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

Justin Swanstrøm : I stand for my arguments here in this tread, hopefully others do as well ? Can you point out the personal attacks I have made that in your opinion is escalating and that make grounds for suspension on Geni ?

Remi Trygve Pedersen : Lars Løberg is not a professor in history.

This is a link to personalia and work done by professor Munch :

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol22/

Her er en oversikt over deler av George Vaughn Chichester Youngs litterære produksjon.

http://www.worldcat.org/identities/lccn-n82058735/

Om han tituleres professor eller æresprofessor er jeg ikke sikker på. Han har imidlertid gitt ut bok om det færøiske språk sammen med en professor, som det fremgår av oversikten.

Stein Aage, there are several more historians using that Middle Age Forum. And that is the only place where you will get an opportunity to try to convince the norwegian historians with your arguments and to show your sources. You will not get that in a discussion here on Geni. So you and Ulf can take your discussion there, and if you come to a conclusion, that conclusion will be shown on the profiles here on Geni. Until that happens, there will be no change. So, again, please take your discussion to the Middle Age Forum on the Norwegian Genealogical Society's homepages that I have linked to above.

Ulf Ingvar Göte Martinsson, now they dont want to argue with us anymore. We must have hit a soft spot...

Ulf, you said

> But by blocking that profile in specific, that's actually exactly what Remi have done, forced one opinion on us all.

We have come full circle. That is what curators are supposed to do when there is a dispute. That forces a discussion and examination of the evidence. If you find real evidence, not just speculation, then the information on Geni should change. Remi has told you how to do that, but you have not done it.

Stein Aage, you asked for examples of your personal attacks. You seem to have deleted the post I was looking at, so thank you.

This is not just a question in Norwegian history but also in Scottish history. I don't want to derail this discussion by turning it into a debate about the MacLeods but some of that other problem are relevant here.

In very general terms the MacLeod problem is that the MacDonald Lords of the Isles were the political successors of the old Norse kings, but the MacLeods got a big share of the lands. So, how did that happen?

The MacLeods claimed to be descended from Olaf the Black. Modern experts reject the traditional genealogy of the MacLeods, but there is still the circumstantial evidence that they must have been descended from the Norse kings in some way.

The arguments are very complicated but some of them are relevant here.

David Sellar (Lord Lyon 2008-2014) is one of the experts who rejects the MacLeod claim. He made two arguments:

First, when Gudrod Magnusson died in 1275 there were several claimants, but Leod (Ljótr, ancestor of the MacLeods) was not one of them. Sellar did not think any descendant of the royal line would miss that chance. The same argument applies to Torlack.

Second, Leod's descendants did not use any of the royal names from the Crovan dynasty (Gudrod, Harald, Olaf, Rögnvald). The same argument applies to Torlack. In contrast, Somerled (ancestor of the MacDonalds) married a daughter of Olaf the Red. Their descendants did use the old royal names. It was very common in this period to do that because it reinforced the connection.

So, we have a modern expert examining the genealogy and making arguments that would apply equally to Torlack.

You can read more about the problems of the MacLeod genealogy in the Wikipedia article about Leod: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leod Then too, I posted a link to another article above.

Justin, I have not deleted any posts ?

Another place the MacLeod genealogy is relevant to the theory about Torlack is the heraldry. I've brought this up a number of times already without specifically mentioning the MacLeods, but I think it might be time for some greater detail.

There is very little doubt among Scottish experts that the emblem of the old Norse kings from this dynasty was the ship. The triskelion is much later.

For example, here are two illustrations of the seal of Harald I, who was a cousin of Torlack's supposed father Harald II:

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol05/fp1.htm

http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol05/fp2.htm

The originals of this and other seals were lost in the fire in 1731 so these drawings are all that survive.

British historian William Camden wrote in 1606: "But yet the ancient arms of the kings of Man was a ship with the sail hoised, with this inscription, Rex Manniae et Insularum,- " The King of Man and of the Islands," as I have seen in the seals they used."

Isle of Man website: http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/history/legs.htm

The same website says, " the earliest surviving representation of the three legs would appear to be a detail of the arms of the Kings of Man on the Priest's tomb (probably that of Edward IV's chaplain de Grimsby) in Beverley Minster Yorkshire. The earliest representation on the Island is on the 14th century Pillar Cross of Kirk Maughold which probably dates from time of Montagu possession (1333-1391)."

Willima Blundell in his History of the Isle of Man (1648-1656) says, "We may observe yt so long as the King of Man wrote himself Rex Manie et Insularum, they bare the ship ; but after the Scots had gotten into their possession both the Isle of Man and the Western Islands, we find no arms born by them than the 3 leggs only."

Blundell's History: http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol25/ch205.htm

Clarencieux King at Arms in his official examination of the arms of the Kingdom of Man (1735) complained that Camden had not given further details, but says he himself has seen the seal of Olaf Gudrodsson with an effigy on horseback on one side and a ship under sail on the other. As a result of his examination of the evidence, Clarencieux gave his permission for the duke of Atholl, the current ruler of Man, to use arms with a ship.

Opinion of Clarencieux King at Arms: http://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/manxsoc/msvol04/v1p117.htm

When I look at this material, I wonder why, if Torlack Skenck was a son of Harald II, he would use a different coat of arms than the rest of his family.

The historical impact involved in this discussion is what interests me the most and involves the larger part of northern Europe at the time.

The hundreds of years of the Skanke familys reign in "the eastern kingdom" is maybe the most dynamic and independent throughout Jämtlands history, this lasted until Gustav Wasa gathered the kingdom of Sweden.

For the independent (still is) reign of Isle of Man the sociopolitical culture of norsemen made the most important impact, and started a revolution on the little Island when the Scotsmen overtook it.

From an objective point of view, the oral tradition at the Isle of Man (the story of where did they go ?) and in Jämtland (the story of where do they come from ?) must have been very much alive, especially within the families. It is also a quite dramatic story, and the drama is well documented.

If the story of the Skankes was falsified, the falsification must have happened at the time in the fourteenth century. I find this unlikely, as the professors Munch, Bull, Ahnlund and Young.

If there is any evidence of such falsification, evidence that the late honorable professors have not been able to consider, I would very much appreciate that the opponents shares their findings so that we can have real contradiction.

Else, it is just theories that the story of the Skankes is falsified. Oral tradition has the same weight of evidence as it had before the internet.

This problem of coats of arms is a little more complicated because the modern heraldry of the western Highlands of Scotland is a little different than the rest of Europe.

Alastair Campbell of Airds (Unicorn Pursuivant of Arms) says it is more totemic than genealogical or territorial.

http://www.heraldry-scotland.co.uk/westhigh.html

In this area of Scotland there are four motifs that appear as quarters in coats of arms. These are the hand, the salmon, the ship, and the lion. In each case, the symbol seems to represent something different from a normal family or territorial coat of arms.

The ship, as I said above, represents the old Norse kings from the Crovan dynasty. It doesn't seem to mean a genealogical descent from them, nor a claim to their territory. Instead, it seems to be a symbol that the family belongs to the group of interlinked families that succeeded them.

This is not strong evidence of anything because the system seems to have emerged after the breakup of the Lordship of Isles in the 15th century, but it is further evidence the Crovan dynasty used the ship as their emblem, and it is -- perhaps -- evidence that heraldry in this part of Scotland might have taken a tribal form even the early times.

The earliest actual mention I've been able to find about the Skenck "tradition" is the Barfod pedigree, which is said to have been recorded about 1660-1743. (For example, mentioned here: http://www.espell.se/saga/p3ce4e375.html).

This is the same period when the first proof of the MacLeod claim appears, and also the period when they began to use the Manx coat of arms with three legs.

Is there any earlier written evidence of the Skenck claim?

I'm not asking about circumstantial evidence or something that could maybe be interpreted as a claim -- the MacLeods have plenty of those -- I'm asking about an explicit genealogy that puts the tradition in writing and says "here are the generations of the Skenck family tracing them back through Torlack to the kings of Man.

Stein Aage, sorry. I missed the message in my quick scan. You did not delete it. It is here: https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1080638

Is it perhaps a language problem? That you do not understand the English meaning of the words you are using?

Ulf, I am trying to keep the discussion moving forward but also going back to make sure important points have been answered.

Here, you think I have vandalized the tree by making Wife of Óttarr Snaekollson the wife of Óttarr Snaekollson.
https://www.geni.com/discussions/153760?msg=1080704

You said, "You did set up Óttarr Snaekollson as a husband to Óláfsdóttir based on assumptions"

No. I didn't.

Over the past few years I've slowly replaced the traditional Gunn line with the version the experts now accept. I've been doing that work in private messages with other users who have been debating this problem.

I have not -- yet -- cut the connection here. "Setting up" and "not cutting" are two very different things.

I haven't decided myself whether the connection should be cut. It might have been me who added the explanatory note. I don't remember. Personally, I don't believe this Óttarr was a real person, but I'm willing to be persuaded if someone thinks he was.

And, if he was a real person, I don't see any reason to leave him married to this wife, because he was not the father of that Gunni (according to the experts), so we don't need a reason for Gunni's name. I haven't yet heard any consensus from the people who care about that line.

Taking a cautious, incremental approach the most I would do at this point is separate the two hypothetical daughters of Olaf so it is not one daughter married to two men. The two daughters should not have been merged. If they are separated again, the debates about each one can take their own course. As they should, because they are two very different theories.

Stein Aage, I think you still do not understand the work of historians.

It is not enough to find one professor who believes something. I often say that there is nothing too silly that you can't find some professor somewhere who believes it.

Instead, you should read all the different experts (and many of them will be professors) to see what they say.

You should not be looking for one that agrees with you. You should be looking for a "majority opinion". What do most experts think? Where do they agree? Where do they disagree? Really, you are trying to figure out which opinions are respectable, which are possible, and which are laughable.

Very often, the majority opinion is one of the most recent to be published. If an expert disagrees, they will publish something about it. When the experts begin to agree, they stop debating it. There won't be some final, easy summary where someone says "now we all agree".

One of the major problems with your defense of the traditional account is that the experts definitely do not agree. Remi has said the prevailing opinion is that the tradition is wrong. From the evidence you've given, that seems almost certain to me. It would be astounding if this mish-mash were accepted by the majority of modern scholars without something more.

It seems to me the work of David Sellar on the MacLeods drives a stake through the heart of the Torlack tradition. Torlack didn't use the right coat of arms, he didn't make a claim to Man, and his descendants didn't use the right names. In the world of circumstantial evidence, those points are much stronger than the coincidence of a coat of arms that can't be traced early enough.

In any event, you know the specific set of experts you have to convince. When you convince them you can come back to Geni in triumph ;)

Sorry mates.. I just wonder. Is there enough proof that Sæmund Torleivsson is the son of Magnhild (Maud) Olofsdatter ?

Maybe I havent understood all of the debate above.. or read it all.

Justin I think you are misjudging this because your field of interest, genealogy, is not sufficiently clarified yet. You must adapt to the fact that oral tradition was the supreme media to deliver information about a persons familiar connection up until our days. The importance of this kind of information is obvious.

I have not yet heard of any professor in history who contradicts the findings of the traditional school. Have you ? Where should one start looking ? There are on the other hand quite a few professors from the traditional school that supports it.

Remi Trgve Pedersen is referring to a norwegian debate site on the internet ? I refuse to believe that it is a real source to be considered ?

I do not agree with your comparison to the scottish claim. Torlack was undoubtably a norwegian noble man. His actions at the Isle of Man would be derived from the actions of the norwegian king.

Torlack is by evidence the first Skanke and probably the first noble man to use the triskelion as his coat of arms. A theory of the origin of the symbol could very well be based on the rebellion in 1275 and the need for a gathering of the opposition against the scottish king.

As you found in your investigation, neither of the scottish clans in the thirteenth century were using the triskelion on the Isle of Man. The english did not use them. The only source we have is Torlack Sckenk and the later Hallstein Torleifsson and Nils Hallsteinson, all norwegian noble men.

.. Because if it isnt enough proof maybe Sæmund Torleivsson´s profile should have the same text as Torleiv NN has - the Curator text saying:
parents are unknown please do not add parents to this profile. The link to Isle of Man is unproven.

Have you ever thought of the possibility that Torlack married Maud and after that started to use the Triskelion. Maybe he was from Scandinavia himself.

And - is Sæmund Torleivsson brother or half brother to Hallstein Torleivsson aswell? or only Lodin Torleifsson; Kolbjörn Torleifsson och Botolf Torleifsson?

Johan, that's a very good question. The problem is that it's all theory.

The Skanke, MacLeod, and Gunn families all claim separately that they are descendants of the old kings of Man. In each case, the tradition has been challenged.

And, in each case someone has come up with a way of saving the tradition by a theory that the descent is real but came through a daughter of one of the Norse kings.

This is what always happens when a tradition starts to crumble. People scramble to find ways it could still be true in an effort to salvage something.

None of these daughters are "real". They are all theoretical connections that act as a backup in case the traditional line really falls apart.

Sure. Okey.

And I guess many profiles are like this. But that they will get sorted out as it comes.

Stein Aage, if you believe I am primarily a genealogist then you haven't been reading what I write.

It's the other way around -- I'm a historian who dabbles in genealogy. That sometimes creates problems for me because many historians are disdainful about genealogy.

For example, a friend of mine who teaches history at the local university thinks this discussion is just about the funniest thing she's ever heard, and it's proof that genealogists don't have a clue how historical research really works.

Historians often say the problem with genealogists is that if something could be true and there is no evidence against it, then it can be accepted as true. This discussion offers ample proof that's indeed what many genealogists think.

In contrast, historians go out of their way to load their language with statements about whether something is probably or possible or unlikely. Things are never a simple Yes or No, as they are to many genealogists, but instead are either more likely or less likely.

If you find a historian who says Torlack was definitely the son of Harald II, then that person's work does not meet modern standards of scholarship. On the other hand, if you find a historian who says Torlack seems to have been a son of Harald II based on these arguments, then you know it's that person's opinion. After you weigh their arguments, you can either accept it or reject it.

Johan. Yes. Exactly. These questionable areas are a lot of work. As you can see ;)

Stein Aage,

Continuing that train of thought ...

One of the biggest obstacles you have in proving your case (besides the lack of evidence) is that you place so much value on oral tradition.

At least since World War and the Annales School of historiography coming out of the Sorbonne, historians have recognized that oral tradition is very tricky.

You can get many shades of opinion about it, but in general historians will agree:

1. Oral tradition is not reliable, especially not in a society where reading and writing exist. Even when literacy is not widespread, one person who has read something can spread it to many others. Of course, genealogists know this. Every genealogy blogger in the world writes about the dangers of accepting oral tradition.

2. Oral tradition is most likely to be reliable if there is a class of people in a society whose main job is to memorize and pass on the information. But, there is a danger here. Those people can easily manipulate oral tradition for political reasons

3. Oral tradition is most vulnerable to damage and manipulation at the time literacy is introduced to a society. When an oral tradition is first recorded in writing, the writer is likely to think about and try to resolve contradictions.

4. The most reliable oral traditions are the ones recorded in poetic forms that have a complex meter because changes are very difficult to make. The two classic examples are Homer's poems and Norse skaldic poetry.

This is why I am asking about the first written evidence of the Skanke claim. If it was, say, in the 1400s or 1600s or 1800s, there has been plenty of time for an "oral tradition" to emerge out of people hearing about the written record. That would also be true of something first written in 1300s, except that a written account from the 1300s would be so much closer to the events it is less likely to have been just a fantasy.

Justin, my compliments for the last comments, I found it most interesting.

As I stated above, I am personally intrigued by these mini-states that occured in northern Europe before the reformation. They were probably not feudal, and the government of Isle of Man (over 70 000 inhabitants) is still an example to study. It is clear to me that these ideas of governing a society comes from scandinavia, since the rest of Europe was feudalised. As you know, Norway was not feudalised, Sweden to some extent (not Jämtland) and all of Denmark.

Some years ago, I had the honour of discussing migration facts in the 3rd and 4th century into the area I live in mid Trøndelag with the late professor Jørn Sandnes at the university of Trondheim (earlier Cologne). Our area is dense with the remainings of the viking culture.

After our conversation, it was clear to me that the development of the viking culture in scandinavia originated from migrating people fleeing from the papal rule of christianity in the roman empire. Amongst other things, the viking culture constituted an alternative to feudalism, and all facts about the persons carrying these ideas in these periods are in my opinion highly interesting.

Torlack is a key figure, because if he was involved in the rebellion in 1275, he represents the losing part of the battle between the two systems, feudalism (scots/englishmen) and "the viking way". As you know, the fight for independence is still an important political issue at the Isle of Man.

For the kings and bishops writers at the time, they wrote exclusively about the "winning team". All we know from documents about the losing team in 1275, is that they came from all over Man, and that over 500 manxmen was killed in the battle.

As the oral tradition about the Skankes is the same in Jämtland and the Isle of Man, I find it very hard to accept that it is falsified. The oral traditions also connects two very different landscapes with no other natural connections in trade, education and so on.

There is a collection of regesta sodorensis at the university of Oslo that is not yet digitalized. Hopefully, someone can finance a thorough review and digitalize it, maybe as part of a PhD -degree ?

Private What do you think about this, are we two on the same page, or do you have another view on it?

Torlack=Torleif Haraldsson

Wife 1 Maud? Óláfsdóttir
Children: Sæmund Torleivsson; Lodin Torleifsson; Kolbjörn Torleifsson; Botolf Torleifsson

Wife 2 Magnhild Gudrödsdotter
Children: , Hallstein Torleivsson

Ulf, thanks for helping re-group on this. I would like to clean up the wives in this area. If I can get a sense about the opposing views on Geni, I can make some incremental changes.

However, in this period the name Maud is strongly associated with the Anglo-Normans. As you might know, it was an English equivalent of the French name Mathilde or Matilda. It's not absolutely impossible that the Norse used it but it's very improbable unless there was some particular connection with the English.

Stein Aage,

Those "mini-states" are also one of my main interests, so we have that in common. I agree with most of what you say but there are some places where I would quibble.

For example, your idea that the Viking culture originated with people fleeing Christianity is very interesting, and worth further investigation.

But, the emerging DNA evidence tells a different story. It supports the traditional view. There has certainly been a churning of population throughout the Baltic and North Sea areas,

I haven't made an organized study but as an admin for the Scandinavian yDNA project my impression is the evidence shows Scandinavians have been moving around for a long time. The churning seems to be older than just the Viking period. For example, a surprising number of Scandinavian families belong to branches of the human family tree that originated in Belgium, Ukraine, and Poland, perhaps about the time of Christ and earlier.

There are exotic DNA ancestries in Scandinavia but they are a tiny minority and they are thousands of years older in Scandinavia than the Viking era. Probably, they were part of the founding populations.

There is no significant evidence of a miscellaneous migration north from Christian lands in the period 300-400 -- although in my own yDNA line (which is not Scandinavian) there is a curious problem that a man or group of men from Switzerland seem to have migrated to Norway about 1000.

So in the end, I would tend to doubt the refugees from Christianity. But there has been very little research into the Scandinavian men who served in the Roman army toward the end of the Empire, then went home. We know there were some but we don't know who or how many.

Stein Aage,

Another place I might quibble is about conflict between between manorial and non-manorial systems.

There is no doubt about the differences between the two systems or about their geographical distribution. That's basic stuff. Originally I wanted to my master's thesis on the marginal areas, but my adviser warned me off. She said there is too much material and no good focus problem.

However, I think there are two important points.

First, the usual view is that the Hebrides were the intersection of three systems, not just two. There was the English manorial system, the Norse allodial system, and the Gaelic tribal system.

Somerled, that great Gaelic hero, was actually himself "half" Norse and "half" Gaelic. Through his wife, a daughter of Olaf Gudrodsson, he managed to snag the lion's share of the old Kingdom of the Isles. He did that by astute political negotiation with the English and the (anglicized) Scots.

Second, maybe I'm a cynic, but I don't think it's helpful to think about "competing" systems. Any man of this time who had a chance for power would take it, I think. He wouldn't think, "No, I don't want those lands because the tax system is different than the one I prefer" ;)

Somerled is a good example. He got the Isles, with the acquiescence of the feudal Scots and English and the allodial Norse, and ruled them (apparently) under the syncretic allodial / tribal system that was already their customary system.

No doubt his political enemies lost their lands, and no doubt he exploited features of any local custom that would benefit him personally. He would not, I think, have been a champion of one side of a conflict between "systems".

Wait a minute Justin. You are writing in a way that sounds like you knew everything. I dont know how much science you have studied, or what your degree is. (ability to conceptualise i guess and laying puzzles in the end - understanding.)

You said it yourself, you are more an expert on genealogy but here you are touching social science and history in a way that sounds a bit non-interdisciplinary as only a social scientist can do.

You say for example

"So in the end, I would tend to doubt the refugees from Christianity. But there has been very little research into the Scandinavian men who served in the Roman army toward the end of the Empire, then went home. We know there were some but we don't know who or how many."

Arent there many examples..

The history of Beowulf.. how he defeats the dragon.. (In Västergötland, Sweden at the time)
The loads of gold found in Västergötland.. probably coming from Roman empire as payment to soldiers..
The Väringar that fought for the East Rome. Many of them from Västergötland ofcourse where most people lived in "Sweden" at the time.
Hårdråde as a Yngling descendant Roots in Bohuslän and then Västergötland?) Ynglingasagan... its said to come from "Sweden" (see the Gefionmyth) .. In other words Västergötland.. not far to Bohuslän.. when they moved to "Norway"
The link betweeen the Skancke and many Norweigan nobilitys and Bohuslän..
All the way until 1500 the nobilities of highest rank were the families between Norway and Sweden, intermarried. (Even Gustav vasa was a descendant of these families) Where did they live? And the higher you get in nobility today the more roots back in Bohuslän and Västergötland you have..

See the pattern?

We have to get more interdisciplinary and relay the puzzle where the families and lands actually were.. in order to see what we cant see from genealogy..

Stein Aage,

I'm not sure it's useful to think of the Skenck genealogy as "falsified". There is a much simpler way to think about this.

Consider this idea: Someone, say in the 1600s, starts gathering information about the family. They notice the similarity between the Skenck coat of arms and the coat of arms of the Isle of Man. They have a flash of insight -- it's so obvious now that Torlack came from Man. A bit of poking around, and another leap of insight. Torlack must have been a son of Harald II, who was actually in Norway at the right time. The dates are right. It all seems to fit. So, this researcher starts telling people what they've found. Maybe they even write a few pages of family history.

A family "tradition" is born. It becomes established as an oral tradition, and has been spreading for 300 years.

There is no falsification, no intent to deceive, just research gone off track.

No one can prove this is what happened, but stories like this one are commonplace in the genealogies of northern and western Europe.

There was an explosion of antiquarian interest in the 1600s and 1700s, probably related to shifts in economic and political power, the rise of "new" families, increasing centralization of governments, and the rise of literacy.

All across this part of Europe there were people starting to look beyond just the title deeds to their property. These were the spiritual ancestors of modern genealogists. They left thousands of little manuscript and pamphlet histories.

These researchers weren't perfect but they were doing the best they could with the resources they had. In many cases, their searches missed important documents that were tucked away in distant libraries. And, they often had leaps of imagination we would never make today. It's very common to find earlier, contemporary documents that prove them wrong on key facts.

In general, I think American genealogists understand this type of problem better than European genealogists because we run into it more often. America had a similar burst of antiquarian activity but much more recently. For us it was the 1800s and early 1900s, but for you Europeans it was 200 years earlier.

We are used to tracking down a family tradition only to discover that "tradition" means Grandpa heard from his cousin who read it in a book that was published in 1920, and the book was based on the "research" of someone who visited the old home town in 1900 and talked to some of the old people ;)