GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2001-06 > 0991491581


From: "Peter E. Murray" <>
Subject: Re: Gorm's chronology (was: Guthrum II)
Date: Sat, 2 Jun 2001 10:19:41 -0400


Thanks Stewart. Posting to the list always has the potential to generate
welcome but time consuming followup. This particular topic being one of the
great problems in medieval historiography, it was hard to resist. My
responses to your points are inserted below.

----------
> From: Stewart Baldwin <>
> To:
> Subject: Gorm's chronology (was: Guthrum II)
> Date: Friday, June 01, 2001 4:42 PM
>
> On 1 Jun 2001 09:28:27 -0600, (Peter E. Murray)
> wrote:
>
> >In connection with the comments below by Todd and Stewart, I will add
the
> >following comments of my own (I am copying this reply also directly to
> >Stewart in case it fails to transmit to the list).
>
> ...
>
> Hello, Peter. Welcome back. It has been a while (a few years?) since
> I have seen you post to this list. I may have some responses to your
> comments about Thyra later, but for the moment I will concentrate on
> Gorm's chronology.
>
> >As for the description of Gorm as "the Old", it is at least compatible
with
> >almost everything that is recorded about him. There is no "good
evidence"
> >only because there is no contemporary evidence at all for Gorm other
than
> >from runestones. But the various legendary and non-contemporary sources
at
> >least give a consistent picture, and it suggests that he was indeed
"old"
> >at his death.
> >
> >He is implied to have been senile in his later years.
> >
> >His son Harald was effectively and probably actually king of Denmark
> >before, and probably long before, Gorm's death.
>
> Considering how little is known for certain about the chronology, I
> would be interested in knowing what evidence justifies the use of the
> term "probable" here. In fact, what little contemporary evidence we
> have, though admittedly not conclusive, suggests the opposite. IF the
> age of the skeleton has been estimated correctly and IF the skeleton
> was that of EITHER Gorm OR Harald (both subject to argument, of
> course), then Harald would have had to be relatively young at the time
> of Gorm's death ca. 958. Even though this interpretation of the
> archaeological evidence is not without its problems, it does not
> contradict the contemporary evidence, and I don't agree that it should
> be set aside in favor of legendary sources which are DEMONSTRABLY
> unreliable on important points (see below).

The identity and dating of the skeleton indeed has the potential to be
compelling evidence, but it is very new evidence that has still not been at
all adequately assessed. The uncertainty as to whose body it is offsets the
objective worth of the measurements, whereas the lack of individual
reliability of the other sources is somewhat compensated by the mutual
compatibility of the stories from varied sources that survive.

I indeed consider it probable that Harald was king of Denmark in his
father's lifetime. I will list the main suggestive evidence below which
taken together is very suggestive despite the nature of the sources. I am
not aware of any contemporary evidence that contradicts it so I will leave
it to you to add that part in order to provide the other side of the story.
- The 50 year reign suggested by Adam by coincidence or design takes his
accession back to 936 when he is said by Adam to have interceded to protect
christians despite his father's hostility to them. More on this in
connection with your further comment below.
- When king Hakon of Norway invaded Denmark his opponent was Harald
Bluetooth. All attempts to date this event place it inevitably somewhere in
the interval 950-954, probably closer to 950, all of which is in Gorm's
lifetime.
- Cnut, corresponding apparently to Gorm's son, is mentioned by Lambert of
Ardres as brother of the king of Denmark who by inference must be Harald
Bluetooth. This would be sometime before 962 when this Cnut's friend and
kinsman Sigfred (Sigurd) killed himself (we discussed this on this list a
few years ago). If indeed Cnut perished soon before his father Gorm, as
Saxo and Sven say, then it is significant that Harald was already king. I
am taking the sources at face value that this Cnut existed, but would be
interested in any specific evidence that he didn't.
- Bishoprics were founded in Denmark in 948, which could hardly have been
done without royal support. This is at a time when Harald is believed to
have been sympathetic and Gorm unsympathetic to Christianity, suggesting
that Harald was calling the shots.

Incidentally, in my last post I omitted three other pieces of information
directly suggesting a relatively early date for Gorm's regnum in Denmark
implying a date of birth close to or more likely prior to 900.
- Athelstan is said to have visited Gorm in Denmark soon before his
accession as king of Wessex. This was probably when he was threatened with
assassination ca.924 (date from memory but I will look it up).
- According to Chron Roskilde, a Gorm and Hordaknut had recently shared
Denmark and Anglia (meaning East Anglia) just before the permanent loss by
the Danes of East Anglia which happened in 921.
- There is even a suggestion (JH Todd citing Langebek, have not seen
ultimate source) that a Gorm ruled very briefly with Svein Longfoot before
giving up his share in the Danish kingdom to go to England. This presumably
is Gorm Anglus who, despite Saxo, can be shown to be none other than Gorm
the Old. This would be most plausibly sometime prior to the apparent
sharing of these kingdoms between Gorm and Hordaknut mentioned in the
previous point, again implying a birth date before 900 for Gorm.

We must not be troubled that the evidence is legendary. While the truth is
certainly beyond our reach, determining the scenario that is most
consistent with the evidence may not be and is an exercise that is
worthwhile in itself.

>
> >According to the usual interpretation of Adam of Bremen identifying him
as
> >Hardecnudth's son Vurm (Gorm), his son Harald was an adult or near adult
> >when Unni visited Denmark in 936. This implies an expected birthdate for
> >Gorm in the period 880 to 890 although a date as late as 900 is also
> >possible although very unlikely.
>
> Adam tends to be very weak in his chronology, especially when he is
> depending on narrative sources. It is apparent from reading Adam that
> he had many different sources of information (of varying reliability),
> and that he did not always have chronological data to go with that
> information. In such cases, he tried to place events during the time
> of a specific archbishop as well as he could (and not always
> successfully). Two of Adam's stataments seem to be related here. The
> first places the encounter with Vurm (i.e., Gorm) during Unni's time,
> and the second states that Harald ruled for 50 years (almost certainly
> false). It may be that these were independant pieces of information,
> but there is also the possibility that one was deduced from the other.
> If Adam had Gorm placed in Unni's time period, he could have used that
> to deduce a fifty year reign for Harald. However, it could also be
> that he had given a fifty year reign to Harald (who is represented as
> the wise and glorious king who converted to Christianity, and as such
> is an obvious subject for embellishment), and then placed Gorm during
> the time of Unni as a result of that calculation. (Adam admits
> elsewhere that he was uncertain about the chronology of the early
> Danish kings.)

I do not share your suspicion of the date 936 for Unni's visit. Unni's date
is confirmed by his death the same or next year in Sweden in 936, an event
which is credible in its details and is widely accepted by historians. I am
in full agreement with your other comments about Adam's approach.

> >His grandson Gold-Harald was already an adult in command of a strong
fleet
> >when he demanded a share of the Danish kingdom from his uncle Harald
> >Bluetooth ca.970, having presumably inherited his following on the death
of
> >his father Cnut Danaast ca.958. This tends to imply that Gorm's son Cnut
> >was not likely born later than about 915 and Gorm himself not likely
later
> >than about 890, although there is some leeway to these estimates.
>
> I would regard the very existence of both Knut Danaast and Gold-Harald
> as dubious at best, and certainly as unsuitable subjects as the basis
> for chronological arguments. The earliest sources mentioning either
> of which which I am aware were 200+ years after their alleged
> existence.

It is not possible to discuss Gorm without considering late sources, since
little else of any chronological use survives. The issue here is not the
reliability of late sources, but what we get when considering the various
sources and pieces of information side by side. This integrative approach
is akin to enhancement of forensic drawings of suspects by combining
descriptions from multiple witnesses who individually may have been poor
observers.

What is it that you find so suspicious about the stories of Gold-Harald and
his very existance? The stories we have from the Danish and Norwegian
perspective are reasonably consistent with each other and I am not aware of
any medieval source that is in contradiction of his existance, although
some do not have reason to mention him.

> The most detailed story regarding Gorm in the sagas has
> his son Knut (Danaast) invading Northumbria (i.e., the kingdom of
> York) and getting killed, after which Gorm was informed (indirectly)
> of Knut's death by Thyra, after which Gorm died of grief. The story
> is demonstrably false on two important points. First, we know from
> the contemporary rune monuments that Gorm survived Thyra, contrary to
> what the saga account says. Second, the year 958 is unsuitable for
> the alleged events in England described in relation to Gorm's alleged
> son Knut. Thus, the most detailed story about Gorm that appears in
> the sagas is almost certainly fictional

It has been pointed out by several historians, including Smyth, that the
stories of two kings Cnut seem to have been confounded in the various
accounts. The problem is which chronology, an earlier or later one, should
one accept, since similar stories of the death of Cnut have been placed
(my corrected dates from stated context) in 902/3, soon before 940, or just
prior to Gorm's death ca.958/9. As with other legends, the manner of death
can readily be transferred from one individual to another. It does not mean
that individuals of the same name at these different times did not exist.
Despite your unease, can I suggest that we start by looking at the
consequences of assuming, as most of the sources do, that the son of Gorm
also existed, and reject this scenario only if we are left with no choice.
In a dark age with little non-legendary information my experience is that
it is risky to disregard even poor sources before attempting a complete
overview of the evidence, especially in a period where the
legend overwhelms the few pitiful scraps of solid information.

> Also, if you look at the saga accounts, there seem to be a
> proliferation of duplicated Gorms and Knuts. The Jomsvking saga has a
> certain Gorm as the adopted father of (Harde)-Knut, father of Gorm
> (the Old), father of Knut. The saga of Olaf Tryggvason carries the
> duplication even further, making the first Gorm the adopted father of
> Knut, father of another Gorm, adopted father of another Knut, father
> of Gorm (the Old), father of Knut. Note that (1) this Knut-Gorm
> alternation is quite artificial, and (2) the confusion provides plenty
> of opportunities for a story to get transferred from one individual to
> another of the same name. When we observe further that there was in
> fact a king Knut of York (who cannot be a son of Gorm "the Old", for
> chronological reasons, but could very well have been Gorm's father),
> it is difficult to escape the conclusion that a story about an earlier
> king Knut of York has been transferred to a (possibly nonexistent) son
> of Gorm "the Old".

Yes, we have discussed all this before and indeed I have much more to say
about this confused set of traditions and a wide range of interrelated
issues relevant to these kings. But for now I will avoid widening the
discussion ere I start to regret returning to the list.

>
> >There are also other, more indirect indications that also place Gorm's
> >birth significantly before the end of the 9th century, but since these
> >require a more extensive explanation of the context I will not go into
them
> >now.
> >
> >The only dissenting evidence is the dating of the suggested body of Gorm
> >found at the site of the church in Jelling. Both this identification and
> >the reliability of the age estimation at death of 30 to 50 are very
> >uncertain, and his isolated burial without wife or presence of other
royal
> >burials makes me suspicious, so I am not willing to accept this as being
> >Gorm yet.
>
> I agree that some have jumped the gun in assuming that the skeleton
> was Gorm's (I lean toward Andersen's suggestion that it was Harald).
> However, regarding the age estimate, note that a fairly wide range of
> error has ALREADY been allowed in giving a range of possible ages. I
> find it difficult to believe that someone as old as almost seventy (or
> older) would be estimated by experts as being 35 to 50.
>
> Stewart Baldwin

Regarding the identity of this skeleton, I reiterate: Why must it be Gorm?
Or why Harald? What evidence do we have, apart from the scrambled bones
suggesting removal, that it is even a royal burial? Why an isolated lone
burial for a king? Does a man born ca.910-925 even fit a possible
chronology for Gorm?

I look forward to further input from you and others on this list.

Peter Murray

______________________________

This thread: