Odinkar "den store" Tokesen, Biskop - Dispute regarding father Val-Toke

Alex, you have a very interesting comment:

> The problem is if we cut every questionable relationship we are going against what many people consider "proven" facts and we end up with a fractured tree with gaping holes

So many thoughts about this.

Geni has the potential to be either a site full of wonderful old legends or a site that gives users a reliable picture of their proven ancestry. It can't be both. (Of course, it could also be a compromise but then there would be perpetual skirmishes over the boundaries between the two.)

When an old, familiar line is shown to be shaky or even false, we are participating in the creation of the future. We will probably never fully convince people who are emotionally invested in the old line, but the next generation will come to genealogy with a truer picture and become emotionally invested in that.

I do not believe a fictive connection such as this should be added to the a historical line witch is the danish royal house. If it should be done after that.
Gorm would soon have tweenty children and only 3 of them can be said to be proven.

Gorm the olds profile as for his children is attempted to stay to the offical story of Denmark.
I do not believe we can just rewrite that due to emotions. THere need to be more valid dokumentation than what can be shown in this case.
There are so many what if and maybes in this case that it does not even come close to something that can be defendet.
As for a fact pretty much all the time I have to remove some connections that does not belong to that historical tree.
In the Case of Palne as connected to the royal tree I have to cut on a regular basis. Again I stick the sources that exist and not connect it to the royal house since there is no dovumentation that can even hint that.
So question is or what are you saying. Are you saying that we should live the errors as they are without correcting them????

> So question is or what are you saying. Are you saying that we should live the errors as they are without correcting them????

Who are you asking?

Interesting comment you make Anette...
"I do not believe a fictive connection such as this should be added to the a historical line witch is the danish royal house. If it should be done after that."

So, was Odinkar the bishop fictional? Was his father Toke jarl fictional? Was the note from Adam of Bremen, that he was a descendant from the royal family in Jylland fictional?

I personally do not think that anything of this above mentioned is fictional, and since we only can add two royal families from Jylland (even considering shifts in the land borders of that region) under this small time frame, we aren't talking about rocket science here, there would only be 50/50 chance to make an error regarding his specific line, and after that we eliminate the non sourced alternatives we only have one family left, namely Gorm the old's which also actually fit very nice chronologically.

Then, considering your proposed alternative, that Toke jarl could have been married to a daughter of Gorm the old, well, that in turn actually suggest that if so, Odinkar the older Must have been either a son of Gorm or Toke's brother, following logical analyzes of the tradition of name-giving, and then we actually must admit that Gorm had a lot of more children whereof only a few are acknowledge, and finally, that in turn makes it more than likely, that Asfrida Odinkarsdotter actually also was Gorm's mother, which in turn makes him into a very young man despite his later nick, the old. Born ca. 917-920, died between 948-958.

That's a man who surely died before the age of 40, giving us that with only one wife, he could have max 9 children, with two wife's, max 18, with an extra frilla, at least 20 children, of which only 3 are more or less fully recognized. Considering all the known facts, the plausibility that Toke was a son of Gorm the old, and not married to one of his daughters are higher than vice versa!

In this world, we have the ones who builds and the ones who destroys and then of course, the ones who don't give a damn. A footnote in Odinkar's profile would have been enough, saying that the line can't be verified to 100%, but is fully plausible, that wouldn't have been the same as fictional.

My tips to you Anette, don't avoid start a discussion before you act in the older parts of the tree, you might actually learn something new or at least get a deeper insight.

Worth noting that MedLands accepts Val-Toke as a son of Gorm, but does not go further.

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/DENMARK.htm#_Toc360004999

Ulf there's a lot of supposition in what you're proposing. I'm intrigued by Justin's last comment about MedLands but in the end I don't know who are the best authorities for ancient Danish genealogy. Justin also stated that experts are now moving away from this theory (which experts?) so that leaves Geni somewhat stranded in the middle.

Since you (Ulf) are suggesting making the connection with a note in the About Me that it's not certain, what if I were to suggest the flip-side: what if we do NOT make the connection, but put a note in the About Me that links to Val-Toke along with a note that he's possibly the father but further evidence is needed?

Just remember that curator Anette has a master degree in history and have that as a full time job so I rely on her to take the decisions in this line. If it pops up sources unknown for her I am sure that she is willing to consider them.

Mike, I hope I haven't given the wrong impression.

Scholars are not "just now" moving away from this identification. This move is 70 - 100 years old now. And it has nothing to do with Gorm's family specifically. It's a sea change in the way we do history.

A hundred years ago people had no problem with "the name's the same" style of genealogy. If the name is the same and you can create a plausible or semi-plausible story then you've made a connection.

At the turn of the 20th century and with increasing speed after World War II historians and genealogists turned away from this style of analysis. Nowadays you need either direct, near-contemporary evidence, or you need to show that any other solution is for all practical purposes extremely unlikely.

Many of these lines we debate so hotly on Geni would be shrugged off by historians. It only takes a quick survey to see the evidence just isn't there.

Private User With or without that master degree, she has made a lot of error, all corrected by mostly me, that most have been disturbing for her, otherwise, I see no reason for her to throw away father despite the sons patronymic and write parents unknown in the profile, then lock it down. This is NOT the first and guaranteed not the last time we will see this. A fun fact, when I started here my relation path to her had all possible different colors, now she's suddenly some kind of 13th cousin. Checking the line it doesn't hold up, because she has done exactly what Justin in his previous post object against, pinned a son with a last name on a father just because it fits, despite a discrepancy of 1 year in birth, thus adding a stone cutter as a son of a nobleman.
Sure, if it goes it goes.

Of course his father should be named as Jarl Toke. I don't think anyone disputes that.

Ulf,
Stepping aside from this particular relationship I have a problem with when you said:

"A footnote in Odinkar's profile would have been enough, saying that the line can't be verified to 100%, but is fully plausible, that wouldn't have been the same as fictional."

A footnote is not enough because Geni's software is not nuanced enough to cope with this, if a user is looking at people in the profile view and reading the About fine but users not reading the About, not using profile view, not looking at this specific person, will assume this relationship is 100% proven.

If Odinkar is "maybe" Gorm the Old's grandson and we connect them as you suggest with a footnote then anyone looking at Gorm's prfoile will think that he 100% has a grandson named Odinkar. Anyone looking at other grandchildren of Gorm would think 100% for sure that they have a cousin named Odinkar. What about his 13th cousins? All those relationships will display as 100% reliable unless we put footnotes in every profile AND people read them.

Please consider Mike's suggestion of a "footnote" to suggest the connection without actually making any connection. We can add a note, with hyperlinks, to Val-Toke's profile, Odinkar's profile, Toke Gormsen's, even Gorm's. All this will give a trail to those users interested enough to be reading the footnotes without giving the false impression elsewhere in the tree that the relationship is anything other than a theory.

The theory fits very well but that doesn't make it a fact.

I think if we could separate this particular relationship from the grievances you have regarding Anette's general behaviour that we could get a resolution here.

Private User I see you're related to all of my mothers half siblings, anyway, thanks for stepping forward! If more user had the guts to do this, some "people" wouldn't stand unquestioned.

As Justin said, no one is disputing that Odinkar's father was named Toke.

Jarl Toke, af Winland

Ulf this is a genealogy site not a platform for personal attacks. Present your case and accept the responses and suggestions of others. No one is attacking you for having a view that may or may not be factually correct. A polite and civil discussion and debate is all that is necessary. I would ask that you do the same and respect the views of others.

I have added almost 7000 profiles and corrected a couple of thousands others, I've an error rate under 0,1 %, that's nearly perfect! I rest my case.

Do what ever you want then.

@ulf so you admit to seven or fewer errors? How nice of you.
I guess all the discussions we've had are disagreements, not errors, then.

All this cattiness is NOT cool. I think Private User has done a lot of good for geni and the way he's being treated is disgusting. If you don't agree with hismthat's perfectly fine. But the silly remarks is not.

Just my opinion. I'd hate to see how someone is treated when they just join geni compared to someone who has added 7000 profiles. Let's just run everyone off and see what happens to geni then.

Apologies for being catty.
I thnk I have disagreed with Ulf more than seven times; usually because I have thought he argued for a viewpoint that could not be supported by the evidence he was presenting.
In this case, he's making circumstantial arguments based on "facts" taken from a lexicon article - tertiary evidence at best. We've been around this bush before.
He's citing Adam of Bremen, but has not cited exactly what Adam said; the only quote I can find in the discussion is the lexicon quote.

So when he points out that he's added 7.000 profiles and claims that his error rate is less than 0.1%, I felt compelled to point out that he's claiming that he's made fewer than seven mistakes, and that means that on some of the profies where he thinks he's right, I think he's wrong.

It's probably possible to make that point without sounding catty. Just hard. Sorry.

I know that the Danish royal families (there were more than one) of Gorm's time had more members than Gorm. Apart from that, I don't know that much.

Realistically. The link was added without discussion, then removed without discussion. Both sides knew (or should have known) it was controversial.

We aren't likely to find evidence the experts don't already know about. There is nothing that says the Toke who was father of Odinkar is the same as this Val-Toke.

When there is substantial doubt (as there is here) the link does not belong on Geni.

Arnfred, I'm talking for myself not for Anette.

This discussion (in my opinion) is curiously repetitive.

We've already said:

1. The relationship is possible.

2. The relationship is not proved.

Therefore, pointing out over and over that it's possible does not get us anywhere.

The articles you posted also do not get us anywhere. They are not proof. They are evidence the relationship is possible.

Justin Durand
1. Yes
2. Yes
that's why
3. Plausible should be used in his profile and the line reinstated.

You curators seems to have paint yourself into a corner as you now alleges

1; That Toke was the son of Gorm,
2; That Toke was a Jarl,
3: That the titel jarl first came in use ca. 980,
4: That Toke Jarl died ca. 990,
5; That Odinkar who was bishop 1005 had a father called Toke jarl,
6; That Odinkar must have been adult at that time 1005, thus born contemporary under this Toke jarl,
7; That none of you ever have heard of another contemporary Toke Jarl from Jylland who must have lived between 960-990, the time frame under which Odinkar likely have been born, unlees he became extremely old or was anointed bishop as an infant,
9, That no other Gorm was king under this period in Denmark, 940-960, and finally,

10; In the retaining written source material, only three children are mentioned to King Gorm: Knut, Harald Blåtand and Gunhild. However, all of these sources are recorded long afterwards while the run stones entries are contemporary documents.

Lets see:

Toke Gormsen, magnate in the late 900's, is known by the text of three runstones inserted in the wall of Torna Hällestad church. The texts on the run stones are in translation:

1.
"Eskil put this stone after Toke, Gorm's son, his gracious master. He did not flee at Uppsala. His appointed brother in arms raised this stone on the mountain (i.e the mound). Stuck (with) runes. The (one who) went closest to Gorms Toke."

2.
"Asgot, Toke's courtman, raised this stone after his, brother Ärre. But he was Toke's hirdman (housecarls). Now shall stand, (this) rock on the mountain (i.e the mound). "

3.
"Asbjorn, hirdman (to) Toke, raised this stone after his brother Toke's demise."

The texts allude to a battle at Gamla Uppsala, identified as the Battle of Fyrisvallarna.
Toke jarl died thus sometime between 980-990.

The historian Åke Ohlmarks states in 1978 that Toke is called "hulda drott" (original: hulan trutin), cf. the translation (in english) "gracious master" above. He also states that the term "drottinn" in the original texts of this era was used only for kings and earls.

It has been assumed that the Gorm referred to as Toke's father was the Danish king Gorm the old, probably dead around 959. The fact that Toke in the battle was surrounded by his housecarls (hird) as well as the name drott would strengthen this.

The number of stones that refers to Toke also indicates that he held a high dignity. Torna Hällestad is also directly adjacent to Dalby Church, (the oldest stone church in Scandinavia), from early 1000 (M), that was a center for the early Danish kings.

Ulf, you've recapitulated the argument but it still is not proof. It's persuasive if you want to believe it. Not persuasive if you don't.

That's the crux of the problem here. There are many questions about history where it is easy to find evidence to support something. That doesn't make them all true. As H. L. Mencken said, "Explanations exist; they have existed for all time; there is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong."

Also, I want to point out you and Arnfred seem to be misreading the Peter Lawætz page he linked to.

http://www.vikingekonger.dk/Vikingekonger%20HTML/Artikler%20B/Jarle...

Lawætz is making an argument about the title jarl. He thinks there was originally no difference between jarls and kings. He thinks the title jarl first came into use c980 because Strut-Harald is the first jarl we know about in Denmark. He thinks the title as used in the Norwegian sagas is an anachronism.

This is a much weaker argument than you want it to be. Lawætz is presenting a theory. It fits your theory but it doesn't turn either of them into facts.

I would guess Lawætz probably also thinks the Rígsþula is a very late composition. Rígsþula is the poem where the Norse god Rig is the father of Karl, Jarl, and Konr (the peasants, the jarls, and the kings.) Maybe it is, but still just a theory.

Just as an aside. Remember that Lawætz is one of the people who think Rurik - Rørik. You were strongly opposed to that theory last time I mentioned it. Weren't you the one who said he is just a physics professor and not an expert in history? Or maybe that was me ;)
Grand Duke of Novgorod Rurik
http://www.vikingekonger.dk/Vikingekonger%20HTML/Artikler%20B/Rurik...

Finally, I think you are over-reading the rune stones as evidence. In #3 it is not clear whether "brother" means a blood relationship or means brother in arms (as in #1).

Private User, Private User

I mentioned in an emailer post that the underlying issue here is how we present "probable" lines of descent on Geni given the lack of software support. Do we present it as a fact with qualifying statements on surrounding profiles or do we not make the link but have commentary in the associated profiles explaining the probable link.

This is the crux of the issue which Ulf has re-stated in his Item 3:

3. Plausible should be used in his profile and the line reinstated.

Mike's (Geni's) preference seems to be the latter option and the curators are supportive of that, Ulf clearly prefers the former. Anette's actions show that she supports the former also even if she has not said so in as many words.
Defending Ulf's right to a differing opinion is commendable (although no one has actually tried to limit that right) but what is your opinion - not on the likelihood of the relationship but rather how we should present it on Geni?

Sorry, "emailer" should have been "earlier".
And Anette obviously supports the option to cut (not the former as i said above).

Justin Durand

No, I'm not misreading anything, Odinkar was a historical person, he did exist.

Adam of Bremen wrote around 1071, that his father was Toke, dux Winlandensis.

In
http://denstoredanske.dk/Dansk_Biografisk_Leksikon/Kirke_og_tro/Bis...
they use this information as, "Familie Forældre: Jarl Toke." And according to A.Bremen, in Vendland, not Vendsyssel....

Anette, the curator have enormous problem with this, first she changed my created profile Toke Gormsen, Jarl, into Val-Toke, then she made him into a jarl in Vendsyssel.

Now we have two profiles instead of one, and none of them are jarl in Vendland...
Toke "Val-toke" Gormsen
Jarl Toke, af Winland

None of them are right as it wasn't a 73 year old man who died at that battle either.
But Danish Academic Really Want Gorm The OLD to be OLD, despite NO SOURCES CONFIRMS THIS AT ALL!

Toke was born at the other hand, in Jylland and that's everything that isn't green on this map. (Yes, you need to start see what I can see).
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jylland#/media/File:Jutland_Peninsula...

In the bottom of that map, you have Holstein, bordering Vendland, see map here,(plz)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/Vendland_...

That's the part he was jarl over, or at least some part of it, if so likely in or near today's Holstein.

Haralds son Sven married a daughter of the Venderking Bursislav in 980, and this is the area the two brothers Harald and Toke want to maintain influence over, and NB, at this time, both Harald Gormsson Blåtand and Toke Gormsen jarl, was both still alive.

This union gave Styrbjörn Starke, who lived right in the middle of this Vendland little too lose, so he attacked and defeated Harald, and made him agree to join forces against the Swedish king, from his point of view, he risked being swallowed up from both west and east and the south, so trying to attack north, winning and claiming the throne there must have been seen as a now or never decision, and that's the very reason for the battle of Fyrisvallarna, where Toke died.

We have one family, one direction, one link to make right. So, the question could instead be, was Adam of Bremen right?

He did get some information directly from his friend Sweyn II Estridson, King of Denmark who actually was a great grandson of Styrbjörn Starke, Adam also had a lot of other sources at his disposal and I can't see any reason for this to be fictional. Adam was very well informed about the Hamburg-Bremen Foundation and its mission. As source material he used diplomats and letters and other documents in the archbishop archive. In addition, he interviewed people who worked in the Nordic region. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_of_Bremen

Ulf,

I'm not saying Odinkar did not exist. I'm saying you are misreading Lawætz as saying his own theory about jarls is an established fact. It is not. It is his theory that jarls were recent. He bases that on the first documented jarl. But "first documented" is only "first documented". It does not prove there were no earlier jarls.

It is hard to say whether Adam of Bremen is a reliable source. He is probably very reliable for contemporary events. Not so reliable for things 100 years before. Like all medieval historians.

You might be interested in some articles by Kristian Andersen Nyrup:

http://www.nyrups.dk/Historie/Gorm/Erobreren.htm#Odinkar_den_Ældre_...

http://www.nyrups.dk/Historie/Gorm/Klakharald.htm#Gorms_andet_ægteskab

On the question of whether the father of Toke Gormsen was Gorm the Old, Nyrup says once there was no doubt, but now the general assessment is against it -- but he still thinks they are the same and he gives his asrguments. (Engang var man ikke i tvivl, svaret var ja på begge spørgsmål. Nu er den almindelige vurdering vistnok snarest den modsatte.)

This shows the general opinion of experts is against Nyrup;s theory. He is honest about that.

If you work through Nyrup's ideas you will see he thinks Toke jarl of Winland (Wendland?) and Toke Gormsen were cousins.The chronology fits, he says.

His argument depends on the popularity of the name Toke, which is not otherwise documented in the royal family, and the rarity of the name Gorm, which does. He thinks the answer might be a marriage between Toke of Winland and a daughter of Harald Blåtand (Hvad forbindelsen mellem kongefamilien og Odinkar'erne præcist var, er ikke betydningsfuldt på dette sted, men et ægteskab mellem Toke Jarl og en datter af Harald Blåtand synes at være en mulighed, der stemmer godt overens med tidsregningen og andre omstændigheder.).

Then Toke Gormsen might have been a son of Gorm by Asfrid Odinkarsdatter (En Toke Gormssøn passer perfekt i det udviklede scenario som søn af Gorm og Asfrid Odinkarsdatter, og det ville passe godt både med kronologi og opkaldelsesmønstre om de to Toke'r var fætre).

Ulf,

Feel free to edit/update Jarl Toke, af Winland, i have not locked any of his data fields.

I put "Vendsyssel" in his suffix based posts made in this Discussion, if "Vendland" is more appropriate please change it.

Runestones, yes Justin, "Finally, I think you are over-reading the rune stones as evidence. In #3 it is not clear whether "brother" means a blood relationship or means brother in arms (as in #1)."

It can actually means real brother, or just brother in arms. But when it comes to Toke's stone, there are no doubt about his patronymic, that's firstly the essential base here, secondly, there's a witty remark. typical for the kind of laconic pun they often demonstrated, here it comes, "he didn't flee"!

If you're not involved in the very background to that battle, it says nothing, or you can read it as.. ohh so brave he was, but the thing is, Toke went together with his brother Harald with their own respectively men, hird, and ships, and regarding to the aftermath as it lives on in the storytellers memory, most of them say that Harald turned his ships and went back to Denmark before the battle. As you see, the pun points out Harald as a coward and Toke as the brave who fought as a man and did his duty.

Eskil put this stone after Toke, Gorm's son, his gracious master. He did not flee at Uppsala. His appointed brother in arms raised this stone on the mountain (i.e the mound). Stuck (with) runes. The (one who) went closest to Gorms Toke."

Have fun! I give up this case.

Would it be too confusing to introduce some geography into this discussion? Ulf brings up a point that has been obscured.

Adam of Bremen says Toke, the father of Bishop Odinkar, was jarl of Winland (dux Winlandensis). No one is sure where Winland was, but it was traditionally identified as Wend-land, the land of the Wends. Maybe specifically Wolin in Pomerania.

Adam of Bremen says Bishop Odinkar established the diocese at Ribe from one-third of his patrimony. Ribe is the south of Denmark. The Wends are in the south east. Gorm is thought to have expanded his kingdom by defeating the smaller kingdoms to the south. It all makes sense geographically.

But in 1931 Józef Widajewicz argued Winland was really Vendsysel (north Jutland). His reason was that he thought Bishop Odinkar's father Toke was the same as Toke Gormsen, The rune stones that commemorate Toke Gormsen might refer to the Battle at Fyrisvellir near Uppsala, so if Toke Gormsen was a jarl he must have been a jarl in Vendsysel or maybe Skåne (the Danish territory in what is now southern Sweden).

This is the same argument Ulf made earlier, except he left out the part about Wendland until now.

If we go strictly by the sources we have two Tokes:

1. Toke Gormsen, probably a jarl, probably in the north (Vendsyssel or Skåne).

2. Jarl Toke, father of Odinkar, "certainly" a jarl, probably in the south (Wendland). I put certainly in quotes because I leave open the possibility Adam of Bremen is speaking anachronistically. He might not be completely reliable on this detail.

The argument they are the same is not impossible but it becomes harder.