Talk:Viking/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I simply removed this part so we can discuss it first:

It is widely assumed that the vikings lived to plunder, but in truth, they only did so towards the religious insitutions (and royals who relied on them for influence over the peasantry) which spoke of hatred and dismissal towards their heathenry. For instance, they needed to trade and settle with the Christians, but with propaganda and venomous lies about them as heathens, they could get no where and had tried to force the emperor of France, king of England and the emperor at Constantinople to pay them tribute as a result. It was a choice other than raiding given them by the vikings (see Danegeld). The vikings who were desperate enough to try raiding Islamic mosques at Córdoba, Spain ended up regretting it or dying, although they had luck with ransacking Luna near Pisa in Italy. On the whole, there weren't many Mediterranean ventures because of the lack of leverage in the region.

Now, the sources of these things are to be given first, and it's a too disparate addition to be lumped in under "myths". Using words like "venomous lies" is as far out on the non-NPOV scale you can get. Rewrite this to non-viking-proselyteism, please. Harvester 20:34, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Removed "the vikings preserved a lot of knowledge from the old greeks and romans. For instance they knew the Earth is round." because according to Flat earth and other sources, the round Earth tradition was preserved in Europe from the ancients to modern times (although it was argued against at various times through history). -- Tim Starling 00:09 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

I don't like the sentence on a naval arms race with Vikings falling behind. First, it took roughly 1000 years until faster ships than Viking long ships were developed. Secondly, the Viking age ended for various political and economic reasons long before long ships became anachronistic - note e.g. that William conquered England with a fleet of long ships (and Knarrs). Similar political and economic reasons finally led to new and different ships (which were taken up in previous VIking areas as well as elsewhere). Stephan Schulz

I changed a lot of spelling/grammar mistakes, and rewrote the info about Birca - since there's a separate page about Birca, perhaps what isn't there already should be lifted to the separate page? A summary would do for the main page, and it would be nice with some information about the other places, not just Birca.

I will add more info on viking ships later; I have a book from the museum and reconstruction center in Roskilde, which is a gold-mine of information. Perhaps we should add a link to that place? BjornSandberg 12:38, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Was the first report of a viking raid on Britain 789 not 793?

Currently the WikipediA article says:

Historical records
The first report of a Viking raid dates from 793, when the monastery at Lindisfarne on the east coast of England was pillaged by foreign seafarers.

A quote from several web pages says: "In the year AD 789, three strange ships arrived at Portland on the southern coast of England and Beaduheard, the reeve of the King of Wessex, rode out to meet them. He took with him only a small blind of men under the mistaken impression that the strangers were traders: "and they slew him...” records the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tersely.

I think I first came across this Viking Saxon confrontation in the book "The Blood of the Vikings" by Julian Richards. It may or may not be in the BBC TV series of the same name. It may or may not be called a raid, but it did get a mention in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and hence the Saxon/English historical record 4 years before the reported first date in Wikipedia. Perhaps someone with more knowledge of this period would like to comment on this and if necessary edit the Wikipedia page.

Also the raid was the first on on Britain, but it may not have been the first ever viking raid. For that one would probably need to look at Scandinavian sources.
210.55.27.190

The problem with Scandinavian sources is that they for this period consist of runestones and oral tradition - and of the tourist Ibn Fadlan's report. Up here in the North christianization and written Latin would not root until 200-300 years later. But of course inter-tribal viking raids were carried out locally in Scandinavia long before. But you have to quest archeologists instead of written sources.
--Ruhrjung 11:02, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Etymology facts?

I want a source of the current text in the Etymnology section. I have reasons not to believe it, as it is far from the etymology as I know it. -- Sverdrup (talk) 15:56, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)


I removed The Germanic word-stem vik or wik has to do with markets, and was the usual suffix to mean "market town" in the same way that burg means "fortified place". Sandwich and Harwich in England still show this termination, and the recently excavated Frankish port town of Quentovic shows the same ending.

It conflates two etymologies, and is not accurate. Instead I used the American Heritage Dictionary's etymology:

Old Norse vikingr, perhaps from vik, creek, inlet. DigitalMedievalist 16:36, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC) Lisa

I wrote about the etymology of wic/vik as it pertains to fish-ing, vik-ing, and also related to the term "wish" as many would wish that they would get fish. "Hope" is related to "haven", a harbour, easily recognised in Godthoab, Greenland because in Norse, "hav"(similar to "hof") means the open ocean(entered at a "hub" of great commercial activity), and they would have high hopes for their journey. The Rhode Island state flag has "hope" on it. The vik ports are the market for the staple food fish. The Catholics deemed vikings as anything bad, discolouring the name. User:Kenneth Alan

I think we should only follow expert opinions and facts an not our own personal reasonings. According to dictionaries: 'Vik' clearly means bay, inlet or inland sea as it still does today in Danish 'vig'. Fedor 15:21, 28 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll have you know that I am not the laity in these matters. I am well versed in kennings and the cultural history of the Nordic people, a study I have pursued since I was 10 years old in 4th grade. If we all conform to limited minded perceptions, then we don't get the full understanding. At that time, with such limited vocabulary compared to modern English, such words were used for many different meanings, however, the original source is cognate with "fish"(wich/wic/vik), thus "fishing"(viking) and essentially preserved in a location to describe such an activity; a staple port(early on) up an estuary(later on, they moved closer to open water, as in Reykjavik), where the knarrs and other ships left to sail the open waters for fishing grounds. Interestingly, the limitations described in naming convention also apply to the occupations, where a man had many occupations to be mostly self sufficient or take another's place. Thus, a boendr fisherman turned marine during times of conflict to defend his trading interests and fishing grounds, joining a band of others loyal to their jarl. This term vik is also cognate to fiscal, as fish was used for payment(bartering/trade). User:Kenneth Alan
You may know kennings and the Nordic people (I actually am Nordic myself, resident in Denmark), but you clearly are not a linguistic expert as witnessed by your, in my view, pseudo-scientific reasoning on etymology. But even if you were an authority, then I would still insist that we stick to the current broadly accepted consensus as indicated by the dictionaries, and not to personal reasonings, no matter how well informed. I feel like strongly for removing the link to fishing, unless you have some way of backing it up... Fedor 10:32, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
If you understood the kennings, you would understand the mind of the people who used those words and how they applied them. If you are not analyzing the data, but holding a traditional OUTSIDER view as a way to block the open interpretation, then you have forsaken your own intellectual reasoning to base your beliefs on an "UNDISPUTED AUTHORITY", which would never acknowledge it's own peer pressure upon you because you are "insignificant" in the eye of elitist establishment.
You know, I am very sick and tired of being devalued for all the independent work I have done, sacrificing time I could have used to develop relationships that have soured while I pursued this information over the years. I suppose the payoff is inapplicable, based upon yours and a few others' closeminded reactions. *All stay silent. Don't dare question or challenge publicly! Keep your thoughts to yourself, they don't matter, because you don't have the merit to speak. Don't even bother to think, for nobody will care.*
I have already demonstrated my technical expertise on a simple level, as an easy example. If you cannot understand the simple, even, then you must not be reaping the benefits of the unpaid schools in Danmark, and perhaps relying upon the dogmatism of the professors's own intense attachment and adoration of the data, sooooo unthinking. It has obviously flew over your head, otherwise you wouldn't have responded thusly. Because it doesn't match up with the lowest common denominator of generality, the gossip(I say because even in the works you adhere to, always assert that they aren't even sure of the origins) published enmasse, you automatically dismiss my data, not giving it a chance to see it my way.
I have given my time to this subject, in fact, half my scholarly vocation so far has been about issues in relation to it in my spare time even time supposed to be allotted for other scholarly subjects I did not so well in because I spent so much time on this stuff. I don't wish to suffer entanglement over the validity of presentation based upon yours and others' novice interpretation of the issues. Learn to analyze rather than just weighing comparison between establishment and something unencountered before. Then you will suffer no prejudice upon others' words. For instance, what is mostly always popular in culture doesn't mean that it is morally imperative, beneficial or accurate to any great degree, but the more we distribute it as wholly valid without question, the more damning we construct that part of society. Get me?.
I am using my brain, and trying to help others do the same! If you don't appreciate the abilities of a modern, progressive encyclopedia to present data that hasn't been uncritically regurgitated a million times and which is unfunded by lack of attention to "authorities"(, except some self-styled vigilante belief-police sometimes known as sysops), then you are only doing a disservice to society. Bah! I use my vigilantism to see what others miss because they weren't really learning, just spreading the data. Since I see more, I have more to comment on, whether you cared I paid witness or not.
Wikipedien den fria? Pseudoscience, my ass! Goddamn bullshit American politics! Prescribe me my beliefs and lock me in the white room, George Bush! *"Galileo! Galileo! Galileo!, Galileo, let me go!"* Eh? That's right, I am a humanist genius and I demand to be respected as one who has keen mental faculties, but it is not my claim that I am the only one with a brain. Do not mistake my words when they are typed. User:Kenneth Alan
Well, just allow me to step over this load of ad hominems to my address, while I first-of-all point to the core of this issue. Now, you may have a lot of (well-informed?) ideas on this subject. That is fine with me. But this is a collective project and we cannot take heed of all private opinions of different individuals on certain matters no matter how well informed, because otherwise the debate would never end. This is why the only solid standard is the broadly accepted scientific consensus in the field. If would like to vent your private theories I suggest you get a website of your own and not impose your personal views on others by intolerantly dominating certain subjects in wikipedia.
You scold me for not wanting to analyze myself, while at the same time suggesting that I am not able to judge these matters properly. Sounds rather self-contradictory if you ask me. I am no expert, but I do know a thing or two about linguistics. Enough to see that it is nonsensical that 'vik' and 'fisk'/'fish' would be cognates. You see, the transformations of sounds like you suggest, namely from v- to f- and -k to -sh, never occur in one word only, but in all words of similar morphology within the same language. So, if vik changed to fik, then vis (wise) would also change into fis (fise?), or rik (realm) would change to risk (rish?). That this has not happened clearly contradicts your claim that fish and vik are related cognates. Furthermore, you equate the old norse suffix -ing with the similar one in modern english. However, in the first case it has the meaning 'belonging to / coming from' (thus 'vikings' would be 'people of the creeks'), and in the latter case it denotes the grammatical form of the gerund. Frankly, if you make these kinds of mistakes, you don't really strike me as the authority with greater mental faculties. I am now going to notify the administrators of your unfair and outrageous behaviour, and then I will remove all reference to 'fishing' in the etymology section as you failed to substantiate them. Fedor 19:04, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Heh, do what ye will. The vikingr were not an ethnic clan or family such as you purport by the ing factor. They were an amalgamation of several different tribes not a dynasty either, like the Ynglinga, Wulfinga, Scyldinga, etc. Self-contradictory? Unfair and outrageous behaviour? Bah, just listen to yourself 'Mr. Big Boss Man, gotta take control of what thoughts people are limited to'. Nice job, tattle-tale. I'm sure you loooove sucking up to sysops for favors. Not everybody loves a hardass like you. Oh, and the shifting letters don't always happen, as not all words share the same opposing backgrounds, of course, slang and pidgin forms have also risen to prominent use. You are obviously too limited minded to contribute anything of meaning here at Wikipedia. If John Geoghan was still alive, I bet you'd be his choir boy, and go pour over his dogmatic entrapment so you could impress him with all that you know about the Bible, and you'd end up like Matthew Shepard. User:Kenneth Alan

I'm not going to get involved in the argument (I know nothing about it) but I thought you might be interested in a suggestion from the OED:
Viking. Hist. Also vikingr, -er, -ir; wiking, wicking.
[ad. ON. and Icel. víking-r (whence also Norw., Sw., Da. viking, G. wiking), = OE. wícing, OFris. witsing, wising. Cf. also ON. and Icel. víking fem., the practice of marauding or piracy.
The ON. word is commonly regarded as f. vík creek, inlet, bay, + -ingr -ing3, a viking thus being one who came out from, or frequented, inlets of the sea. The name, however, was evidently current in Anglo-Frisian from a date so early as to make its Scandinavian origin doubtful; wícingsceaða is found in Anglo-Saxon glossaries dating from the 8th century, and sæ-wícingas occurs in the early poem of Exodus, whereas evidence for víkingr in ON. and Icel. is doubtful before the latter part of the 10th cent. It is therefore possible that the word really originated in the Anglo-Frisian area, and was only at a later date accepted by the Scandinavian peoples; in that case it was probably formed from OE. wíc camp, the formation of temporary encampments being a prominent feature of viking raids.]

fabiform | talk 10:09, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Interesting possibility that may be considered to be added to the etymology section! Fedor 10:15, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I see this article is alrady listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment, so the Wikipedia dispute resolution machinery's wheels have already begun to turn. The current content of the article seems to reflect the mainstream etymological ideas about the origins of the word "Viking", so there is no need to continue the debate here. Indeed, as Kenneth's last post is almost entirely personal attack, he should be castigated for his inappropriate behavior.

While Kenneth's ideas about the origin of "Viking" are interesting and perhaps have some merit (as etymology is not really definitive), that doesn't appear to be the case as he has not cited any sources other tham himself to support his view. Since we don't publish original research (as a rule) on Wikipedia, including his ideas, regardless of their merits, without outside corroboration, would simply be a violation of Wikipedia policy. I think this became apparent to everyone fairly early on in the debate, although it seems Kenneth is too immature to admit his error and instead resorted to incoherent babblings and personal attacks, neither of which are welcome on Wikipedia.

Like Fabiform, I looked up "viking" in the OED, and the ideas there probably represent the most complete and authoritative treatment of the etymology of "viking". Wikipedia's coverage of the topic ought to say what the OED says, but if Kenneth can show some support for his ideas external to himself, we can present them as a minority view. Nohat 15:40, 2004 Mar 30 (UTC)

vai-kńź : woja kńź where woja = war, kńź =man honorary sorb Luzić swovo ludzi swova