From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Where´s archaeology? It is weird to speak about prehistory using only late and often legendary narrative sources--130.234.75.18 12:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The word "prehistoric" in the article name is not a very successful choice. "Historical" era in Finland is usually considered to have started from the Swedish conquest. The era before that is thus "prehistoric" and the article handles events that belong to that time and place. Please suggest a better name for the article. --Drieakko 15:22, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am afraid I cannot suggest a better name, as the article obviously tells mostly about the prehistoric era. Late Iron Age and Early Medieval Finnish Wars (according to written sources only) would be descriptive but hardly an acceptable name. My point is that it is bizarre to write anything about prehistory without making a single reference to the archaeological research. It think archaeology is more relevant here than all those obscure references in the Old Norse literature.
- Please explain to us how archaeology can provide any information in this matter, except for descriptions of burnt strongholds, scarred skeletons, and scattered or concentrated finds of weapons of different origins.--Berig 18:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I hope you ask that because of genuine curiosity, and do not intend to make any silly and misinformed dismissals of archaeology. Please realize that archaeology is much more than just description of finds. Archaeology can often provide more or less grounded interpretations of the organization of armies, battle-field tactics, motives and goals of fighting, rituals related to warfare, areas and periods characterized by warfare or peace, etc. Unfortunately, I have no time or interest to explain the methodology and theory of archaeological conflict research. Please read some relevant books yourself. Ancient Warfare, edited by Anthony Harding (1999), is a good starting point. There´s a lot of Danish research, too.--130.234.75.229 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- Intention of the article is to sum up all the obscure early references to Finland related conflicts. They can hardly be tied to any archaeological finds, at least without an unhealthy dose of speculation. See also List of Finnish wars. --Drieakko 19:29, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, the article fulfills that intention brialliantly. However, the name of the article should be changed, as the present name does not really express the intention. What we really know about prehistoric wars in Finland is not much, but it is almost exclusively based on archaeology. (Please note that late 12th and early 13th century are conventionally considered as protohistory or early Middle Ages in Finland, not prehistory.).--130.234.75.229 08:07, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
A suggestion for an alternative title: Protohistoric Finnish Wars. It is not very good, as the term of protohistory is relatively rare in Finnish historiography. But the present title is absolutely misleading. And there are two books called Protohistory of Finland, both written by researchers, (one published in 1935, another one in 1992), so the term is not completely original--130.234.75.20 14:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think we should first have definition for Protohistoric. --Drieakko 14:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- See Protohistory. An obscure term is better than a misleading term.--217.112.249.156 13:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I am still wondering what is the actual problem in the current title. The information that is provided on the conflicts is exclusively from non-Finnish sources either written by cultures that already were on the historical era when the conflicts took place (very few, like Othere's account) or describing events that had taken place much earlier than the time of writing (mostly, like sagas and legends). Whatever the situation was in those cultures, Finland was still in the prehistoric era during the time when the conflicts took place. No Finnish written sources whatsoever have survived describing any of the listed conflicts, so calling them as "Prehistoric Finnish wars" is in my opinion quite proper.
-
-
- "Protohistoric" is quite misleading in the sense that Finns had nothing to do in providing any of the information on these conflicts and no part of it was produced in Finland. Most of the information is also written down long after the conflicts themselves, not during the era when they actually took place. If someone writes a saga in the 13th century about what happened in the 5th, it does not move the 5th century to historical era. --Drieakko 15:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- First of all I want to say that I admire your expertise and the content of this article. I just hate the title. The article deal extensively with late 12th and early 13th centuries, and these are not conventionally considered as prehistory in Finland. End of the Crusade Period and Iron Age is generally, if consevatively, dated to 1150 CE. It is not our business to declare otherwise, as that would be original research. And I really think it is a disgrace to present the article under this title without any archaeological references. Prehistory is generally associated with archaeology and archaeological research dealing with prehistoric wars in Finland exists. I agree that protohistory is not a really good term, but it is still better than prehistory in the title of this article. But maybe we should look for a third alternative. --217.112.249.156 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Would "Early Finnish wars" be too bloodless? --Drieakko 18:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, at least it is the best alternative presented so far. I vote for it.--217.112.249.156 10:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- Done with the move now. --Drieakko 17:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
