Talk:Vikings/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

One theory made by the Icelander

I noticed this mention of a "theory made by the Icelander Örnolfur Kristjansson [sic] is that the key to the origins of the word is "wicinga cynn" in Widsith, referring to the people or the race living in Jórvík (York, in the ninth century under control by Norsemen), Jór-Wicings (though this is not the origin of Jórvík)."

The citation does not mention an Örnólfur Kristjánsson. I can't find any Icelandic academic called Örnólfur Kristjánsson, no papers by him, no books.

I think this should simply be removed. There is no source and there is no indication that this is significant.

Óli Gneisti (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The whole etymology section needs a cleanup. It's full of repetitive, poorly sourced statements like this.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

@Berig, Bloodofox, Carlstak, Obenritter, Krakkos, and Pfold: - I'm a bit swamped with work, but maybe one or more of you can try to get this hydra of an etymology section under control.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The bit about Örnolfur Kristjansson was added by User Ornolfurk on 26 March 2017. This person seems to have a history of making up stuff. Carlstak (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed that part, but the rest of the section is still a horrific mess.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, glad you removed that bit. Still wading through the rest. Needs expert attention, which I'm not, but I can read. Carlstak (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

The current etymology section is over complicated. In the 9th century Anglo-Saxons called the raiders 'Danes' or 'Danish men', 'heathens' or 'Vikings. The Alfredian chroniclers who compiled the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, seem to prefer 'Danes' whereas Alfred's biographer, Asser called them 'Pagans'.(Lapidge et al. 2001) The first known use of Viking in English was in the Épinal-Erfurt Glossary which was compiled around AD 700, many years before any 'Viking' raids around the English coast. The Latin translation was piraticum (pirate in modern English) Note: Viking is spelt uuicing, as W had not been invented at the time. Thus the medieval use of the word Viking, in Old English, meant pirate. The modern re-invention of the word Michael Lapidge describes as "A term of convenience applied indiscriminately by modern scholarship to the inhabitants of the Scandinavian countries", which I know irritates our Scandinavian Editors by some of the comments on this talk page! My suggestion, therefore, is that we keep the first and last paragraphs of the etymology section. Both need a bit of tweaking. The first paragraph explaining the original use of the word and the second paragraph the modern use. The various paragraphs in the middle that discuss alternate etymologies should probably be moved to the 'Other names' section. 'Other names' to be made a separate header. This is supposed to be the English Wikipedia after all, thus the Etymology section should just be about English usage. Wilfridselsey (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of modern Scandinavians and Scandinavian scholars accept the modern use of the word Vikings, and refer to Viking Age North Germanics as Vikings. One the great problems with WP is that it attracts certain people who take offense at various things and want to "correct" WP. For as long as I can remember (almost 20 years), there has only ever been one single editor that has waged a crusade against the modern use of the word Viking. He has been perma-banned from Swedish WP, and I doubt he'll ever accept WP policy in this case.--Berig (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

That editor is now topic banned so we don’t need to worry about him anymore. I’m not sure we should get rid of everything between the first and last paragraph, but a major trimming and/or rewrite is needed.—Ermenrich (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for updating me! I think that the Michael Lapidge quote above ie: "A term of convenience applied indiscriminately by modern scholarship..etc" just about sums it up, it is what it is! However, my suggestion wasn't really to get rid of all the discussion in the current middle of the Etymology section, but move it into "Other names" . This would leave a much more simple Etymology section, that concentrated on the Anglo-Saxon usage of the term Viking juxtaposed with the modern usage. The Anglo-Saxon word uuiking probably just meant pirate and did not really have any nationality attributed to it. Of course as most of the pirate activity around British and Irish shores between the 8th and 11th century were largely due to Scandinavian pirates, it is easy to see how the two terms became linked. However the area where the Scandinavians settled in medieval England was called Danelaw not "Vikinglaw", so it was not linked then. The use of the term Viking now is a modern construct that emerged in the 18th century, the meaning is different to the original usage, nowadays it does not mean pirate or even Scandinavian pirate, it has grown to mean anything Scandinavian, Icelandic, Faeroese etc from a certain period in history. ie: the "Viking" age. Currently, in the etymology section, there about eight paragraphs devoted to the original meaning of Viking and one about the modern use. This seems a little 'unbalanced' so I think that there should just be one paragraph about the origin and one about modern use. The rest of the origin hypotheses/ theories should be moved to another section, 'Other names' for example (can't think of a better name at the moment!). Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused. Can someone enlighten me? For just one example of many, Jón Viðar Sigurðsson, professor at the University of Oslo, refers to the Vikingane: "Vikingane herja då i Irland. Det er elles uklart når vikingane begynte å angripe Irland. Det kjem av at irske skriftkunnige ikkje skilde mellom vikingangrep og plyndringstokt som dei irske småkongane iverksette mot kvarandre." I mean, even in a modern context there was the Norwegian TV show, Vikingane. How does these facts accord with what Wilfridselsey says? Carlstak (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The reason why you are getting confused is because you are comparing apples with oranges! Viking in OE was a pirate! Talking to my Norwegian friends vikingr approximately, in modern English, means to go on expedition/ adventure? The modern usage of viking in English means everything Scandinavian et al between the 8th and 11th century!! So we're juggling with at least three balls here! This is why I am suggesting that we define the meaning of viking in old English and then modern English. Then go on to discuss/ contrast the variety of sources. Whoever thought up the title to the TV show you reference, vikingane in Norwegian and Norsemen in English (BTW I thought the show was great), were on message, because I do not find any references to vikings in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle although I do find several to northmen (norsemen). Calling the show 'Vikings' in English would be sympathetic to modern usage, but calling it Norsemen is more in keeping with the OE. Probably the programme makers called it Norsemen to differentiate it from all the other 'Viking' shows on at the moment, however the name and the content are probably more true to history than more serious shows!!Wilfridselsey (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The Devil is in the details, but it is not our task to complicate for the reader. The article needs to start with the most current meaning of the word Viking. The OE and ON meanings of Viking are secondary, in importance.--Berig (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree! probably a slightly more NPOV of the Lapidge version already quoted. eg:"A term applied by modern scholarship to the inhabitants of Scandinavian countries etc. before and after they achieved separate or more distinctive identities. Also the people of Scandinavia who left their homelands in search of adventure or a better life overseas...." What do you think? Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I have added a modern definition to the Etymology section based on the discussion here. I have separated the modern definition with the "Original meaning and derivation". Not much I know, but it does give the section a bit more structure? Wilfridselsey (talk) 10:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The problem was not that there was too little material. The added section was essentially a repetition of parts of the lede, and does not really explain the development of the meaning, which should be the focus of a etymology section. I've tried to restructure the material with focus first on theories on the origin, and then explanation of later usage. However, the individual sections still needs work - I've only tried to delete outright repetitions and done a few changes to join the sections together.

Andejons (talk) 12:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I still think the whole etymology section is still way too long and bloated. Encyclopedias are about things, not words, and I think we are just confusing the two here (or at least confusing the reader about the two). Although I have added several etymology sections to articles (etymology and linguistics fascinate me), such as phosphorescence, welding, or the moose articles, I think in most cases it's really irrelevant to the subject, which is the thing not the word. It's kind of interesting to have some word origins, but I think it's very rare that it's necessary from an encyclopedic standpoint. Case in point would be the moose article, where it's actually very helpful to the reader to explain the whole moose/elk confusion, that we need to even get into it at all, let alone with that level of detail. In most cases, an etymology section should be short and concise; one, two, maybe three short paragraphs at best. Definitely not divided up into its own subsections.

We have enough here to create an article specifically about the word "Viking", and maybe that's what we should do. Move all this stuff into an article that is solely about the word, and then give a brief summary of that article here with a "main article" link at the top. Either that, or simply whittle this down to one or two paragraphs. We're not getting paid by the word, and all we need here is the gist of it. The nitty gritty, not all the boring details. That's what we do. Summarize things. We're here to give a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. Zaereth (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Zaereth - it still needs considerable reduction in length. I think it's honestly more confusing than helpful now.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, too. Sensible. I personally like "boring details", but these don't belong in this article. Carlstak (talk) 14:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth you are right. I think that the etymology of Viking is quite interesting. Not sure that you can compare it to your examples though! I think that the existing etymology section is too long and complicated but it reflects the fact that there has been a long term dispute among scholars about the origin of this word. Let me remind you. In ON it appears as vikingr (male) and viking (feminine), The male version refers to an activity, the female version to a person. In OE wicing means a pirate. It is not sure that the Old English word has the same origin as the Old Norse word. Other suggestions is that vikingr derives from bay dweller possibly related to the OE wic and Latin vicus meaning dwelling place.The modern invention of the word was popularised by the historian Sharon Turner and the author Sir Walter Scott at the beginning of 19th century. From those beginnings it has become to mean everything Scandinavian in the Viking Age. We don't really understand how or in what context or if indeed it was used at all in the Viking Age. There are numerous hypotheses on this subject, so a separate page would be a very good idea to explore them. Wilfridselsey (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I say, this is all great stuff for an article about the word "Viking", but it has almost nothing to do with the thing this word describes. Words are merely symbols that represent some thing, be it some physical thing or an action, or whatever descriptor that symbol is being used for. I've studied the evolution of languages long enough to have learned that it's a fool's errand to look for some logic behind it all. Languages evolve in erratic, illogical, and unpredictable ways, and the symbols or words we use rarely have any real literal connection to the things they represent. We park in driveways and drive on parkways. There's no rhyme or reason to it. Nobody sat down one day and said, "Let's design the language like this..."

Take ancient Egyptian hieroglyphics, for example. Do you think a symbol of a man holding a snake is literally representative of a man holding a snake? Not at all. Hieroglyphics is a phonetic language, so all that symbol represents is a sound, or a series of sounds. The word "Viking" is likewise just a symbol. This article is about the thing that symbol represents.

Now, a symbol is within itself a type of thing, and indeed we do have lots of articles that are solely about words and symbols. But the word and the thing it represents are two entirely different things, and if we're going to get into this level of detail then I think we need to divide them out into separate articles, because having it all here is just confusing the issue. Languages constantly change and evolve unpredictably, meanings of words change, but the thing always remains the same. (A rose by any other name... is still a flower.)

All we really need here is a summary of all that, which I think you just did a pretty good job of summarizing right there. As you said, here're the main points: the word was found in some old Nordic runes with varying translations. It's sole source from Old English (a very German language) was found in what amounts to an Old English-Latin dictionary, next to the Latin word for "pirate". The German writer Bremmen uses it in a Latinized form to describe pirates in very much the modern sense of the word "pirate" (ie: he gives a vivid description of people who attack ships at sea rather than raiding on land, hiding in the fjords in their fast little speed-boats (the equivalent of the Coast-Guard Cutters of their time), and waiting for passing merchant ships so they can steal all their goods and even sell off the ship, crew, and passengers). Then the term fell out of use in English until the 19th century where it was resurrected when it was used in popular German operas of the time (along with the notion of horned helmets and fat ladies singing). That's pretty much the gist of it, right? That's all we really need to say here. All the rest of the detail can simply be moved to Viking (word), and that way we're not confusing the two things as if they were one. Zaereth (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

My two eyrir: A) A separate article on the term "Viking" seems in order. Ze Germans usually include a section on what they call "Begriffsgeschichte", scil., "concept history", which bridges the development from the original meaning to present use; "Viking" seems like a prime candidate for this. B) The "double use" of Zaereth's The Thing where it means "medieval Scandinavian in general" in English and "pirate, raider" in Scandinavia is the source of much argument both here at Wiki and elsewhere. IMO it's due to an error, but let's not right this great wrong right now; however, a clarification wrt. to that issue is also in order, among other things to explain usage when interpreting sources of various origins. C) For those who can, I reccommend a glance at the German Wiki article, or for that matter some of the Scandi language ones. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Atcually, the spread in meaning exist in the Nordic languages and in English (it is reflected in the lede of this article, and you'll find both as separate definitions in e.g. Merriam-Webster). It's not wrong to have this article be about norse people from the period in general, but it is a choice that has been made, and it can be argued over whether it's a good choice. I think that it's useful to have separate terms for people going about raiding and pillaging and the people who did not do such things, but I can live with this arrangement as well.

Andejons (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I guess you're right. Next person to claim that "vikings were farmers and traders, too", I'll refer them to you, though :) T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In English, there really are two separate terms. As a native English speaker, it's just idiomatic, meaning it comes from the id, that is, people don't know why we speak this way; we just do. When talking about Vikings to another native English speaker, we both know we're not talking about Norwegians or Swedes per se, that is to say, people living on mainland Scandinavia. That word is limited to raiders and settlers of nordic origin. Originally, this term probably was used strictly for pirates, but not anymore. The meaning has changed to exclude pirates altogether and broadened to include both raiders and settlers. Those are two of the most common ways that languages evolve.

Now, I think a lot of people tend to look at these activities through modern eyes, forgetting that the times were very different back then, and in many if not most cases settling a new land was virtually the same as pillaging and raiding, except that when they killed or ran everyone off they didn't leave, but instead built homes and stayed. You have to remember, Rome had recently fallen, economies were in ruin. People lost faith in money or big government. They all but abandoned the big cities of old and retreated into a feudal life in self-sustaining country manors. The very idea of lands uniting as nations was just beginning (sort of a, "You mess with one of us, you mess with the the whole neighborhood" kinda thing). Because settling a new land often meant driving out the people who were already living there. These were violent times of their own accord, and we do a disservice by judging them by modern standards.

That said, no matter what the subject, we are stuck with using the modern language to define it, so wee simply have to work within the constraints of that language. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, many good points, as usual. Some rather quirky notions, too, e.g. sourcing idiomatics to Freud and the relevance of "Rome had recently fallen"; a very loose value range for "recently", that, at least ca. 3 centuries. Anyhow, unlike Britain, Gaul and what is now southern Germany, Scandinavia was never under Roman influence, so their demise or not doesn't really matter; i.e. big government and big cities are not likely to appear in Norse society at the time, nor abandoning such. Nations are also far off as a force in politics, it was much more about dynasties up to around the 30 year war. Raiding, killing and settling, though, that's long traditon (viz, USA, Australia, etc.).

I still think a separate article just for the word is a good idea. The rest is going to be detail work (whence the notion that Denmark, Norway and Sweden did not exist in the Viking age?), as usual. See you around. T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, actually, things didn't change very rapidly after the fall of Rome, and you sort of have to consider what was going in in those places where Vikings were settling and raiding. Vikings are fascinating from an English perspective, because they were as much our ancestors as the Angles and Saxons, and likely much more if the language says anything about it. (Modern English is based far more French and Scandinavian than what's left of its German roots, enough so that reading French or Swedish is not too difficult because all but the small words are easily recognizable.)

The fall of Rome affected the economies of all Europe and much of Asia. Rome controlled the trade routes, and without them trade became a dangerous thing. People had to go looking for their own resources. Trade almost ground to a halt as each manor sought to be as self-sufficient as possible. Land was the only real wealth, and that had to be fought for and defended at a moment's notice. That's just the world stage at the time. There was a major shift from previous times and it took 900 years for things to return to a normal monetary-economy.

In those times there was no country called Sweden, but there was a land called Sweden, and Norway, and Jutland, Zealand, Saxony, etc., because King Alfred writes some pretty detailed descriptions of them in his History of the World. Descriptions given to him, ironically enough, by a wealthy Norseman he befriended and trusted not to exaggerate things. These consisted of small kingdoms spearated more by cultural differences, but not yet united as nations as England was starting to do. The Vikings were really just living the same lifestyle and doing what the Angles had been doing 200 years prior to the Viking Age, and Asser even mentions this. It is all very violent and un-Christian-like, and we see ourselves today in much the same way as Alfred saw them: as being civilized and superior with our high, modern, Christian-based values compared to these barbaric savages who were living an outdated lifestyle. But that's all part of our English ancestry, and we can't deny it anymore than Americans can deny what we did to the Native Americans. These Vikings, their culture and traditions, are now as firmly engrained in English-speaking cultures as the witches and druids and devils of the Britons is. The pojnt is, we can't project our modern morals onto them or we start to sound like we've watched too much Xena Warrior Princess or Bonanza. People back then had a different way of thinking and a different set of values. Zaereth (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I think you should read some history, it might interest you. Not much changed in England after Rome left? Well, for one thing, the Angles and Saxons came :) A rather large political, demographic and linguistic change there. Same with Francia: not much in common with Gallia Cisalpina etc. And overall - lest you find me too critical - you can't really say in one sentence that "things didn't change very rapidly after the fall of Rome" and then lecture on how trade shifted and Europe got a feudal economy, and other rather fundamental developments.

Either of these, ok, but not both.

Wrt. Scandinavia, we had our own trade routes through the Baltic, thank you, Norway _was_ a trade route, even ... and the so-called Viking Age was precisely the time when the kingdoms there were established, Harald Wireless of Denmark, Harald Dreadlocks of Norway being two examples. The Swedes lagged behind, but then, they're Swedes, so ...

England was culturally undermined by an invasion of fanatics in thrall to some Middle Eastern religious cult, and our local aristocrats had to teach those fellows a lesson, and bring some law and order and culture to yon sceptered isle, including the notion of washing, which was said to appeal strongly to the Anglo-Saxon ladies. I.e., the Vikings did the Raj thing, they just did it first. Backwards, who?

Whether or not one can project one's morals depends, I think, on what morals you subscribe to. They certainly would have recognized our new versions of their War On Terror :)

Regards, T 84.208.65.62 (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)