8j9$42otf$1...@ID-89913.news.dfncis.de...
Inger E Johansson
"Seppo Renfors" <Ren...@not.ollis.net.au> skrev i meddelandet
news:3F0AE08B...@not.ollis.net.au...
Not to mention the fact that Swedish and Norwegian History Books for
students from grade 1 up to end of High School state either 1050 or 1060's
as end of the Viking Age. THERE WERE NO VIKINGS there after no matter what
Soren believes. After 1050's the Kingdoms in Sweden Denmark and Norway were
stronger than before due to the close contact with the Papal Church from 987
AD..
Inger E
Torsten Poulin
> Torsten,
> rules or no rules - skaldic poetry is poetry and not historic
> facts. They can never ever be used as Prime source to what
> actually happened in the past!
I didn't say they are recording historical facts. I illustrated
their complexity. A complexity that makes them rather resistant
to casual change. I picked a stanza by Thjodolf the Learned of
Hvin (Þjóðólfr Hvinverski) simply because he (is thought to have)
lived at the time of Harald Fairhair (Haraldr Hárfagri), i.e.,
circa 900. Given the intricacies of his poetry, I doubt very much
that anything of consequence has changed in his surviving stanzas
between then and the time when Snorri wrote them down.
Thjodolf is incidentally (clamed to be) the author of the poem
Ynglinga Tal, the basis for Snorri's Ynglinga Saga. As such,
it is quite probably as close as we will ever come to having
a primary source about the Ynglings. Whether it is a reliable
source, is another matter entirely.
--
Torsten
Soren Larsen
"Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:RvdQa.20185$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
> > >
> > > Inger:
> > >
> > > " We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that
there
> > > were NO VIKINGS AT ALL."
> > >
> > > A) There was indeed vikings after 1066 AD
> > > B) The events of 1066 did not involve vikings.
> > >
> > > Soren Larsen
> >
> >
> > First of all I'm not Inger, secondly how about answering the
question,
> > eh? It wasn't too hard for you was it?
>
> Not to mention the fact that Swedish and Norwegian History Books for
> students from grade 1 up to end of High School state either 1050 or
1060's
> as end of the Viking Age. THERE WERE NO VIKINGS there after no matter
what
> Soren believes. After 1050's the Kingdoms in Sweden Denmark and Norway
were
> stronger than before due to the close contact with the Papal Church
from 987
> AD..
Inger:
" We might give the Brits right to say 1066 AD, but after that there
NO VIKINGS AT ALL."
AngloSaxon Chronicle E 1098[1097]; Swanton:
"And Earl Hugh was killed in Angelsey by foreign vikings"
Soren Larsen
Inger E Johansson
I see your point. As for Þjóðólfr Hvinverski his reputation is higher than
others, that I am ready to acknowledge as long as he was close by events he
wrote about. Not his writing about things that happened in for example
eastern Sweden....
Inger E
"Torsten Poulin" <t_usen...@hotmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:berqnt$8cn76$1...@ID-89913.news.uni-berlin.de...
Drew Nicholson
news:gsdQa.20183$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
> Torsten,
> rules or no rules - skaldic poetry is poetry and not historic facts. They
> can never ever be used as Prime source to what actually happened in the
> past!
>
> Inger E
Sure it can. Especially if there's nothing else.
erilar
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
> "Tomi A" <tomi...@huuhaa.inet.fiba> skrev i meddelandet
> news:Xns93B1D92...@192.89.123.233...
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in
> > news:fLiOa.15490$mU6....@newsb.telia.net:
> >
> > > Kåre och du vet vad jag tycker om Isländska sagor, samma gäller för de
> > > norska kungasagorna.... icke samtida, inte Primär källor!
> >
> > Every source is a primary source.
>
> NO TOMI !!!
> A Prime source is always a contemporary source and in History if we are to
> speak of strict terms a Prime source is a first hand source - a witness
> 'report' of an event.
...such as a poem composed by a skald who was at the scene...
erilar
<anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
Not only that, but according to Inger's rules, much skaldic poetry HAS
to be credited as prime cources--they are eye-witness accounts!!
Drew Nicholson
news:erilarloFRY-1FAD...@news.airstreamcomm.net...
> In article <UMoQa.55114$ye4.42202@sccrnsc01>, "Drew Nicholson"
> <anicho...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > "Inger E Johansson" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
> > news:gsdQa.20183$dP1....@newsc.telia.net...
> > > Torsten,
> > > rules or no rules - skaldic poetry is poetry and not historic facts.
> > > They
> > > can never ever be used as Prime source to what actually happened in
the
> > > past!
> > >
> > > Inger E
> >
> >
> > Sure it can. Especially if there's nothing else.
> >
> >
>
> Not only that, but according to Inger's rules, much skaldic poetry HAS
> to be credited as prime cources--they are eye-witness accounts!!
>
Just in the same way that the Star Spangled Banner is a primary/prime source
for the Battle of Fort McHenry during the War of 1812.