Talk:History of Iceland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a WikiProject related to the nation of Iceland. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project’s quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a group devoted to the the study, and improvement of Wikipedia articles on the subject, of History. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Additional information:

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status:

Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
Neutrality: not checked

To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call:

|B-Class-1=yes/no

|B-Class-2=yes/no

|B-Class-3=yes/no

|B-Class-4=yes/no

|B-Class-5=yes/no

|B-Class-6=yes/no

1 Article text?
2 Climatic changes
3 Volcanic eruptions
4 Naddoddr
5 Irish slaves in Iceland
6 Some changes
7 References
8 Irish monks in Iceland.
9 Church power
10 Added images
11 World War II occupation

[edit] Article text?

I don't know, maybe I'm just overcritical, but doesn't this read like an encyclopedia article, especially the top paragraph. Moquel 05:57, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Climatic changes

The article states that there were climatic changes for the worse. What kind of changes? This needs to be more specific.

[edit] Volcanic eruptions

Why is there nothing about the number of set-backs the population suffered becuase of the volcanic eruptions? --Red King 21:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Naddoddr

The spelling barely exists in Google (most references are based on wikipedia copies too). Althoughthe alternative spelling is barely used too. Lotsofissues 11:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish slaves in Iceland

...the article somehow fails to mention them. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | ^Talk 18:47, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were thralls all over Iceland and Scandinavia. They were one of the main "commodities" traded by the Vikings, but I don't know whether it is interesting enough be mentioned in the Scandinavian history articles.--Wiglaf 18:56, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There were undoubtably slaves in Iceland, but they never appear to have been numerous, and seem to have been pretty much gone altogether by the year 1262. Zoso 02:31, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The article could well do with being less dismissive of early Gaels in Iceland. At the moment, it is clearly biased, and does not conform to NPOV spirit. If no-one else does so, I will insert some of the arguments for early Gaelic presence and influence. Secondly, when Gaelic is meant, Gaelic should be used; not merely Irish, but both Irish and Scottish. If Irish has to be used to mean both Irish and Scottish, as it frequently is used, this should be made clear. Calgacus 02:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't see much "dismissive" attitude in it. The term Irish is being used as that is what is discussed up here, no one means scottish. There is still little hard evidence for the settlements of those before 874, including Gaelic, Irish or Scottish monks. I leave the discussion of that to the archealogists. --Stalfur 20:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

You kinda missed the point. Irish is being used where Gaelic is far more justified historically, esp. given the orientation of Iceland in relation to the Gaels. Anyways, textual evidence for Gaelic monks in Iceland is overwhelming. Of course there's little no archaelogical evidence, what on earth would you expect from a few hundred monks living on such a large island for so little time?! Calgacus 16:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Many do not want to admit a Gaelic presence, though ample documentation exists; but they want to suggest the Gaels were slaves, though documentation does not exist for this notion. So people are simultaneously denying a Gaelic presence, whilst suggesting Gaels were slaves. This article is in dire need of a moderator to purge the bias.

There's plenty of documentation for Irish slaves, so that claim is not biased. --D. Webb 02:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

But it is biased. Because of an "Islandic saga" and other literary artifacts, the article states flatly that Irish were slaves, as if this is factual. But the proof for the Irish preceding the Norse in Iceland also lies in "literary artifacts" and yet the article is adamant that no archaeological evidence exists to support the claim that the Irish precede the Norse, and hence the article strongly yearns to deny this notion. If one wishes to claim the Irish were slaves, one must equally claim that the Irish were the first inhabitants, because both claims are based on literary evidence. It is biased to suggest "the Irish were said to be the first inhabitants, but this is unlikely" while simulatenously postulating "the Irish were undisputably slaves" when working on literary artifacts in both scenarios. Celts were present in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons, so it's hardly strenous to imagine Celts preceding Norsemen in Iceland. (ag789)

Icelanders were keen enough to claim descent from Kjarvalr Írakonungr when the Landnámabók was being made up/collated/whatever. That rather speaks against any popular conception of the Irish as second class people in C11th Iceland. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It's true, Irish probably weren't considered second class people in the 11th century. There also was no slavery in Iceland in the 11th century. Slavery was earlier, from the first settlement in 874 to the end of the 10th century (and even then the Irish slaves probably weren't considered second class in virtue of being Irish). And Icelanders were, to be sure, ready enough to recognize their descendace from anyone of noble birth. It should, however, be mentioned that not all literary evidence is equally good. Landnámabook is thought to be a reliable document. We know of almost no indipendent Irish settlers. The settlers certainly had slaves and at least some slaves were Irish. That much is indisputable. Furthermore, there is no archaeological evidence for earlier Irish settlement, i.e. before Norse settlement in Iceland. As for the claim that if one wants to maintain that the Irish were slaves then one is also committed to saying that the Irish were the first inhabitants because both claims rest on literary evidence, that's a blatant logical fallacy. (a) Not all literary sources are equally reliable, one may choose to rely on one source rather than another - perhaps even with good reason. But the sources must be evaluated on a case by case basis. (b) We have (rather reliable) sources claiming that the settlers brought Irish slaves along with them, and so there's no need assume solely on the basis of the fact that there were Irish slaves that they must have been there earlier. So, what is needed is either archaeological evidence, but there is none, or reliable written documents, but such written documents are scarce and none are unambiguous, explicit and undisputable. Even if they were, they would then conflict with a strange silence about these inhabitants in our other sources. Therefore, it seems only right to not make too big a deal of this in the article or to draw any conclusions from this. The article seems fine the way it is and not at all biased (refraining from drawing shaky conclusions from disputed evidence is not POV, especially since the article does mention the evidence rather than suppress it). --D. Webb 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

It is certainly true that not all pieces of literary evidence are equally credible. However, in the present case, you can hardly suggest Landnámabók is more credible than the work of Ari Þorgilsson -- the latter probably influenced the former greatly. Further, one could add the claim of descent from Kjarvalr Írakonungr found in the Landnámabók as further backing of the Irish origin theory. (ag789)

I'm not discrediting Ari as an author, but rather doubting his puzzling statement, which is far from clear and indubitable. I'm not saying it's definitely false either. But the bottom line is that the article isn't biased. --D. Webb 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some changes

This article has been annoying me since I saw it first and now I have finally decided to go wiki on it and make it less annoying. The things I changed include:

Dividing section on settlement into one section about the age of settlement and one about the commonwealth period, this distinction is the usual practice of Icelandic historians.
Removed several incorrect references to Vikings (plunderers) where it should correctly refer to the Norse people in general. A Viking is not a ethnicity, it's a uhm... profession.
Mentioned the Irish slaves.
Expanded the early history section.
Removed odd notice from the top.

The article bugs me less now although it can be improved drastically still. The WWII section and the post-WWII section especially need drastic changes as they are seemingly written mostly from the American perspective that Iceland is essentially a giant aircraft carrier. It's strange that all the emphasis is on defense matters when we are dealing with a country that does not even have an army. A lot more needs to be said on this period with regard to the dramatic social, cultural, political and economic changes. --Bjarki 23:44, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Kristinsson, Axel; "Is there any tangible proof that there were Irish monks in Iceland before the time of the Viking settlements?" (2005)

Does this text exist in print? I cannot locate a copy anywhere other than on what appears to be a blog website. Since it deals with a minor subject of debate between scholars, I would prefer to have the listing of it here linked to an actual publication, if it exists. The author has a reputable position as a museum administration staffer, so I would imagine that the text would be easier to locate. P.MacUidhir 16:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

The Vísindavefur (Science Web) is published by the University of Iceland. I don't think there's a print edition (yet?). - Haukurth 16:24, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I would be content with just the article itself found somewhere online and placed there by the author, if that is all we have to work with for the moment. I found copies of it, but they do not seem to have been emplaced by the author himself, so they are not quite as useful as a 'Reference' link. If you find the original copy put up somewhere online by Axel, please do add a link in the article, or mention the location here and I will do the editing for us. I appreciate the added information you just posted on the topic here. That helps a bit. P.MacUidhir 17:14, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The translated article's original publication place is the one we link to. The original Icelandic version is here: http://visindavefur.hi.is/svar.asp?id=1732 - Haukurth 19:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you much. P.MacUidhir 21:46, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Irish monks in Iceland.

"There is some literary evidence that Irish monks had settled in Iceland before the arrival of the Norse. However, there is no archaeological evidence to support such settlement. The 12th century scholar Ari Þorgilsson wrote in his book, Íslendingabók, that small bells, corresponding to those used by Irish monks, were found by the settlers. No such artifacts have been discovered by archaeologists, however."

This paragraph is a problem. It reflects a very small minority opinion, and in fact is not really supportable with citations except from a few secondary source texts. The authors of such opinions vary widely in being qualified to comment on the subject. The one source provided within the History of Iceland article itself is by a reputable scholar, but his views do not reflect the prevailing acamdemic conclusions at this time, or even what is considered factual in general reference texts (Encyclopaedia Britannica and similar publications).

Need I justify a re-write of the paragraph here, or do those of you who are interested in this topic want me to just go ahead and do it? I have no problem presenting both sides of the topic if that is what is desired.

It goes without saying, I suppose, that I also consider the Papar article to need similar attention... but one task at a time. :) P.MacUidhir 00:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure what you mean, what exactly is the opinion reflected in this passage? Is the lack of archaeological evidence subject to debate? --Bjarki 00:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

The minority opinion expressed in the paragraph (and the source cited for it in the article) is an implied one- that the Irish monks likely were not in fact present in Iceland before the Scandinavian settlers arrived. This opinion does not reflect general or academic views, and that is why I have a problem with it as it is currently written in the History of Iceland article. The opinion also is contrary to logic, but that is another matter entirely. P.MacUidhir 01:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

All I see in this paragraph are facts, no one can know anything about this for sure. But feel free to add the educated opinion of these historians. I am interested in how they argue for that point. --Bjarki 02:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, mostly- the statements in the paragraph are all seemingly accurate, as far as they go, except that they leave out so much data that they almost appear to be written to serve a particular agenda rather than reporting simple factual data.

As for the historians to mention, naturally the ones I would (and will, for the most part) utilise are Icelanders themselves: "Þa vóro her menn Cristner þeir es Norðmenn calla Papa." Give me a few days to make digital copies of the relevant sources and we shall then have what is necessary to support a re-write of the paragraph dealing with Irish monks who are reported in sources but seemingly disappeared without a trace.

[edit] Church power

There is no mention anywhere in the article about the growing power of the church in Iceland following Gamli sáttmáli, or about the often colourful relations between the two bishops, in Hólar and Skálholt.

Even more importantly, Iceland's somewhat bloody conversion to Protestantism is not mentioned. - Zoso 19:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added images

I added some images to spruce things up a bit. It's a much more lively read now ;) Palthrow 22:11, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Be careful with the licencing, though. Icelandic government publications are not in the public domain (except for the laws). - Haukur 22:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World War II occupation

Is it accurate to call the WWII occupation an "invasion and occupation of Iceland by Allied forces in violation of international law, which would last throughout the war" when the article goes on to say that a defense agreement was signed with Iceland in 1941? Presumedly it was no longer a violation of international law from that point on. MK2 05:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC) --- I'd like to add my reservations. The piece reads too much as if there was some sort of equivalent between the Nazi occupation of Denmark and the Allied occupation of Iceland, which is nonsense.

Well, to be fair the Icelandic constitution from 1918 declared Iceland a sovereign, eternally neutral country. That neutrality was violated by the British. In all likelihood most Icelanders would have preferred occupation by the British to occupation by the Germans, but that doesn't change the legal aspect. The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans vs. occupation of Iceland by the British would, to my best knowledge, be legally equivalent -- although it must be noted that Allied treatment of the Icelandic population was commendable, and the Icelanders accepted the situation with grace, culminating in the signing of the defence agreement. -- Palthrow 15:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The early part of the German occupation of Denmark and the early part of the British occupation of Iceland were quite similar. Both governments cooperated with the occupying forces and were in turn largely allowed to run business as usual. There is no moral condemnation implicit in this. Drawing this parallel in the article isn't strictly necessary but it isn't entirely out of place either to put the events in Iceland in context with what was happening in Christian X's other kingdom. Haukur 15:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)