Talk:Scandinavian York

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Jackr8106, Joel Garvey, Lrcapis.

Scholarship

Some of the content of this article is of very dubious scholarship - could someone with detailed knowledge of the subject please check it over - MPF 18:22, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If an interested reader checks the history and looks at to my last edit, 21:08, 24 Jun 2004, you'll find that the dubious material now in this entry has actually been added by User:Kenneth Alan, the very person using the cover name "Kani Olsen" in the note just above. My material came from the York Archaeological Trust websites, the people responsible for the dig, and for the rather popularized "reconstructions" of Jorvik, based on their archaeology.

So, why doesn't User:Kenneth Alan aka "Kani Olsen" begin by cleaning up his additions? Or shall I revert to the sound material and remove the contentious labels? Wetman 05:37, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This explains this user: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kenneth_Alan

Cut and paste

Please edit the entry by cut and pasting all' accurate and useful material here and readding it to the entry. Thank you. Wetman 06:18, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jórvík is the Icelandic and was the Viking name for York, England. York had been founded as the Roman legionary fortress of Eboracum and revived as the English Northumbrian trading port of Eoforwic. It was first captured by Swedish Viking leaders from Gamla Uppsala in 866 with many conscriptions from Denmark due to the need for group work in the assault on Wessex. It became the capital of a flourishing small kingdom that passed to the Norse of significant proportion from Østfold and what later became Bohuslän (north of Göta älv and under heavy Danish control). After the Norse backed out, it became conglomerated with Wessex as England. Konungsgårthr, the palace of Jorvik, survives as present-day King's Square, York. Offerings were made chiefly to Freyr(and sister goddess Freya), as he was the traditional Vanir god presiding over Uppsala and Jorvik itself was descriptive of his favourite enchanted animal, the boar. This heathen observance was noted late as the boar featured prominently upon the Royal standard of King Richard III of England, from the House of York, after which also comes the famed White Rose Badge. The Yorkshire Christmas Ham is a meal derivative of Frey's worship.

The reason often given for the loss of control, is that Denmark was making constant inroads to control Sweden and Norway, thus having choked Sweden off from the North Sea. The Danes would eventually rule over both England and Scandinavia under Canute the Great shortly before their expatriates, the Normans arrived to power. At that time, the Swedes(upon unification with the neighbouring Geats) had focused on the Baltic Sea and Norway was interested in recalling it's more northwesterly colonies in the Celtic lands where resistence was weak. By ca 1000, Viking Jorvik had a population second only to London within the British Isles. William the Conqueror, a Norman derived of Danish descent, brought the independence of Jorvik to an end and established garrisoned castles in the city.

From 1976 the York Archaeological Trust conducted a five-year excavation in Coppergate, York, close to the York Minster, which uncovered incredibly well-preserved remains of Viking period timber buildings, workshops, fences, animal pens, privies, pits and wells together with artefacts of the time, preserved in anoxic wet mud. A shoemaker's wooden last, and even a minter's die for striking coinage were recovered. The lack of oxygen in the dense mud meant that decay bacteria were unable to break down embedded materials. Wood, leather, textiles, and plant and animal remains, which do not normally survive, were recovered in great quantities, to supplement the more usual pottery, metalwork and bones that are often all that remain in archaeological sites.

In Jorvik's fullest extent, it had expanded over the whole of Northumbria, Cumbria, the Isle of Man and Dublin(also controlling Galloway and the Kingdom of Lindsey while coordinating the efforts of those in the Five Boroughs with East Anglia). Jorvik was in constant combat with the states around it for control, which led them to have merely overlordship to those areas. Yorkshire later represented the trimming of the land held by the kingdom and eventually, today, there is such a thing as Yorkshire and the Humber which is merely a reorientation of the older boundaries to reflect newer government style in London. In the 10th century, Jorvik's trading connections reached to Byzantium and beyond: a cap made of silk survives, and coins from Samarkand were familiar enough and respected enough for a counterfeit to have passed in trade, and be recovered a millennium later. Amber from the Baltic is more expected in a Viking site— at Jorvik a symbolic axehead of amber was found— but a cowrie shell must have come from the Red Sea or the Persian Gulf. Christian and pagan objects have survived side-by-side, usually taken as a sign that Christians were not in positions of authority.

The York Archaeological Trust took the decision to recreate the excavated part of Jorvik on the site, peopled with figures and sounds as well as pigsties, fish market and latrines to bring it fully to life. The Jorvik Viking Centre opened in April 1984 and proved to be a major visitor attraction. Recovery of coins show patterns of crows or ravens minted upon them, perhaps in memory of Ottar Vendelkråka or Odin himself.

---

Should this not be "Jórvík" rather than "Jorvik"? Would it not be better to change to Jórvík and have a redirect from Jorvik? Just a thought.

Was the accent mark used in Jorvik? --Wetman 21:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Order/Paragraph

Is it just me or does the article's History section jump around a bit without purpose? I think that it might need to be re-written.. Or at least re-arranged for better clarity.--Vercalos 08:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Jórvík vs. Jorvik

While Jórvík may be the correct Icelandic spelling of Jorvik, I'm not convinced that's how it should be on this English Wikipedia. The area around modern-day York was populated in the main by Danes, speaking old East Norse dialect, wheras Iceland was populated by peoples from Norway speaking old West Norse dialect. Given that the Jorvik Viking Centre [2]uses a form without modifiers, I'd suggest that the article should follow suit and just be plain Jorvik.

I'm sorry if this is rehashing an old argument - if anyone can point me to resources that back the use of Jórvík, I'd be grateful to learn. WLD 11:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge with York?

It's the same. --Arigato1 19:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't work very well. The York article is large enough that several other articles have been spun off such as Eboracum and History of York. I think that there is enough information here to require a seperate article. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is no need to merge this article.The Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Split into two articles, Kingdom and City

I'd like to propose a split. The Kingdom of Jórvík needs its own article not just a redirect, because the line of kings featured in the article were not just kings of its capital city alone (also named Jórvík, now York).. but a wider Kingdom of Jórvík which encompassed most of Yorkshire.See this source, it was indepedent from Danelaw forming its own certified Kingdom for around a century. Opinions or objections? - Yorkshirian 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to make the difference clearer in the article so that there are distinct sections for the City and the Kingdom. How much separate information is there on the Kingdom? Would it be better to create sections about the Kingdom in this article then split it if there is too much separate information? On the other hand the other kingdoms/provinces that were centred around York have separate articles. --Kaly99 16:27, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

In general, we should be thinking of creating "encyclopedic treatment" rather than directory entries. The readers who enters "Jórvík" should find all the relevant information. If the article swells to unmanageable proportions, then a big subsection "Kingdom of Jórvík" could be made a separate article. In this case, one would leave a concise summary of appropriate length here, with a "Main article, see..." hatnote at its head, using {{Main|Kingdom of Jórvík}}. --Wetman 17:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There's no doubt that something needs doing (Some months ago I removed most of the material about the Jorvik Viking Centre which really did need a separate article, but left the rest intact). I think the way to go is along the lines proposed by Kaly99 and Wetman: sort out the article first so that the distinction between the city and the kingdom is made clear, then decide whether a split is necessary and/or desirable. Once separate sections are sorted out, links to the city (or the kingdom, whichever comes second) could be to Jórvík#City of Jórvík (or #Kingdom of Jórvík as the case may be). --GuillaumeTell 21:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

At the moment I'm working on the Yorkshire article in general... but I've added a better intro and a former country box, a lot of the main article content seems a little off. Here is a good source for their general history.[3] - Yorkshirian 11:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

A related matter is the Kings of Jórvík section near the bottom. I'd be inclined to remove the whole section and the embryo table to the so-called "main article" Kings of Jorvik (note lack of accents), which looks rather odd at present and needs some sorting out (there are, however, a lot of pages that link to it). Then a see-also reference is all that's needed in the present article, since the important kings are included already. --GuillaumeTell 15:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Role of Archbishop Wulfstan

There should be some mention of Wulfstan's promotion of Eric Bloodaxe as the last pagan king in England and his eventual demise at the hands of King Eadred. Workersdreadnought 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

king Sigferth, potentially useful

I'm presuming this link I've found is about the same king as the one who ruled Jórvík, it could be useful in creating an article about him. Though I'm not sure if we are allowed to use something like a message on RootsWeb.com as a reference? - Yorkshirian (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is this included in WikiProject Ireland?

Jorvik and the Norse Kingdom of Dublin, on occasion, had the same king and share strong links with each other. --Kaly99 (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Was York founded by Romans?

The article states "York had been founded as the Roman legionary fortress of Eboracum". Am I wrong in thinking that Eboracum predates the Roman settlement? JamesBWatson (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any evidence for that other than the Brythonic name. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Name: Kingdom of York v Jórvík

I don't think the name of the article is right. "Jórvík" just means York. The kingdom was named from the city.

"Jórvík" is only the name in the Norse language, not modern English (nor Old English, which calls the city "Eoforwic"). The name in English is the "Kingdom of York". If we have "Jórvik" we might as well move the "Kingdom of Essex" article to "East Seaxna rice".Howard Alexander (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point. The whole Jórvík thing is an attempt to make York look like a Viking longphort like Thetford, Derby, Waterford and Dublin. In fact, it was a large English city the seat of a metropolitan. Its rulers for the part probably spoke Irish and English rather than Norse and, furthermore, the kingdom is almost never called "York" (in any linguistic form), but Norþhumberland (Latine "Northumbria"). Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to "Scandinavian York"

I notice this page was recently moved from Jorvik to Scandinavian York. I'm not necessarily opposed to this (I'm no expert) but it does seem clunky so I'd like to hear the rationale. I've never heard anyone raise objections to the use of 'Jorvik', was this not the name of Scandinavian York? --—Joseph Roe^Tk•Cb, 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jorvik is just the Norse name for York. The content of the article is clearly about York in its "Scandinavian" era. The new title is more intuitive, per Hudson's Scandinavian York and Dublin. I understand why Jorvik might be considered a potential title here, but scholars [i.e. usage in reliable sources] call Scandinavian York "York", they don't change it to "Jorvik". In any case, for what it's worth, in this Scandinavian period most of the inhabitants were English and the rulers probably spoke Gaelic as often if not more than Norse. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My problem with the change is that, for most users of Wikipedia, "York" means the historic city and/or the current enlarged city. "Scandinavian York" therefore sounds like an article about the city of York during the Scandinavian occupation, whereas it is, or ought to be, about the wider area that was under Scandinavian rule. The kingdom of York, or indeed The kingdom of Jórvík, seems to me to be a better and clearer title. --GuillaumeTell 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Jorvik just means York too, not the wider area under Scandinavian rule. For that we have Northumbria or, if you prefer, Danelaw. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Are Northumbria and Danelaw synonymous? I thought Danelaw extended further south than Northumbria? Including places such as Leicester and Nottingham. Nev1 (talk) 00:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they're not synonymous, but Scandinavian Northumbria is part of the modern term Danelaw. The point is that the topic is covered, or covered as best as it could be without a "Scandinavian England" article. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree in thinking this move is wrong, and that Jorvik is the more common name for this - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jorvik is just a Scandinavised name for York. It's not period specific. And besides the heritage centre it is NOT used in English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for input

There's an old proposal (October 2008) to merge the articles on Dumnonia and Kingdom of Dumnonia. There's not been much input so if anyone interested of with knowledge of the period could chip in at Talk:Dumnonia#Merger proposal - Kingdom of Dumnonia that'd be great. Happy editing, Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Deleted?

I was wondering why the infobox which was on the page had been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cor1314 (talk • contribs) 12:13, 18 July 2009 (UTC)}

The template is for distinct kingdoms, which Scandinavian York is not. The appropriate template is located at Northumbria. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed that the end date of Northumbria has recently been extended to 954. I had made an infobox for Jorvik when it was only 876 as there was a gap between Northumbria and the Kingdom of England. --Cor1314 (talk) 15:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

’’Vic’’ means port

Because York is 60 miles inland on a straight river we cannot call it a ‘’’bay’’’ in our modern topographic sense.

But ‘’Vic’’ = bay is not unique to Old Norse, it is also in Middle Low German: wik and in MHG wich = bayDictionary.

Compare those with OHG wih = village. Dictionary This confusion of similar-sounding words for camp and bay is widely noted in old Germanic languages “meaning: house, also bay or trading place. Examples: Braunschweig, Greenwich, Osterwieck" GenWiki.

But this introduction of a third option, trading place, suggests a resolution. The only land-fall significant for long-ship sailors is dry land where they can beach their craft and load with goods, and/or camp. The Humber's banks were bogs and mires up to the position of York.

A settlement with a place for loading and unloading of ships-of-trade is what we now call a port. I propose O.N. vik meant port.

Kildwyke (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Even in Anglo Saxon Wik can mean port or trading place. "Some -wicks no doubt have the Scandinavian -vik (creek or bay) as their root, especially if they are found on the coast of The Danelaw. Others, though, have their origin in the Anglo-Saxon word for a port, or any other place with a specific trading or manufacturing purpose".

Kildwyke (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Root of Old English -wic is Proto-Indo-European

Wick, noun, Old English O.E. wic "dwelling place, abode, camp" is from P.I.E *weik- "clan".

c.f. O.Fris. wik, O.S. wic "village;" O.H.G. wih "village;" Goth. weihs "village;" Skt. vit "dwelling, house, settlement;" O.Pers. vitham "house, royal house," O.Iranian Avestan vis "clan, house, village;” L. vicus " group of houses;" Gk. oikos "house." Dictionary

Outdated dictionaries state that "Old English wic is from Latin vicus 'village, hamlet'", but Wic is in fact from Proto-Indo-European. Germanic and Latin are very divergent branches from one root. Hence you can compare them, that is write '"OE wic cf. L vicus", but you cannot write '"OE wic fr. L vicus".

Kildwyke (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Great Heathen Army Picture

I think this splendid graphic would be far better placed on the great heathen army page Flarp (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Attempt to Retake Danish Occupied York by Deira and Bernicia

Where it says that in the intro, it mentions that York (or Jorvik?) is a city. It only previously said that it was a roman fort called Eboracum.

Which one is it at that point in history? That part is confusing. I think it should be called a fort until the narrative arrives at a point in history when it can be confirmed that it had become a city - as in, significant trading population, and more than just a defendable location. Impfireball (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)