# Talk:Olvir Rosta

A possible photo for this article could be of the site of the supposed castle of Frakökk near Kinbrace. It's located here: grid reference NC8728.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I am in Kinbrace all that often but I don't see the site on the OS. Ben MacDui 07:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess that shouldn't be surprising. According to the CANMORE webpage, the OS visited the site in 1961 but couldn't find the any trace of the "alleged castle" [1]. I'll take a look at the National Library of Scotland website, which hosts loads of historical maps, and see if any of the old ones show it.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Another possible photo could be of the runestone (located on the south wall of the abbey museum).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

"Anderson stated that Ekkialsbakki, in the case, likely refers to the coast on the Moray Firth, next to Atholl." Unless Atholl was very different then, it is a long way from the Moray coast. Doe he enlarge on this at all? Ben MacDui 07:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the size of Atholl back then (the map we've got a Mormaer doesn't make it all that large though). There are couple places named Ekkialsbakki in the saga, and Anderson didn't think they all referred to the same place. So in a note he said "...But the Ekkialsbakki twice mentioned in connection with Swein Asleifson's journey to Athole can scarcely be the same with that of the ealier narative. It seems probable that in Swein Asleifson's narrative the word may have been originally Atjoklsbakki—the coast on the side of the Breidafiord (Moray Firth) next to Atjoklar (Athole). The word bakki is sometimes used for a coast. The Saga writer may have been misled by the similarity of sound to substitute Ekkialsbakki for Atjoklsbakki."--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Googling about I found where Skene noted Anderson's location. Skene placed it at Findhorn: "... and the passage in chapter lxxii., where Swein Asleif's son goes to Moray, and thence by Ekkialsbakki to Atholl, points to the Findhorn, which is remarkable for a high bank, has an estuary which ships could enter, and would be the natural route to Atholl." I added Findhorn into the article, and updated the map.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
This is all very interesting and the sources themselves are good, but I still think it is a little inadequate. "Atjoklsbakki" for example strikes me as being pure speculation given the significant distance between the Moray coast and Atholl. In the story of Máel Brigte of Moray, William Thomson states that Ekkialsbakki is the Dornoch Firth and my copy of the Orkneyinga Saga translates the name in this story as the nearby River Oykel - which is possibly the earlier narrative Anderson refers to. I can't think of any reason why they would need to be different myself. Ben MacDui 16:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Aha - Skene's views are mentioned at  - Scotgaz in relation to Findhorn River and Ekkialsbakki re Máel Brigte rather than Olvir, but the discovery of "Syvardhoch" on the shores of the Dornoch Firth rather trumps this. I wonder if anyone has picked this up in published material relating to Olvir... Ben MacDui 16:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to try an show what I've read on the net. So here's a comparison between two freely viewable saga translations.
This is Pálsson (1981) from GoogleBooks, here's the part on page 144: "... Svein prepared for the voyage, sailing south as soon as he was ready to the Moray Firth with a north-easterly wind as far as Banff, a market town in Scotland. From there he made his way beyond Moray to the Oykel, then on to Atholl where Maddad provided him with guides who knew the mountain and forest route he might choose. From Atholl he travelled by forest and mountain above all the settlements till he reached Helmsdale in the centre of Scotland".
Here's Anderson's version, without the footnotes, page 115: "... Then he made preparations for going. When he was ready he sailed south to Borgarfiörd, and had a northwest wind to Dúfeyarar, which is a trading-place in Scotland. From there he passed Moray to Ekkialsbakki, and from there he went to Earl Maddad at Atjöklar (Athole). He gave Swein guides to who knew the way across mountains and forests wherever Swein wished to go; and he went through the interior of the country, over mountains and through woods, away from all habitations, and came down in Hjálmundal, near the middle of Sutherland"[2].
So, Pálsson differs with with Anderson and gives the Oykel. Also, he seems to give Banff, where Anderson gave Dúfeyarar (Anderson noted "Dúfeyarar must have been situated on the sandy shore of the parish of Duffus, on the Moray coast, eyri signifying a spit of sand. It has been supposed, with some degree of probability, that Burghead is the place here meant) [3]. So, I'll add Pálsson's locations which weren't mentioned: the Oykel, and Banff.
I don't think the likely location of the mound near the Oykel trumps Anderson's location, because Anderson actually mentioned all this when he proposed a differing location. He just thought that in the two particular instances, where the saga gave Ekkialsbakki in relation to Sweyn, it referred to another place [4]. Skene seems to have taken Anderson's proposed location for the 'two sites tied to Sweyn' and made them the location for all of the Ekkialsbakkis: "The word Bakki means in Icelandic the bank of a river; and Ekkialsbakki has usually been assumed to be the river Oikell, which seperates Sutherlandshire from Ross-shire. Dr Anderson, whose opinion is entitled to weight, takes the view, and fortifies it by a very plausible identification of Sigurd's grave on its north bank. The place he mentions is, however, not on the north bank of the river Oikell, but on the Dornoch Firth, and he is obliged to admit that this identification of Ekkialsbakki is inconsistent with other passages. A comparison of the accounts of Sigurd's conquest shows that it must have been at or near the southern boundary of Moray ...[continues into the passage I quoted at the top][5]. I think the location of the mound likely show's Skene was wrong, but I don't think that necessarily means Anderson was wrong. I understand what you mean about the name; at the same time, I think Anderson has a point in the location, since Dornoch seems out-of-the-way for a trip into Atholl. Did Thompson specifically mention Sweyn's route? Does he even mention Olvir at all? I've scoured the net for Olvir, and this is about all I've come up with. Sometimes he's mentioned, though he's hardly ever discussed. Only a minor character.
I've ordered Barbara Crawford' Scandinavian Scotland from the library, it should be a good source, I hope it mentions something about Ekkialsbakki. I noticed on GoogleBooks, that Sellar mentions Skene's location of Ekkialsbakki, in Sellar's Moray: province and people, but GoogleBook's only has it in snippet view, so I don't know what exactly he said of Skene. There's a short review of Pálsson's version of the saga in one of the Viking Society's publications pp. 236-337. It is pretty critical of the translation: "It will not satisfy the serious student or scholar, both of whom will still need to use Taylor's translation (Edinburgh, 1938). A new edition of Taylor's translation, incorporating his later work up to his death in 1972, remains a major desiderandum. So, I wonder what Taylor's version has for this particular Ekkialsbakki.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Thomson does mention Olvir elsewhere. If it proves relevant I'll get back to you.
I have Sellar and he pretty much repeats the information above: p. 105: With reference to Sueno's Stone Skene "suggested that the Stone commemorated the death of Sigurd the Powerful, jarl of Orkney, recorded in theOrkneyinga Saga.... Sigurd was buried at 'Ekkialsbakki' which has usually been taken to refer to the banks of the River Oykel. Skene, however, suggested that Ekkialsbakki should be located further south, perhaps on the banks of the Findhorn." Sellar says more about Skene's interpretation of the stone but Olvir is not mentioned. 
Useful info for the Mael Brigt article, but not all that helpful here. 
See also EKKIALSBAKKI WHERE IS IT ?
Clearly it is our task to explain scholar's views rather than give them original interpretations, but two things remain unresolved for me.

1)	I am not at all convinced by Skene, but it is not clear to me what Anderson thinks there need to be two 'Ekkialsbakkis'. Is he just accepting Skene?
2)	The Saga itself is (perhaps unsurprisingly) rather confused. Using Andersons' version, Svein goes to Banff or possibly Burghead, then "from there he passed Moray to Ekkialsbakki"
Now this makes sense if he has landed in the east and travels through Moray to the Dornoch Firth on his way to Helmsdale. 
However, this section doesn't really make sense to me. "and from there he went to Earl Maddad at Atjöklar (Athole). He gave Swein guides to who knew the way across mountains and forests wherever Swein wished to go; and he went through the interior of the country, over mountains and through woods, away from all habitations, and came down in Hjálmundal, near the middle of Sutherland".  
Getting Maddad's help is sensible, but going to Athol itself makes less sense. Relatively speaking it is a long way from either Moray or the Dornoch Firth. Perhaps Anderson's logic is that Banff-Dornoch-Atholl does not make sense, so Ekkialsbakki must not be Dornoch. Alternatively, is it Athol that does not make sense? Why would anyone in Atholl have intimate knowledge of Helmsdale? It is my OR guess that the Saga writer was confused, and that Svein's journey is much more likely to have been Banff-Dornoch where he met up with Earl Maddad of Atholl's local guides who take him over the hill to Helmsdale. I can't imagine Svein's men being overly pleased at having to make two long overland journeys to get to a place that is easily reachable by boat. Ben MacDui 12:33, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thomson says two thing so interest to this thread. Firstly on p. 59 re the Orkneyinga saga:"The Icelandic author of the saga is often at a loss when he deals with Scottish matters  - people, places and chronology are hoeplessly confused." Thomson appears to be using "Scottish" in the Orcadian sense i.e relating specifically to mainland Scotland outside of the Norse heartlands. Secondly, on p. 112 in relation to the attack on Helmsdale by Svein he ignores the Ekkialsbakki issue and intreprets the OS thus: " Oliver rosti had many men around him, but he expected Sweyn to come from the sea, so when Sweyn gathered men in Atholl and made his way through the Sutherland hills, he took Oliver by surprise." Ben MacDui 08:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I'll add "Oliver rosti" to the names.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Your first bullet-point: It seems to me that Anderson proposed the two locations, and Skene followed Anderson's lead but went further with it. Skene mentions Anderson in his note, and Anderson doesn't mention Skene.
Oh, I understand your reasoning, I totally agree. I didn't actually think of it that way before. When I read Anderson, his location made sense to me, so I didn't really think much else of it; but you're right, the story itself doesn't make much sense. Maybe the writers were confused, or maybe they simplified certain points to such a degree that this part doesn't make sense to the reader: maybe there was some side-story, some reason for a journey into Atholl, but the writers left it out, and in consequence the story was skewed and warped. Or maybe it's just a simple matter of the translation (something like "of Atholl", instead of "at Atholl", like you said). So maybe Taylor's translation could be a help. Haha yeah, Sweyn seems to have been a 'no nonsense' kind of guy. I guess this could be an example of why people warn against taking the sagas too literally.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Great article! Couple of question: While adding {{Contains Runic text}} might be a tad to excessive, there should IMO be some kind of note close to the table with Runic text about rendering.
The nominative r seem to be frequently used by scholars when writing Norse names nowadays, so I want object to that, but isn't it sort if inconsistent to write "Haraldr gille" in an article called "Olvir Rosta". I was about to correct g -> G thinking it a typo before I noticed that this particular name was written consistently like this through the article.  Finn Rindahl (talk) 08:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I kept the title with what I thought was the most common form of his name Olvir Rosta, because I figured someone would move it. I tried to be consistent with the rest of the names though, and used the Old Norse forms. I used the names in Gareth William's paper, and used the following sites as well [6][7] which were the best sources I could find. What should be done?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure anything has to be done, but my concern was "Haraldr gille" where I would have expected "Haraldr Gille". I'm not sure about what conventions exist in English for this, but I notice that Downham uses uppercase together with Norse forms for "Sigtryggr Silkiskjeggi" and "Sigtryggr Caech" (that is, both when the cognomen is Gaelic and when it is Norse). Finn Rindahl (talk) 15:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
OK, I switched to "Haraldr Gille", and put caps to "Ölvir Rósta". I took out the runic template, and just copied the text from it and placed it with a note.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
Agree the disclaimer is better placed in a note yes, good solution. Finn Rindahl (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)