Talk:Vendel Period

I tagged the stirrups claim because I believe these claims about early Viking stirrups are exaggerated. Eric Christiansen in his "The Norsemen in the Viking Age" (Blackwell publishing, 2002) discusses the whole Scandinavian area and the entire Viking age. In the chapters entitled "Horses" and "War" he states:

However, from the 920s to the 980s many leading Danes were buried with military honours and equipped with stirrups, harness, bits and spurs, in what are called cavalry-graves. They are found in north Jutland, mainly south-west of Limfjord and near the Belts and southern islands.

There are no further references to stirrups from earlier ages or other areas of Scandinavia in this most thorough, wide ranging and quite scientific book about the Vikings and the Viking age. Eravian (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is what Christiansen writes about early Viking horse graves in its entirety (pages 175-176 of "The Norsemen in the Viking Age"):

HORSES: A horse is a common simile for a ship in Scaldic verse (steed of the sea-leagues etc.) but seldom appears in its own right as a charger until later; some verse on the harrying of Scania by king Magnus in the 1040s includes horses ’hastening from the west’ and the king spurring his, in Funen. But war-horses were no new thing: Swedish chiefs had been mounted like Persian or Roman heavy cavalry even in the seventh century, and had apparently trained lighter armed horsemen and infantry to follow them in probing enemy lines with spears and arrows. (ref. Lund 1993 and 1994) Horses were included in the more elaborate burials of lowland Scandinavia, and at Stavrby near Middelfart they found a grave for two horses laid back to back between five dogs, perhaps a cenotaph for a dead lord. In 804, according to the Frankish Annals, king Godfred of the Danes was on the Schlei with his fleet ’and the whole equitatus of his kingdom’, a phrase which presumably means ’chiefs with horses’rather than ’horse brigade’, or cavalry. Whatever role mounted leaders had played in warfare before that was bound to diminish when sea-raiding increased; none of the earlier types of ship were built to transport horses, and even if they could have, it would have been a pointless additional risk. (ref. ARF, 804; and DLU, 217 for the Stavrby grave; for analysis of the tenth-century horses at Suderbrarup see D. Heinrich in SADO(1998), 249-257. They stood thirteen hands on average. See map 6 for these burials.)

However, from the 920s to the 980s many leading Danes were buried with military honours and equipped with stirrups, harness, bits and spurs, in what are called cavalry-graves. They are found in north Jutland, mainly south-west of Limfjord, and near the Belts and southern islands. Whether these were vassals or opponents of the Jelling kings, their families presented them as knights by status, if not by training, although opportunitiers for profitable horse-borne raiding from Jutland to the south were virtually none. It has been suggested that these herrenklub cavaliers were merely parading equipment which ’in the previous century would have been won by direct participation in battle or intensive Viking activity abroad’; (ref. Pedersen in MASS (1997), 132.) but it is easier to believe that the models were the armies of the Carolingians and Ottonians, which had ridden into Jutland in 815, 936 and 974. From the 840s to the 860s, horsemanship and status were brought together most intesely at the court of king Lewis the German, the arch-enemy of the Northmen, from whose hard-riding regime at their own doorstep they could have learned the supreme importance of equestrian prowess (ref. Goldberg (1999), Keefer (1996)) even before they embarked on raids overseas. From the 850s onwards, getting horses became the means and one of the main ends of these raids. Etc. Etc.

The problem is that I do not see any mention of stirrups from the earlier graves. Unless somebody comes up with better references I would suggest that the earliest proven Viking stirrups are from between 920 and 980.

Eravian (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

Confused chart. The Migration period is shown BELOW the Vendel etc periods that follow it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.117.106 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

So gigantic royal mounds demanding at least 70-60 people working all day for around 100 days buried with gold and silver. Is not an indication for royalty? What is then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Usually it's called the Vendel Period

In archaeology, periods are called periods, never "eras". I'd like to rename this article Vendel Period. What does everybody think? Martin Rundkvist (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Reversions

I'll go through this in detail, so the Berig hopefully can answer exactly what he disagrees with:

• "Uppland was an important and powerful area consistent with the account of the Norse sagas of a Swedish kingdom."-> "[Uppland]] was a rich area". The sagas tells of the king in Uppsala as one of several and Uppsala as an important religious centre. But either way, the sagas are so vague that this "consistency" is of very little worth. Any sufficiently rich finds in the area would have been "consistent" with them.
• On the independence of Beowulf and the Norse sagas: this has at least been up for debate the last few years, following Claus Krag. I'm not sure where everything has landed, or if there is currently any consensus
• "Making their existence possible." Currently total nonsense, as the sentence it was refering to has been deleted.
• "Adils grave"-> "the western grave". This is the standard way of refering to the mounds today.

As for POV, considering that this article earlier claimed that the finds in the burial mounds supported the sagas, when they in fact contradict the idea there was three kings buried there, it is not strange if my changes seem a bit onesided. Andejons (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 "En tolkning är att det är en dubbelgrav, med två individer... 

Att det inte går att utläsa så mycket av det osteologiska materialet, beror dels på att kropparna blivit kremerade "

Is it not non-sensical to claim it still is Aun. It is an interpretation, not a fact. Or maybe the top of the helmet found in the grave could be of a male warrior. Maybe his name could be Aun. There are just speculations about the king. The only thing they know for sure is that it is a male and a female. We are talking about 1500 celsius destroying everything. Nothing remains except some ash. Most of the grave findings were also put back. The bones too.

http://extra.lansstyrelsen.se/arkeologigamlauppsala/Sv/historien-om-gamla-uppsala/osthogen/Pages/default.aspx

But the male is dubious. The toy could indicate he is small but it could also be that the girl was young. Maybe the man's daughter because young teenage boys did not wear helmets. It is speculation.

We don't know who old they were. Just that one was a kid. It could also be a small girl. Maybe a Royal daughter and her father Aun. The toy could be hers. She was 12-13. The mascara set indicates she also was Royal. It is when archaeology becomes professional guessing. The source material is too scarce to tell if it is a young boy or a young girl.

Also, the chance of actually hitting the right mound is minuscule. There would have been more mounds present around 2000 earth mounds. We have graves from 3000 bc to 700 after Christ. The chance of hitting the right grave from the time is small. 0.5 per cent chance. The fact that the time dating was correct is strong evidence for Adil's existence. Only two archaeological examinations have been made, one of them was right with timescale. It does not sound nonsensical at all that it could be Adil. 550-600 dated to Adil's supposed reign too. Adil's grave came from the time probably strengthens the claim that it is Adils. 85 per cent of the earth mounds were destroyed by earlier farmers.

As for POV, considering that this article earlier claimed that the finds in the burial mounds supported the sagas, when they contradict the idea there were three kings buried there, it is not strange if my changes seem a bit onesided. Still, Adil's grave was accurately dated to the time of his death. I did not mention the other ones that contained a child and woman. I mentioned Adil's grave that is accurate according to sources. Adil's grave was accurately dated to that period 550-600. Which is exactly the time he is dated to according to Beowulf and Snorre. But yes your right is dubious. The fact that Russians mean Rurik is a real person based on one source is never questioned to the same extent. Because Swedish Archeologist dated the mound to exactly when Adil lived. According to both sources also Adil lived during that time. We are talking about a gigantic amount of evidence. Plus there are over 250 more graves where the other kings could potentially rest. So gigantic royal mounds demanding at least 70-60 people working all day for around 100 days buried with gold and silver. Is not an indication for royalty? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Not the other ones. I did not mention Ohtere or anybody else. The consensus among modern historian is that the Beowulf sagas and Heimskringla are partly made up. But that the some of the kings from Beowulf have a historical basis. Especially Adil and Othere.

Therefore many think at least Uppland was united under Svitjod. The Swedes were probably divided into subgroups Rus for example had an independent culture. But all tribes were collectively united under the Swedish king during times of war against foreign invaders.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuffingas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Um, most of this is uncited, and it is precisely upon citations to reliable sources that we can reach a stable, agreed text. Claims to common knowledge and historical fact (etc, etc) are not a substitute for the standard Wikipedia procedure of providing exact, verifiable (WP:V) citations to the page of textbooks or journal articles. And by the way, other Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources either, though with any luck their sources might be (upon verification). Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sbl/Presentation.aspx?id=5538

http://www.arkeologigamlauppsala.se/Sv/historien-om-gamla-uppsala/kungshogarna/Pages/default.aspx

https://allmogens.se/plats/uppsala-hogar/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there is an article in SBL from a hundred years ago that apparently takes Snorri's account (not "local oral tradition") seriously. Archaeologists and historians of today do not. See e.g. Sveriges historia: 13000 f.Kr.-600 e.Kr. page 444.

Andejons (talk) 22:27, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

There is also location made by nobles to locate the ancient kings' burials in the 16 century. But yes apparently the locals thought it was Freya, Thor and Odin not the king described so really bad on my part. Sorry good editing. I must have confused other Burial mounds due to me reading extensively on the wiki about legendary kings but I'm by no means a professional historian. Sorry.

It is not my claim. It is the claim of professionals. Burning a body will destroy most of the bones, but not every piece, and it is sometimes possible to fit parts of them together. In the western mound, they could not draw any conclusions about who was buried there from the bones, but it has been interpreted as a man due to the grave gifts.

Also, it should probably be noted that Snorri actually does not claim that the three kings were buried in these three mounds. It was a theory of early 20th century archaeologist Birger Nerman, who read about three kings buried in Uppsala and connected it with the three mounds.

Andejons (talk) 07:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

. It could be a dad and his child. Aun is also known for sacrificing royalkids. If they dug up the bones and found an old mans bones. Due to the source metioned above digging down bones again. Also the source mentions that some bones were buried again. Aun also according to legend loved sacrificing royal kids. He also bloted alot with humans and is described as a very cruel king that swedes disliked.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC) 

We have continual problems of this kind on Swedish Wikipedia as well. A lot of well-meaning people don't understand the difference between strong historical sources written in the AD 1200s talking about the 1200s, and weak ones written in the 1200s and talking about the AD 600s. The latter ones are known as "saga history" or "protohistory", and should not be used. No historian or archaeologist today claims to know the name of anyone buried in a Vendel Period barrow. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Beowulf could have been written 700 after christ mentioning Adil should probably not be such a weak source. Off course some of the events are made up. But like many modern works of fiction, it seems to contain true events. For example, the Swedish contacts between Anglo Saxon seem to be extended during this period. So we can not discard it as complete fiction. Because then it would not tell tales of Sweden and Geatland then it would be named Nangijala or some other made-up name. We can probably conclude that Sweden looks divided. The geats seem to have an independent nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not our job to evaluate early historical sources here. That's for academic historians to do. If you want to cite something from Beowulf, then please find a reputable source where a respected contemporary academic historian uses the poem as a source. I may be wrong, but I believe you will find it quite difficult to locate any such historian. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, no original research here. However, Martin, this is your specialty, but I think it is not hard to find archaeologists and historians using Beowulf as a source. The interesting thing is that there is a common rejection of oral transmission of historical events and people, but they seem to have much more faith in Beowulf as a source of illustrating the culture of the era. Please correct me if I am totally wrong here.--Berig (talk) 06:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Beowulf is an excellent source as to what Christians in England believed about Scandinavia in about AD 750-800. But the poem is set in Scandinavia 200-250 years earlier. It's historical fiction, like Scott's Ivanhoe. Myself and many other scholars use Beowulf to get an idea of for instance what the mead-hall's social and symbolic significance was. But most of us consider it useless as a historical source on the political history of Sweden. Martin Rundkvist (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mrund:. Yes, that is what I meant by using Beowulf as a source. Also, Beowulf is of great value as a medieval legend, and makes that it worthwile writing about it here on WP. Its connections with the Old Norse legendary material fascinates me and throws a light on the culture and the story telling of the early Middle Ages in Northern Europe. As for discussions on possible historicity, I believe it is a topic that will always fascinate people, just like the equally fictive King Arthur material does in Britain. Anyway, thank you for being here and bringing some scholarly supervision over these articles that are your specialty.--Berig (talk) 11:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wondering how little sources we have Im amazed by the boldness of modern historians when they claim that Sweden was founded by Olof Skötkonung. Literary no source refers to him as the first king of Sweden. I agree the Sagas and the Christian sources disagree with each other. But nontheless sometimes they actually match like Björn på Högen and the Björn Ansgar meet seem to have reigned during the same period. I do not claim we know the exact process but claiming Olof Skötkonung is Swedens first king is a bold statement. I do not think so. I read all sources availible and they are extremly few. It should just be said Olof was our first historical king without any controversy not that he with all likelihood is our first king. Because both christian sources such as Rimbert, Ansgar and Adam of Bremen refers to a Svitjod before that. I agree completly with that Olof Skötkonung is our first historical supported king but most likely it was not tribal chiefdoms before Olof. Instead off claiming the process went peaceful and coming with alot of speculation maybe it would be better to just say we do not know how Sweden was formed how old it is and which king and persons united the different pity kingdoms. Instead of coming with wild claims of some sort of peaceful meeting... Just my personal opinion regarding the wild claims about the Consilidation of Sweden. But I agree that the Vendel period is an extremly unhistorical period with almost no sources at all.

Here is a complete geneology on Swedish early kings described in different sources. For example Erik appear in both Christian, Icelandic and Danish sources during the exact timeperiod or succession according to the source mentioned above during the 9th century. Ottar of Helgoland also reffered to Swedish control of Geatland during this period in 880 ad. Where literary all sources agree a king named Erik ruled Sweden during the early viking age 880 ad. The german trader Ottar also claimed Västergötland was under Swedish control.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Ringsson

Lund, Niels (1983) Ottar og Wulfstan: to rejsebeskrivelser fra vikingetiden. Roskilde: Vikingeskibshallen, pp. 23–5.

"It is not known when and how the kingdom of Sweden was born" This captures the consilidation perfectly. Instead of claiming Olof Skötkonung was our first king. He is our first historical recognized king but probably not our first Swedish king. Especially due to him being extremly unpopular for losing the Swedish eastern kingdoms. Probably a reference to Kievan Rus or Baltic client states due to his ill planned war with Norway.

http://www.tacitus.nu/svenskhistoria/kungar/vikingatid/sveakungar2.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 15:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

http://www.tacitus.nu/svenskhistoria/kungar/vikingatid/index.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.227.81.54 (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It would help a bit if you remembered to sign your posts, using ~~~~ . But I am afraid that you are still ignoring what I, the archaeologist Martin Rundkvist, and Berig have now each told you, which is that Wikipedia is built ONLY on claims that can be cited directly to Reliable Sources, not speculation, reasoning, logic, induction or anything else of the sort. You might easily be correct in your speculations, but we cannot have them in articles, and they're actually not allowed on talk pages either (WP:NOTFORUM, as it happens). PLEASE could we focus on what can go in the article, i.e. claims from textbooks, academic research articles (journals or conference papers), or (perhaps) relevant news reports in serious newspapers, for basic facts only. Anything else is simply off-topic for an Encyclopedia: that may sound dull, but that's this place for you. There are plenty of chatrooms and forums for unverified opinions (though even Twitter and Facebook are starting to enforce a Verifiability rule...). So, focus, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)