Talk:Oeselians

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Untitled[edit]

Osilians is a correct spelling. Oeselians is a corrupted German form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The spelling Oeselians is used by the primary source The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia , therefore I can't see how the spelling derived from Latin could be "a corrupted German form" and be less correct than the Osilians used by secondary sources.--Termer (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Heinrich, Römischer König, belehnt den Bischof Gottfried mit dem neu errichteten Bisthum Oesel, den 1. Octbr. 1228).
H(enricus), Dei gratia Romanorum rex semper Augustus, universis imperii fidelibus, tam in Teutonia, quam in Livonia constitutis, gratiam suam et omne bonum. Quum rex regum et dominus dominantium, Deus, caput et principatum omnium regnorum Romanum elegit imperium, de gloria nominis Christiani et amplificatione imperii magnopere credimus esse gaudendum. Eapropter venientem ad nos venerabilem Gotfridum, primum Osiliensem episcopum, et episcopatum suum, cum universo populo suo, nuper baptizato, nobis offerentem, benigne suscepimus, atque ea, quae nostri iuris ratio postulare videbatur, regia eidem porreximus hilaritate; terminos quoque, ad praefatam diocesim pertinentes, videlicet quinque kelichontas in Osilia et septem in Maritima, cum quadam insula deserta, quae dicitur Dageida, et aliis quibusdam insulis adiacentibus, cum omnium iuris et honoris integritate, quam habent alii Livonenses episcopi, sibi suisquesuccessoribus auctoritate regali in perpetuum confirmanes. Datum apud Wilcenburch, kal. Octobris, indictione secunda.
As you see, Gottfried is named as bishop of Osilia, not of Oeselia, in this contemporary document. Did you know, that the English translation of Henry's chronicle is not the sole preserved medieval document about Estonia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.110.66 (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Osilia (not Oeselia) is a Latin name for this island (and the Latin etnonym is Osilian, plural Osiliani, or in more English spelling: Osilians). Oesel (or Ösel) is a German name (etnonym Öseler). Please do not confuse names in two different languages. --Improvisaator (talk) 10:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an English encyclopedia and English is a Germanic language, not a Romanic language related to Latin. Perhaps that is the reason why the version deriving from the German name -Oeselians has been used in the English translation of The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia.-> [1]; it is spelled so by the The National Geographic Magazine [2]. But since it's a non-issue, I don't personally mind if this article gets moved to the Latin version Osilians as long as it's done according to WP:Naming conventions, meaning it would need to be shown that it's the most common spelling in English.--Termer (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
If National Geographic spell it as "Oeselians", then that is good enough for me. Martintg (talk) 11:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Higly biased article[edit]

1. You write about Ingvars defeat in Estonia in the 7th century, as it was an actual fact. Yet you make it clear that Olaf Haraldssons (995 – 1030) victory in Estonia (1008) when he was 13 years old may be questioned because of his saga is disputed. Both stories are taken from the very same work, and both is written down by Snorre. If you questions Snorres account from the 11th century, then you surly want to question his accounts of the 7th century. However the battles against the Oeselians are well recorded by the skaldic poetries, and not something historians dispute. It is the gaps between the poems, and the happenings witch have no roots in poetry that is disputed.

2. You dont record how the battle between the Oeselians and the Icelandic went, however according to the sagas, the Icelanders captured the Oeselians weapons in battle.

3. Your sources are not up to Wikipedia standards, such as http://heninen.net/sigtuna/english.htm. It was the Novogorodians with the support of Karelians that raided Sigtuna. There might however have been some Estonian involvement. Strangely the Novgorodian chronicles never mention a raid on Sigtuna.

The list goes on. Ether you alter the article or I will have it removed by the terms of Wikipedia guidelines.

--Mattamatikk (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

You take out parts you want, and leave out parts that dont fit your own view, witch makes the article biased and partial. This is against the policy of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talkcontribs) 02:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnicity & language of Öselians[edit]

There is an editor who is claiming that the Oeselians were Norse. There are no references for that so far. There however are enough references that claim they were Estonian.

Source 1

".... in which Livs and Estonians are quoted as using words in their own languages, such as the dialogue between Livs and Estonians cited above, or when the pagan Öselians torture the captured missionary Frederick of Zelle, taunting him with the Estonian words "Laula! Laula! Pappi!", that is "Sing, sing, priest".

Source 2

"The image of an underdeveloped peasant society has induced a vision of Öselians, as well as other Estonians....."

And regarding the source that's not verifiable - it's referenced according to wiki rules. Deleting something because you can't go to a library is not acceptable. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

  • No one here is claiming they were Norse, all that has been done is removing an unsourced claim about the Oeselians being ethnic Estonians (a claim that isn't supported by Blomsterhagens' sources either, sources that also are about a time period well after most events described in the article...) and just stating they were "a historical people". Because no one knows what their ethnicity was. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:07, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I have literally copy-pasted the references here for you and you are still claiming these are unsourced? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's one more: Source : "The ability of the Scandinavians to sail in the Baltic Sea enabled them to trade with and to plunder the coastal settlements during the Viking Period from 800 to 1050 AD. The exploits of the Vikings inspired the Estonians who lived along the coast and on the off-shore islands to try their hand as pirates and Viking-style raiders. The people of Saaremaa were especially skilled seamen and had a reputation as fierce fighters." - also, see the same source, page 24. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:19, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And to continue: under 1.9.1 - Ösel during the Viking era - "..... the Estonians assembled a large army and defeated the Swedish invaders." Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
source 4 - "One significant attack by Estonians sacked the Swedish town of Sigtuna" Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Source 5: "The Öselians joined forces with other coastal Estonians" Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And where does it say that the "Estonians" of that time were the same people as the Estonians of today? For all we know it could be just a geographical reference, not an ethnic one, it's in fact more probable that it was a geographical name that an ethnic reference. It's also worth noting that Eysysla, that the name Oeselians derives from (through the Latin form of the name), was a Germanic language geographical name, and the same goes for Esthland, that the name Estonia derives from. In order to add the claim to the lead the way you have repeatedly been doing, you need a source that unambiguously refers to the Oeselians as having been the same people as the Estonians of today, and not only during the 13th century but during the entire time period the article covers. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
If I have produced 5+ sources which all mention "Estonians" for Oeselians, where no talk of "questionable ethnicity" has occurred and there have been 0 sources on your side which question the fact that they were ethnically Finnic, then what exactly is the issue here? All these academics just overlooked that part? Please try finding something that says the Oeselians were not Estonian. And what do you mean by "same people as Estonians of today?" Even if they were not the "same people", whatever that means, they were still defined as Estonians. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
"Estonians" is a geographical reference, just like "Macedonians" is a geographical reference. And there are several examples of peoples now living in an area, and having assumed the name of that area as their "ethnic name", not being the same people as the ones who have previously been known under that name. Such as Macedonians, where the people who live in the area now known as Macedonia and calling themselves Macedonians, who are a Slavic people, aren't at all related to the Macedonians of Alexander the Great's time, who were Greeks. Seen in a historical perspective peoples move around all the time, and often change name based on where they live, which is why we can't automatically assume that historical references to "Estonians" from a thousand years or more ago refer to the same people as those who are known as Estonians today... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:29, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Again - you are coming up with a theory that has 0 mentions in literature. If this were a realistic scenario, it would be mentioned somewhere in academic literature. Try finding something. The fact that "Estonians" in those sources is a geographical reference, is something you just came up with. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
No, it's not. It's a geographical name derived from the "land of the Aesti" (who were a Baltic people, not Finno-Ugric like Estonians) via the latin form of the name. See Estonia#Etymology. The oldest known endonym of the Estonian people is "maarahvas", but all sources you linked to use the name "Estonians", i.e. the geographical name for the area, not "maarahvas". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you're just doing pure OR now. No sources, no comment. Oldtidens Estland is also an excellent source. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:49, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict)x4 The Norwegian Wikipedia is well known for having a very lax attitude towards sources, so articles there can't be trusted. And you're the one who has to provide reliable sources, all I've done is remove your OR, and change to lead to say the only thing we do know, that the Oeselians were a "historical people".. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:58, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The references are linked and copied here. You've been unable to refute any of them with your own sources. I'm sorry but you do not have the right to decide over how to interpret a source. If you don't have sources that say Oeselians were not ethnically Estonian, to counter the 7+ sources that say otherwise, there is no point for this discussion. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
And really, it doesn't even matter if the sources say they were "ethnically Estonian" or not. The sources all say they were Estonian. If you want to say that's only a geographic interpretation, then first off, without sources, that's OR on your part. "Estonians" in modern english is clearly an ethnic / cultural description as much as possible. If the researchers would have wanted to denote a geographic location, using an ethnic word for that is unlikely at best. Second of all, if you read through the full text in the sources, you'll find that in no point has that been said. What's more, the sources list Oeselians talking in the Estonian language and not Old Norse. You say that the timeframe there happened after the Viking era (by a hundred years) - ok. So suddenly in 100 years all norse people in Ösel starting speaking in a Finnic language? If such a magic change indeed happened, you should be able to find at least a single source about that. At the end of the day, I'm listing sources here and you're refuting them without any sources of your own. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The sources are quoting Icelandic sagas and writings of various 13th century priests, and it's the sagas etc that use the term "Estonians". And please read what Wikipedia says about tendentious editing, and what it can lead to, because what you're doing is tendentious editing. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:24, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The sources I'm referring to are modern scholarly literature, not the Icelandic sagas directly. Many of the sagas may have been the original sources for sure. But interpreting the original sources has been done by scholars, not wikipedia editors. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Another good source from Yale University: "Ólaf’s uncle Sigurd discovered Ólaf by chance and noted how Ólaf’s appearance was markedly different from the native Estonians." ... "The approach here is intentionally subjective, favoring the case of one side: those who spoke or understood the language of the Icelandic texts - the Norwegians, the Swedes, and the Danes. They are the protagonists of these tales; the people of the East are the foes to our heroes, and are therefore the villains in the narrative. But on taking a closer, more objective view, what else can we see? We can’t read the speech or musings of the Estonians, so their case can only be made through their actions and reactions according to the Norse texts. We see that they are at times Viking aggressors, but just as often they fall victim to Norse Viking aggression. They take slaves, but they are also taken in slavery. And aside from linguistic differences, what are the significant points of separation? We are reminded several times that there are physical differences between the Norse people and the Estonian people, but we aren’t clearly told what they are. The Norse are often depicted as fair or light, but the Estonians aren’t explicitly noted for having a dark complexion; next to nothing is stated about their appearance. We see a similar shared raiding culture, and a pursuit of resources. But the line between East and West is not distinct. It is possible to assert that the Austmarr itself, the Eastern Sea is the line of distinction. But no such line of distinction is drawn between Icelander, Faroese, and Norwegian, where it can be easily argued that the geography of water separates them far more than does the Swede or Dane from the Estonian. I would propose the idea that kinship binds, but that a binding agent to kinship is language, and the corpus of literature which both comes out of the language and defines the parameters of the language over time. In this way, the literary tradition gains central importance to defining kinship over a large span of geography. Minus the rich body of tales and heroic poetry maintained in the Old Icelandic, it is possible that the collective Norse kinship and the Baltic otherness might have been mitigated and blended into something more homogenous over time." Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's another source that very directly says Oeselians during the Viking time were Estonians. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
It's a self-published book (Lulu.com), and thus not a reliable source. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 20:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Source 5: And what about this? "The Öselians joined forces with other coastal Estonians" Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Jüri Kivimäe has written about the question of Oeselian and Estonian ethnic groupings in Livonian Chronicle of Henry. It's better source than interpreting some passing by mentions or orignal sources. Kivimäe classifies Oeselians as Estonians (just like other authors I know), although Oeselians had "distinctive position" among them. Estonians were "the people settled in the territory that we know from the Livonian chronicle to be Estonia, and who communicated among themselves in a comprehensible language, or, more properly speaking, by means of dialects." So it is not term with unknown, probably just geographic meaning as suggested above. It also was not referring to Estonians in modern sense (no self-identification, probably no united Estonian language yet), so using that wikilink is somewhat problematic. Unfortunately we don't have wiki article about those medieval Estonians. --Minnekon (talk) 18:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Minnekon, we can create a new page if there are enough academic sources. Do you mean something like "Finnic tribes in Estonia"? Or just "Finnic peoples"? But in any case, if I understand correctly, the summary is that Oeselians should not be "unknown historic peoples" or "norse", based on academic sources? Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The Oeselians were a "historic people" since no one knows what language they spoke, and they were most definitely not a "subbranch of the Estonian people" in the modern sense of the term, since the Estonian people and Estonian language didn't exist back then. The Finnic tribes in the area, who primarily lived in the interior, not along the coasts, were a subdivision of the Chuds, speaking a "generic" Finnic language that only later evolved into the Estonian language, just like the Old Norse spoken in the area only later evolved into the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian languages. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thomas, you clearly do not know enough about the subject. First of all, people living in mainland Estonia were not Chuds - go and read the wiki article you linked. Chuds is a generic name for Finnic tribes, used only in old Russian sources. I would also love for you to expand on your knowledge of "The Estonian language did not exist back then." Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
From the source linked by Minnekon: "When Henry began writing his chronicle in the second half of 1224, he already possessed a rich store of experience of contacts with Estonian tribes, whose settlements lay north of the Livs and his own Ümera Lettgallians. Linguists have judged his command of the Estonian language to be good, though the origin and roots of this knowledge remain unclear. " How do you interpret this source? Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And in any case - As I said before, I'm fine with the Oeselians not being called "Estonians" in the modern sense. The Oeselians were clearly not an "undefined historic people" though. You can call them Estonian tribes, Finnic tribes, etc. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You also claimed "no-one knows what language they spoke. I will bring the previous source up again. Source 1 ".... in which Livs and Estonians are quoted as using words in their own languages, such as the dialogue between Livs and Estonians cited above, or when the pagan Öselians torture the captured missionary Frederick of Zelle, taunting him with the Estonian words "Laula! Laula! Pappi!", that is "Sing, sing, priest". Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There's not a single reliable source that supports your claim that Viking Age Oeselians were Finnic people speaking a Finnic language, a claim that you, along with the derivative claim that there were ethnic Finnic Vikings, propagate not only here, but also on multiple other articles (see Talk:Norsemen and Talk:Vikings. Your claim is a POV/fringe claim based only on your own original research, which is why it is being very strongly opposed by multiple other editors. You also seem totally unable to understand that the quote about "laula, pappi" refers to events during the 13th century, i.e. hundreds of years after the Viking Age, and says absolutely nothing about the ethnicity of Oeselians during the Viking Age. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Maybe you can let other editors talk about this topic on this talk page in peace, without you interfering with unrelated topics? You're not bringing in any new knowledge from new sources at this point. The topic of Oeselians covers a longer time period than just the Viking Age. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:06, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Most of the article is about the Viking Age, and since you have split the discussion over multiple talk pages, there's a need to refute your OR claims on all pages you present them on. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, have fun! You're now also "refuting" Minnekon's "claims" which are a direct copy paste from the source. Maybe you can try to keep your topics separate. This topic here is not about "Finnic vikings". It's about what the ethnicity of the Oeselians was. Across all time periods for which we have sources. If you'd like to help, then maybe you can find academic sources which mention the topic. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:14, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
It's all part of a single agenda of yours, presenting Estonia and the Estonian people as a Nordic country and a Nordic people, and it's only fair that other editors get to see the full picture. What you have tried to do here, an article that is almost exclusively about the Viking Age, is change the article to say that the Oeselians (without specifying time period) were a "subdivision of the Estonian people" (a people that didn't even exist at that time), and then using that as proof for your claims on other articles (primarily Vikings) about there having existed ethnic Estonian Vikings... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:03, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Oeselians are a central point in general history of Estonia and the formation of the nation of Estonia during the time of the Crusades, which is after the viking era. This is not just about the Viking era. The rest are random accusations from you which I will not answer. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You are also spreading false accusations. The article has claimed Oeselians have been a historical subdivision of Estonians for ages. You are the one who took that claim away. Your diff history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected about who changed the article to say "subdivision of the Estonian people", it was changed by another user in 2012, a claim that both when it was added and when I removed it was totally unsourced (what the article originally said when it was created in 2006, though, was what I changed it to, i.e. "historical people"...). But you repeatedly changed it back, to suit your POV elsewhere, after it had been removed for being both unsourced and highly dubious, which makes you responsible for it, since every editor is responsible for everything they add, even if they're just reverting to a previous version. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There were 5+ sources, all which were deleted. Do you have any sources of the Oeselians having been "historical people"? Or any sources that claim "we don't know who they were"?. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There were no sources, neither when it was originally added nor when I removed it. And none of the sources you added said what you claimed they said (i.e. that the Oeselians were a "subdivision of the Estonian people"...). As has already been pointed out to you by both me and others. The Oeselians being a "historical people" doesn't need any sources, BTW, so I suggest removing the cn-tag you added. And let's keep this discussion here, not both here and on my talk page... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
All of the sources used the term "Estonian", which is also what the page said before you reverted it. And all claims need sources when they are controversial. See Minnekon's answer above. The claim of them having been "historical people" differs from the source that Minnekon gives. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
<sigh> I'm getting a déjà vu feeling here. We've already been through that, multiple times over and on multiple talk pages. "Estonian" in a mediaeval context is purely a geographical descriptor since the Estonian people and the Estonian language didn't exist back then... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What is your comment on Minnekon's source & comment above? "Finnic peoples" is also completely fine, as it existed before 2012. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Since the article is almost exclusively about the Viking Age (and specifically about "Vikingr frá Esthland") it should say just "historical people", as it did when the article was created in 2006, since the only sources mentioning a language are from the 13th Century, and thus say nothing whatsoever about which language was spoken there several hundred years earlier. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:34, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Minnekon: any thoughts on this? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Source for Finnic language area (look map at the beginning). It's widely accepted that some form of Finnic has been spoken in northern part of Baltics at least last 2000 years and we can't expect scholars to repeat it for every period and every small region. Mostly it is argument from silence - if there would be plausible idea that language of Viking Age Saaremaa suddenly changed, then we should see it in books and articles that discuss Viking Age Estonia and language situation.--Minnekon (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
@Minnekon: Other sources don't agree with that map."Northern and Western Estonia were definitely part of the Scandinavian cultural space during the period under review (i.e. 450-1050AD)". A quote from Andres Tilvaur, archaeologist at Tartu University (link). And where there's culture there's language. And this source says that evidence from archaeological excavations in the Nuckö/Noarootsi peninsula in north western Estonia shows that Scandinavians lived there, continuously, from the early Iron Age (which in Northern Europe started around 500BC] until modern times. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:10, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Cultural space is not same as language area: for example if someone says Estonia is Americanizing does he/she mean Estonians are abandoning their old language for American languages? The same author, Tvauri, has written about languages of that era in more detail here, p 237-238. He does not think Northern and Wester Estonia spoke Nordic. Other source about Nuckö is view of one author and not widely accepted. And author of that view did exactly what I said before: she brought up the Nuckö case because she thinks it is exception from default view that all northern Baltics was Finnic speaking. Anyway, I can accept not mentioning language of Oeselians in article if we don't have direct quote. It's not that important detail. But if someone wants to mention in article that their language is unknown or Nordic, then I strongly disagree.--Minnekon (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Thomas, language is not the same as cultural spaces. Sweden is in the western cultural space nowadays. What is the lingua franca of the western cultural space? Why is it so impossible that there Finnic people living in the Scandinavian cultural space? There are sources which say that Old Norse was the lingua franca during the Viking Age. Sources also say that Finnic people traded with the Norsemen. And the Nuckö peninsula has nothing to do with Ösel. The point remains - there are concrete sources about Ösel being in the Finnic language area during the Viking Age. Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 ????? In what way does the fact that Finnic people traded with the Norsemen support a claim that Viking Age Oeselians spoke a Finnic language? Viking Age Norsemen traded with everyone in and around Europe, including Arabs in Baghdad and the Greek in Constantinople. And no, there's no evidence whatsoever to support the claim that Viking Age Oeselians spoke a Finnic language... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
You mentioned the Scandinavian cultural space and equated it with language, which is not what the source says, that's why I brought it up. Your source for a cultural space does not "disagree" with the Finnic language map. University of Helsinki's source directly says: "The approximated area of Finnic during the Iron Age". How do you interpret this source? "Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The University of Helsinki doesn't say anything, it's a paper written by a student at the University of Helsinki, i.e. not an expert, and students of course speak only for themselves, not for the University where they're studying (see message on your talk page...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
How do you interpret a source from Marika Mägi, one of the main Viking Age scholars in Estonia: "Collective burial grounds with mixed cremations, as they were widespread among the ethnic Finnic groups in the second half of the Iron Age, were clearly a cultural phenomenon, reflecting an ideology different from neighbouring areas. These collective attitudes in the ritual sphere were presumably rooted in a more egalitarian social organisation. To use terms of political anthropology, we may probably still talk of a clan or perhaps a lineage-based segmentary society, where the position of chieftains was now remarkably strengthened. In Estonia, the process had probably reached the furthest on Saaremaa, where the burial custom of individual graves succeeded at manifesting itself and then to dominate the subsequent 400 to 600 years, at least as regards burials among the elite. Still, even on Saaremaa, social status was not presented posthumously through weapons, at least not through several weapons in graves. The situation changed dramatically in the 11th century." Page 268. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Also here, page 115: "The completely intermingled burials in Estonian, as well as other Baltic-Finnic Middle Iron Age and Viking Age stone graves do not in most cases enable us to differentiate individuals, neither can we define their gender. In the few cases when bones of these graves have been biologically determined – as at Lepna mortuary house on Saaremaa – men, women and children have been present in equal proportions and deposited in a common grave in an intermingled manner." Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
And also - Santeri Junttila is a postdoctoral researcher at Uni. Helsinki. Your description of "student" is not correct. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
There's no need to interpret it at all since it has very little, if anything, to do with what we're discussing. A clan society with chieftains with a strong position is typical for Scandinavian societies, but also for some other societies, and can thus be (mis)used to support claims of the people there belonging to a number of different cultures/societies. To support your claims about Viking Age Oeselians being Finnic-speakers you need sources that expressly say they were Finnic-speakers, and presents clear evidence for it. If you can't present such sources the article should only say that they were a "historical people". My personal opinion is that there were multiple ethnicities/peoples living alongside each other on the island, both Old Norse-speaking Scandinavians and Finnic-speaking people from the mainland, since that would be typical for that era. But of course impossible to prove without extensive archaeological excavations on the island. And no, my description of him as a student isn't wrong, since the paper was published six years ago... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
What criteria are you using to disqualify Santeri Jussila's work? That same source has been quoted in other publications and it has been included in a book published by the Finno-Ugric Society of Finland. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:42, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, thank you for arriving at the conclusion that it's impossible to prove the existence of Norse settlements on Ösel. That has been one of the central topics here. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
When sources based on guesses/assumptions (which the map is) conflict with what archaeologists say, I tend to believe what the archaeologists say. BTW, where did I claim that the Oeselians were Norse? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 18:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Are there any wikipedia criterias in your mind that discredit Santeri Jussila's work? Do you have a better (archaelogical) source that directly contradicts that source? Marika Mägi's source is an archaelogical report and she clearly talks about Finnic tribes in Ösel during the Viking Age. I do not think you have claimed that Oeselians were Norse. But only yesterday you refused to allow the map on Norsemen to be changed, because you said that there was Norse settlement on Ösel. See the talk page there. I'm happy if that can now be updated. Blomsterhagens (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
See my post 4-5 posts up. I believe there were both Norse-speaking Scandinavians and Finnic-speaking people from the mainland on Ösel/Saaremaa during the Viking Age, since that would be typical for the era, and there's evidence/sources supporting the presence of both of those peoples, but since no one knows for sure I feel the article should say just "historical people", as it originally did. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:26, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
Are you claiming there are sources for a Norse settlement on Ösel during the Viking Age? Where? I have not seen those sources. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
The sources linked to, which were originally posted by Krakkos on Talk:Norsemen, clearly state that there were Scandinavian settlements in Estonia, including on Ösel, during the Viking Age. The areas of settlement included strategic areas along major rivers[3] and the coasts, including Ösel and Dagö.[4] These parts of Estonia were culturally connected to Scandinavia, and had virtually nothing in common with the interior parts of the country.[5] During the Viking Age, Old East Norse was spoken in coastal Finland and Estonia.[6]. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I guess I have to give my opinion, since I have involved myself by reverting. There are currently three "bones of content", and I will address them separately:

  1. The {{cn}}-tag on "historical people": I have problems understanding how this can need citation. The Oeselians were obviously a people, and since there is no group of people called Oeselians today, they are a historical people. I will guess that the objection stems from a perception that the term "historical people" somehow disconnects the Oeselians from today's Estonians. I can suggest a formulation that avoids this problem: Instead of were a historical people inhabiting, we could say were a people historically inhabiting.
  2. The claim that Ösel has been placed in the Finnic language area during the Iron age needs a source that actually mentions Ösel. The current source has no mention of Ösel or Saaremaa. Without a source, this claim is WP:OR.
  3. I do not have a strong feeling about adding the word "Finnic" to the sentence using the words "Laula! Laula! Papa!". I would, however, prefer to have a reliable source explicitly stating that this expression really is indisputable Finnic.

It has taken an effort to come to this discussion. The partly poisonous exchanges above has probably scared more editors than me from expressing their view. Could we please now have a discussion and hopefully a workable consensus before any more edits are made to the article? In my opinion, it could be useful to have one or more RFCs in order to get more people involved and to get a clear decision of consensus. --T*U (talk) 21:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your effort :) Even though I think sources indirectly clearly refer to Saaremaa as Finnic speaking area, I agree not to mention it in article if no direct quote claims it. Discussion about Viking Age language may be useless anyway, because it's not clear why we should view islanders from that period and from Crusades period as same "people" - Oeselians. --Minnekon (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The map in Santeri Jussila's work clearly included Ösel. Why is that not good enough? Or, the source by Marika Mägi above: "Collective burial grounds with mixed cremations, as they were widespread among the ethnic Finnic groups in the second half of the Iron Age, were clearly a cultural phenomenon, reflecting an ideology different from neighbouring areas. These collective attitudes in the ritual sphere were presumably rooted in a more egalitarian social organisation. To use terms of political anthropology, we may probably still talk of a clan or perhaps a lineage-based segmentary society, where the position of chieftains was now remarkably strengthened. In Estonia, the process had probably reached the furthest on Saaremaa, where the burial custom of individual graves succeeded at manifesting itself and then to dominate the subsequent 400 to 600 years, at least as regards burials among the elite. Still, even on Saaremaa, social status was not presented posthumously through weapons, at least not through several weapons in graves. The situation changed dramatically in the 11th century." Page 268. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Also, as Minnekon has previously mentioned here and on the Norsemen page as well: There are proper up-to-date sources that discuss this topic, from modern Estonian Viking-Age researchers. They make no mention of a Norse settlement. Why are we discussing about sources from the 1970s and 1980s? Also, some of the sources shown above talk about "cultural connection", which is not the same as settlement or language. Obviously the region was in the scandinavian cultural space, as even Andres Tvauri has mentioned. But he also explicitly mentions these people were Finnic. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Santeri Juntilla's map doesn't outweigh the other sources (which includes archaeological evidence) because it's just a guess, not based on actual tangible facts, and made by a student, not an acknowledged expert. Santeri Juntilla's map not only includes Ösel, which seems to be all you're interested in, but also large areas that conflict with numerous other sources, and the time period it is claimed to cover, i.e. the Iron Age (which lasted from 500 BC to 800 AD in Northern Europe), predates the events covered in this article, and thus has nothing to do with the Oeselians mentioned in the article. Modern Estonian Viking Age researcherss are in most cases amateur "researchers" with a nationalistic agenda (like yours), real researchers in Estonia, like the archaeologist at Tartu University I have linked to, clealry state that Northern and Western Estonia undoubtedly were part of the Scandinavian cultural sphere. And where does Andres Tvaur claim that the people were Finnic... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 10:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Fact correction: Iron Age on eastern side of Baltic sea lasted to app 13th century. See respective wiki articles in Finnish, Estonian and Latvian for example. Who and why are you exactly accusing being "amateur "researchers" with a nationalistic agenda"? Without clarification it is just empty insult. --Minnekon (talk) 12:15, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Why do you keep talking about a cultural sphere? Everyone agrees they the coastal region was a part of the Scandinavian cultural sphere, including Tvauri. "Cultural sphere" does not mean language, ethnicity or settlements, Thomas. If you want to talk about settlements, find a source that claims there was a Norse settlement in Ösel. And what "archaelogical sources" from Tartu University are you talking about? Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Addition: That's great that you see Tvauri as a credible source! Minnekon posted a source from Tvauri above. I have not gone through the entire document yet but let's start from page 30: "The names of the Estonians who appear in this account are not typically Estonian, and thus it has been speculated that the people referred to in the saga were instead representatives of Baltic tribes (Palmaru 1980, 269; Tarvel 2005). On the other hand, one can conclude from the sagas themselves that both the characters mentioned in the sagas and the recorders of the sagas perceived a clear difference between the northern and southern part of the eastern Baltic countries and the different languages of the people who lived there. Thus it is not particularly likely that they may have been confused when it was claimed that the people in question were Estonians (Þat váru Eistr). It is more likely that the names were ‘restored’ when the sagas were transcribed, in order to add credibility to the account. This would explain both the Scandinavian appearance of the names and their distinctive grouping (Klerkón-Klerkr and Réás-Rékón-Rékóni) (Jonuks 2005, 52f.)." Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Addition 2: I propose going through Tvauri's research paper in depth and concluding that what's written there is suitable for this page. That paper has a distinctive list of other members in its editorial board: Anders Andrén from Stockholm University & Klavs Randsborg from University of Copenhagen. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"Þat váru Eistr"????? You still don't seem to understand that "Eistr" was a description of where they lived, not a description of what ethnicity they were (which couldn't possibly have been Estonian since the Estonian people and language didn't exist back then...). I'm beginning to see a huge competence problem here. - Tom | Thomas.W talk
I'll wait for comments from other editors on this. I'm very well aware of your interpretation of this. The way I read Tvauri's source, I get a different picture. And it's not just page 30. If you're actually interested in this topic, read through the entire paper. Are you claiming that the source is wrong again? Really? With people from uni. Stockholm & uni. Copenhagen in its editorial board? Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey, I found the Holy Grail :) The Situation of Finnic Languages in the Iron Age. This paper does address both language question and who exactly should be considered as Oeselians. Author lists Oeselians under Finnic groups and presents arguments. "Henry’s chronicle includes quotations ascribed to the Oeselians, such as Laula! Laula, pappi! [‘Sing! Sing, priest!’] (HCL XVIII.8). The expression is unambiguously Finnic and supports the identification of Oeselians as a Finnic language group. This is further corroborated by the Finnic toponymy that does not seem to include substantial earlier substrate layers." (p 86) --Minnekon (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Awesome! Good job Minnekon! Comment: The report doesnt open from the URL but can be downloaded via the Download button. Also it's published by the University of Helsinki, so there's no source quality question. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
@Minnekon: I suggest you read that paper again, paying more attention to what it says than you, based on your comment above, appear to have done when reading it the first time. The quote about "laula papi" is from a much later time than the Viking Age, and according to the paper there were Scandinavians not only in Estonia during the Viking age, but also everywhere else around the Gulf of Finland, plus in Latvia and Lithuania... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
So where exactly paper claims that Oeselians spoke anything other than Finnic or that Scandinavians lived in Saaremaa during Viking Age? --Minnekon (talk) 12:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
"This is further corroborated by the Finnic toponymy that does not seem to include substantial earlier substrate layers" - Do you know what a substrate is in linguistics? Also, see the map on page 71 :) I'm really happy today! Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Do you even know what "does not seem to" means? It means they don't know, and are just guessing. And the map doesn't matter, it's just an illustration, it's the text of the paper that matters. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
First, our business as wikipedians is not to assess quality of specific arguments made in sources, but quality of sources. Second, this assessment is incorrect anyway, because "seems" does not mean "I don't know, I just make guess", but refers to "impression". And in this case to impression formed "in the light of research today" (as the quote from paper follows).--Minnekon (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Please link to a wiki policy where it says commented maps do not matter. Otherwise your claim is unfounded. Also, they specifically say "this is further corroborated by..." - which means they take that as a piece of knolwedge. Not an "unknown". If it were "unknown", they would not use the claim to corroborate a theory. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
A quote from the caption of the map you're referring to: "Distribution of Finnic-speaking groups and their neighbours ca. AD 1000. Circles indicate roughly approximated areas of Uralic language groups". Which since it also doesn't say that Finnic/Uralic languages were the only languages spoken within the roughly approximated areas means that it cannot be used for what you try to use it for. So what matters is what the far more detailed text of the paper says... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
The quoted reference is exactly what is suitable to the article page, in its direct reference. Again - I'm very happy with the sources and looking forward to quote them word by word. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Definition of Oeselians[edit]

I'm a bit confused what "Oeselians" is supposed to mean here. Chronicle of Henry from 13th century uses that word, but why are events from other times and sources connected to Oeselians? Are they supposed to be any inhabitants of island Saaremaa or something like ethnic group? I see claim that "The Oeselians were known in the Old Norse Icelandic Sagas and in Heimskringla as Víkingar frá Esthland", but can't find it from given sources. Can somebody give exact page and quote where such claim is made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minnekon (talkcontribs) 16:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a good point. It's possible to find sources that connect Oeselians to Taarapita and define Oeselians as "the island culture of Saaremaa", but I haven't found sources so far that define the time scope or "common academic usage" of the term "Oeselians" right now. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
I think many of the mentions of "Vikings from Estonia" on this page from the Icelandic sagas, without a source that mentions the term "Oeselians" or connects them to Oeselians and/or "the island culture of Saaremaa", might be a case of WP:SYNTH. In which case the saga mentions might be better off on the Viking Age in Estonia page. Blomsterhagens (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Thomas.W (talk · contribs) Frayae (talk · contribs) TU-nor (talk · contribs) Minnekon (talk · contribs) what do you think? Blomsterhagens (talk) 22:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
History of Saaremaa mainly 800–1350 AD is the actual topic here, the people are commonly called Saarlased or simply Estonians in sources, historical sources use several terms, none of which are used in current academic literature except for specific references to when the terms were used in the past. There is no evidence the term "Oeselians" was used before the 13th century, and most the article is set before that. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 10:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I've started to clear the article up from the wp:synth claims. For most of the pre-13th century content, the correct place is probably Viking Age in Estonia. And then for what's left after the 13th century, it's not clear if the article should be a standalone article at all. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

"The Oeselians are considered to be one of the direct ancestors of modern-day Estonians" ...[edit]

... is a claim made by Blomsterhagens that I have just reverted, since that's not what the source says (it's also the the wrong page number, it's on page 21...). What the source says is "there is no doubt that the people who inhabited Estonia in the second half of the first millennium are the direct ancestors of modern-day Estonians", that is a general comment about Estonia as a whole, with no mention of Ösel or Oeselians, and also no mention of which ethnicities that were living within the area of present day Estonia at that time. Which means that it doesn't belong here, especially not in a section that claims the Oeselians were Finnic, only in Estonian people.

"At the same time, there is no doubt that the people who inhabited Estonia in the second half of the first millennium are the direct ancestors of modern-day Estonians". << How exactly are you interpreting this then? He is talking about all people who inhabited what is today Estonia. If he did "not" talk about people who lived in Saaremaa, it would have been mentioned. And it's an absurd concept to ignore one single group anyway. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
See WP:SYNTH (which I pointed to in my edit summary). If the source doesn't mention the Oeselians you can't add it to Oeselians, the source also explicitly talks about "the people who lived in Estonia in the second half of the first millenium", that is 500AD-1000AD, not the 13th century. For all we know the Finnic-speakers that Henry of Livonia mentions could have been temporary visitors from somewhere else, and not people who were permanently living on Ösel (it's a comment about a single event in the 13th century, not a comment about what people was living on the island...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 21:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
We're talking about the lead, not the Language section. And if a source talks about all of modern-day Estonia, that source can be used for any area in modern day Estonia. It does not have to explicitly mention every single island or town separately. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Regarding "Laula, laula, pappi" & all the sources mentioning it in regards to Oeselians - As Minnekon has already said - the job of a wiki editor is to assess if the source is valid. The job of a wiki editor is not to debate about the validity of contents / claims in a valid source. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Estonian archaeology represents the continental European archaeological tradition in the sense that researchers do not see or portray themselves as mere bystanders. Estonians do not see themselves as the descendants of late migrants, as do several neighbouring peoples: we are investigating the history of our own country and people,our own ancestors. I will, nevertheless, attempt to avoid questions of ethnogenesis in this study, as I do not believe that the development of a nation can be investigated using archaeological methods. There are all too many examples of how researchers have, based on one and the same source material, combined the same artefacts and sites with completely different, often invented,‘ethnoses’. This study will not seek to find Estonians’ ‘roots’. I am convinced that the contemporary Estonian national identity is a product of the events and ideologies of the 18th—19th centuries. At the same time, there is no doubt that the people who inhabited Estonia in the second half of the first millennium are the direct ancestors of modern-day Estonians. (Tvauri 2012)

Is quite clear to me. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 02:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: that edit was unfortunately deleted by another editor without comment again. Do you mind expanding your comment a bit on what you think about this? Thanks! Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
It depends on how exactly we treat what he is saying. Obviously he says that Ancient Estonians are direct ancestors of modern Estonians, but he does make it clear that the paper in general in not concerned with Estonians’ ‘roots’. It is thus more of a personal opinion from Tvauri and ought to be attributed, maybe as a quote. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Ok, any ideas where to place the quote in this article? Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As Tvauri is an archaeologist, we could put it in the archaeology section. I think with a brief introduction the entire quote could be used, since it accurately portrays the mainstream view on the nationalist issue and there is need for a resolution to this. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good! Did the first version. Feel free to edit if you'd like Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
TU-nor (talk · contribs) as you now undid the quote, saying it should be paraphrased, could you please offer something that is better suitable in your mind. The quote was used, because the previous paraphrasing was deleted by another editor without explanation. Blomsterhagens (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I do not really understand the relevance of the quote for this article since the quote says nothing specific about Ösel/Saaremaa/Oeselians, so I cannot help you with presenting it. The source might be of use in the article about Estonia and/or Estonians, but I really do not think it is useful here. --T*U (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
TU-nor (talk · contribs) It's relevant, because the Oeselians are the only single group that is currently mentioned separately on Wikipedia from the general Estonians. Without that part, it looks as if they were just "historical people" and then vanished. Blomsterhagens (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Then you need a source that explicitly mentions the Oeselians. If not, it will be WP:SYNTH. --T*U (talk) 08:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The source explicitly mentions all people who lived in what is today Estonia during the viking age. A source does not have to mention every single town, village or commune separately for it to be used for them, if it explicitly says that it's about all people who lived on the lands of modern day Estonia. And the same source specifically mentions Saaremaa previously on numerous times. Or do you think that same source is also unusable for the inhabitants of Tallinn, just because it didnt mention Tallinn? The source explicitly talks about all inhabitants, which means it does not have to quote a register of every single region in Estonia. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The sentence in the source is a passing remark highlighting the continuity of the population from then to now. It is a very general remark and cannot be deconstructed to any statement about any specific group. And it is definitely not true that it explicitly mentions all people who lived in what is today Estonia like you claim. The general expression "the people" is not the same as "all people" and certainly not as "[explicitly] all people". --T*U (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
So who do you think he was talking about? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:33, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
It is a very general remark where he is talking about unspecified "people". For all I know, your great-great-great-...-great-grandfather is one of them, but not his childless brother. Enough said about this. --T*U (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I agree. It's Fallacy of composition. Even though it sounds believable that at least part of Oeselians are ancestors of modern Estonians, we can't automatically assume that. Not all ancient people had continuous family lines. --Minnekon (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't agree with that interpretation. The source is a research report. He is being clear. He's talking about the "question of ethnos" and if you see the context of the source + the full quote, there's no ambiquity on what he means under "the people inhabiting....". What he clearly means is that it doesnt matter what the people were called back in the day - they are all ancestors of modern-day Estonians. What he's saying is a completely mainstream thing. There's no ambiquity here. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but still: Tallinn didn't exist during the "second half of the first millenium". There apparently was a hillfort of unknown age in the vicinity of where Tallinn was founded, but no town. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 09:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Sure, let's say Refaland then. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
TU-nor (talk · contribs) & by the way - the book on viking age in estonia has 0 mentions of Oeselians. It mentions the "inhabitants of Saaremaa", not Oeselians. Most of this article itself is probably WP:SYNTH. The Icelandic saga references have 0 mentions of Oeselians. I will start clearing up this article of WP:SYNTH claims. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

It isn't quite clear to be what is being argued here, but the term "Oeselians" clearly refers to the native inhabitants of the island that the German crusaders named Ösel and referred to in latin as "Oesel" by Henry of Livonia. Robert Bartlett in his book The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change says that the Oeselians were an "Estonian people"[7], to quote:

The way the Oeselians (an Estonian people) acquired siege machines demonstrates the transfer of technical knowledge through such channels. The Oeselians, one of the toughest and most ferocious peoples with whom the invaders had to deal, were preparing large-scale resistance in the 1220s, and their preparations included sending missions to another local people, who had already become possessed of knowledge of siege weapons through their alien conquerors

Some of them went into Warbole to study the technique of the paterell, the machine which the Danes had given to the people of Warbole, who were their subjects. They returned to Oesel and began to build paterells and other machines and taught others. Each of them made their own machines.

Soon they had instructed the other Estonians and the Russians in this art. The use of siege machines, which Henry terms 'the German technique' (ars Theutonicorum) in his Chronicle, has become also 'the Oeselian technique' (ars Osiliarum) by the last pages of his work.

Hope this helps. --Nug (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2018 (UTC)