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

Justin Durand

Those connections above follows the source available, but then you already know, Anette do hard locking on all this cut off profiles, no one else then her will be able to add anything at all.

Keep on proceeding in your ongoing vandalism in the world tree by supporting another curator who yet haven't given us a shred of sources in defense of her actions, it's not enough that she says that she has asked her colleagues, I'm not the only one waiting too see the very grounds for every cut off shes done.

If her goal actually are aimed towards me in some sort of revenge, remember, I'm not the only one affected, this is a collaborative site where many of the profiles affected have other creators and sometimes many managers, supporting a curator that sets aside this is somehow scary.

Ulf, we need to clear about this.

We have the sources. You've presented them yourself. The original sources do not prove what you are saying. Anything beyond the original sources is guesswork. Some people agree with this theory. Other people like that theory. A theory does not become a fact just because you like it.

The burden of proof is always on the person proposing an answer. That's you not Anette. I don't think you can come up with primary sources that no one else has seen, but maybe you can ;)

If you can't do that, you need to come up with an academic citation from an expert writing within, say the past 10 years, that says "the majority of modern experts accept this connection even though the evidence isn't perfect". Anything short of that and you're just dealing with opinions and theories. I've looked for something like that. Haven't found a thing except disagreement.

Justin, We had the source for Odinkar in A.Bremen's brief note regarding the bishops father and relation to the danish kings, his father was Toke jarl, and no one have ever to my knowledge questioned that, accept Anette who demonstrably cut off his father and locked the profile with a note that his parents was unknown.

The controversial part here, was that he was set up as the son of Gorm. I'm not the only one who have came to this conclusion, that Toke jarl Gormsen actually was that father, because we thereby gets directly connected with the royal family in Denmark,
which in turned was a part of that short notification A. Bremen made.

When going thru alternative candidates named Toke both contemporary and related to the royals in Denmark, we end up shorthanded with no other better candidate and we do not need to really question this as there aren't any other to choose.

If we accept that this far back in time, we will likely never find any much written birth certificates, or documents without contradictions, we would understand that we can't always have the same high demand on verified proofs as we have today straight transmitted into this early medieval time. This mean in clear, that if we want to have certain profiles in the tree, we will have to settle for less, not meaning that anything goes, it still have to be realistic, chronological and make sense based on the little info we use.

This mean that you're wrong in your attitude Justin, because most of the profiles in the Scandinavian lines this far back are often based on short text notes, sometimes only one row, or just a name. Nothing is 100% bulletproof, but A. Bremen was almost contemporary with Odinkar, unlike Saxe Grammaticus who likely was born almost 200 years after the death of Gorm, menaing, there would be a higher probability that the sources Bremen used are more valid, than the sources Saxo used, the more contemporary some historian or writer was with the subject, the more credibility we can put in their works. (As a fun note, Bremen called Gorm "Wurm")...

The next thing we use is a compilation of texts in order to see what they agree or disagree on, here we can use a lots of sources, including maps and also combine this with e.g. archaeological findings, or why not, DNA. Together it creates a broader picture of the described events, some parts in some sources can be ruled out because it doesn't fit chronologically, or we already know a more truer ground, as an example we can take Jomsborg, according to the Knytlingasaga and Fagrskinna, Jomsborg was built by the Danish king Harold Bluetooth in the 960s. The Jomsvikinga Saga mentions Danish Viking Palnatoki as its founder. Here we have two different theories, a third also did exist, it was only just a legend!

But we know by archaeological findings that they actually built places like this and in autumn 2014, "a golden disc bearing the name of Harald Bluetooth and Jomsborg appeared in Sweden. The disc, also called the Curmsun Disc, is made of high gold content and has a weight of 25,23 gram. On the obverse there is a Latin inscription and on the reverse there is a Latin cross with four dots surrounded by an octagonal ridge. The inscription reads: "+ARALD CVRMSVN+REX AD TANER+SCON+JVMN+CIV ALDIN+" and translates as "Harald Gormsson king of Danes, Scania, Jomsborg, town Aldinburg"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jomsborg

Until the finding of that disc, it could have just been a legend. If Harald founded Jomsborg, it would also make sense that his brother became jarl there, and yes, this is right in the Vendland, and still, dux Winlandensis fits right in so when you claimed, that you would "leave open the possibility Adam of Bremen is speaking anachronistically. He might not be completely reliable on this detail.", regarding the place, you actually just guess that he might be wrong about where it was, I say this, Adam of Bremen was right, you and Anette are wrong, and with this place, we also strengthen the possibility that he also was Haralds brother, NB, I say possibility, not 100% proven fact. I could be wrong, but I don't think so, remember, I'm always right to 99.9% in whatever line I previous connect and or merged up to now.

Ulf, we are going in circles. The real problem is that you want genealogists to have a different standard than historians.

For historians, the primary evidence is almost everything. The style of proof and argument you are using was out of date before either of us was born. That's why so many historians make fun of genealogists -- genealogists don't seem to care about the evidence, all they want is a good story.

Historians can be comfortable saying there is no clear answer. Some genealogists think there must always be an answer and it must be something they can find (even if historians can't).

You are right that most medieval genealogies are based on very slender evidence. But it matters a great deal what that evidence is.

Historians recognize -- in a way that many amateur genealogists do not -- that there is an element of subjectivity in evaluating any kind of evidence. That makes historians much more cautious about accepting evidence that has to be filled in with a story that comes from a later time.

That's why I can agree with your analysis (mostly) but still not think it is right for Geni. My opinion is only my opinion. It's my own subjectivity. But what matters for Geni is what modern historians think.

From what I can find the experts are pretty much agnostic on this subject. Could be true, but just a theory. One of many.

Here's what HIlda Ellis Davidson has to say in her critical edition of Saxo Grammaticus:

"Jomsborg in the later sagas was famous as a Viking stronghold. It is thought to be been a highly romanticized picture of the market town Wolin, also known as Iumne and Iulin. Pálna-Tóki was one of the leaders in Jomsborg according to the Jómsvíkinga Saga, where some of his legendary exploits resemble those of the hero of the Tell legend. Adam of Bremen however (II, Schol. 35) mentions him as dux Winlandensis, and states he was the father of Bishop Odinkar, which would make him a contemporary of Harald Bluetooth." (Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes, Books I-IX (1979, 1980), II, p. 128, note 16).

Davidson is one of leading authorities on this period.

English: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Ellis_Davidson

Danish: https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilda_Ellis_Davidson

Her opinion that the father of Odinkar was Palna-Toke not Val-Toke should carry considerable weight (although it is not a fact just because she says so).

I might be over-reading this passage but it seems to imply she is one of those who believe Winland = Wolin = Jomsborg, so it is consistent for the dux Winlandensis (Adam of Bremen) to be another way of saying leader of the Jomsvikings (Saxo Grammaticus).

Also worth noting the doubt over dating this Toke.

And, finally, for what it's worth, Davidson chart of the Danish kings shows Gorm with only the sons Knut and Harald Bluetooth. I don't make too much of this. It is what Saxo says, so it is what Davidson shows.

as for the Joms vikings. It is highly disputed who the founder of the Joms vikings where In Gesta danorum it is said it is the king. In The story of Palnatoke he is the one. However Palnatoke is not the same as Pallig Tokesen. Palnatoke was a legendary hero that was native to FYn/Funen according to the sagas. It is mentioned that he has a son Aage that takes care of his estate.
Cronologically it would fit into the timeframe. However his name Odinkar is not mentioned. Palnatoke was a heathern and fosterfather of Svend Forkbeard according to the sagas.

The below link is from the danish national museum of Denmark. Here it is sayd that he had a son Harald Bluetooth and problely a son Knud.
http://natmus.dk/historisk-viden/temaer/kongeraekken/gorm/

A daughter is mentioned in the sagas as well.
http://natmus.dk/historisk-viden/temaer/kongeraekken/gorm/

http://www.danmarkskonger.dk/konge1.htm

Another source

about Val Toke. Only thin really known about this man is a Runestone in Himmerland erected
Upon a runestone by Års Church in Himmerland, Jutland, is Val-Toke mentioned. Toke Gormsen is named Val-Toke in some sources, but it is very disputed if Val-Toke is the same person as Toke Gormsen.

And also who the father of Toke Gormsen or Val-Toke is.

http://heimskringla.no/wiki/Om_tvende_hidtil_n%C3%A6sten_ubekjendte...

Justin Durand

"Jomsborg in the later sagas was famous as a Viking stronghold. It is thought to be been a highly romanticized picture of the market town Wolin, also known as Iumne and Iulin. Pálna-Tóki was one of the leaders in Jomsborg according to the Jómsvíkinga Saga, where some of his legendary exploits resemble those of the hero of the Tell legend. Adam of Bremen however (II, Schol. 35) mentions him as dux Winlandensis, and states he was the father of Bishop Odinkar, which would make him a contemporary of Harald Bluetooth." (Saxo Grammaticus, The History of the Danes, Books I-IX (1979, 1980), II, p. 128, note 16).

My comment, they have missed to adjust it chronological. Jómsvíkinga Saga was written 300 years after Palnatoke's existence so Adam of Bremen doesn't turns Palnatoke into the same man as Toke jarl, dux Winlandensis, people without insight do. Palnatoke comes in the picture after that Toke Gormsen has died in the battle of Fyrisvall, all this happens within the range of 980-986.

1. Styrbjörn the Strong resides in Jomsborg as an prince in exile, he manages by violence and force convince Harald to help in to make a coup in Svithiod .

2. Harald's fleet did not fulfill this mission, but Toke jarl's did. On the erected runestones we gets his full name, Toke, son of Gorm.

3. Harald went instead back, and soon after this his son Sven made a coup against his father with the help of Palnatoke. According to Adam of Bremen Harald died of his wounds at Jumne 986. According to Jómsvíkinga Saga, Palnatoke killed him.

4. As a result Palnatoke could only have been a jarl in Jomsborg after this events, not before, and as we know that Harald died around 986, we thus gets the chronology.

I really can't understand why this chronology sets aside, because when people do so, they confuse everything in a very unnecessary way, and we gets cuts in the line that never should have happened.

Under a briefly period 992-993 Sven lost the Danish crown to the Swedish King Eric the Victorious after that he had engage a victory triumphal march against Denmark in revenge for Sven's support for his rival Styrbjörn the Strong, after the battle at Fyrisvall. Sven managed later to take back the Danish crown, when Eric got sick and following that retired back to Sweden.

"This Sigriðr the Proud is an historical figure; she married Eric Sigrsæll, the king of
Sweden mentioned here, whose dates are about 980—995; she intended at one time to marry Olaf Tryggvason, until they quarreled over religious matters, and as a result of this she married instead his rival, Svein of Denmark (Tjuguskegg)." quote, Hilda Ellis Davidson

This confirms that Sven initially also took active part in helping Harald supporting Styrbjörn, or at least was considering responsible as being Harald's son and or successor. Secondly, it supports that Swen again had converted back to Christianity, because when he overtook his father kingdom he did it by renouncing the new belief,
"Suddenly started thus an uprising, the Danes renounced Christianity, exalted Sven as King and declared Harald war." A.Bremen

The picture regarding Palnatoke as a heathen becomes here very clear, and together it seems very implausible that he would have had a son who became bishop, so faced with sources, it's more plausible that Toke jarl was Christian just as Harald, and that it was his son who became bishop just as Adam of Bremen states.

There should not be any conflicts in this, and it shouldn't be any conflict that Toke died at that battle and that he was the son of Gorm, whilst Palnatoke was the son of Palne. It's about time for the Danish academics to once and for all to accept Toke as a brother of Harald and thus a son of Gorm.

To clearify, Vendsyssel was called by Adam of Bremen ca. 1075, Wendila.
When he 1072 named Odinkar's father as Toke, dux Windlandensis, we should definitively understand that he didn't meant Vendsyssel, because that would in fact been written as Wendiladensis.

According to Gesta Danorum Palatoke killed Harald Bluetooth. and both places he is mentioned as from Fyn and not directly related to the royal house. His family was a chieftain on Fyn and his son Aage is said to reign on his behalf on Fyn.

THe problem is that constantly several people are getting messed up and mentioned as the same person but they are not.

Palnatoke is not Pallig Ealdorman, nor is he Toke Gormsen.
Palnatoke is the Toke mentined in a Wilhelm Tell like story mentioned in Gesta Danorum. He was also Svend Forkbeards fosterfather.
Svends mother was according to several sorces son of a woman from Fyn and Harald Bluetooth.

To clearify, TOKE “Val-Toke” Gormsen (-killed in battle [Fyrisvallarna], near Uppsala [985]). A Runic stone in Hällerstad church, Skåne, Sweden records that "Eskil sat stone this aft Toke Gorms son, his gracious king. He fled not at Uppsala" (referring to the battle at Fyrisvallarna in [985])[153]. m ---. The name of Toke´s wife is not known. Toke & his wife had one child:
a) ASBJØRN Tokesen (-killed in battle [Fyrisvall] near Uppsala [985]). The primary source which confirms his parentage has not yet been identified.

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

the first element, "Val" means fallen, nothing else. This is a prefix that a person self didn't use or was known under his lifetime, but are added by other AFTER this person has died. In this case if it's connected with Toke, simply because he fall in a battle. Any king or chieftain, could also have had such an epithet, if they had lost their throne and power, not necessarily meaning that they had died, simply lost power and rank.

Ulf,

I dug up this source because you complained Anette has not given (modern) sources.

And you missed this point.

You often say that historians accept other lines where the evidence is not any better than here. That's true but the test is different than you think.There must be no other plausible answer that fits the facts.

We now have TWO alternative theories. There is Nyrup (page 2 of this discussion) who thinks Toke Gormsen and Val-Toke were cousins. And now we have Davidson who thinks Odkinkar's father was Palna-Toke.

Maybe you can see why that's a problem for your theory. Your theory isn't the only one that will work. You've explained why you like your theory better but there isn't a way to show the other theories are impossible.

And, I think you have a hard time arguing with one of the leading experts. To me, her opinion seems much more reliable and trustworthy because of who she is.

> the first element, "Val" means fallen, nothing else.

A theory. Probably the most popular theory, but still just a theory.

As I pointed out above (through a link), Vald- can also be assimilated to Val-. Particularly before a consonant.

I think a good comparison might be to the name Valbjörn, where it's not clear whether the prefix is Val- or Vald-.

https://www.nordicnames.de/wiki/Valbj%C7%ABrn

I would urge you to keep an open mind. Think about all the hundreds of disputes and sub-disputes in this area, and try not to fall in love with the first thing you read.

As you see, In the link above Medland alter the fact in, "his gracious king". The original hulan : trutin, means gracious drott, equivalent with jarl. In order to become a jarl, (drott), you were in this time period without doubt, a son of a king, not the king, but you could be a king. Val-Toke” Gormsen as a deceased fallen jarl explains the part "Val" in the name. Combined with Adam of Bremen's text, of a jarl in Vendland named Toke, everything points to the conclusion that they were one and the same.

Anette has been given several chances to disprove this, but has failed. By claiming that only 3 childs to Gorm are accepted by the Danish academics she ensnares her own responsibility away, furthermore, when she claims that there was a lot of other Gorm's she relucting the fact that A.Bremen said that Odinkar was related to the member of the danish crown in Jylland, and in that part under this actual time frame only existed one Gorm who was king in that area. Thirdly, she claims that there existed several Toke's who was jarl's, but she presented none of the, because, yet again, under this time frame, no other Toke jarl connected to the royal family in Jylland are known.

Anette got supported by Justin, not because of her presentation of fact, but simply because her master degree in history and as being a curator. Despite that I got the picture that cutting in the lines this far up, requires an initiation of a discussion and on that part she has failed.

In order to defend her actions, other curators have stepped in, and ridiculed my source Adam of Bremen as being an untrustworthy source, despite the fact that he was almost contemporary with this events, and are otherwise regarded as very trustful, the sentence of this actions becomes very clear, what ever source I refer too, I'm wrong and Anette simply right because she has a master degree in history or whatever, and I don't, thereby turning this into an intellectually dishonest playground for bullying, making it hard for people to follow. In every attempt to justify why the fathers line of Odinkar shouldn't have been cut, I am meet with a counterargument with element of as if, if so, couldn't it instead, etc. where it has landed on me to prove why the line shouldn't be disconnected, instead of her and why she disconnected it.

It's not a valid argument to say that there could have been several Gorm and several Toke as the only defense for making that cut.

It's not a valid argument to claim that Gorm only have 3 validated accepted children.

It's not a valid argument to say, that if you don't know, nobody else can figure it out.

Vald- can also be assimilated to Val-. Particularly before a consonant. No, Vald is always the same as violence, we don't have to confuse apples for being oranges.

Ulf, you are quite wrong.

First, I resent your insulting personal attacks that I am supporting Anette because she is a curator. I am supporting a way of doing history that you don't like. It doesn't matter to me whether Anette agrees or not. It happens that she does, and that's because she has the same kind of academic training.

Second, you still do not understand that if there is more than theory that will work then your theory cannot be the only one. Why is something so simple so hard for you?

Justin Durand

How about presenting that other working theory?

I've already presented them, Ulf.

Have you actually presented a theory that covers all? Where? Can you put in here in one message, so that I can see it compared with sources?

Ulf, that's the weakness in your case. You assume one theory must cover all. It doesn't work like that.

We're talking about Odinkar's father.
1. You think he is Val-Toke = Toke Gormsen.
2. Nyrup also thinks he is Val-Toke, but he thinks Toke Gormsen was a cousin.
3. Davidson thinks he is a different Toke, Valna-Toke.
4. Anette thinks they are all different Tokes.

Those are all reasonable theories. There is nothing that sets any of them apart so that one of them has to be true and the others have to be false. They all have different consequences for other, surrounding relationships.

If you want to become a good historian you should learn to think critically. You should be a little skeptical of all theories, even theories from the experts. Don't fall in love. Be an agnostic rather than a True Believer. Don't be that guy running around like a some guy on the street corner preaching that everyone is going to Hell unless they accept your Gospel.

-learn to think critically-

It stopped being a theory when Adam of Bremen wrote that Odinkar's father was Toke jarl, "dux Vindlandensis", and that we now for sure know is Vendland, as he states that the area Vendsyssel was named by Adam of Bremen ca. 1075, as Wendila. No mistakes here at all.

It stops being a theory when we read on the runestone that Toke who died at Fyrisvall was called; original: hulan trutin and also named the son of Gorm.

It stops being a theory when we understand that most jarl's actually were what we today would call princes, the son of kings or chieftains.

It stops being a theory when Adam of Bremen stated that they originated from Jylland and was related to the royal family.

It stops being a theory as we now know that it actually was Harald Bluetooth who built Jomsborg and not Palnatoke, nor just a legend.

It stops being a theory when all the sources carefully scrutinized only gives us one correct answer that fits both chronologically, geographically and stipulated names.

It stopped being a theory when instead some sources now has become indisputable facts.

Do you actually still thinks that I'm running down the street and preaching that hell is coming? Who's the one neglecting, me or you? At some point I have to ask myself why some people aren't able to see that all pieces presented by me fits together as a hand in a glove, nothing needs to be added, no imaginary --could have existed-- persons needs to be added, "it could have been" are now permanently obsolete.

Ulf, you might want to review the discussion to date.

You're turning possibilities into probabilities, and turning probabilities into certainties. At this point your argument is in shambles. You need to go back and carefully re-evaluate each point. Your theory could still work as one possibility but not with such a shaky foundation.

As you might have noticed, I have already stated that once you cut off a profile, especially also after that that curator who done it had it locked, none of you other curators are willing to change it back, in this way, you all becomes biased and as that are no longer functioning as curators. It's a bit sad, but nothing I can do or say will change this fact.

When I first corrected this Odinkar's line, 2,5 years ago, Anette had me blocked. I had to take a stupid fight explaining that the previous father was born approximately at the same time the son was anointed Bishop, and of course, trying to convince them all that the previous line was impossible took its time, not surprising, I later got another reason for that blocking in from of a second hand construction, I had invented profiles in Gorm family...

After that I read thru all the sources available I came to the same conclusion that I come to now, it not only fits, but also seems to be without any discrepancy.

The only real theory left is who the mother was, it wouldn't be a surprise if she would have been related to Palnatoke as his aunt (Tokesdotter), which might or could explain the heavy occurrence of the name Toke both then and later among the higher class. Any possibility to actually make that connection at the other hand, would be futile as it until today don't exist any sources telling us anything about any concubines to Gorm the old. Secondly, Toke was a very common name in that time, a shortening of the god Thor + helmet, just as Torkell, there don't need to be any relation between those two families at all.

Read and learn.

Sounds like you're saying you don't really care about this problem after all. It's just a way to get back at Anette.

Justin Durand
"Sounds like you're saying you don't really care about this problem after all. It's just a way to get back at Anette."

Isn't it obvious for you that it's the other way around?

In Sweden the term is långsint, it means that a person who feels grudge toward someone, can be very patient in the revenge, but will never let it go, it took her a bit over 2,5 year before she decided to act, cut off that line. In my eyes she was also hurt because I did make it look as someone retarded most have done the previous connection, I didn't use those word, but it could certainly be understood in that way.

It's funny, but I did wrote to you and tried to get some help from you at that time, and I do recall this, this is an actual citation from the post I sent to you. 2015-11-28

"This profile Odinkar were here on Geni just an empty shell with no much more information other than that he died 1043, not only that, he was misplaced to another Toke that were born after 1005 making it quite impossible...

What I did, was to move him to the right place, and because the source said he was the son of Toke, Jarl, and of royal descendant, and because he was elected bishop 1003-1005 after his studies, he had to be adult 1005, born at least 20 years before his election to Bishop. The father couldn't have been the one that was set up as his father by Anette."

Yes, talk about grudge.

Ulf, I thought I could get you to see there are other theories, equally as likely as yours. Apparently not. You're stuck in this battle you have with Anette, which undermines every argument you make. Your theory about Odinkar is good, but it's not the only one out there.

Justin, why haven't none of you other here presented at least one of those other theories?

First, I must say that I sometimes curse the english language, you really lack a lots of words so when I want to write I have to often replace one word with a whole sentence with several words, leaving me not quit sure if the meaning will be the same, secondly, thanks for that you thinks my "theory" is good.

When it comes to Anette's cutting in that line, I will never accept that she says that she did it because she don't know who the father was. = If any of you curators don't know, you can cut off any line...

I do not either accept that she did this without starting a discussion.

With that laid on the table I want to present my view on the sources in this case and in general regarding this period of time.

No source is 100% right in everything, every historian has a lots of example of confusing people with the same name with each other, misplacing events, give credits for actions to wrong people, exaggerate some events etc. In fact, history in times past long ago can hardly ever be said to be always true, it can as best be truthful, plausible or possible. Time after time we also find people altering historical events, because they have an agenda where some people must be glorified, condemned or forgotten. Piecing history together often means reconstruction, and if you do not understand or accept this, Geni shouldn't have people in the tree if they lived before more modern times.

When piecing Odinkar's father into right family, I laid out this puzzle, but it's a puzzle that consist of other elements, best described as a cryptic crossword and Sudoku,
the sources gives us only one solution, and yes, it's very plausible but no, can't possible be verified without more findings. People on Geni in general accept this if no other better or equal solution is presented, because without an opponent side, there's nothing to oppose, Anette's "there was several of people named Toke in this time", doesn't fit my definition of an opponent theory.

When you present one, we all can valuate it, see if it hold together and fits as a worthy counter theory. I'm waiting.