Hallstein Torleivsson - The connection between the deposed king of Isle of Man and the noble Skanke family i Norway, Sweden and Denmark

I havent been able to find a better Picture than this one: http://media.geni.com/p13/4e/2f/d7/a0/5344483a6d80d10c/barfod-tavle... But I will see if I can get the book soon ;)

Well, now it is obvious where ignorance regarding sources strikes hardest :

Torlack Sckenck who guarranteed for the Norwegian king in RN 790 in 1295 is the original to the name Skanke, "shanks". He probably resided in Trondheim, Norway. There seems to have been a heraldic dispute about who are the "right shanks" in later generations, but we can now rule out any feudal candidate, as the Skankes never had feudal titles. This points to "our" line.

With regards to the actual source, the regest is set up by the kings own writer, and the document is interpreted by professor Munch himself. Munch had also received the Norwegian regests from Man, and had Access to all primary Sources available today.

Hallstein Torleivsson in the next generation used the triskelion of Shanks in his seal over a long period, he resided in Steinkjer, Norway.

Nils Hallsteinsson used the triskelion of shanks over a long period, he resided at Østersund, Sweden. We know that Nils Hallsteinsson was son of Hallstein Torleivsson because of Nils´ conviction in 1345. We also know that Kristina, Nils´ wife, inherited the larger estate in Häckås, were the Skanke family still resides.

The seal is altered from three shanks to one shank sometimes around 1360-1397. If there was a falsification of the genealogical line, the falsification must have been made then. The literal expression of the familys seal is "Shanks", pointing back to the triskelion of shanks, even though the seal has one shank..

It is theoretically possible to make counterarguments against all these primary sources, but the approach seems ridiculous. I wonder if any of you dissidents is willing to take professional responsibility and reconsider your opinion. No effort has been made so far, I think.

Stein-Aage, do you have any more specific letters that should be added to the reckoning at https://wiki.geni.com/index.php/Skancke_and_the_Isle_of_Man#Evidenc... ?

I think I have all the known usages of the triskelion in Norway listed on that page.

(the two known usages are Hallstein in 1303 with DN III 56 and Nils in 1345 with DN X 51. That's two usages, one for each man.)

1. Harald, you have not considered the Skanke familys posession of land at Hov in Häckås, nearby the town of Østersund, Sweden.
2. There must also be outside of any arguments that Skanke means "Shanks" and not "shank". This is an interpretation of a word, I urge David to confirm this.
3. You have not cited the oral tradition on the Isle of Man.
4. You have not considered Edvard Bulls confirmation of these connections.
5. When citing CVC Young, you must add that his sources are mainly the mentioned professors in history.
6. You should link up http://www.skanke.se/foreningen/index.htm, http://www.skankeforeningen.no/ and http://barfod-barfoed.dk/

Harald, when you set up arguments and counterarguments, you should present both at all issues for objectivitys sake.

I would like Lars Løberg to reconsider his statement of these connections as fairytales, based on the primary sources presented in this debate.

I would like Roger de Robelin to clarify his view of these connections today.

Private point by point:

1. Happy to do so once you give a source to add. The 1326 and 1345 sources both refer to Jämtland.
2. We had this argument before (whether Skanke is singular or plural). See the Swedish cite. Claiming that this is "settled" is just wrong.
3. I have cited G. V. C. Barney Young. Please cite sources for the oral tradition - preferably older than P. A. Munch's theories.
4. Citation, please.
5. Citation, please.
6. Done. I linked them under "popular sources".

2. Harald, you speak the norwegian language and is familiar with both danish and swedish. How can you make the word Skanke mean "shank" in singular ? The official language in Jämtland (possibly exception of the church) would not be swedish but danish before the reformation.

In the Norwegian I speak, I use "skanke" as a singular, and "skanker" as a plural.
(en skanke - skanken - skanker - skankene).

I didn't know "skank" was a word until I looked it up in the dictionary (I can't remember ever having a reason to care before this discussion).

Given that it's a fairly rare word, I suspect I learned the word in Bergen, which has its own collection of linguistic peculiarities. Or I may have picked it up from Swedish, where the dictionary definition linked to on the page seems to indicate that it's a singular form.

The point about it isn't really whether it's singluar or plural, the point is that *it's not clear*.

(Google Translate will, if set to "Norwegian to English", refuse to translate either "skank" or "skanke", but if you check under the drop-down list of alternatives, you'll find "shank" (singlular) in both cases. To get "shank", you have to write "skanker".)

Sources to 1. : Karl Pedersson buying Solkastad in Hackås from his uncle, Markus Nilsson, son of Nils Hallsteinsson and Kristina.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/sdhk?EndastDigitaliserat=false&Datum...

citation to number 3 :

http://www.manxnationalheritage.im/visit/about-the-isle-of-man/thre...

Comment to 1) There isn't anything in the SDKH-nr. 14272, DN III:517 or JHD I nr. 126 that implies that Markus is the uncle of Karl, nor that Marcus is a son of Nils Hallsteinsson. And on top of that the name of the persons selling the farm Solkastadha are Markus Nifson and Radgerdh Torgoz dotther.

The sellers patronym is Nifsson and not Nilsson and can therefor be someone else than the alleged uncle of Karl Pederson and son of Nils Hallsteinson. There is no proof of any relationship between seller and buyer in this document.

I cant see any grammatical source clearly saying that Skanke is plural, and I simply dont read the Danish Dictionary the way you interprets it. Skank, Skanke, Skanker as a word is still very much in use in Trøndelag, where I have studied for several years..

At this point the Skanke lineage can be proven back by primary sources to Karl Pedersson Skanke (ca. 1360-1430). He was most probably brother of Önd. Ahnlund writes that they also had a Brother Joan, but Y-DNA test of four of Karls descendants (R1b) suggests that Joans descendant (R1a) didnt share the paternal lineage. (Need more descendants to confirm). Who theyr father was is not at all certain, it is suggested that he is Peter Nikulasson, who was mentioned in DN.II: no. 527, but according to Ahnlund there are other candidates as well. Who this Peter Nikulasson was son of is also not proven.. I also see Björn Espell claiming that Peder Nilsson was married to Kristina Hallvardsdotter, daughter of Hallvard Karlsson (mentioned in DN.XXI: no. 21), and Peder couldnt possibly be the same as was married to Elin Ranesdatter in DN.II: no. 527..

We dont really know that Markus was uncle of Karl and son of Nils Hallsteinsson, bouth this and the suggestion that Joan was Brother of Karl is mostly based on them being mentioned together in letters and transfers of lands. These letters doesnt say anything about if they where Brothers, uncles or even related etc. but by knowing each other and acting together it is certainly possible that they could have a connection.

Besides that I have tried to locate "Regesta Sodorensa" at the University of Oslo, so far i havent found it. Do you have a reference showing that it is in theyr Collection?

It's horrible to see that even the Manx National Heritage doesn't know that the sword isn't made in 1300 but in the 15th century.

That makes me not trust the rest of their writings.

And I don't see any evidence of any oral tradition on the page you are linking to, Stein Aage.

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/history/sword.htm

Harald, David and Remi : Now, it is time to come to terms with your scepticism, and I understand that it is important for you to impose as experts, disregarding any other views..
By translating the name "Skanke" to English "shank", you are actually proving a deficit in understandng your native language. I understand that you are having a laugh over this, but I think you actually makes fools of yourselves.

David, I am sorry that I misspelled it, correct latin is regesta sodorensia, you will find it described in this link :

http://www.dokpro.uio.no/dipl_norv/RN-forord/RNI-Forord.html

Harald :

3. https://www.gov.im/categories/business-and-industries/iom-key-facts...

Harald :

1. http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=5...=

Regarding the word skanke, and whether it is singular or plural -- we are wasting time here on a point that is largely irrelevant.

I see no reason to doubt the family took their name from their coat of arms. It was something normal in Scandinavia.

From a heraldic standpoint It makes no difference if the coat of arms had one leg or three versus the name being singular or plural. The grammatical number of the name does not need to agree with the actual number on the coat of arms.

Further, minor variations in both heraldry and names were common in this period. We cannot assume that evidence of all actual variations in this case has survived.

The link at https://www.gov.im/categories/business-and-industries/iom-key-facts... is not evidence of an oral tradition. This is a very poorly researched and poorly written page.

First, the page identifies the triskele as a "symbol of the Sun". That's a very superficial conclusion from the work of 19th century scholars. Now, it is no longer considered to be quite so clear. It is just an unknown neolithic design. There is no shortage of suggestions about what it might have meant. This page has a good summary, although without citations to the academic sources;

https://www.jweel.com/en/blog/p/2015/symboles-and-their-meaning-the...

Something to notice here is that the three conjoined legs are technically a type of triskele but the much more common form has spirals rather than legs. And, it is the spirals not the legs that 19th century scholars thought was a Sun symbol.

It's my personal opinion that there is a simple and obvious origin to the three conjoined legs. In legend, Man was the home of the Celtic god Manannán mac Lir. It's not clear whether he took his name from the island or the island took its name from him. One of the stories about him is that he turned himself into three legs and rolled down a hill to defend Man from invaders.

What better inspiration for a symbol for the island? But that doesn't mean the symbol has to be ancient. Maybe it is, but it could have been inspired by someone connecting the symbol of Sicily with the Manx legend.

Second, and this is the real problem with that link, it says " Support for this theory may be seen in the appearance of the 'triskele', or simplified 'Three Legs' emblem, on coins of the tenth century Norse King, Anlaf Cuaran"

This is extremely deceptive. In contrast, English Wikipedia says, "Although it is possible that the origin of the Manx triskeles lies in a symbol depicted upon the coinage of their tenth-century Viking antecessors on the island,[10] this particular knotted device is dissimilar to the Manx triskeles, and the nearly three-century gap between its use and the appearance of the Manx triskeles suggests that there is no connection between the symbols.[11]

The citiations here are to B.A. McAndrew, Scotland's Historic Heraldry (2006) and R.J.A. Wilson, "On the Trail of the Triskeles: From the McDonald Institute to Archaic Greek Sicily" (2000), so these are academic references.

When Wikipedia says "knotted device" we can guess the device was the standard triskele, with either spirals or knots, not with legs. In other words, the link is deceptive because it implies the device is nothing more than a "simplified three legs".

Let me re-phrase that. Not "we can guess", but we can see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amla%C3%ADb_Cuar%C3%A1n

So, this part of the argument is that a 10th century king of Dublin and Northumbria used a knotted triskele on one of his coins minted at York, and although he didn't (explicitly) have anything to do with Man, his descendants ruled there (and he probably exercised authority there whether or not he ruled.

Not proof of an oral tradition, I don't think.

Justin,

3. The official site on also points to :

"A rather similar device was popular amongst the Celts and Norsemen in NW Europe, and in view of this it has been suggested that the Manx Three Legs were a heraldic modification of a native badge or emblem."

what is your point on this ?

My point is that the link you posted in support of an oral tradition does not in fact prove an oral tradition. I don't necessarily disagree with you about on this part of this point, but we need to be clear about what is fact and what is speculation.

There is no reason to suppose a link between the triskele on Anlaf Cuaran's coin and the Isle of Man. There is nothing to tell us why he used it, and no reason to suppose he used it as a specific reference to the Isle of Man. That is all just speculation. The knotted and spiraled triskele is a fairly widespread symbol in the Neolithic (New Stone Age), Iron Age, and Bronze Age.

I've offered my own opinion about the origin of the legs as a combination of the triskele and the legend of Manannán mac Lir so I personally think it is possible there was an older tradition, But that is also speculation. I've never seen the idea presented by an academic but even if one of them suggested it, it would still be speculation.

No matter which way you try to push the evidence, there is no separate evidence for an oral tradition on Man. The first historical evidence for the three legs is the English heralds' rolls in the 1270s / 1280s. There is no evidence of an older oral tradition.

Harald : examples of regests with Hallstein Torleivssons seal (lost or existing) or appointing him :

1. 1303 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=2...=
2. 1303 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=2...=
3. 1302 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=2...=
4. 1303 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=2...=
5. 1324 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=3...=
6. 1326 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=3...=

Examples of Nils Hallsteinssons seal (lost or existing) and documents pointing to him :

1. 1345 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=5...=
2. 1345 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=5...=
3. 1348 : http://www.dokpro.uio.no/perl/middelalder/regest_vise_tekst.prl?b=5...=

I added the link to the Man tourist bureau(?)'s page under the entry for G. V. C Young.

Stein Aage, since you admit that most of these links don't have seals attached, can you point out the ones containing the seal? Remember, we already have DN III 56 and DN X 51; if these 2 are still the only examples of the seal, I don't think I'll bother entering the other pieces of history into the record; none of them mention Man, and we don't seem to have any controversy about Nils Hallsteinson being the son of Hallstein Torleivsson.

(There is still no documentation for Ønd Peterson being the grandson or other descendant of Nils Hallsteinsson, apart from "tradition" that hasn't been documented to be much older than P. A. Munch, nor is there documentation for Nils ever using the one-legged sigil. Or I've overlooked something.)

If anyone is interested, here is Nichulas Halsteenss. sigil from the diploma dated March 18th 1345. It's the one on the left.

https://sok.riksarkivet.se/dokument/sdhk/5145.JPG

Nichulas Halsteenss ??
= Translation: All men that this open letter see or hear, acknowledge, Nicholae Halstensson etc...

Regesta Sodorensia is part of Regesta Norvegica, volume 1, page 312-330. The regesta is digitized and searchable on both www.nb.no and on www.dokpro.uio.no The letters have been given special regestnumbers to distinguise them from the rest. Starting from Regestn. A1-A110. The regesta gives a short overview over what the letters contain..