Talk:Wolinians

name

The name which appears to be most used in English language sources is "Wolinians" [1], including, for example by the Encyclopedia of European peoples. "Velunzani" seems to be hardly used [2] (and half these hits are to Wikipedia-derived publications, while a good portion of the rest is of the form "Wolinians (Velunzanis)". Moved accordingly. Volunteer Marek 08:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

1. Should we use the description "Norwegian king Magnus the Good"? He was also king of Denmark. I've seen this description in some of the other related articles and it sort of bothers me. Wouldn't "King of Denmark and Norway" be better?

2. I've been looking at a bunch of related articles and there's all kinds of contradictory information in them regarding the relationship between Wolin, Jomsborg and Vineta. This isn't exactly surprising since there's confusion in sources as well. But it'd be a nice to work out how to exactly treat this issue and streamline the coverage across all the related articles.Volunteer Marek 17:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [3]. Jomsborg and Vineta are most definitely "legendary" or semi-legendary. Yes, these names are used in sources but it is not clear that they were the same as Wolin, or that they even existed for that matter.Volunteer Marek 04:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is crystal clear that the names Jomsborg, Jumne, Julin etc, which are used by the sources and thus not legendary, refer to the medieval place that was located at the site of the modern town of Wollin/Wolin. It is also largely undisputed that legendary Vineta is identical with aforementioned places, the contesting theory that it was near Barth has not convinced the mainstream so far. Cf. Schmidt, R: Das historische Pommern 2007, p. 70 f. with reference to further literature.

No, while often Jomsborg is identified with Wolin, this isn't universally accepted and some historians (for example, Labuda) have argued that it never existed. Hence it is "legendary" (the Wikipedia article calls it "semi-legendary"). You can also type in the words "legendary" and "Jomsborg" into google books and find plenty of sources in that regard. Same - even more - for Vineta. The competing theory is not just Barth, but that it simply never existed. And of course there's also a theory that Jomsborg was located on Uznam, not Wolin, and if it was identical with Vineta, that would place Vineta there as well. Hell, even your very own recent edit to the article on Vineta calls it a "mythical city".

Personally I think that Wolin was probably Jomsborg, sort of. But we shouldn't pretend that this is a settled issue when it isn't.Volunteer Marek 05:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Labuda's stance would be interesting for a history of research, but not for the present stance of the historians who matter on this field. I don't know what you found on Google, but it neither matters since there is a consensus of the historians who actually work in this field. That work is represented by primarily by Filipowiak, who dug in the remains of that place for decades, also by Piskorski, who is an expert for medieval Pomeranian history, and further by others as Schmidt, cited above for more references, who makes it clear that Hofmeister has convinced the mainstream researchers in this area. Skäpperöd (talk) 05:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's not true. All that Filipowiak says is that there was a company of Vikings in Wolin. He states that "there was a germ of truth" to the Jomsborg legend.

And if you're gonna start quoting sources then provide quotations to back it up.

And again, your very own recent edit calls Vineta "mythical". Why are you contradicting yourself here? Volunteer Marek 05:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is the historical place then known as Jomsborg, Vineta, Jumne etc. pp. and there are the legendary places Vineta and Jomsborg. It's what was added / put in different contexts what makes the historical place a mythical one, but the existence of the myths does not preclude the existence of the historical site / sitenames. The placenames "uineta" / "Vinneta" were names used for that place by Helmold von Bosau, thus at least to him and his audience the place was known by this name. The article does not claim anything beyond that. One has to differentiate between the non-legendary, actual place which appears in the sources and has been excavated, and the mythical place which reappears every year on St John's Eve from the grounds of the Baltic.

As to Jomsborg as the actual Scandinavian name for that place, the same applies here. Of course Filipowiak knows the difference between the legendary and the historical Jomsborg, but he agrees that the archaeological site which he excavated was known (also) as Jomsborg:

Filipowiak, W: Wolin-Jomsborg. En Vikingetids- Handelsby i Polen, Roskilde 1991. (no quote, title is sufficient)
Filipowiak, W: Wolin–Jomsborg–Vineta, in: Mare Balticum, Østersøen – myte, historie og kunst i 1000 år, ed. Michael Andersen/Nils Engberg (Copenhagen 2002), pp. 21–34. (no quote, title is sufficient)
Filipowiak, W: Wollin - ein frühmittelalterliches Zentrum an der Ostsee, in Wieczorek, A & Hinz, H (eds.): Europas Mitte um 1000, Stuttgart 2000, pp. 152-155; here p. 154: "Zu dieser Zeit erscheint der Name Wollin zum ersten Mal in den skandinavischen Sagen (Magnusdrapa) als „Iom"."
Schmidt, R: Das historische Pommern, Köln etc. 2007, p. 71: "So ergibt sich, wie Hofmeister dies bereits 1931/32 begründet hat, daß die verschiedenen Autoren mit J. - Jomsborg - Julin - Jumneta - Vineta - Wollin ein und denselben Ort gemeint haben. Dieser Meinung hat sich auch der poln. Archäologe Filipowiak angeschlossen."

Skäpperöd (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, this isn't a very important issue, particularly since I actually agree with the identification of Wolin with Jomsborg. The thing is that the article does not distinguish between the historical Jomsborg and (maybe, this one I'm not so sure about) Vineta and the legendary one. Even Helmold was writing well after the Jomsvikings had left the place. You say "One has to differentiate between the non-legendary, actual place which appears in the sources and has been excavated, and the mythical place which reappears every year on St John's Eve from the grounds of the Baltic." - well, exactly. Why not do that? Volunteer Marek 19:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]