Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-08 > 1156719760

From: "Ken Nordtvedt" <>
Subject: Re: #7 Re: [DNA] `Ultra-Norse`..who is making up this stuff? / Normandy study
Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 17:02:40 -0600
References: <> <004201c6c8be$cccb8830$86139a8e@PeterAKincaid> <> <> <> <> <>

Even the suffix on my name, "tvedt" (Danish imposition on Norwegian tveit)
made it to Normandy as "tuit" or "thuit"

----- Original Message -----
From: "A DesCartes" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: #7 Re: [DNA] `Ultra-Norse`..who is making up this stuff? /
Normandy study

> On 8/27/06, John Chandler <> wrote:
>> DesCartes wrote:
>> > Not at all accurate. Who grew the crops in Scandinavia? Local
>> > peasant farmers did.
>> We were talking about the Normans, not about Scandinavians back home.
>> I repeat: the Normans were wielders of swords and certainly preferred
>> that activity to farming, or else they would have stayed home.
> They were not `normans` until the generations following their settlement
> their- They were as a settlement denotes- SETTLERS. There is every
> latitude
> to discuss HOW heavily Rollo was able to plant his own people throughout
> the
> region, but what cannot be denied (although I doubt that would stop you)
> is
> that Rollo did plant them, and they stayed there.
>> ``History shows`` that Normandy was
>> > a STRATIFIED society, with peasants, clergy and nobles.
>> Exactly. And the peasants and clergy were all home-grown, while the
>> nobles formed a thin overlay of outsiders who achieved their position
>> by force of arms.
> You are free to argue this, but in Britain, we usually discern SETTLEMENT
> of
> a population by the appearance of its place names..No? The Y-DNA study
> finding low level I1a amongst Low Normandy chose LOW Normandy not at
> random,
> but for a reason.
> Low Normandy is rife with Scandinavian-derived placenames as compared to
> High Normandy, which is not. In High Normandy the early Scandinavian
> settlement and placenames are absent, although this land as well was under
> the overlordship of the normans. You cant have it both ways.
>> If I am looking to
>> > make a settlement as opposed to raid (which was the case in this
>> instance),
>> > and I have a burgeoning population at home that I am looking to find
>> room
>> > for (which was the impetus for colonization),
>> You seem to have missed out on the facts of the case. The Norman
>> presence in Normandy was the result of negotiation with the Franks.
>> They came to an agreement whereby the Normans took control of a
>> certain tract, under French sovereignty, in return for agreeing to
>> stop raiding. The result was a tremendous personal gain for the
>> Normans empowered by the agreement, which gave them feudal rights in a
>> pre-existing hierarchy, but it did nothing to solve the problem of
>> overpopulation back in Scandinavia. Your whole fairy tale of Norse
>> "Lebensraum" in Normandy is a fantasy.
> You have lost the factual debate. Their are multiple other instances of
> the
> Carolingians `giving` lands over to viking raiders, with the expectation
> that they would plunder them and leave off from Paris, etc and return
> home,
> and if need be later on they could be forced off militarily when it was
> advantageous / logistically possible for Charles.
> ``William of Jumieges- And so Rollo, appointed as leader, plotted with his
> men to demolish Paris, scheming in his sly heart and thirsting with a
> pagan
> instinct for the blood of Christians the way a wolf does``
> Charles already had been told by his court advisers that Rouen in
> Normandy
> was laid waste so he offerd them a territory they had already depleted so
> as
> to protect unravaged lands.
> The Norman dialect also is seperate from french... it was adapted /
> adopted
> by outsiders.
>> My point is that Scandinavians were on the move because of their own
>> population explosion. The idea that they risked depopulating their
> homeland
>> or couldnt fit enough of them inot their boats...come on, give me a
>> break!!!
> No one ever suggested that there weren't enough Scandinavians to
> support an emigration movement, nor even that they couldn't have
> migrated en masse if there had been an opportunity for such. The
> point is that the deal the Vikings made with the French included a
> whole province, already populated with French-speaking peasants
> tilling the fields. There was no need to send back to Scandinavia
> for reinforcements to share in the booty, nor any reason for other
> Norsemen to come to Normandy as peasants, which were already in
> plentiful supply. This is not to deny that the high-status Norse
> would have a tendency to increase their proportion of the local Y DNA
> over time, but that process is very far from a replacement.
> Flodoard of
> Reims<>who
> in partiuclar wrote that: "
> *After the war that Count Robert waged against the Northmen at
> Chartres<>;,
> certain maritime pagi, along with the city of
> Rouen<>(which they had
> nearly destroyed) and other pagi which were subjected to it,
> were conceded to them, and they agreed to take up the faith of Christ.*"
> Charles surrendered claim to lands that had already been destroyed, as per
> his own court officials accounts. There were no settled peasants `hangin
> around` to see if the folks who, a few weeks earlier, had plundered and
> assaulted their principle town might have a `change of heart`. Rollo`s
> forces were still Pagan and had no `moral` restrain of any nature.
>> We know for a fact that the Normans actually expanded their holdings to
>> include neighboring provinces, populated by locals- IN LATER YEARS. If
> you
>> knew people were coming who killed everyone they encountered and had done
> so
>> time and again, you be either organizing to fight them or running for the
>> hills. The Gauls did not fight, but ceded the territory, so during the
>> inital settlement, we can reasonably assume which reflex kicked in the
>> old
>> `fight or flight` response.
> Gauls??? You seem to have missed out on about a millennium of history.
> It was, in fact, the Franks who ceded the territory as a feudal grant
> to the North Men, while retaining suzerainty. You need to stop your
> "reasonable assuming" and look at the actual history.
> Gaul / Gaulish is used to this day as Franco-specific. The Kingdom of the
> Franks covered Germany, Italy, Switzerland, Holland...etc. I am typing at
> this moment with a denier of Lothar II 855-869 on my computer table. the
> problem I have had with identifying this Carolingian coins specific
> origin is that it was legal tender in a territory that stretched from
> todays
> Hollland to Italy.
> The local Gaulish forces did not fight...I do not assert that the forces
> throughout the empire were ever consulted.
> ==============================
> View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find
> marriage announcements and more. Learn more:

This thread: