Talk:Hedeby

message: Links for notes 4 and 5 (http://www.denmark.org/about_denmark/factsheets_articles/factsheets_vikings.html) seems to be expired. I haven't (so far) been able to find a good substitute, so I left it as it is. The information/quote is AFAIK correct after all.
EaCalendula (talk) 14:50, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Links in  notes

message: Temporary note: I'm in the middle of a mid-term overhaul and expansion of this article. Areas to which attention might be directed (and which I might get round to myself):
* Geopolitical significance of Hedeby (section)
* Brief references to: slavery, castle during Otto's occupation, Ansgar church (+ medieval church still in use today)
* Reconstruction: expand, more pics
* A pic of the ship (if can get)
* English-language books and articles (if they exist)
* A lot more footnotes with sources
Caravaca 18:08, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future work on this article

message: Hi Caravaca.
Just for your information. Yes, I did read the article, but I edited the image description since the image contains factual errors. 1) Denmark's southern border is shown too far to the north, and 2) the eastern border is too far to the east. The map shows Hedeby *outside* of the Danish territory and this is incorrect.
BTW, I am a history major from Denmark's third largest university. I've read about the Danish borderlands and Danish history for the last 20 years.
Ad 1) The southern border is shown too far to the north. Except for a very short interlude during Charlemagne, the Danish-German border remained pretty stable at the Eider and Levenså (the latter is now part of the Kiel Canal.) This border was first challenged by the Valdemarian kings and the counts of Schauenburg in the thirteenth - fourteenth centuries. The construction of the Dannevirke is considered to be the first indicator of a unified Danish realm. A similar indicator (although slightly later) is canal dug though the island of Samsø in central Denmark. Basically, the amount of work required to construct these works, is taken as an indicator that the minor chiefdoms must have been united around that time. 
Ad 2) Denmark is shown as encompassing a great part of Western Småland. I've never seen any scientific proof of this. I first saw an (American) map like that a few years ago, and such a border is not mentioned in Danish history. The area in question was a dense forest at the time, and rather sparsely populated. The Danish-Swedish border was ultimately demarcated around 1050 with 6 large stones. The (invisible) line between them marked the border. For more information on that see:  (in Danish, with a map). However, Denmark *did* originally control all of the coastline of the Skagerrak, cutting off Sweden from access to the sea. This is not shown on the map.
Other points about the map:
* I) The six Viking ring castles are not shown. Neither is the supposed ring castle Jomsborg of the Vikings on Wollin / Wolin, or the canal on Samsø. I also noted that Odense is missing (first mentioned in 988). I might be able to find a list of early Danish settlements, if you're interested.
* II) There is a number of typos. In Danish, it is "Jylland" not "Jütland"; "Sjælland" is spelled with a double "L" and why is Slesvig spelled in German? The town was a Danish settlement. In fact, the entire area north of the Dannevirke was ethnicly Danish. The area between the Dannevirke and the Eider was a mixed area; the area around Oksevejen / Hærvejen (Ochsenweg) was ethnicly Danish, while the rest was mixed. The totals for this southern area is that around 20% of the place names are Danish, the rest are in German.
* III) The western coastline of South Jutland was very different at the time. The modern outline was pretty much established in the sixteenth or seventeenth century. Before that time, large areas or land were destroyed by flooding (or by some records, sinking). I might be able to find a few maps if you're interested. 
Regarding the Swedish dynasty: No respectable Danish historian takes the fables of Saxo seriously, and the theory about the "Swedish dynasty" is generally ranked on the same level. Three rune stones does not constitute a Swedish settlement. If somebody finds a rune stone in Russia, is does not mean anything else that "a Viking was here". It is not proof that any settlements existed. The origins of some Danish chief is of very little importance. I'm no expert on runes, but I've heard examples of "short runes" in Denmark several times. I wouldn't place too much faith in that legend. Regards. --Valentinian 18:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means. I haven't been reading about these topics for the last few years, so I'm a bit rusty (I'm mostly interested in contemporary politics.) But I do own a few books about the history of Southern Jutland. If you have specific questions, I might be able to find a bit of relevant literature at the university library. Besides, I own a Danish copy of the history booklet published by Wikinger Museum Haithabu (it's around 10-15 years old.) --Valentinian 13:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I sent you a long email some hours before you wrote this. Didn't you get it? If so, shall we also delete our discussion from the talk page (otherwise it will get too long)? Caravaca 17:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map of Viking Denmark 

message: Isn't it more likely, that the Old Norse spelling was Heiðabýr with Ð and Ý (O.N. heiðr = heathland, and býr = yard)? -- Arne List 13:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Addition: I have added it to the article, because there can be no big doubt on that spelling of Old Norse. Heiða is the genitive singular of heiðr, and the German article says as well, that the name refers to "heath yard" or "heath town", as well as the Danish name Hedeby does mean the same (hede = heath, by = town). Old Norse býr can also found in Faroese býur (city, town), while Icelandic uses bær -- Arne List 13:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a number of runestones mentioning Hedeby. You don't have to guess! Off course, for latinized spelling you should look to the sagas. 83.72.136.244 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an expert on Old Norse. I'll believe you. Caravaca 17:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since "by" means a village or a town (in Swedish too), shouldn't the translation of the name be changed to "Heath village" or "Heath town" instead? Norum 16:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am quite sceptic about the explanation of the second element -by. In fact on the old runic inscriptions, the result of the transcription always gives -bu. The letter u has to be pronounced [u], not [y]. That is the reason why I think -bu represents the Old Norse bú “farming, farm, farm stock” clearly distinct of býr “farm, town”. But -by (from býr) replaced -bu by confusion, when it developed as a town. The same thing happened to the neighbouring Haddeby, that was in the oldest records Hadaeboth in 1285, Haddebooth in 1286, Haddebothe in 1354. The last element is clearly both, in fact the Old East Norse bóð "shop, shelter, home", variant form of Old Norse búð, that gave English booth. In that case, -both was clearly replaced by the more common -by when it developed as a town. There are many exemples of that kind in Denmark, Norway and Great-Britain.Nortmannus (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a confusion is quite easy to understand because of the phonetics and the significations : all close to each other : býr, acc. dat. by and variant form bœr, acc. dat. bœ;  bú and búð....Nortmannus (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: ;NOTE -- Cross-posted from This talk
re: 
*Added this to Schleswig, Schleswig-Holstein history section: {fact|This "history" is in direct conflict with the history given in Hedeby, in particular, the likelihood that both were founded about the same time, which on reading, seems to have an archaeological basis.} 
* Hence, needs some expert attention.
Best regards // FrankB 02:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts in conflict ++Expert tag 

message: According to the history book "Svenska Krönikan" (1957)
Hedeby was conquered briefly during the 900s by swedish "vikings" (Svear) and held for roughly three decades. (page 64)
an external link, that suppliment/support this:
http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?13105-viking-settlement-Haithabu-Hedeby
Thoughts?
--Byzantios (talk) 01:18, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  swedish/svear occupation 

message: I think there may be a problem with the source added in this edit. The source uses the exact same wording as our article, but our text goes back many years and the source was published a few months ago. I think the writer may have copied from Wikipedia, and citing it would be an instance of WP:CITOGEN. Schazjmd (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The 770 claim appeared in 2002, but I couldn't find anything to back it up, so I modified the section and found a source discussing its first appearance in the historical record. Eiszett (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate it, thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable reference