Talk:Viking Age in Estonia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Work in progress[edit]

Hi, please do not delete this article. It's work in progress between hopefully several editors. Blomsterhagens (talk) 11:50, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Name/scope of article[edit]

There seems to be some confusion here. The lead of the article says "Viking Age in Estonia refers to the society, economy, settlement and culture of the territory of present-day Estonia between AD 450 - 1050", which is totally wrong, even going by what is said further down in the article, since the Viking Age in Estonia is said to have lasted from ~800 AD to ~1050 AD (which fits in well with the definition used outside Estonia). So either everything from before or after that period should go, or the name of the article should be changed to something else. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the source please. The source itself uses the quote to come to a conclusion, which you just deleted. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What I deleted was a comment about exports of iron ore during the 12th-14th centuries, numbers that cannot be used to deduce what the exports were during the Viking Age, hundreds of years earlier, since the trade routes etc etc etc were totally different (the end of the Viking Age marks a clear break between before then and after then). The rise of the Hanseatic League in the 13th century, and the close ties between Estonia and Germany that were formed after the crusades, would have meant a huge increase in the export of iron ore compared to during the Viking Age. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Page 233: "Since the Viking Age, the most definite article of export from Estonia was iron — a raw material that was in short supply all over Europe in the Iron and the Middle Ages. In Estonia the raw material of iron in the form of bog iron can be found in many places. It has been estimated that about half of the iron produced in Estonia in the 12th–14th centuries — that is ca 1500–2000 tons — was exported. For this period, this was an enormous amount that could meet the need of iron for about a million people, based on the estimate that an average person consumed about two kilograms of iron during one’s lifetime (Peets 2003, 135f.)." I added it because a book about Viking Age Estonia uses these numbers to come to a point. Now why would you delete something like that? Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All I deleted was the sentence about the 12th-14th centuries, the rest of it is still in the article. And the reason I deleted it is stated in the post above yours. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Language[edit]

I have corrected the paragraph about Old Norse in the article to what the source really says, i.e. that at least part of the population of coastal Estonia during the Viking Age spoke Old Norse. The source does not say that the Old Norse-speakers of the Viking Age were bi-lingual and also spoke a Finnic language, the comment about some people being bi-lingual refers to the Bronze Age, i.e. more than a thousand years before the Viking Age, and says that, based on the large number of early Germanic loanwords in both the Estonian and the Finnish language, people at that time probably were bi-lingual in Proto-Germanic and a local Baltid-Finnic language. Quote 1: "The Proto-Germanic speaking Scandinavians and Baltic Finns of the eastern shore of the sea had close contact ever since the Bronze Age, which is evidenced by the numerous old loanwords in Baltic-Finnic languages as well as by certain features of the Estonian and Finnish material culture of the time. The character of the oldest language contacts suggests that part of the communicating population was bi-lingual, and that the status of the speakers of Proto-Germanic was high.". Quote 2: "Kalevi Wiik, a Finnish linguist, concluded that the lingua franca on the eastern coast of the Baltic Sea was the language of the Scandinavians both in the Bronze Age and the Viking Age (Wiik 2002, 239–242). Therefore, at least part of the coastal population in Estonia in the second half of the first millennium, probably members of the societal elite, commanded Old Norse. It might be added that sagas, too, do not mention any language-related problems when describing communication with the inhabitants of Estonia or other peoples along the East Way". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am reasonably sure there was part of the population speaking a different language or languages, otherwise Kalevi wouldn't be quoted as saying the societal elite commanded Old Norse, instead of saying everyone spoke Old Norse. A copy of his book could help clear it up because there is likely to be more detail in it. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 12:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Frayae: It's quite probable, yes, but "quite probable" is WP:OR; if the source doesn't say they were bi-lingual then neither do we. Only Bronze Age people are mentioned as having been bi-lingual, based on the large number of Proto-Germanic words borrowed into Balto-Finnic. Words that in addition to words related to sailing and navigation, which could have been picked up through trade contacts, also include words related to society (such as kuningas/king) and warfare, and also numerous words in subject areas such as farming (including the words for plough, rye and many others) that would require prolonged direct contact between Proto-Germanic speaking farmers and Balto-Finnic speaking farmers (the Balto-Finnic people not only adopted the word for plough, but also started using a type of plow that originated in Scandinavia...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I first read it I will admit I gained the impression that Estonia was at least party bilingual since the bronze age. But I have since looked at Kalevi's other work, and he works in the very early foundations of the languages and makes assumptions based on linguistic shift, some of which is not otherwise accepted fact. To try and use his work to support anything substantial related to the viking age would be unwise, as the bulk of his work is about the evolution of Germanic languages based on early contact between Proto-Germanic and Finno-Ugric. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kalevi Wiik's theories have very little, if any, support among other scholars, so I would prefer using other sources if available. That the Estonian and Finnish languages have borrowed many Scandinavian words (from Proto Germanic, Proto Norse and Old Norse, i.e. over a period of a thousand years or more) is mentioned in many other sources too, though, and not a claim made by Wiik only... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 14:55, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas, the least you can do is to have a neutral tone when writing things. It's really not nice or productive if there are constant Wikipedia:Assume bad faith comments added in. I have updated the title of this section to a neutral wording. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I call a spade a spade, and what you're doing is systematically misrepresenting what sources say, to support your POV. On multiple articles. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:43, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only that in the discussion on the admin page on this topic which you started, your accusations did not find support. Maybe pause it for a while? Or just keep going, why not :) It's your own time which you're spending here. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're even misrepresenting the discussion your referring to... - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:47, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to language, then there's also this source from uni. Helsinki: Situation of Finnic languages in the Iron Age: See the map on page 71, which places Finnic tribes / speakers in northwestern Estonia ( & Southeastern Estonia ) at around AD 1000. Of course that doesn't rule out the existence of native Norse speakers as well, if there happen to be sources for that. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnicity[edit]

Tvauri's source, Page 20: "Estonian archaeology represents the continental European archaeological tradition in the sense that researchers do not see or portray themselves as mere bystanders. Estonians do not see themselves as the descendants of late migrants, as do several neighbouring peoples: we are investigating the history of our own country and people, our own ancestors. I will, nevertheless, attempt to avoid questions of ethnogenesis in this study, as I do not believe that the development of a nation can be investigated using archaeological methods. There are all too many examples of how researchers have, based on one and the same source material, combined the same artefacts and sites with completely different, often invented, ‘ethnoses’. This study will not seek to find Estonians’ ‘roots’. I am convinced that the contemporary Estonian national identity is a product of the events and ideologies of the 18th–20th centuries. At the same time, there is no doubt that the people who inhabited Estonia in the second half of the first millennium are the direct ancestors of modern-day Estonians." Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and Estonia of the Viking Age was inhabited by both Scandinavians and Balto-Finns, who over the following centuries mixed/merged and formed the Estonian people of today. Just like Scandinavians merged with/were assimilated into the local population in most other areas where they settled, from Ireland (see Norse-Gael), England (Danelaw and Kingdom of York; 25-27% of the population of the British Isles are said to be of part-Scandinavian descent) and France (Normandy) to Russia and other parts of Eastern Europe (see Rus' people). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Actually, almost certain even. But sources? It's highly logical that there were Norsemen living among the Finnic population (important: does not mean the same as settlement). But we haven't had sources so far which would cover that question or mention the percentages. Is it 1% out of the total population? 5%? 10%? 15%? For example there's a sizeable portion of Finnish citizens living in Estonia, but they don't form a Finnish settlement by its definition. Which I guess nowadays would be defined as a "majority Finnish-speaking area". A source on the activities of Norsemen in Viking Age Estonia would be fascinating indeed. Blomsterhagens (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Focus[edit]

THE ANCIENT ERA (PRE-HISTORY TO 1200)

Most experts believe that the regional thaw in the ninth millennium b.c.e. created hospitable conditions for human settlements in the territory of modern-day Estonia. The warmer climate allowed forests to appear and wildlife to inhabit the region, which eventually led to human settlements. Archaeological discoveries place the earliest settlements at about 7500 b.c.e.

Several sites belonging to the so-called Kunda culture, named after the town near which a major discovery was made, have been discovered, including the earliest find in Pulli. There is no consensus regarding the exact origins of the Paleolithic (ca. 7500–4000) inhabitants of Estonia, though most believe they originated from somewhere in the south.

Closer in origin to modern-day Estonians were the inhabitants in the Neolithic period (ca. 4000–2500). The people of this era are classified in two separate groups, which most experts believe combined to form modern-day Estonians. The first group, believed to be from the east, is classified as the comb-pottery culture, named for the distinctive décor on earthenware discovered from excavations. These settlers are also thought to have brought with them among other things the Finno-Ugric language, the precursor of languages like Estonian and Finnish. The second group, arriving in the late Neolithic period, is called the boat-ax people, from the shape of the ax-heads discovered from archeological digs. Items related to the boat-ax people are found further south, and they are believed to be the primary ancestors of modern-day Balts, the Latvians and Lithuanians.

The absence of tin and copper (components of bronze) makes it difficult to distinguish the Bronze Age (ca. 2500–500 b.c.e.) when considering Estonia; rather, many ancient historians and archaeologists examine the period as one of transition from hunting and gathering and fishing to agriculture. The bronze items originating in this period that have been found were imported, though most items from this era remain stone-based. Despite that, this era remains important, as the transition to agriculture also saw the construction of fortified settlements. That also meant a sharper settlement pattern, which split the forefathers of the Estonians, north of the Daugava River (bisecting modern-day Latvia), and the ancestors of the Latvians and Lithuanians in the south. The so-called Pre-Roman Iron Age (ca. 500 b.c.e. to 1) saw some importing of crude iron tools, but there was no sharp change in society.

Though evidence hints at an earlier modest start to iron smelting, the Roman Iron Age (ca. 1 to 400 c.e.) saw the gradual replacement of stone with iron in Estonia. Though the supply was limited, iron ore was found in bogs, and smelting and forging activities increased. This activity also increased foreign contacts and trade, as indicated by Roman and other ancient coins found in archaeological digs. Even the Roman historian Tacitus spoke of the people living on the Baltic coast as “Aestii” (probably based on the Estonian name for Estonia, “Eesti,” though experts remain uncertain).

The Middle Iron Age (ca. 400–800) represented a more chaotic era, with mass movements of peoples throughout the region, upsetting trade patterns established in the previous era. A large number of fortresses were built during this era to deal with land invasions from Slavs and maritime raids from Scandinavian Vikings. Viking chroniclers depicted major confrontations in Estonia, where even some Scandinavian kings fell in battle.

The Late Iron Age (ca. 800–1200) saw the continuation of armed conflicts, but also the revitalization of commerce. Slavic forces increased their raids into Estonia starting in the second millennium, and the area around Tartu fell several times to invading armies. These raids forced Estonians into building some larger fortifications, and some of their ruins remain standing today. Chroniclers also noted the activities of raids into Scandinavia by Estonian Vikings; one significant attack by Estonians (and likely other inhabitants of the eastern Baltic coast) sacked the key Swedish town of Sigtuna in 1187.

Prior to the medieval period, there was no centralized administration in Estonia. The main unit of administration was the kihelkond (parish), a loose grouping of villages led by an elder. Increasingly, loose groupings of parishes formed a maakond (region), though their consolidation was fragmented and haphazard. Though some of the regions cooperated with each other, the lack of a unified organization hindered joint resistance to attack, thus leading to the centuries of foreign occupation.[a]

Notes

  1. ^ History. (2004). In R. Frucht (Ed.), Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture. [Online]. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO.
  • From this I take several facts;
  1. During the Viking Age there was a group of ethnic Estonians who originated from the comb-pottery culture and the boat-ax people.
  2. The Viking Age in Estonia is not normally described as that, Iron Age is used here, divided into two parts.
  3. It would be prudent to limit the main scope of the article to events between 400 - 1200.
  4. There were numerous attacks on Estonia from Scandinavian Vikings and Slavic forces during this period.
  5. Fortifications in this period were built, and some still survive.
  6. The governance of the region was chaotic, and there was no single ruler or recognisable country.
  7. The Estonians attacked Sweden in their own Viking style raids.
The article should include details of these points. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
References to Viking style raids from Estonia mention "Vikingr frá Esthland", i.e. Vikings from Estonia, without mentioning their ethnicity, meaning that the people who carried out the raids could be Norse or Finnic, or a mix of the two. Which should be reflected in the article. The Pillage of Sigtuna in 1187 also seems to be just a myth, since archaeological excavations have found no signs of Sigtuna ever having been burnt and pillaged. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Like the source, I am not assigning an ethnicity to the raiders. If there is a source which actually gives definition to the ethnic diversity of Ancient Estonia then that would be good. But I am not expecting to find a definite answer to the question. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:35, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"The Estonians attacked Sweden in their own Viking style raids" can easily be (mis)understood to refer to Estonians (as has been seen here on en-WP over and over again over the past few weeks...), so the text should say "Vikings from Estonia", as the original text says, not "Estonian Vikings". - Tom | Thomas.W talk 15:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The source I am working off here does use Estonians. As does almost every other source. I think we will need to clarify the issue of ethnicity, but hopefully in a clearer way than changing terminology to other terminology which can easily be taken to mean exactly the same thing. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 16:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not conclusive what exactly happened at Sigtuna. It has undoubtedly been raided many times, including one notable theft of the fortresses doors which now adorn the Cathedral of St. Sophia, Novgorod. There is general agreement that it is recorded to have happened, which is good enough for me. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:52, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read this about the "Sigtuna gates" in Novgorod, they're not from Sigtuna but weree made in Magdeburg around 1150AD for the cathedral of Plock in Poland, and used there until ~1400AD, so they're not from the alleged pillage of Sigtuna (which AFAIK never had a fortress...). - Tom | Thomas.W talk 16:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's a great deal of otherwise reliable literature which says the Sigtuna Doors were produced in Magdeburg in the 1050, and taken from the Varangian fortress of Sigtuna by Novgorod raiders in 1117. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 17:28, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Frayæ's scope / focus definition Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Title[edit]

Before discussing what is to be included in the body of the article, perhaps the title should be decided? As it now stands, it says that the Viking Age and the Pre-Viking Age and even the Migration period before it are part of the Viking age, which seems to be rather contradictory. Could the title be changed to "Iron Age in Estonia"? The current title cannot stand. --T*U (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The entire idea is to have an article about the Viking age in Estonia, as it is defined in Estonian archaeology. If needed, the migration period and the pre-viking age can be left out. Although I wouldn't personally leave out the pre-viking age, as it's connected to the viking age and usually treated together. But only the viking age would also work. Viking Age in Estonia = 800 - 1050AD. Blomsterhagens (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to expand that very slightly and use the 793–1066 AD period of the traditional Viking Age gaining an extra 23 years. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:04, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should be clearer that the Pre-Viking Age and even the Migration period are preceding periods now. I left the Iron Age mention in there since that is a common description for a larger less specific period the Viking Age is part of. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Population comparison[edit]

Would it make sense to mention the population count in different regions that belonged under the Scandinavian Cultural Area? For example if the article says that by 1050AD there were 150,000 people living in Estonia, it's more informative when the number is in context to other regions. For example 200,000 in Norway, 400,000 in Sweden and 500,000 in Denmark? The population count in Iceland would be great to know as well. Maybe also the British Isles. Blomsterhagens (talk) 14:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The population of Iceland was around 40,000 - 60,000 between circa 950-1100 AD, but I would have to find a source for that. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was WP:BOLD and added a population graph based on the numbers I could find. It may need some additional work though. Blomsterhagens (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was too bold, so I removed it. The comparison is off-topic for this article, and 30K is far too low a number for Finland. It's probably a number for just the province that the name "Finland" referred to at that time and several hundred years on, i.e. just the south-western corner of today's Finland (what is now called Varsinais-Suomi / Egentliga Finland). If even that. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Lists of forts & settlements[edit]

Thanks a lot for the awesome work Frayæ! I just discovered that there are also interactive maps now available: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2018/06/28/interactive-maps-now-in-your-language/ ; via the Kartographer add-on. We can map all settlements and/or forts live on the map. I’ll try to code a template for this later in the week. We could do something similar for Iceland as well. Blomsterhagens (talk) 07:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. I think the main challenge will be finding all the coordinates for the sites, the template is very complicated but I managed to get it to display Iru. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 09:22, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I'll add more to it later Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:29, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts[edit]

Lots of extra content just got merged, I think just from Oeselians. There are some tasks to do now;

  1. Add this article to the Template:History of Estonia sidebar.
  2. Fill out a {{copied}} template for this talk page and {{Split article}} for the talk page of Oeselians.
  3. Convert all the references that were just added to {{sfn}} footnotes.
  4. Check the page numbers for the references of the added content.
  5. Do something about the "Etymology" section, which should not be in this article.

I will do some copyediting I think as well. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have fixed the references, finding in the process that quite a lot more references are needed. I have marked these places with citation needed tags. I also got rid of the "Etymology" section. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:18, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Frayae! Yes, only from Oeselians right now. Although there's probably some other content randomly laying around in wikipedia from this time period as well. Will look later. Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP: Good article nomination[edit]

Just mentioning a longer-timeframe dream :) Blomsterhagens (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Viking Age events[edit]

Several things that are mentioned in article didn't actually happened during Viking Age (800–1050): Sigtuna 1187, Battle of Bravalla, king Ingvar, Livonian Chronicle, Salme ships, population estimates 400 and 1100, crusades of 13th century. They can be mentioned only if some author somehow directly connects them to Estonian Viking Age. --Minnekon (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some incorrect statements. First: "It was not a unified country at the time, and the area of Ancient Estonia was divided among loosely allied regions." If it is taken from the text by Frucht that is copied above on the talk page, then Frucht's statement is not about Viking Age. Anyway, political divisions and alliances can hardly ever be known because lack of sources. Second: "Iron Age period which started around 400 AD...". No, Estonian Iron Age started 500 BC and source says same. --Minnekon (talk) 23:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing anything that isn't connected to the Viking Age period. About not being a unified country - Tauri also mentioned this in his research about Viking Age in Estonia. I don't have time to look up the exact page right now, but it's mentioned in Tauri's research. I think also Mägi's. Blomsterhagens (talk) 12:30, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Tvauri's works about that period and I remember him describing different cultural regions in Estonian territory. And this is maximum that can be concluded from arheological material, which is almost only useful source about Viking Age in Estonia. I don't remember him saying and I doubt that it is even possible to say weather there were loosely allied political units. --Minnekon (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Viking_Age_in_Estonia&oldid=1209892730"