Talk:Ketill Flatnose

Who was born?

'Ari Þorgilsson was a direct descendent of Ketill, who was born not long after the death of his great grandmother Guðrún Ósvífrsdóttir,'

Was Ketill born after Guðrún? Or was Ari Fróði?

Best Regards Steen Thomsen København. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.174.114 (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Clarified. Ben MacDui 09:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Syntax error?

I note some short correspondence at User talk:Sabrebd and User talk:Rothorpe. One comment is: "It is the first sentence in the first bulleted item in the second group of bulleted items in the section "Caittil Find"... I still feel that something is wrong." I am not very active at present but happy to help if I can. Ben MacDui 16:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. Rothorpe pointed out that it's not the first sentence. It's the second sentence (in the first item in the second bulleted list in "Caittil Find"). CorinneSD (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sentence reads: Þorgilsson was thus a direct descendant of Ketill and drawing on family history that will have "become muddled and mistaken in parts", but is still likely to contain "other parts that can be close to the historical truth".

The only issue that I can see is that the intended meaning is that Þorgilsson was:

a) a direct descendant of Ketill and

b) drawing on family history [that may be confused]

and that there is no 'was' before 'drawing' - although I don't think it is needed. Ben MacDui 07:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm copying the entire sentence here so that we can look at it:

"Þorgilsson was thus a direct descendant of Ketill and drawing on family history that will have "become muddled and mistaken in parts", but is still likely to contain "other parts that can be close to the historical truth".

This sentence is so unclear that I don't even know where to begin. First of all, the point of. this whole section is whether or not there is any evidence to support the idea that Caittil Find and Ketill Flatnose were one and the same person. The second section makes the point that there may be some historical truth in the sagas. So the items in that second bulleted list should be elements of historical truth that can be found in the sagas that one can point to as support for, or arguments against, that idea. The only part of this sentence that seems related to the discussion is the first part: "...Þorgilsson was a direct descendant of Ketill". As for the rest, the connection is not clear.

Even if one adds the word "was" before "drawing", it does not clear up the rest of the sentence. What, or who, was drawing on family history? The connection between the first part of this sentence and everything beginning with [was] drawing is not clear. I think it would be clearer if the sentence were broken into two, with the second one saying something like, "We can draw on family history in order to understand...", or "If we draw on family history, we can trace...", or "Drawing on family history, we can see that...". In other words, I think it's important to make it clear who is drawing on family history, and for what reason. CorinneSD (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Downloaded the pdf and skimmed the relevant passage from Jennings and Kruse. IMO the description "muddled and mistaken in parts" applies to J&K as well, but it might be parts that can be "close to the historical truth". OK, I know this doesn't help, but couldn't resist :)

On a serious note, that first bullet point from J&K doesn't make any sense to me, neither it current syntax nor in the meaning I suppose it is supposed to have: Why is an argument for Ari Thorkillson being a possible descendant of Ketill relevant for identifying Ketill of the Sagas and Caitill of the Annals? In general, all these bullet points try to summarize complex lines of arguments from scholars - I'm not convinced this is improving the article. I would propose ommitting them all. Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 17:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

One of the points J&K are making are that as a descendent of Ketill, Þorgilsson had a more direct family connection with the saga material than might be obvious. Hardly controversial even if you choose not to give it a lot of weight. Þorgilsson was "drawing on family history" - this seems clear enough to me. J&K are specifically attempting to refute, or at least raise questions about, Woolf's conclusions here. I am all in favour of making things more clear and readable but I can't see any reason to remove legitimate scholarly material. Viking and Medieval Scandinavia seem to think it's relevant. Ben MacDui 20:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

First, I should make it clear that I'm far from an expert in this area of history, but I can read and write, and I like to improve articles so that they are clear to the average reader, and I appreciate working with editors more knowledgeable about the topic. I re-read the article from the beginning. When I read the section "Caittin Find" last night, I had not remembered a piece of information from the very beginning of the article, that Ari Thorkillson wrote the story of Ketill in at least one saga (it's not made clear which one, or ones). So now the "drawing on family history" makes more sense. I think the sentence I was saying was unclear would be clearer (for the average reader) if the reader is reminded that Ari Thorkillson wrote the story of Ketill. (If the specific name of the saga or sagas is known, it ought to be mentioned, either in "Primary sources" or here.) Then J&K's point would be clear.

Stepping back a bit, if one looks at the list of items under "Woolf" and compares them with the list of items under J&K, one can see that the items under "Woolf" are simpler and clearer. The items under J&K are wordy and written in such a way that only an expert in the field would be able to follow. If they are to be kept, the second list needs to be worked on and made clearer. I would say that all but the second and last bulleted items are all right; at least they are understandable. But I do not see the connection between the second and last items to J&K's central argument (that the Norse sagas contain some historically accurate information that support the idea that Ketill and Caittil were the same person). Could someone make that connection clearer? Some words may have to be added in order to accomplish that.

I have another question about the second paragraph in the section "Interpretation", which I'll copy here:

"Furthermore, Harald is assumed to have annexed the Northern Isles (comprising Orkney and Shetland) in 875 or later. If Ketill's suzerainty post-dates this time, it is hard to see how Thorstein the Red, an adult grandson of his, could have been in active in the 870s and 880s. It is therefore likely that Ketill's floruit in the Hebrides was at a period that pre-dates Harald's victory at Hafrsfjord."

1) I see the word "suzerainty" in the second sentence. Do you think "suzerainty" is really the best word here?

2) Also in the second sentence, it says, "it is hard to see how Thorstein the Red...could have been in active in the 870s and 880s." Should "in active" be "inactive"? Is that just a simple typographical error, or was Thorstein the Red actually active (something like "in active service") and one or more words are missing? CorinneSD (talk) 00:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

To JK bullet point 1 about Ari being a descendant of Ketill and that the sagas shouldn't be "written off" - I still don't get why this should be listed as an argument of an identity Ketill-Caitill. From Woolf point 3 it is evident that Woolf does not "write them off" either. I propose that we rather include the relation between Ketill and Ari in the section "primary sources" where Ari is first introduced to the reader.

To Corinnes point 2: That surely should be "inactive"

It is a concern indeed if "only an expert in the field would be able to follow". For me JK bulletpoints 2-5 seem clear enough though (I'm defo not an expert - but I've read a bit about the period.), but perhaps a bit wordy. Perhaps the level of detail should be lowered, i.e. like not naming/explaining Helgi and Áleif etc in point 4? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 07:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Finn: re your first point re JK bullet point 1, I don't get it, either.

I added a few words to bullet point 2 in order to strengthen the point. The only thing that I'm not sure about is this: it seems that both Caittil Find and Keitill Flatnose were historical individuals. Keitill only becomes a character three hundred years later when one of his descendants, Ari Thorkillson, writes his story. So the parallel with the other two names is not exactly parallel (if the other two are 1) a real individual and 2) merely a character in a story). Thus, I am not sure why this point is included at all.

Re bullet point 4: I think it includes much too much detail. The reason for all that detail is not clear, and the main point of point 4 does not stand out. I don't know what the main point is.

Re bullet point 5: I really do not see the point of either the first part of that sentence or the second part. What point, or points, are J&K making regarding the possibility that Caittil and Keitil were the same person?

In order to resolve these questions, and to know what, if anything, to remove from point 4, we either need to do some reading ourselves or find someone who really knows this history. CorinneSD (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry not be quicker to reply here. The 'in' is a typo. Thorstein was active in the 870s and 880s. I will take a longer look at all the above this weekend Insh'Allah. A very general point that I struggle with is that I am absolutely in favour of clarity but don't like assuming our readers are children. Suzerainity is perfectly good word and with wiktionary a click away, why not use it? Bisy backson. Ben MacDui 08:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No rush at all MacDui, at least not on my part :) Reading my previous posts here, I think I should clarify that when I proposed omitting "the bullet points" I of course meant Woolfs as well as those from J&K. This identity has been discussed among scholars since Robertson first proposed it and Todd first rejeceted it in 1862/67, and even though Woolf and J&K are the most recent publications to comment on this (that I am aware of), I'm not sure that a summary of their respective positions necessarily gives the best overview of the discussions. It's not a big issue for me though.

I'll make a few changes now, I'll try to make them step-by-step so that they can be reverted and brought to discussion here if anyone disagrees. One thing is that the current text could be read as if O Corrain and Downham supports Woolfs position, when in fact O Corrain published some 30 years before Woolf.

On a different note, Anderson and later Downham mentiones that also Catol, ally with the grandssons of Ivarr mentioned in CS 904, has been identified as Ketill. They both reject that (the chronology obviously doesn't fit), and do not say who first made this suggestion they're refuting. Is this still worth a mention? Best regards, Finn Rindahl (talk) 14:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Update: Made some edits, and hopefully helpful Bots has helped repair whichever references I broke on the way. I really am rusty, apologies. I still think the argument J&K makes about Ketills relation to Ari the possible significance this has for the historical accuracy of the Saga material rather belongs in section "primary sources" than as part of the discussion Ketill/Caitill. Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

All good and I have moved a chunk of the Thorkillson material up into primary sources as you suggested which emphasises the family history bit earlier on and enables the later part to be shorter. I'll add something brief about Catol too. Ben MacDui 14:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)