Jump to content

Talk:Norsemen

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 172.76.124.188 (talk) at 20:04, 23 October 2017 (→‎Has this been included in this article?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

See also Talk:Scandinavians/version 2. Tbe old page Scandinavians is now at Scandinavians/version 2.

older entries

Not a bad start user:vikings but this article is far too POV at the moment.Unfortunately you need to temper you passion a little and try to stick to cold hard facts. Everything you state should be backed up by evidence, and you should write your article as if you were writing about people whome you neither particuly like or dislike. Hope this helps Theresa knott 14:55 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

thank you, Theresa, we are learning - we are happy to see that much more survived editorship than the last time we tried Vikings 16:31 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I don't know what a major part of this article tries to say. Stuff that is truley "subjective" belongs on the discussion side, so I past it in below. // Rogper 22:41, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In the year 1005 they sailed to America. They were never much interested in becoming the ruling force. The structure was patriarcatic, but they had a high respect of women and idolize or honoured the elderly. Many females had high positions and were very influential (Freydis - see Norse Saga). They were interested in good education.

On a Norse ship ("viking ship"), there was one captain (chief), elected from the crew: the strongest, smartest, wisest, once wildest, with lots of experience, lots of friends and political supporters, with fame on many oceans and shores, with all authority. In moments of danger and in battle he made the decisions and strategy, all crew followed without any questioning. In times of peace they stood in the back. All younger warriors were allowed to challenge and question the chief in the time between wars. All trusted him and he backed all to the outside.

If the majority of the crew asks him to step down he does so and falls back to the role as advisor and teacher.

Many companies of modern Norse countries are operated in the same way as the wooden ships, and some world-leading businesses evolved (Nokia, IKEA, Ericsson, Maersk) - again influencing, navigating, moving, communicating and educating on global scales.

For more information see viking.

Proposal to move to "Norseman"

In keeping with the naming conventions for articles, I'd like to propose through the Wikipedia:Requested moves process that this article be moved to "Norseman" and that it be converted to a redirect. The relevant Wikipedia Policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (plurals). Thanks for considering this for discussion. I'll not nominate for moving until some time/input has passed here. Courtland 11:59, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to do this proposal as I think it is probably best as it stands .. one would more frequently refer to the group of Norsemen rather than a single Norseman. Courtland 04:29, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • I fully support the creation of a redirect, but I think the two articles should be reworded (so they do not have so much overlap) and then merged (at the very least to acknowledge "Norsemen" within the article as a seperate term). It seems better to have one comprehensive article rather than two smaller articles, especially since Norsemen and Northmen are generally considered interchangeable. Markovich292 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also

whatever

Can

Can we change the name of the article?100110100 11:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]



it has to be added in the article that norse isnt an ethnicity... norse are north germanic peoples... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.204.171.167 (talk) 01:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources?

is there any source for Vikings has been a common term for norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland.

What I refer to specifically is Vikings has been a common term for norsemen.

I belive there is not one single source, in the early medieval period, using the term viking as a common term for norse, so this statement should be removed.

Dan Koehl 03:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dan Koehl, the cited sentence above is somewhat misleading. The term "Viking" should be referred however, since it (regrettably, IMO) is the most popular term in modern usage. Proposal for rephrasing:
Since the 18th Century "Vikings" has been in popular use as a term for norsemen in the early medieval period, especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by norsemen in Great Britain and Ireland.
See also Etymology of Viking.
P.S. Spellingcheck most welcome ;-) Finnrind 23:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with you.

Even if its popular to call all nortern people during vikinga age vikings, today by common people, its wrong.

If Wikipedia would state in articles populair beliefs, rather than prooven facts, it would not be a quality encyclopedia.

Here below I show several sources that does not support this "populair" view.

It seems like the english speaking encyclopedias in early 1900 were well defined on the word viking:

Websters (1903) definition:

Viking \Vi"king\, n. [Icel. v[imac]kingr, fr. v[imac]k a bay, inlet.] One belonging to the pirate crews from among the Northmen, who plundered the coasts of Europe in the eighth, ninth, and tenth centuries. [1913 Webster]

further on:

Note: Viking differs in meaning from sea king, with which it is frequently confounded. "The sea king was a man connected with a royal race, either of the small kings of the country, or of the Haarfager family, and who, by right, received the title of king as soon he took the command of men, although only of a single ship's crew, and without having any land or kingdom . . . Vikings were merely pirates, alternately peasants and pirates, deriving the name of viking from the vicks, wicks, or inlets, on the coast in which they harbored with their long ships or rowing galleys." --Laing. [1913 Webster]

Brewer's Dictionary:

Viking A pirate. So called from the vik or creek in which he lurked. The word is wholly unconnected with the word "king." There were sea-kings, sometimes, but erroneously, called "vikings," connected with royal blood, and having small dominions on the coast. These sea-kings were often vikingr or vikings, but the reverse is not true that every viking or pirate was a sea-king. (Icelandic vikingr, a pirate.).

source

Any of the Scandinavian people who raided the coasts of Europe from the 8th to the 11th centuries.

Viking Age England" by Julian D. Richards, published in 2000 (pages 10-11):

Contemporary chroniclers called the raiders by many names, including heathens and pagans, as well as Northmen and Danes, but one of the names used to refer to them by the English was `Viking', and this is now used to describe not only the raiders, but also the period during which they carried out their attacks. These centuries, from the ninth to the eleventh, have become known, therefore, as the Viking Age. [...] In the icelandic sagas, víkingr came to be used as a noun to refer to a warrior, or pirate, víking was used to refer to an expedition. The majority of Scandinavians, therefore, were not Vikings; only those who went a-viking could really qualify for the description.

I therefore ask for written sources that viking was used as a term for norsemen in the history

Im pretty sure this is a misunderstanding, and todays habits are only some 20-30 years.


Dan Koehl 06:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that we disagree, that is, (I think) I agree with you but I don't seem to have explained myself very well.
  1. I agree with the definitions above, using viking as another term for norsemen is wrong
  2. In the medieval sources I have studied, i.e. Irish annals, never uses the term Vikings. The monastic raiders are generally referred to as Gall (strangers) og Gennti (pagans), later also Gall-gaidel, understood as equivalent of [Norse-gaels]] (It is assumed that Gall in these sources always refer to people of norse origin.
I do not have the time to dig up references of when the term viking started being used in the general way it is used today, but that is not my point either. If it so pleases the good editors, I only want the article about norsemen to clarify that viking is not another word for norse, which I take it is Koehls interrest here too...? New Proposal for rephrasing:
The term "Vikings" is popularly used as a term for Scandinavians in general and norse settlers in Gerat Britain and Ireland in particular. In its original contaxt Viking denotes pirates, and should be used for norsemen only in connection with raids and monastic plundering made by them in Great Britain and Ireland.
If you still disagree, please give an alternative suggestion for what the wording of the article should be. Finnrind 10:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing statement regarding connotation of profit

"The Slavs and the Byzantines also called them Varangians (ON: Væringjar, meaning sworn men or from Slavic варяги supposedly deriving from the root "вар" - "profit" as coming from North they would profit by trading goods and not producing them, which had a negative connotation in Slavic culture of that time)..." I believe what is meant is that the failure to produce goods had a negative connotation. However, the wording also leaves open the conclusion that it was the production of goods that was deprecated. Could someone tell me what was intended here? --AlanUS (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment

Some time ago I was asked to look this article over and I have now combed through it and made numerous edits. A few comments:

  1. ) Large sections of the body are totally unreferenced, which is a major issue that needs to be solved before this article moves any further forward.
  2. ) References should be removed from the lead, and the lead should be a simple summary of the body of the article (see WP:LEAD).
  3. ) Caveats are needed for a lot of these sources referred to (i.e. add "according to legend"). A problematic example is "Iceland was discovered by Naddoddr, one of the first settlers on the Faroe Islands, who was sailing from Norway to the Faroe Islands, but got lost and drifted to the east coast of Iceland". With this it would be wise to include the primary source from which the legend stems along with the secondary source discussing it in the footnote.

After this, the material in the body needs a closer looking at. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio?

Containing copyright violations?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACopyright_problems%2F2011_September_18&action=historysubmit&diff=451193757&oldid=451185299

I think it may be a false alarm. The date of that website says 18 September, Alphasinus' edit seems to date to August. I checked a few other 'articles' on that site, and it seems that a few of them are pulled from other websites (for example, this [1] contains the exact same text as on this (undated) webpage [2]). Alphasinus may be a confirmed-sock with little credibility now, but I don't think that this is a case of him copying and pasting someone else's work, it looks to be the other way around.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who are the original author, but where you found 18 September and which year? --Diwas (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Follow the link you gave, under the article's title "Harold I First King of a United Norway" is "Sun, 18 Sep 2011 18:23:00 | European Peoples".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What a luck, just the day I was read this article first and set a “copyvio?” In my cache and googles too, there is “Tue, 03 Aug 2010 19:41:08 | European Peoples”. --Diwas (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 September 18. While I am also having difficulty with the date of the tagged source, Diwas points out that the section beginning "The tension between increasingly centralized groups and independent warrior societies may have furnished part of the impetus behind the Viking raids and the Scandinavian migrations to other parts of Europe that began in the late eighth century, as warriors sought to expand their territorial holdings and were unable to do so in neighboring lands. " is copied from the Encyclopedia of European Peoples, beginning on page 831. I can see this, in Google book, and it clearly predates the placement of the text here by several years. It would probably be safe to revert to the edit prior to the influx of this content, but content placed by this user seems rightly suspect, given that some of it is blatantly pasted. Since the article was not blanked, previously, I am extending the listing at the WP:CP board. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I just noticed the recent comment on Talk:Normans#Clean-up_needed, and have noticed that Alphasinus indeed has a history of copying and pasting large swathes of text off the net [3]. It must go deeper than these two articles. I remember he was edit warring with another editor over Varangians-type topics for instance.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow somebody managed to destroy all edit history between April and October. I cannot be bothered to do detective work on what exactly went wrong or who is to blame, but clearly the cause was some merge attempt gone disastrously wrong. Behind the merge attempt there seems to be a "Scandinavians" article which treated "Scandinavians" as a contemporary "ethnic group". Then somebody had the glorious idea to merge this already misguided article with the article on medieval Scandinavians to create an even more broken page. Seeing as there are perfectly valid articles on Danes, Norwegians and Swedes, there is clearly no reason to write an article about ("Danes+Norwegians+Swedes"), even if these are summarized as "Scandinavians". The article about the modern concept of Scandinavia is, of course, to be found at Scandinavia. This page here is about medieval history during the 8th to 10th century. It is spectacularly misguided to water down an article about a medieval topic with modern demographics. --dab (𒁳) 08:29, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about the revision deletion, I managed to do that, and it had nothing to do with the merger. See the logs: [4]. The content was deleted following the copyright problems board listing. It seems like the merger was proposed as uncontroversial: [5]. I have no idea why this would be seen as a desirable or uncontroversial merger, since the two articles don't seem to have had anything to do with each other. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map Problem

Norse settlements in Sicily and in the south of Italy, who says that ? It is a joke ? There were some Norman adventurers and knights banished from Normandy that went there to make money and get power. They founded there principalities, became lord or king, but the Normans are not Norsemen and the Norman presence in Italy is not a settlement.Nortmannus (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exact numbers?

There is a table called "Distribution" in the article. According to that table there are 8,260,987 "Norsemen" in Sweden. In what way are they defined. There is no source for this. What is the definition? Citizenship? "Ethnic origin" is not registred in Sweden and many people have multiple origins. So it must be imposible to count such an exact figure. --Muniswede (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed

The Old Frankish Nortmann "Northman" was Latinized as Normanni, famously in the prayer A furore normannorum libera nos domine ("From the fury of the Northmen release us, O Lord!"), attributed to monks of the English monasteries plundered by Viking raids in the 8th and 9th centuries,[citation needed]

I agree with the citation needed, urgently so as it is nowadays often thought to be a later invention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.15.58 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Norwegian Endonym

I couldn't find any mention of the fact that the Norwegian word for Norwegian (people) is "Nordmenn" (pl) ie, "Northmen". With all the other talk of who calls who what, it seems relevant enough. - Ben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:C440:20:11BC:80AA:82BA:3829:E152 (talk) 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map showing the "Norse settlements"

This map shows the very little knowledge of the WP map makers. The Normans are not Norsemen, they are a mixture of Gallo-Franks and Anglo-Scandinavians. In 1066 William the Conqueror set foot in England and during the 11th century Norman Barons set foot in the south of Italy and in Sicily, see Norman conquest of southern Italy, not the Norsemen, that is wrong !Nortmannus (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Normans originated in the settlement of Rollo/Hrolf and his men in the area, and during the late Viking Age their conquests can be thought of as part of Norse expansion; the article on Norman conquest of southern Italy makes clear that the process of establishment of a Norman foothold there began well before the end of the Viking Age. The Norman Conquest of England has a better claim to be an exception, since the given reason was a legal claim of succession. I've recast the map caption to single out the Norman settlements as in some cases extending after the Viking Age, but they are not unrelated. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that the Normans are not Norsemen is just odd, I am afraid. ("Anglo-Scandinavians" has it the wrong way round - the Norman aristocracy became the English aristocracy after the Norman Conquest; they did not come from England! Accordingly, I will re-remove the "citation needed" on Sicily. I consider the passage about the derivation of the word "Norman" sufficient citation, since I have now provided an alternative to the prayer now thought apocryphal, one that also uses the word. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How should these articles be organized?

Please visit Talk:Vikings#How should these articles be organized? to share your opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants (talk • contribs) 14:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>> Posted on both the "Norsemen" and "Vikings" Talk pages: As an increasingly steady contributor to Viking / Norse articles on Wikipedia, I've been intrigued to read the Talk pages for some of the more critical articles. As time passes, I'm convinced of the need for reorganisation across a number of these.

Starting with the Norsemen / Viking 'divide', for example, I'm aware there has been discussion recently as to the merits of merging these two articles. Some consensus apparently arose against a merger, for the moment at least, BUT since then nothing (or next to nothing) has been done to reorganise the articles in the manner which reflects that particular consensus. The 'Vikings' article, focusing on the raiding / piratical aspect of the word - distinct from the modern, generalised ethnic marker in English language texts - still retains much that would be better placed in a "Norsemen" / "Norse" article, not least the socio-economic descriptions of late 1st millennium Scandinavian society and economy. Such reorganisation would be the logical outcome of that consensus. Rather, it seems that the central argument to date has been over the semantics of the 'Viking / Norse divide', but with little or no responsibility then taken for rearranging the content. I would, moreover, consider it imperative - in the interests of clarity - to make more explicit the links between the two articles in their opening paragraph(s) and / or disambiguation links. A general reader, or researching student, looking up "Vikings" for example, needs to have it made clear that the Wikipedia article with that title will focus on the raider / piratical aspect of Norse culture, with the general article on the ethnic group from which the Vikings originated, the 'Northmen' / 'Norse', possessing its own much wider, more generalised article. I think the creation of a specialised "Viking" / "Northmen" / "Norse" template might assist with this potentially confusing overlap. The casual, beginning reader for example, might find it rather perplexing that we can have "Norse mythology", but also a specific article on "Viking art" - the links and boundaries between these established terms in scholarship are clear for those in the know, but could be rather confusing for the uninitiated.

Most worryingly, we seem to have a series of articles that duplicate the same material and / or present similar ideas in multiple sections. I'm already on record for questioning the organisation of the Viking Age article, for example.

I'm interested to hear what others think on this matter... This is a call for further discussion on these matters, rather than an attempt to provide solid answers. Anyone? Paul James Cowie (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Norse vs. Norsemen vs. Icelandic

"Norseman means "person from the North" and applied primarily to Old Norse-speaking tribes who settled in southern and central Scandinavia. They established states and settlements in [..] Iceland [..]". When I saw at Leif Erikson: "was a Norse[8] explorer" (note, "Norse" linked to "Norsemen"), I changed to "was an Icelandic[8] explorer (while his father was Norse)".

I note that the list of countries in the quote from this article doesn't include Norway (as probably the origin). When I read Norse I first thought it's a person from Norway. Is it appropriate to link Norse to Norsemen? At least I, read this "wrong".. Only when you hover over the link or actually press it do you see Norsemen, and while I did, I thought it meant men from Norway..

Maybe Norsemen (or Norse) is used to avoid having to say an "an Icelandic explorer" or "an Norwegian explorer" as both could get contested.

Note at Icelander I see: "2nd row: [..] Erik the Red", he seems clearly not born in Iceland (born in Norway), while his son Leif is.

Before I change possible errors at Bjarni Herjólfsson and Gudrid Thorbjarnardóttir, can anyone advise? comp.arch (talk) 11:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In English - as opposed to Norwegian - "Norse" and "Norsemen" refer to all the people who spoke Old Norse. Some of the Icelandic settlers stayed there, but many also spent time viking and trading around, and although the kings were trying to establish the kind of firm concept of kingdom/country that we now think of as natural, things were still fairly fluid (Bjarni's life illustrates that). I'd say describing Leif as Norse is better, but there are nationalistic arguments on both sides. What isn't correct (in English) is to think of "Norse" as meaning "Norwegian". Yngvadottir (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize the vikings didn't carry passports.. and (at Iceland) "the settlement of Iceland began in 874 CE when the Norwegian chieftain [..] In the following centuries, Scandinavians settled Iceland [..] From 1262 to 1918, Iceland was ruled by Norway and later Denmark. The country became independent in 1918 and a republic in 1944." When would you say someone is an Icelander? From this time, people from Norway who had kids in Iceland may have viewed them as from the home country (as Iceland only a "settlement")? Note, Leif's wife was born in Iceland and he met her there and based on that (and the Icelandic source, nr 8, next to Norse and others (didn't read all) I changed to Icelandic (is consistent with his father's article lead that says Leif is Icelandic). At Eric the Red: "is remembered in medieval and Icelandic saga sources as having founded the first Norse settlement in Greenland." comp.arch (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, there are nationalist points on both sides. Iceland was settled by Norwegian chieftains who resented the king throwing his weight about. They set up a republic that was revived during WWII after centuries of first Norwegian and then Danish domination. The original Norwegian domination was entered into (semi-)voluntarily, depending who you talk to. Bjarni, and Snorri, regarded Norway as the home country. From the other point of view, Snorri was a traitor. Then there's the issue of Sweden, whose early kings are regarded as mythical by many modern historians ... and the Orkneys and the Faroes and the bunch in Ireland ... lumping them all together as "Norsemen" is traditional in English and avoids these problems of "Was it yet a modern country" and "Was it legitimate" and "Where was his allegiance - or was he just looking out for his kin and his fortune". (It also avoids misusing "Viking" as a nationality.) But one does have to realise the word sounds to a Norwegian as if it means "Norwegian", which is not what it means or even implies in English. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding In the early medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for Norsemen, as far as I have read, In the entire medieval period, Vikings was never a common term for Norsemen. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But a lot of prime sources indicates that Vikings was a common term for pirates. The word pirate was never used in oldenglish, and when pirates were mentioned in latin sources, it was translated to vikings in oldenglish. Dan Koehl (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leo the Elf

There is a lesser known figure in Norse religion known as Leo (symbol: Norse lion), he is often depicted wearing this insignia on the right bicep of his Kaftan, a silver winged helmet and pointed black leather shoes. He is known to have coined the term Islamian, but maintains the belief in Free will.

His weapons are a mace decorated in the Fibonacci number and a pointed shield decorated with three interlocking horns.

He is an ally of Heimdall (the horn bearer) and was impressed by Loki (the hound like one).--LeoElf-jsjydyk (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC) <--- sock of Mughal Lohar/Jinnhoppan; see also [[6]][reply]

No, there's no such figure in Norse religion. This article is about real life Norsemen, not made-up modern figures/fiction. Thomas.W talk 13:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages"

I think perhaps that that the wording "even though Norway, Denmark and Sweden were different sets of people by the Middle Ages" should be rephrased. Norway, Denmark and Sweden were certainly different states, but it is debatable if the people living there were "different sets of people" by the middle ages, well before the idea of nation states had emerged and at a time when regional identities were probably more important. In any case, "Norway" is not a people (Norwegians are). --Dijhndis (talk) 15:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adam did NOT write this

The sentence:

In the early Medieval period, as today, Vikings was a common term for attacking Norsemen,[citation needed] especially in connection with raids and monastic plundering by Norsemen in the British Isles and Ireland. The Norse were also known as Ascomanni, ashmen, by the Germans,[1] Lochlanach (Norse) by the Gaels and Dene (Danes) by the Anglo-Saxons.

is really capturing, and proving this article is not written by people who read the prime sources. Please read what he really writes, and change the text! Dan Koehl (talk) 09:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do it yourself, if you are familiar with the source? Dimadick (talk) 15:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been included in this article?

Some of “Norse Cosmology” is actually an historic Map and/or a record of conflicts.

By

Jason Mushorn


Forword When examining 12th century texts an historic and etymologic perspective must be maintained. At this time most maps were crude and centered around religious / educational institutions for example, Jerusalem. A Moorish influence can be seen; both in orthography and pronunciation (location of the letter in a word). There was no fixed spelling. The means of Navigation were different. There was no magnetic compass. The Sun, Northern Lights, Birds, and even kinds of Sea Weed and Mugworts were used for Navigation. In the age of sail wind patterns were highly important for Jutes, Geates and others. The use of rivers as a means of commerce cannot be underestimated. The control of the Elbe was contested by Poles(Slavic) and Saxons(Germanic) 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5) Orthography was different. The letter "ſ" was used for and along with the letter s. The consonants groups G, C, K, & H; F, V, & B; and D, T, & Th were more or less interchangeable. A change in vowel sometimes indicated the dative case...

Further verification and research is required. However, enough research and theory has been presented to alter previous research.


Introduction Orthography, Pronunciation, Directions, Jot'Centric View, Locations and word patterns will be examined. Research from numerous etymological sources, as well as historic maps will be applied.

Directions: North is Niflheim, source of fog(nebel)... as well as snow, ice, and Northern Lights South is Syrtaheim, t, [sorti], to grow dark; það syrtir að. The source of shadow. At midday the source of shadow is South. Syrtaheimr is the sources of shadow, or South. West is Vanaheim - "Vane of Home" or the source of wind (Jet Stream) 10) Vinland, Winland. “There the wind is so strong that wheatseed need not be sewn.” Adam of Bremen 13) East is the direction of wind 10).


Jot'Centric View:

Gard (or Ingard) Is inferred by the text. Probably refers to Jotunheim (Jutland) historically, the area of early viking expansion. Midgard is the "Middle Yard" suggests the Kingdom of Mann and Islands, and the timeframe concurs. Útgard - Uestos from the root *ues- , Uue(s)t + “Yard" the etymology suggests an area that includes Iceland. Åſgard - Austo-s from the root is *aues-, EAs(t) +“Yard” the etymology suggests an area to the East that includes Burgendaland.


Possible Locations: a) “Bifröst” - A bridge or symbolic union connecting “two”(Bi)- “forests”(fröst); Saxon and Polish. It may have been an actual bridge. b) “Muspelheim” - Mússen, Lauenberg was founded in the 12th Century 6). The prefixes Muſs-, and Mus- were used to create many compound place names first recorded in the 12th Century 7). Recension, orthography, and maps suggest and area where Poles (Pollen) accessed the Elbe 1), 2), 3), 4) and 5). Muspelheim = Mussen + Pollen + Heim. => Elbe-Poles Source. c) "Álfheim” - Source of the Elbe, the Bohemian Alps. d) “Jotunheim” - Source of the Jutes. Jutland. e) “Syrtheim” - Syrt, Libya. Shadow Source. f) “Syrtheimr” - Shadow Sources -“South” g) ”Gylfaginning” - “Gulf of Kin People”, Sjælland 8). h) “Niðavellir” - Nether of Villages. Netherlands, Maas and Mosel? i) "Svartálfaheimr” - Sources of North-South (Slavic Directions). Dnieper?

Word patterns: "Ragnarök" - "Reign of Regions". "Ginnungagap" - "Kin Peoples of Cape." (Jutland is a cape) "Ratatosk" - "Rat of Tusk" “Pel” - ”Pole” see “Threl”. “Threl” - ”Troll” “Álfer” - “Elves”, near the Elbe, Saxons and Poles.


Conclusions: A review of “Norse Cosmology” was conducted. Orthography, Pronunciation, Directions, Jot'Centric View, Locations and word patterns were examined. Maps and/or a historical record of conflicts were discovered to match etymology research. Specific word patterns and derived meanings appear to be a new addition to this field of research. Further locations may be indicated due to this research.

In addition, a mystical three dimensional world system is not properly justified. Nor are mystical descriptions of people with specific geno- and/or pheno- types (Already well established). However, genetic information may assist in further understanding and verifying the locations that this research suggests.

Research suggests the Mus- prefix was part of an orthography used first in 1217. This suggests the word Mus-Pel-Heim was created in a similar time frame. Snorri Sturluson was in Iceland during this time frame. His writings were not first person accounts leading to a mythographic and/or poetic interpretation of the world. This interpretation should not cause modern readers to believe that there was no understanding of the world. Rather the understanding of the physical world was incomplete. To compensate for this incomplete understanding many systems of understanding were used simultaneously. This understanding was less cartesian; and more polar. Natural forces; wind, snow, fog, ice, northern lights, and the sun; played a greater animistic roll.


Bibliography: 1) Historischer Atlas Schleswig-Holstein vom Mittelalter bis 1867, Jürgen H.Ibs; Eckart Dege; & Henning Unverhau, Neumünster 2004. 2) Nordens Historie, Peter Ilsøe, København 1936 (with text) 3) Shepherd's Historical Atlas, William R. Shepherd, New York. Henry Holt & Co., New York 1911 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angeln#/media/File:AreasSettlementSchleswig-HolsteinText 5) http://www.lagis-hessen.de/de/subjects/idrec/id/41400014005/current/1/sn/ol 6) http://www.mussbach.de/index.php/katholischepfarrgemeinde/ 7) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Müssen 8) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seeland_(Dänemark) 9) See appendix regarding orthography 10) Nils Magnus Åmell: (1885–1968); Första antikvitetshandelns resa på cykel genom Medelpad - bemärkt besök i Stöde - upptäckten av Söderalaflöjeln, kommentarer av Jonas Källström, Stöde hembygdsförening, Stöde, 1979, LIBRIS-id 485312 11) Ukrainian Soviet Encyclopedic dictionary, Kiev, 1987 12) The Skálholt-Karte (Skálholt Map), 1570 13) Adam of Bremen

Appendix: Muosbach (780) Kloster Fulda Machesbach (828) Slavic? Moscbach (976) Moskebach (991) Mussebach (1085) Musbach (1217) Musebach (1249) Mußbach (1350) Müsenbach (1360) Ger-Aus Muschebach (1098) Miesbach (1100) Mießbach (1557) Braz-Am Muospach (1114) Muspach (1127) Musibach (1133) Muespach (1140) Masbach (1165) Masebach? Maßbach (1303) Mouesbach (1185) Mousbach (1197) Massenbach (1216) Masbac (1261) Masback ? Scand-Am Mospach (1220) Moßpach (1400) French Moosbach (1222) Frankish-Aus Musscebach (1229) Muscebach (1248) Mosbach (1253) Mosebach (1326) Moßbach (1400) Ger-Am Mohsbach, Muhsbach (1262) Maspach (1260) Moskenbach (1275) Mvsbach (1297) Meisenbach (1317) Ger Miespach (1320) Moschebach (1385) Mozbach, Mozbaeh (1430) Muszbach (1445) Muhsbach 16th Century Mühsbach 17th Century Müeßbach 17th Century Mosenbach ? Aus Mushbach ? Scotts-Can

172.76.124.188 (talk) 18:47, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

172.76.124.188 (talk) 18:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC) 172.76.124.188 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Adam of Bremen 2.29.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Norsemen&oldid=806728242"