 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
History Forum / General / Archaeology / July 2007Danish rule, ping Uwe Müller
Hej! I've tried to post a follow up in the original thread... but computer says no. On 23 Jan, 10:12, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote: > I would like to know if the churches mapped have been identified from > written sources, archaeological excavations or from the analysis of building > historians. > > The written sources would have concentrated on places of contemporary power, > archaeologic sources tend to concentrate on areas of modern economic power > while building historians identify older churches in areas, which were too > poor to rebuild their churches in the fashionable later styles. The > different bias would lead to quite different interpretations of the map. Hej hopp! The source was a work called, "Kartor över det medeltida Sverige och dess ortnamn" from 1967. (Kartor = maps) The maps show medieval churches, castles, monasteries and unameits. I am uncertain as to how the actual data was collected, but the maker of the map I referred to, Sven Rosborn, seems to be of the idea that the map depicts a late medieval situation (meaning: if I understood him correctly :-)). Sven checked the data against "known" early medieval churches in Skåne and came to the conclusion - once again, if I understood him correctly - that some 85-90 % of the churches in the source would have been present already in "tidig medeltid" (It is difficult to put a date to this, but say, no later than 1150.) I guess that his source for churches in Denmark was some similar kind of work. We know that the amount of churches somewhat diminished as years went by, and an exact early pattern would naturally have been somewhat different. As to whether one can actually obtain a rough measure of where people lived by this method, I don't know. Rosborn also said that today, with computers and such, it would be possible to compensate coastal churches by some variable. > If you look at early Iron age imports, you get the same kind of > distribution. I'd guess the same goes, more or less, for the late Bronze > age. I can't remember seeing distribution maps for earlier times. This was part of what I was on about. If we can map similar patterns to earlier ages, then I think that we have reasons to believe that the "power of Denmark" was a result of the agricultural revolution in combination with somewhat more fertile lands. This would diminish the importance of the Roman iron age. In any case, I think it is difficult to really find a Danish state dating from that age, and I know that some archaeologists (please excuse me for that kind of sentence :-)) would say that this is just some farmers being richer than some other farmers. And to the original question then; strange as it may seem, I think one can argue that "political events" are important. Marcus Hej! I've tried to post a follow up in the original thread... but computer says no. On 23 Jan, 10:12, "Uwe Müller" <uwemuel...@go4more.de> wrote: >> I would like to know if the churches mapped have been identified from >> written sources, archaeological excavations or from the analysis of building [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> poor to rebuild their churches in the fashionable later styles. The >> different bias would lead to quite different interpretations of the map. >Hej hopp! >The source was a work called, "Kartor över det medeltida Sverige och >dess ortnamn" from 1967. (Kartor = maps) The maps show medieval [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >present already in "tidig medeltid" (It is difficult to put a date to >this, but say, no later than 1150.) That sounds like he mapped places that were mentioned in written sources early and had a church then or later. >I guess that his source for churches in Denmark was some similar kind >of work. >We know that the amount of churches somewhat diminished as years went >by, and an exact early pattern would naturally have been somewhat >different. >As to whether one can actually obtain a rough measure of where people >lived by this method, I don't know. >Rosborn also said that today, with computers and such, it would be >possible to compensate coastal churches by some variable. >> If you look at early Iron age imports, you get the same kind of >> distribution. I'd guess the same goes, more or less, for the late Bronze >> age. I can't remember seeing distribution maps for earlier times. >This was part of what I was on about. If we can map similar patterns >to earlier ages, then I think that we have reasons to believe that the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >would say that this is just some farmers being richer than some other >farmers. I would be among those demanding proof for a state-like society. Or at least a workable defintion for 'state' in an archaeological context. The monumental buildings of Goebekli Tepe (pre neolithic) were an eye opener. Those are usually connected with the existence of state societies, which in turn do not appear in hunter-hatherer economies. >And to the original question then; strange as it may seem, I think one >can argue that "political events" are important. Of course they are, but only to the contemporary people. Those coming later, are more interested in what action followed 'political events'. have fun Uwe Mueller > Hej! > > I've tried to post a follow up in the original thread... but computer > says no. Little Britain fan eh :-) > > Hej! > > > I've tried to post a follow up in the original thread... but computer > > says no. > > Little Britain fan eh :-) Yes :) British humour is very popular in Sweden, and possibly even more so in Little London. (Where I live.) mof <moflkb@gmail.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:1179156931.531794.218060@q75g2000hsh.googlegrou ps.com... On 12 Maj, 23:17, George <gbl...@hnpl.net> wrote: > Uwe Müller wrote: > > "mof" <mof...@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Little Britain fan eh :-) Yes :) British humour is very popular in Sweden, and possibly even more so in Little London. (Where I live.) IEJ: Definitely more in Little London (Gothenburg) than on the eastern side of Lake Vaettern :-)... ./IEJ Uwe Müller <uwemueller@go4more.de> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:f24lti$ef6$1@online.de... > Hej! > [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > Uwe Mueller Uwe, the churches in Sweden and Denmark dating back before 1150 can easily be found: Or rather churches before 1152 AD since that was the year when Nicolas of Alba visited Linköping for the 'kyrkomöte' (~Church meeting) and also the other Scandinavian countries. All churches under each of the Bishop's See were noted down in a register which today exist in the so called Florens-register of churches. Many of the churches are known from long before that, also churches known from before 1050 AD. One good source easy to get hold of is Adam of Bremen. Now there are archaeologic reports from excavations showing churches to have existed before 1000 AD. Inger E > Uwe Müller <uwemuel...@go4more.de> skrev i > diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:f24lti$ef...@online.de... [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Inger E But Inger, I've seen the Florenslist, and from what I recall it only mentions sees. It goes something like, "Scara, Lionga, Kaupinga..." Judging by that list there was only some 7 churches in Sweden. Besides, it is believed that it was written before 1120, no? Could it be another list that you are thinking of? Marcus (4-0 last Monday, Inger, let's hope they can play as well today :-)) mof <moflkb@gmail.com> skrev i diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:1179157657.710043.200680@l77g2000hsb.googlegrou ps.com... On 14 Maj, 17:24, "johansson" <1732johans...@telia.com> wrote: > Uwe Müller <uwemuel...@go4more.de> skrev i > diskussionsgruppsmeddelandet:f24lti$ef...@online.de... [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] > > Inger E But Inger, I've seen the Florenslist, and from what I recall it only mentions sees. It goes something like, "Scara, Lionga, Kaupinga..." Judging by that list there was only some 7 churches in Sweden. IEJ: no mof that's not correct. we do have a copy of the list where all the churches are mentioned. Seen it once myself but that was long ago, how ever I do remember all the churches mentioned for Östergötland + Gotland + part of the Baltic countries which at that time belonged to Linköping's See. Among those mentioned in Östergötland were (checked this from notes obs names here spelled as today): Kaga, Vreta Herrestad, Ö Skrukeby and Fornåsa. In a letter from 1248 (Papal legate Vilhelm of Sabina, Skänninge kyrkomöte) it's sad that the building of the churches in Östergötland were completed. At that time we in Östergötland had consecrated churches in above mentioned as well as in Askeby, Hof, Kimstad, Skärkind, Vinnerstad, Ö Eneby, Bjälbo, Högby, St Lars (Linköping), Roglösa, Hagebyhöga, Ask, Källstad, Svinstad (belonging to today's Bankekind's diocongregation, Appuna, Gistad, Landeryd, Törnevalla and many others. Två churches were under work Godegård (consecrated 1251) was one of them./IEJ Besides, it is believed that it was written before 1120, no? IEJ: Wrong - the list was written 1151 delivered to the Pope 1153 and mentioned in Vatican documents from 1154. I have no idea of where you got the 1120 from. We do know perfectly well when Nicolas of Alba visited which see in Scandinavia. 1151 is the correct for the meeting in Linköping. (We know that Linköping had a see before 1138 but that's an other question)./IEJ Could it be another list that you are thinking of? IEJ: NO but I have seen very queer copies shown in works by Swedish historians. Not at all the same as the one copy which is hard to read, that I give you, which we were shown by one of our teachers when I studied Religion. Then there are some of Nicolas of Alba's more private letters written from his voyages. Not often mentioned. /IEJ Marcus (4-0 last Monday, Inger, let's hope they can play as well today :-)) IEJ: Well I doubt that we will see Vasquez score same type of goal today again. He has done it three times showing newspapers and media how he did it last time. ALL same excellent kick... Reading on the direct link on net I noticed that Marcus Berg scored 2 and that one of the Angels (IFK Gothenburg is called Änglarna info for those who didn't know) managed to run 10730 m during the first 75 minuites. Guess that the guy in question, Eldin Karisik must prepare for a good nights sleep afterwards :-) /IEJ > Hej! > > I've tried to post a follow up in the original thread... but computer > says no. The original thread was over in soc.history.medieval. > This was part of what I was on about. If we can map similar patterns > to earlier ages, then I think that we have reasons to believe that the > "power of Denmark" was a result of the agricultural revolution in > combination with somewhat more fertile lands. This would diminish the > importance of the Roman iron age. You might want to read Lotte Hedeager: Danmarks jernalder, mellem stamme og stat also available in english as Iron-Age Societies: From Tribe to State in Northern Europe, 500 Bc to Ad 700, Blackwell Pub (June 1992) ISBN-10: 0631171061 ISBN-13: 978-0631171065 >In any case, I think it is difficult > to really find a Danish state dating from that age, Do you actually know anybody who is arguing for the existence of a _danish_ state in the roman iron age? Nobody is trying to back-date that particular polity. The issue is state formation in within the territory of what later would become the danish state. Soren Larsen  SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > > Hej! > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > -- > History is not what it used to be. Obviously my English is not good enough for you. Let me rephrase. 1. There is a thing that I find very unlikely. 2. It is about polities in a geographical area roughly coinciding with the present day state of Denmark, and some areas that used to belong to a medieval polity called Denmark. Examples are Skåne, Blekinge and Halland. 3. This thing, that I find unlikely, existed or did not exist during the Roman iron age. 4. It is that polities within the frames above are best labelled as states. I have already written some about this in a way that should have made this somewhat clear. Here's a link, in case you have forgotten. http://tinyurl.com/2h5uw4 Hedeager's book is interesting. I am certain I will read it again. Well, Sören, I don't know where to go from here. More or less every time you write something, you make me unhappy. That is unfortunate. Both because the subject is interesting and because it tells me, I am too stupid to communicate :( But summer vacation is here, so hopefully I will survive :) >>> Hej! >> [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > 4. It is that polities within the frames above are best labelled as > states. Then you might want to suggest alternatives. > I have already written some about this in a way that should have made > this somewhat clear. Here's a link, in case you have forgotten. > > http://tinyurl.com/2h5uw4 I was not replying to that post. > Hedeager's book is interesting. I am certain I will read it again. Take note of how she uses anthropological and archaeological definitions of "state". > Well, Sören, I don't know where to go from here. More or less every > time you write something, you make me unhappy. I'm not going to agree with you, just to make you happy. >That is unfortunate. > Both because the subject is interesting and because it tells me, I am > too stupid to communicate :( > > But summer vacation is here, so hopefully I will survive :) Happy vacation Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > Do you actually know anybody who is arguing for the existence > of a _danish_ state in the roman iron age? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The issue is state formation in within the territory of what later would > become the danish state. You will find some who argue for the existence of such an entity from around the 200s and encompassing Funen, Zealand and Scania, with centre in Southern Zealand [Stevns, in an area that fits with Beowulf's description of the Danish 'capital', Himlingøje at the Tryggevælde Stream]. And with peripheral centres on Funen [Gudme] and in Scania [Opager, Uppåkra in Swedish]. Of course, such an entity would have been extremely loosely knitted together, and lack the institutions that would define it as a state. With the probable exceptions of a King in Zealand and a couple of Earls on Funen and in Scania respectively. Probably, 'Dane' only means 'flatlander' - clearly, Scania and Zealand are 'flat lands' when seen from the mountains of Norway and Sweden. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >> Do you actually know anybody who is arguing for the existence >> of a _danish_ state in the roman iron age? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Beowulf's description of the Danish 'capital', Himlingøje at the > Tryggevælde Stream]. You can find people arguing for just about anything. This doesn't change the faact that it is meaningless to postulate the danishness of 3rd c polities, since there is nada evidence of danes in that period. Even if such evidence existed you would have to link it to those polities. For all we know they would have chopped the head of any dane on first sight. > Probably, 'Dane' only means 'flatlander' - clearly, Scania and Zealand > are 'flat lands' when seen from the mountains of Norway and Sweden. It is indeed possible that the danes came about as a confederation of tribes in southern scandinavia just like other germanic polities were merging into larger polities eg the Franks, Saxons, Allemanni aso But since you have the first mentioning of the Danes around AD 500 and Himlingøje is ca AD 200 you really cant connect them with anything but wishful thinking. Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > >> Do you actually know anybody who is arguing for the existence > >> of a _danish_ state in the roman iron age? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Himlingøje is ca AD 200 you really cant connect them with anything > but wishful thinking. I'll just link to: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daner> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danes> And yes, I do know that this only proves that this theory exists. Nothing proven at all. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >>>> Do you actually know anybody who is arguing for the existence >>>> of a _danish_ state in the roman iron age? [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > And yes, I do know that this only proves that this theory exists. Barely. This is the article: "The Daner were an ancient North germanic tribe residing in modern day southern Sweden and on the Danish islands. They were not mentioned by Tacitus, whose famous work Germania mentions the Gothones (Gothsand/or Gotlanders?) and the Suiones (Swedes). They seem to be, however, mentioned by Jordanes, as the Dani, and also by Procopius. The name Daner is the etymological root of Dane. Jordanes maintains that the Dani were of the same stock as the Suetidi (Swedes, Suithiod?) and expelled the Heruli and took their lands. If Tacitus simply did not overlook the Dani, and if Jordanes's information was correct, it is possible that they first appeared, as an off-shoot of the Suiones, sometime in the 2nd or 3rd century A.D. According to Sven Aggesen this would have been about the time that King Dan the Proud, gave his name to the Danes." Procopius and Jordanes are both 6th c and it is unconvincing to cite them as evidence to the existence of danes around AD 200. Using Svend Aggesen as a source to that period is simply bonkers. > Nothing proven at all. Indeed. My opinion which btw is equally unproven but imho more likely, is that the danes was formed by the same processes that formed the other new and larger germanic polities in the period between AD 200 and AD 500 Likely a lot closer to the later date than the former. It is interesting that the weaponsacrifices stop exactly at the same time as we first hear about the danes. Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > My opinion which btw is equally unproven but imho more likely, > is that the danes was formed by the same processes that formed > the other new and larger germanic polities in the period between > AD 200 and AD 500 I think so too. > Likely a lot closer to the later date than the former. It is interesting > that the weaponsacrifices stop exactly at the same time as we first > hear about the danes. As far as I know, these weapon sacrifices took place in /Jutland/. What is proposed is a Danish entity encompassing much less than half of the later Kingdom of Denmark, namely Funen, Zealand and at least the western parts of Scania. But not the Jutish peninsula and probably also not Halland and Blekinge. Archaeologists have found Gudme on Funen, Himlingøje on Stevns, Zealand, and Opager / Uppåkra in Scania just south of Lund. As far as I remember, they have also discovered that these three centres have been in close contact, and in contact with the Uppsala area in Sweden and the Hessen area in Central Germany too - nothing about contacts with Jutland has been said. Until a crozzle from the Bergen area in Norway was found in the weapon sacrifice from the 200s in the Illerup Bog in Jutland, many suggested that the defeated invaders [an army of at least 1,000 warriors] consisted of Danes from the islands and Scania. Notice the army size - which suggests political entities much larger than single villages. Furthermore, the find shows that it was quite common even for young men in Norway to have a period as mercenaries in the Roman Army, probably in Gaul. Finally, the find shows that the runic alphabet, the /futhark/, was used for quite everyday purposes like putting the owner's name on shields. It seems as if society even in Scandinavia was more sophisticated in the Roman Iron Age than in the later Germanic Iron Age. And then, let's not forget that the tribes south of the Baltic were and are larger than what we're talking about on the Danish Isles. Tribes like the Bavarians [before the Age of Great Migrations located in Bohemia and Moravia] and the Saxons constitute of populations at least twice the number of Denmark's present. Opager: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upp%C3%A5kra> Museum: <http://www.uppakra.com/> Gudme, Funen: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gudme> Himlingøje, Zealand [the site is from the National Museum in Copenhagen]: <http://www.natmus.dk/sw35722.asp> from which I will translate: = The First Dane Kings. In one of the graves a glass drinking horn was found, purple and in an elegant shape. Other grave goods in this grave was a bucket with bronze furnishings, a bone comb, a silvered bronze dish, a strainer, a glass beaker, a golden arm ring, a golden finger ring ad various items from a dinner set. The buried only seems to be around twenty years old. One theory is that the rich graves on Stevns are the graves of the first Dane Kings, emigrated from Sweden [Scania, Opager? Svealand, Uppsala ? PER]. In any case, the rich grave goods from other parts of Europe suggests that we are talking of Princes of great importance, in any case much wider than the area around Tryggevælde River at Stevns Peninsula, Zealand. Hygelac's Ancestors? Should it be correct that the prince graves at Tryggevælde River are the graves of the first Dane Kings, it is possible that it is the ancestors of the Dane King Hygelac who in the written sources was defeated 515 during a naval expedition to the Frankish Empire. Hygelac is the first Danish King mentioned in European sources. = On Hygelac: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlochilaicus> which shows how difficult it is to deal with these ages. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >> My opinion which btw is equally unproven but imho more likely, >> is that the danes was formed by the same processes that formed [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > As far as I know, these weapon sacrifices took place in /Jutland/. This is wrong. You have 3 main waves of attack, from northern Germany, From west Scandinavia and from Eastern Scandinavia. The weapon sacrifices are simply located at coastal areas facing the attacking regions. > What is proposed is a Danish entity encompassing much less than half > of the later Kingdom of Denmark, namely Funen, Zealand and at least > the western parts of Scania. But not the Jutish peninsula and > probably also not Halland and Blekinge. What is proposed is a Himlingøje state within the described area being allied with polities in present day Norway. Such an alliance could be responsible for the attacks originating from western Scandinavia. The attackers in this horizon seem to have _preferred_ targeting Jutland The attacking "Norwegian forces" apparently received their roman goods through Himlingøje and their leaders were wearing "low" rank Himlingøje gold insignia. AFAIR there are also some evidence of marriages between the polities in western Norway and the Himlingøje polity. There is however no evidence to suggest that the Himlingøje polity was in any way danish. You need a runic inscription or roman text supporting the theory to change that fact. > Archaeologists have found Gudme on Funen, Himlingøje on Stevns, > Zealand, and Opager / Uppåkra in Scania just south of Lund. As far as > I remember, they have also discovered that these three centres have > been in close contact, and in contact with the Uppsala area in Sweden > and the Hessen area in Central Germany too - nothing about contacts > with Jutland has been said. THere is no surprice in finding that centres were in contact. Regarding Jutland, then we simply have not found the contemporary Jutish centre, if indeed there was one at comparable level. The attackers being defeated however suggest that such a centre existed. > Until a crozzle from the Bergen area in Norway was found in the weapon > sacrifice from the 200s in the Illerup Bog in Jutland, many suggested > that the defeated invaders [an army of at least 1,000 warriors] > consisted of Danes from the islands and Scania. They were wrong. > Notice the army size - which suggests political entities much larger > than single villages. Indeed The size of the force also suggest that the attack had a political purpose since raiding jutish villages with such a force wouldn't pay the expences and there was no cities or monastaries to raid. Then note the rank structure which suggest that the force was commanded by very few - perhaps only one - general. Then perhaps think about the force that wiped the floor with the attackers and sacrificed their equipment in the lake. >Furthermore, the find shows that it was quite > common even for young men in Norway to have a period as mercenaries in > the Roman Army, probably in Gaul. The find certainly proves heavy contact with the roman world and the roman army. The uniformity and nature of the equipment however suggest that the soldiers were equipped from stores and production facilities - which were not roman. The whole setup certainly reeks of roman auxilia, but there is no reason to assume that all the warriors or indeed the majority had served in the roman army. >Finally, the find shows that the > runic alphabet, the /futhark/, was used for quite everyday purposes > like putting the owner's name on shields. It seems as if society even > in Scandinavia was more sophisticated in the Roman Iron Age than in > the later Germanic Iron Age. The view of the germanic iron age as a "dark age" is disapearing fast since the villages and central places has begun to appear. Just think of the excavations at Lejre. Note to SHM: Yes the germanic iron age has been descibed as a "dark age" in danish litterature . > And then, let's not forget that the tribes south of the Baltic were > and are larger than what we're talking about on the Danish Isles. > Tribes like the Bavarians [before the Age of Great Migrations located > in Bohemia and Moravia] and the Saxons constitute of populations at > least twice the number of Denmarks present. Huh? > Opager: > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > defeated 515 during a naval expedition to the Frankish Empire. > Hygelac is the first Danish King mentioned in European sources. Note the question marks. They are simply toying with the idea to make the museum visitors interested. Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > >> My opinion which btw is equally unproven but imho more likely, > >> is that the danes was formed by the same processes that formed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > You have 3 main waves of attack, from northern Germany, From > west Scandinavia and from Eastern Scandinavia. Yes, but as far as I know the attacks from Western Scandinavia were the ones taking place in the 200s. Simply put, I had my mind on this century. > The weapon sacrifices are simply located at coastal areas facing > the attacking regions. Well, now I have just purchased the four-volume 'Danmarks Oldtid' - I came home with them from the National Museum a couple of hours ago. > > What is proposed is a Danish entity encompassing much less than half > > of the later Kingdom of Denmark, namely Funen, Zealand and at least [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > of marriages between the polities in western Norway and the > Himlingøje polity. OK, this is new for me. > There is however no evidence to suggest that the Himlingøje polity > was in any way danish. I guess that the idea of the Danes coming from the east comes from the two East Roman historians who probably had the same source: a lost work by Cassiodorus who lived at the Western Roman court in the 400s. > You need a runic inscription or roman text supporting the theory > to change that fact. Of course. I now understand that your objection to the idea of this polity is when it is called 'Danish'. > > Archaeologists have found Gudme on Funen, Himlingøje on Stevns, > > Zealand, and Opager / Uppåkra in Scania just south of Lund. As far as [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > The attackers being defeated however suggest that such a centre existed. This has also been my idea. At least it would mean quite an organized defence to be able to spot an invading army consisting of at least 1,000 warriors [+ transport], coming in a fleet from the north - and to be able to meet it with an army of at least the same size. > > Until a crozzle from the Bergen area in Norway was found in the weapon > > sacrifice from the 200s in the Illerup Bog in Jutland, many suggested > > that the defeated invaders [an army of at least 1,000 warriors] > > consisted of Danes from the islands and Scania. > > They were wrong. Yes. > > Notice the army size - which suggests political entities much larger > > than single villages. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > purpose since raiding jutish villages with such a force wouldn't pay > the expences and there was no cities or monastaries to raid. My idea too. > Then note the rank structure which suggest that the force was commanded > by very few - perhaps only one - general. I remember three names from the find. Wagnijo, Nithijo and Laguthewa who can be recognized as leaders [the names are on their shields' silver handles - other shields had less expensive handles]. In the book I am reading this from, Nithijo is mentioned at the probable major leader - the general ? > Then perhaps think about the force that wiped the floor with the attackers > and sacrificed their equipment in the lake. Yes. > > Furthermore, the find shows that it was quite > > common even for young men in Norway to have a period as mercenaries in [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > assume that all the warriors or indeed the majority had served in the roman > army. It seems as if the rank and file of the attacking army was equipped with standard Roman equipment - and that the élite was equipped with something made especially for them, and with a more 'Germanic' taste. > > Finally, the find shows that the runic alphabet, the /futhark/, was used > > for quite everyday purposes like putting the owner's name on shields. It [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > since the villages and central places has begun to appear. > Just think of the excavations at Lejre. Yes, but I still remember from Sixth Form College Danish that the texts from that age were mainly magic. Contrary from what we see from Illerup. > Note to SHM: Yes the germanic iron age has been descibed as a "dark age" > in danish litterature . > > And then, let's not forget that the tribes south of the Baltic were > > and are larger than what we're talking about on the Danish Isles. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Huh? I was simply thinking of historical maps from the Roman Iron Age, on the Germanic tribes' distribution north of the Empire's borders. > > Opager: > > [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > Note the question marks. They are simply toying with the idea > to make the museum visitors interested. I have noticed the question marks. You're probably right. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >>> As far as I know, these weapon sacrifices took place in /Jutland/. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > the ones taking place in the 200s. Simply put, I had my mind on this > century. OK Just remember that there are 300 years of attacks and sacrifices seperating himlingøje and the first mentioning of the danes. >> The weapon sacrifices are simply located at coastal areas facing >> the attacking regions. > > Well, now I have just purchased the four-volume 'Danmarks Oldtid' - I > came home with them from the National Museum a couple of hours ago. Good choice! You will be contributing to my bonus allthough I think Harry Potter will be the main contributor. >> There is however no evidence to suggest that the Himlingøje polity >> was in any way danish. > > I guess that the idea of the Danes coming from the east comes from the > two East Roman historians who probably had the same source: a lost > work by Cassiodorus who lived at the Western Roman court in the 400s. Yup. Not enough info to settle the matter, but too much to ignore. The tidbit about the danes being of the same stock as the suetidi could certainly support a migration theory, but it could otoh just mean that someone had observed that north germanic was a seperate branch of barbarian lingo. >> You need a runic inscription or roman text supporting the theory >> to change that fact. > > Of course. I now understand that your objection to the idea of this > polity is when it is called 'Danish'. It would probably be like calling a celtic kingdom as Dumnonia english, just because it existed within the current borders of England. It would not help our understanding of the period and the Dumnonian dudes would probably be a bit miffed if they knew. > I remember three names from the find. Wagnijo, Nithijo and Laguthewa > who can be recognized as leaders [the names are on their shields' > silver handles - other shields had less expensive handles]. Only Nithijo, Wagnijo is on a lancehead, the name is btw also found on other contemporary lanceheads. > In the > book I am reading this from, Nithijo is mentioned at the probable > major leader - the general ? Could be. > It seems as if the rank and file of the attacking army was equipped > with standard Roman equipment - and that the élite was equipped with > something made especially for them, and with a more 'Germanic' taste. Not quite. The elite was equipped with high class germanic gear and roman gear reworked to fit germanic upper class taste. The grunts had more standardised equipment of both germanic and roman origin. The roman gear was not reworked. > Yes, but I still remember from Sixth Form College Danish that the > texts from that age were mainly magic. Contrary from what we see from > Illerup. It has more to do with the context of the known inscriptions. Since the weapon sacrifices stopped around AD 500 the bulk of the germanic ironage inscriptions are from gold amulets socalled bracteates Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > >> The weapon sacrifices are simply located at coastal areas facing > >> the attacking regions. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You will be contributing to my bonus allthough I think Harry Potter > will be the main contributor. Harry Potter? I got 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' tuesday - but haven't had the time to read it yet :-). > >> There is however no evidence to suggest that the Himlingøje polity > >> was in any way danish. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > just mean that someone had observed that north germanic was > a seperate branch of barbarian lingo. Well, there is something in the story that seem to contradict: 1. The Danes are said to descend from the Swedes. Also it is said that they conquered the lands of the Herules ['Erular' in Nordic rune inscriptions], namely the islands [Scania included]. 2. After having served as mercenaries in the Roman army, in the 400s the Herules decided to return to their original homeland, leaving their old king at the Imperial court in Italy [at the same time, Cassiodorus lived in the same place - Cassiodorus is thought to be Jordanes' and Procopios' common source]. Of course this King is informed of their travel home - through letters. And the Herules travel up through Jutland, notice that the Danes have begun settling in eastern Eastern part of the peninsular, and continue to the north to /sail/ to their original homeland. But that would indicate that their original homeland was in Norway or Svealand. Not the Danish islands. 3. The Herules /are/ mentioned in runic inscription on the Scandinavian Peninsular, as Erular. But if I make a folk etymology based on their name and my middle name Erik [Eirek in Old Norse meaning 'absolute monarch'], I get the idea that there never was a Erular /people/. And that they constituted a specific stratum in Scandinavian society instead: a warrior cast. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk > 1. The Danes are said to descend from the Swedes. Also it is said that > they conquered the lands of the Herules ['Erular' in Nordic rune > inscriptions], namely the islands [Scania included]. erilar/erular inscriptions are too widespread in time and place to be accounted for that way. This is no more than one suggestion for the origin of the inscriptions. Did you get that from wikipedia? > 2. After having served as mercenaries in the Roman army, in the 400s the > Herules decided to return to their original homeland, leaving their old [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > original homeland. But that would indicate that their original homeland > was in Norway or Svealand. Not the Danish islands. Citations? > 3. The Herules /are/ mentioned in runic inscription on the Scandinavian > Peninsular, as Erular. But if I make a folk etymology based on their > name and my middle name Erik [Eirek in Old Norse meaning 'absolute > monarch'], I get the idea that there never was a Erular /people/. And > that they constituted a specific stratum in Scandinavian society > instead: a warrior cast. The only thing we can be SURE of is that an erilar could read/ write runes. SignatureMary, biblioholic bib-li-o-hol-ism : the habitual longing to purchase, read, store, admire, and consume books in excess. http://www.airstreamcomm.net/~erilarlo > > 1. The Danes are said to descend from the Swedes. Also it is said that > > they conquered the lands of the Herules ['Erular' in Nordic rune [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be accounted for that way. This is no more than one suggestion for the > origin of the inscriptions. Did you get that from wikipedia? From my personal memory. > > 2. After having served as mercenaries in the Roman army, in the 400s the > > Herules decided to return to their original homeland, leaving their old [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > was in Norway or Svealand. Not the Danish islands. > Citations? We have only got two sources [Procopios, Jordanes, both Constantinople in the 500s]. Both historians have probably had the same written source: A book by Cassiodorus on the History of the Goths. Now lost. > > 3. The Herules /are/ mentioned in runic inscription on the Scandinavian > > Peninsular, as Erular. But if I make a folk etymology based on their > > name and my middle name Erik [Eirek in Old Norse meaning 'absolute > > monarch'], I get the idea that there never was a Erular /people/. And > > that they constituted a specific stratum in Scandinavian society > > instead: a warrior cast. > The only thing we can be SURE of is that an erilar could read/ write > runes. Ah, a litthe more ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >>>> The weapon sacrifices are simply located at coastal areas facing >>>> the attacking regions. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Harry Potter? I got 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' tuesday - > but haven't had the time to read it yet :-). Dont Buy the danish issue. It is much better. Honest! > 3. The Herules /are/ mentioned in runic inscription on the > Scandinavian Peninsular, as Erular. But if I make a folk etymology > based on their name and my middle name Erik [Eirek in Old Norse > meaning 'absolute monarch'], I get the idea that there never was a > Erular /people/. And that they constituted a specific stratum in > Scandinavian society instead: a warrior cast. Evidence? Soren Larsen ot what it used to be. > > Harry Potter? I got 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' tuesday - > > but haven't had the time to read it yet :-). [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Honest! I've read the six volumes of the Harry Potter series - in English. And I have all seven volumes on my shelfs - in English. > > 3. The Herules /are/ mentioned in runic inscription on the > > Scandinavian Peninsular, as Erular. But if I make a folk etymology [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Evidence? Evidence ? It is speculation ... SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk > >> Do you actually know anybody who is arguing for the existence > >> of a _danish_ state in the roman iron age? [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Himlingøje is ca AD 200 you really cant connect them with anything > but wishful thinking. And even in AD 500 there is hard to show that all of today's Denmark belonged to one kingdom. Why? since we do know that there was a different rule for the people of Bornholm and the people of Jutland as late as two hundred years later. Re. Wulfstans' voyage told in King Alfred's Orosius. Not to mention that we learn from among other Adam of Bremen that from what King Svein told him (Re. Adam book 1:lvii 59, English edition 2003 page 50), and what we learn from Widukind (Re "Res gestae Saxonicae", Book 1, section 40), that when Gorm extended by force his Kingdom southward on Jutland he was beaten in battle with Henry I of Germany who forced him to become a vasall.(AD 934). Now there is one part in Adam which might be supperted from artifacts and runestones which indicate a Swedish conquest of parts of Jutland (and maybe some of the Danish islands) before Gorm's days. Artifacts found close to Hedeby (now at Kiel's Museum) seems according to some to indicate an invasion lasting for 2-300 years. The runestones relating to Gorm/Chnuba all have been found on Northern parts of Jutland. Inger E > Soren Larsen > > -- > History is not what it used to be. > The runestones relating to Gorm/Chnuba all have been found on Northern > parts of Jutland. Jelling is placed very close to the traditional border between 'Nørrejylland' and 'Sønderjylland'. Close to the crossing to Funen. BTW, you could had mentioned that as late as in the 1100s, the three landsting [local popular assemblies] of Jutland, Zealand and Scania elected three Kings ... it took around a decade before Valdemar I the Great became the only King. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk > > The runestones relating to Gorm/Chnuba all have been found on Northern > > parts of Jutland. > > Jelling is placed very close to the traditional border between > 'Nørrejylland' and 'Sønderjylland'. Close to the crossing to Funen. Yes but in traditional map books we used in school we used to call 'Nørrejylland' Nord Jylland (Northern Jylland) and 'Sønderjylland' Syd Jylland. Now there are more than period in the history of Jutland where those two had different rulers. > BTW, you could had mentioned that as late as in the 1100s, the three > landsting [local popular assemblies] of Jutland, Zealand and Scania > elected three Kings ... it took around a decade before Valdemar I the > Great became the only King. I could, but then I didn't know that Scania in 1100's had a King of their own who didn't put claim on Zealand and parts of Jutland. Thanks to you I see that I have to look a bit closer at that. Inger E > -- > Per Erik Rønne > http://www.RQNNE.dk > I could, but then I didn't know that Scania in 1100's had a King of their > own who didn't put claim on Zealand and parts of Jutland. Actually, 1146 the Jutes elected Knud V Mugnussen and the Zealanders and Scanians Svend III Grathe [together with 15-year-old Valdemar I Knudsen as co-regent]. In the end, the two older were killed 1157 and Valdemar I became Valdemar I the Great. They all had the same great-grandfather: Svend Estridsen. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk > But since you have the first mentioning of the Danes around AD 500 and > Himlingøje is ca AD 200 you really cant connect them with anything > but wishful thinking. > > Soren Larsen Yet this is exactly what you do when you write about having to go backwards in time. http://tinyurl.com/2h5uw4 It is really hard to understand why we have to go back to the Roman Iron age if events and places like Himlingøje isn't somehow connected to the later state of Denmark. To me, your behaviour is like eating your cake, and wanting to have it too. >> But since you have the first mentioning of the Danes around AD 500 >> and Himlingøje is ca AD 200 you really cant connect them with [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Iron age if events and places like Himlingøje isn't somehow connected > to the later state of Denmark. Because I claim that the conditions for state formation appeared in the roman ironage and that there are signs that (proto)states began to appear in this period. This is not the same as claiming that the danish state or indeed the danes was around at that time. It is however clear that the dominance in the north by polities within the later danish territory do date from this period. > To me, your behaviour is like eating your cake, and wanting to have it > too. I bake big cakes. Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > >> But since you have the first mentioning of the Danes around AD 500 > >> and Himlingøje is ca AD 200 you really cant connect them with [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ironage and that there are signs that (proto)states began to appear in this > period. Yes, that's what you claim. I know - and as I said to Uwe Müller, I apologize for using this tactic, but anyhow - archeaologists who say that it is just some farmers being richer than some other farmers. > This is not the same as claiming that the danish state or indeed the danes > was around at that time. But honestly, did you really think I was of that idea? > It is however clear that the dominance in the north by polities > within the later danish territory do date from this period. I think that people study this time period very much because they think it has an impact on later development. At least that's how I understood the argument. In other words, the Roman iron age is not studied in isolation, and it is believed that, for example, Viking age polities there, had as some kind of necessary foundation, these Roman iron age polities. But my argument is that that is not clear. To me it is just an arbitrarily assigned importance to noticed development. As I said before, it might happen that the "power of Denmark" is based on something else, and that we, as an example, may have to go back to the agricultural revolution. It might also happen that the importance of Roman iron age development is overvalued, and that it is not necessary for what we see in the Viking age. > Yes, that's what you claim. I know - and as I said to Uwe Müller, I > apologize for using this tactic, but anyhow - archeaologists who say > that it is just some farmers being richer than some other farmers. I however have troubles getting my head around the idea of some rich farmers fooling around overseas in areas with very little promise of booty, with state of the art foreign military equipment, in groups that incidently match the size and organisation of roman auxilia units, complete with logistic and medical equipment. I also have some trouble with some rich farmers with no organised religion living in a society with little or no other organisation taking up writing just for the hell of it, and keeping at it . That is just a couple of points >> This is not the same as claiming that the danish state or indeed the >> danes was around at that time. > > But honestly, did you really think I was of that idea? No You did however argue against that idea, which was odd, since it was not what I or any other had proposed. >> It is however clear that the dominance in the north by polities >> within the later danish territory do date from this period. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > is believed that, for example, Viking age polities there, had as some > kind of necessary foundation, these Roman iron age polities. It is not just that. You certainly had vikings in both Norway and Sweden. The "danish" dominance in the north however starts in this period and continues through the viking age. > > But my argument is that that is not clear. To me it is just an > arbitrarily assigned importance to noticed development. As I said > before, it might happen that the "power of Denmark" is based on > something else, and that we, as an example, may have to go back to the > agricultural revolution. As it happens we do have an agricultural revolution in the roman iron age. New field systems, new tools, new village layouts, new production buildings and apparently the introduction of personal land ownership. >It might also happen that the importance of > Roman iron age development is overvalued, and that it is not necessary > for what we see in the Viking age. Maybe it is time for your explanation. SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > > Yes, that's what you claim. I know - and as I said to Uwe Müller, I > > apologize for using this tactic, but anyhow - archeaologists who say [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You did however argue against that idea, which was odd, > since it was not what I or any other had proposed. No, I was not. It saddens me that you somehow got that impression. > >> It is however clear that the dominance in the north by polities > >> within the later danish territory do date from this period. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > The "danish" dominance in the north however starts in this period > and continues through the viking age. In light of our recent conversation, may you please explain what you mean with Danish here? ;) > > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Maybe it is time for your explanation. But I have already told you all about it. It is a question of trying to find out what is really relevant and important when it comes to historical processes and development. Many things are connected in one way or another. As an example (and I think I did this one in a post last winter), it is possible to say that this dominance of Denmark is founded on the emergence of Rome. If I recall correctly you said that such thoughts were not meaningful, but to me they are. And when someone says; no, then, for me, that is merely a sign of archaeology or history framed within a national context. And the other side of the coin: surely you must be aware of the concept of some historical processes not being very relevant for later development? If we look at European states today as examples, we can see that Finland has more or less the same kind of culture as Italy. This was not so 2000 years ago. Presumably there has been a lot of events that didn't actually affect the present day states very much. And on the other hand, some recent events that have affected them a lot, like democracy, and workers' movement and such. So, maybe it is a bit clearer now? What you mention is still very interesting, and I would be happy to learn more. Reading a paraphrase like Chris Wickham's is obviously not enough. The latest book I read about this is "Sejrens Triumf". > And the other side of the coin: surely you must be aware of the > concept of some historical processes not being very relevant for later > development? If we look at European states today as examples, we can > see that Finland has more or less the same kind of culture as Italy. > This was not so 2000 years ago. Presumably there has been a lot of > events that didn't actually affect the present day states very much. This could be said to be due to one fact: That the Nordic countries a millenium ago became part of Christendom ... from Rome, not from Constantinople. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk >>>> This is not the same as claiming that the danish state or indeed >>>> the danes was around at that time. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, I was not. It saddens me that you somehow got that impression. You writing this: "This would diminish the importance of the Roman iron age. In any case, I think it is difficult to really find a Danish state dating from that age," Did the trick. >> You certainly had vikings in both Norway and Sweden. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In light of our recent conversation, may you please explain what you > mean with Danish here? ;) I did not write: Danish I wrote: "danish" I was referring to polities wihtin the traditional danish territory, this ought to be clear from the progression of the discussion. > As an example (and I think I did this one in a post last winter), it > is possible to say that this dominance of Denmark is founded on the > emergence of Rome. And you also mentioned Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Greek. Why not the Big Bang? > If I recall correctly you said that such thoughts > were not meaningful, The romans did not deliver a special package to the people living in "Denmark", they more or less got the same roman impact as germanics living elsewhere. Denmarks geographical position however commanded the trade and communication between Scandinavia and the continent, and through the Baltic straits. Trading places like Gudme/Lundeborg appeared in the roman ironage. Denmark's rather fertile soils compared with the rest of the north allowed a much higher population density than in the rest of the north. Which means that the agricultural revolution in the roman iron age had a much larger impact in Denmark than elsewhere in the North. The physical layout of Denmark with it's straits and islands meant that communication within the territory would be much improved once decent water transport was available. Incidently the the rowed nydam type boats, the direct predecessor of the norse ships, arrived in the roman ironage. >but to me they are. And when someone says; no, > then, for me, that is merely a sign of archaeology or history framed > within a national context. So you deliberately avoid to emphazise development within the mentioned polities/territories when ansvering questions like the one that started this thread? " Was Denmark organized and ruled differently than other Scandinavian countries in 900s-1000s? I'm curious because the Jelling dynasty seems to have come out on top, so to speak, over rivals like Sweden, Norway, or even far-off Iceland. The cultures in Scandinavia seem similar, so what made Denmark stand out during the "Viking" period? Better governmet? Military? Leaders?" If so I would like to hear your explanation of the swedish rise to dominance in the north without mentioning technology and swedish natural resources. > And the other side of the coin: surely you must be aware of the > concept of some historical processes not being very relevant for later > development? If we look at European states today as examples, we can > see that Finland has more or less the same kind of culture as Italy. > This was not so 2000 years ago. Presumably there has been a lot of > events that didn't actually affect the present day states very much. Apart from trivialities like the very existence of those states, their language(s), how the physical geography has changed , their economies, military power, religions a.s.o > And on the other hand, some recent events that have affected them a > lot, like democracy, and workers' movement and such. So now you are arguing against the impact of Rome,Egypt,Mesopotamia a.s.o in favour of events closer in time happening within the affected entity? > So, maybe it is a bit clearer now? Somthing is clearer, but I really dont see any ansver to the question that started this thread. > What you mention is still very interesting, and I would be happy to > learn more. Reading a paraphrase like Chris Wickham's is obviously not > enough. The latest book I read about this is "Sejrens Triumf". How did you like that catalogue? It was a world class exhibition. Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. > >>>> This is not the same as claiming that the danish state or indeed > >>>> the danes was around at that time. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Did the trick. I know you have problems with my language :) You could have asked. You see, to me the sentence doesn't mean what you think it means :) > >> You certainly had vikings in both Norway and Sweden. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I was referring to polities wihtin the traditional danish territory, > this ought to be clear from the progression of the discussion. Aha, you mean that the general discussion has a bearing on how to interpret sentences? Well, why didn't you treat my sentence in the same way? After all, Wickham's book has been mentioned, and so has the debate among scholars in Denmark. > > As an example (and I think I did this one in a post last winter), it > > is possible to say that this dominance of Denmark is founded on the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why not the Big Bang? So, may I continue to use your method of interpreting here? The Big Bang, Sören? No, why do you think it is important? Do you, in fact, know any archaeologists that argue for the importance of the Big Bang? Perhaps now you understand how it feels to read an answer from you? And, may I add, even though you don't write to make me happy, I write to make you happy, as well as all other beings on earth. Not, that I am doing a good job of it :-D > The romans did not deliver a special package to the people > living in "Denmark", they more or less got the same roman impact [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Incidently the the rowed nydam type boats, the direct predecessor > of the norse ships, arrived in the roman ironage. All this is very interesting, but it might happen that "Denmark" (Is it ok to use the same expression as you do? And will you understand it then?) already were in a position of dominance. You see, it is neither here nor there to argue about boats and agriculture alone. > >but to me they are. And when someone says; no, > > then, for me, that is merely a sign of archaeology or history framed [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the mentioned polities/territories when ansvering questions like > the one that started this thread? No I don't. Once again, that is simply a misinterpretation of my point of view. What I am saying is this. 1. There is a debate about a suitable label for these polities. Some Danish archaeologists say; they were states, or they were proto- states. Other archaeologists say; they were merely some farmers being richer than some other farmers. 2. The connection between these polities and Viking age Danish polities has not been established. Let me expound on this a little. If we have a developed state around 200 AD, with a "professional" army with a MASH unit :) and we want it to have an impact on the Viking age polities, then maybe we would like to see some of that in those armies? If we don't, then a conclusion might be that the earlier development isn't related to what happened later. 3. Ideas, technology and knowledge do not always see borders between states. Therefore, it is a good idea for the archaeologist and historian to not overemphasize development within one single state. Unfortunately love of the fatherland still muddles the brain, and so even today we find many provincialists. 4. The very word state. As usual, words might mean a lot of different things. For example, I think it is possible to argue that the word isn't suitable for Denmark until after the Viking age. One can compare with a word like "stad", as we use it in Swedish. Now, stad roughly means something like city or town, and can be used in many ways. An effect of this is that the expression is a little too blunt to be of any great use. For example, if one says that Visby c. 1300 AD is a stad, then it is highly doubtful whether one should use that word for Viking age Birka, or, say, early medieval Linköping (the centre of a see, with a big church, but practically nothing else :)) It is perhaps not that important how we use the word state, as long as we are aware of the differences. Still, the situation is somewhat disturbing. If it were not, then we wouldn't see any interest from the UK or Sweden. > " > Was Denmark organized and ruled differently than other Scandinavian [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If so I would like to hear your explanation of the swedish rise to dominance > in the north without mentioning technology and swedish natural resources. I think there is no need for that, because I am not arguing against the general situation, or the importance of natural resources. What I am saying is rather something like this. "Denmark" had periods of weakness, despite the fact that it had many natural advantages compared to "Norway" and "Sweden". Therefore, a theory that addresses the question of why Denmark stood out, should also somehow deal with why it sometimes did not. Such thoughts lead to questions about how those polities worked, and just how leaders back then gained in power. > > And the other side of the coin: surely you must be aware of the > > concept of some historical processes not being very relevant for later [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > how the physical geography has changed , their economies, military power, > religions a.s.o Is that so? Well maybe you can give me an example then? For instance, name an event from the Viking age or early medieval times that affects the economy of Finland. It should be fairly easy, shouldn't it? > > And on the other hand, some recent events that have affected them a > > lot, like democracy, and workers' movement and such. > > So now you are arguing against the impact of Rome,Egypt,Mesopotamia > a.s.o in favour of events closer in time happening within the affected > entity? No I am not. I am saying that some events in Viking age Finland and early medieval Finland seems to have no impact on the present day state. Now, it was just an example; mentioning Finland and Italy, but surely you must be aware of events that no longer seem to affect nations? Take a look at Denmark for example, Harald Gormsen had some kind of hegemony over a large part of Norden. In fact it is possible that Harald had thegns as far away as in Finland, and that he founded Sigtuna. Yet today Denmark is a very small state. > > So, maybe it is a bit clearer now? > > Somthing is clearer, but I really dont see any ansver to the > question that started this thread. But I did provide an answer, and in my opinion an answer that acknowledges the importance of frictions. To put it simply; it is not enough to find evidence of a factor X in the year 200 AD, because these polities rose and crashed, as indeed, polities in the north continued to do even in the medieval ages. > > What you mention is still very interesting, and I would be happy to > > learn more. Reading a paraphrase like Chris Wickham's is obviously not [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It was a world class exhibition. I liked it a lot, but I didn't find an answer to the original question in this discussion ;-) >> You writing this: >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I know you have problems with my language :) You could have asked. You > see, to me the sentence doesn't mean what you think it means :) This would have been a really good place to state what you actually meant. >> I was referring to polities wihtin the traditional danish territory, >> this ought to be clear from the progression of the discussion. > > Aha, you mean that the general discussion has a bearing on how to > interpret sentences? Yup >Well, why didn't you treat my sentence in the > same way? I did, >After all, Wickham's book has been mentioned, and so has the > debate among scholars in Denmark. So it should be obvious that it is neccesary to seperate between Danish states and other polities within the territory in question. >> And you also mentioned Egypt, Mesopotamia, and the Greek. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Bang, Sören? No, why do you think it is important? Do you, in fact, > know any archaeologists that argue for the importance of the Big Bang? No and neither do I know any archaeologist/historian who argues that the emergence of Rome/Egypt/Mesopotamia/Greece lead to the danish dominance in viking age Scandinavia.. > Perhaps now you understand how it feels to read an answer from you? Two problems: 1) I am not you, so I'm unlikely to experience your reaction to answers I dont like. 2) You failed to reproduce my sort of answers. > All this is very interesting, but it might happen that "Denmark" (Is > it ok to use the same expression as you do? And will you understand it > then?) already were in a position of dominance. Certainly If this is you position then say so and provide some evidence. If this is not your position then forgive me for not caring about what might have been the case until I see some evidence. >You see, it is neither > here nor there to argue about boats and agriculture alone. I guess this is why economy, military, population density, social organisation etc has been brought into the discussion. Not that you have bothered to actually discuss these subjects. It might actually have been fun and cheered you up a bit. >>> but to me they are. And when someone says; no, >>> then, for me, that is merely a sign of archaeology or history framed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > states. Other archaeologists say; they were merely some farmers being > richer than some other farmers. Indeed This is however of minor importance to the main point, which is the role the developments in roman ironage played in the viking age. The rising population density, the trading places, the military organisation, the ships, the agricultural revolution, the social stratification, the manufacture of goods, come around in the r.i.a It really dont matter much which label you put on the r.i.a polities the evidence is still there. Could you perhaps get your head all the way around the idea that nobody is claiming continuity between the r.i.a polities and the viking age polities? > 2. The connection between these polities and Viking age Danish > polities has not been established. Let me expound on this a little. If [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > armies? If we don't, then a conclusion might be that the earlier > development isn't related to what happened later. Are you saying that the (claimed) lack of medical equipment in viking age armies is conclusive evidence against a development from r.i.a armies? A simple yes or no will do. > 3. Ideas, technology and knowledge do not always see borders between > states. Therefore, it is a good idea for the archaeologist and > historian to not overemphasize development within one single state. > Unfortunately love of the fatherland still muddles the brain, and so > even today we find many provincialists. Much of the technology that appeared in northern europe in the r.i.a came from the empire, some was local developments. It really doesn't matter much in this discussion, which is about the impact of those technologies in different areas. My claim is that the package of technologies which arrived in the r.i.a favoured the danish area a lot more than it favoured the neighbouring regions and that state of affairs lasted well into the viking age. > 4. The very word state. As usual, words might mean a lot of different > things. You might want to look up definitions in the anthropological and archaeological litterature and see if they fits. > For example, I think it is possible to argue that the word > isn't suitable for Denmark until after the Viking age. It would be bleedingly easy to argue that no state existed in the danish area in some periods after the viking age. You would however have a hard time arguing that eg Canute didn't rule a state. What is your point? >One can compare > with a word like "stad", as we use it in Swedish. Now, stad roughly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Viking age Birka, or, say, early medieval Linköping (the centre of a > see, with a big church, but practically nothing else :)) Or one could decide that it really isn't that interesting to compare the changing meaning through the centuries of the word 'stad' with a - in an archaeological discussion- technical word like 'state' >> If so I would like to hear your explanation of the swedish rise to >> dominance in the north without mentioning technology and swedish [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the question of why Denmark stood out, should also somehow deal with > why it sometimes did not. Not really. It will suffice to conclude that you dont always win even if the deck is stacked in your favour. >Such thoughts lead to questions about how > those polities worked, and just how leaders back then gained in power. These are interesting inquiries. Now would they in your opinion answer the original question about danish dominance better? >> Apart from trivialities like the very existence of those states, >> their language(s), [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > name an event from the Viking age or early medieval times that affects > the economy of Finland. It should be fairly easy, shouldn't it? Being mainly christianed from the western church was certainly a factor in alligning Finland with western europe. I trust we agree this had effect on Finlands economy. > Now, it was just an example; mentioning Finland and Italy, but surely > you must be aware of events that no longer seem to affect nations? > Take a look at Denmark for example, Harald Gormsen had some kind of > hegemony over a large part of Norden. In fact it is possible that > Harald had thegns as far away as in Finland, and that he founded > Sigtuna. Yet today Denmark is a very small state. I OTOH am under the impression that the danish kingdom is somewhat largish as scandinavian kingdoms go. Incidently there is absolutely no cultural, geographical, economical reason that Greenland still is part of the danish kingdom. It all had to do with some events in the viking age. Soren Larsen SignatureHistory is not what it used to be. Sören, it is somewhat funny that you should mention a word like evidence in such a way. To me it implies that you have misunderstood something in the fundamentals. This is how it works. If you want to claim that Viking age Danish dominance is something that started in the Roman iron age, then you have to show that prior to that moment, there was no such dominance. You have not done so. You have only mentioned facts about the past, none of which really add up to anything. That is what I meant with the words, neither here nor there. So, if I didn't answer the question in your way, it is because I was not after cheap points in a debate, or trying to show off. Even though you mention a lot of interesting developments, I think you have failed to actually show that they changed a balance of power in any fundamental way. Here it could be a good thing to mention that even though Danish lands are more fertile, they only produce perhaps some 20 % more per area unit compared to Sweden. With time, Swedish landscapes caught up and actually surpassed the population of some Danish. For example, in 1750, both Västergötland and Småland has a larger population than Skåne. In view of facts like that, one shouldn't just forge ahead and present some thoughts as established facts and effects of technical innovation. All I am saying is that we have to be careful, and that the beginning might be found somewhere else. That is of course something very boring to say, but also something that is a lot more defensible :) As to who answered this question in the best way. In my universe, you provided no answer at all, or if you did, it was unscientific and on the same level as, "the moon is a green cheese". I mentioned that a theory should also be able to deal with periods of weakness, and try to explain them. Your thoughts about that were very illuminating. If I understand correctly you simply brush that argument under the mat. Here's what you wrote. "It will suffice to conclude that you dont always win even if the deck is stacked in your favour." The problem is that - and this is a very very important point - that in this instance, some other factors were more important. To be explicit, it was not enough for some Dane to say, "look, I can sail from X to Y in a day, and my stack of grain is certainly larger than yours". Let us return to the original question and remake it into a negative one. Why was there no dominant Danish polity in the later 9th century? Even though this question is of a similar kind as the first one, it is obvious that answers like; well you have to go back to the Roman iron age, isn't doing the trick. And neither is it a good thing to just offhandedly ignore the question, even though your precious Roman iron age development can't explain it. There are at least two good reasons as to why one should be interested in it. 1. There were humans involved, worthy of as much interest as those that created those marvellous Roman iron age polities. 2. We might actually learn something about how people wielded power, and how they did to get it. That about that :) As to those other questions. 1. Greenland was not a part of Denmark in the Viking age. 2. At least ten other European states have an economy far lousier than Finland's, even though they also became part of western christianity. In view of that; surely you jest? One thing we could do is to read some about "Denmark" ;) during ages prior to the Roman iron age. After all, we have to have a starting point. > One thing we could do is to read some about "Denmark" ;) during ages > prior to the Roman iron age. After all, we have to have a starting > point. Do you read Danish ? <http://www.gyldendal.dk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product+10001+10002+2 3667+1000+10080> 2568 pages in four volumes on Denmark's Pre-History. 13,000 BC - 1050 AD. Of course it is an overview only, not research reports. SignaturePer Erik Rønne http://www.RQNNE.dk > > One thing we could do is to read some about "Denmark" ;) during ages > > prior to the Roman iron age. After all, we have to have a starting [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Per Erik Rønne > http://www.RQNNE.dk Per Erik, a very very good reference, one problem with it is that when reading it one need not only time to read it and time to 'melt' all information in it but also either a good computer or several note-books to note down the facts and factors one want to look at from a broader European view. (I know I haven't gone thru all my note-books from reading the work. It takes time). For most purpose I would like to suggest interested to read: Rieck and Crumlin-Pedersen, Både fra Danmarks oldtid Roskilde 1988, from the serie - Båd og skib i Danmark ; 1 ISBN 87-85180-12-2, since it well covers one of the most important factors for discussing an early Danish unification and rule under one leader; the transportation from one of the Danish isles and land to an other. Inger E >>> One thing we could do is to read some about "Denmark" ;) during ages >>> prior to the Roman iron age. After all, we have to have a starting [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > note-books to note down the facts and factors one want to look at > from a broader European view. Brilliant! A good source has the disadvantage that it takes time to read and digest. Is that one of your famous Theories of Science? > (I know I haven't gone thru all my > note-books from reading the work. It takes time). [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Inger E Signaturep.a. > > One thing we could do is to read some about "Denmark" ;) during ages > > prior to the Roman iron age. After all, we have to have a starting [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Per Erik Rønnehttp://www.RQNNE.dk Thanks. They've got that one at the library. I'll go borrow it, and this evening I'll support some Danish brewery :) Sören, it is somewhat funny that you should mention a word like evidence in such a way. To me it implies that you have misunderstood something in the fundamentals. This is how it works. If you want to claim that Viking age Danish dominance is something that started in the Roman iron age, then you have to show that prior to that moment, there was no such dominance. You have not done so. You have only mentioned facts about the past, none of which really add up to anything. That is what I meant with the words, neither here nor there. So, if I didn't answer the question in your way, it is because I was not after cheap points in a debate, or trying to show off. Even though you mention a lot of interesting developments, I think you have failed to actually show that they changed a balance of power in any fundamental way. Here it could be a good thing to mention that even though Danish lands are more fertile, they only produce perhaps some 20 % more per area unit compared to Sweden. With time, Swedish landscapes caught up and actually surpassed the population of some Danish. For example, in 1750, both Västergötland and Småland has a larger population than Skåne. In view of facts like that, one shouldn't just forge ahead and present some thoughts as established facts and effects of technical innovation. All I am saying is that we have to be careful, and that the beginning might be found somewhere else. That is of course something very boring to say, but also something that is a lot more defensible :) As to who answered this question in the best way. In my universe, you provided no answer at all, or if you did, it was unscientific and on the same level as, "the moon is a green cheese". I mentioned that a theory should also be able to deal with periods of weakness, and try to explain them. Your thoughts about that were very illuminating. If I understand correctly you simply brush that argument under the mat. Here's what you wrote. "It will suffice to conclude that you dont always win even if the deck is stacked in your favour." The problem is that - and this is a very very important point - that in this instance, some other factors were more important. To be explicit, it was not enough for some Dane to say, "look, I can sail from X to Y in a day, and my stack of grain is certainly larger than yours". Let us return to the original question and remake it into a negative one. Why was there no dominant Danish polity in the later 9th century? Even though this question is of a similar kind as the first one, it is obvious that answers like; well you have to go back to the Roman iron age, isn't doing the trick. And neither is it a good thing to just offhandedly ignore the question, even though your precious Roman iron age development can't explain it. There are at least two good reasons as to why one should be interested in it. 1. There were humans involved, worthy of as much interest as those that created those marvellous Roman iron age polities. 2. We might actually learn something about how people wielded power, and how they did to get it. That about that :) As to those other questions. 1. Greenland was not a part of Denmark in the Viking age. 2. At least ten other European states have an economy far lousier than Finland's, even though they also became part of western christianity. In view of that; surely you jest? One thing we could do is to read some about "Denmark" ;) during ages prior to the Roman iron age. After all, we have to have a starting point. > Sören, it is somewhat funny that you should mention a word like > evidence in such a way. To me it implies that you have misunderstood [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dominance is something that started in the Roman iron age, then you > have to show that prior to that moment, there was no such dominance. Which would be an impossible task Your suggestion is barking mad. > Even though you mention a lot of interesting developments, I think you > have failed to actually show that they changed a balance of power in > any fundamental way. Here it could be a good thing to mention that > even though Danish lands are more fertile, they only produce perhaps > some 20 % more per area unit compared to Sweden. Area used for agriculture year 2000 http://www.dansklandbrug.dk/NR/rdonlyres/64779A71-3706-42D0-AA18-112025844F25/0/ Ngltal_dansk_jun_07.pdf http://www.scb.se/templates/tableOrChart____37583.asp Sweden 27060 sq km Denmark 20006 sq km area under plough/total area Sweden 6% Denmark 46% You would have to shift the former danish areas in southern sweden to be correct, but I think you should be able to get the picture. >With time, Swedish > landscapes caught up and actually surpassed the population of some > Danish. For example, in 1750, both Västergötland and Småland has a > larger population than Skåne. Västergötland 23 942 sq km Skåne 11 027 sq km . >In view of facts like that, one > shouldn't just forge ahead and present some thoughts as established > facts and effects of technical innovation. You seem to to have missed the fact that I can actually show you the weaponsacrifices, the trading place for roman goods at the harbour site in Gudme, the new layout of the villages, the burials at Himlingøje with roman luxury goods and that brand new runic writing. Not to mention the new developments in agriculture. a.s.o. > The problem is that - and this is a very very important point - that > in this instance, some other factors were more important. Still waiting for you to actually present those factors. > To be explicit, it was not enough for some Dane to say, "look, I can > sail from X to Y in a day, and my stack of grain is certainly larger > than yours". Which is why it is a good idea to actually look into his ship. Yup Lots o |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message