Asa Ulfsdatter (new research)

[JR Olsen]

I started a discussion on another forum ,but then I thought that I would come to the best forum.

 

There was/is much discussion on Asa Ulfsdatter, specifically her parentage. As it pertains to her parentage there is no proof. I observed what others were not doing, and so I did it.

 

My research was focused on certainty, not proof. We know that there is no proof when it comes to Asa Ulfsdatter's parentage. It could be stated that proof is objective and certainty is subjective.

 

Here is a prime example of certainty and its accomplishments:

 

The Norwegian couple discovering a Viking settlement in North America was due to their certainty, not proof. They ignored the interpretations made by other researchers (or should I say historians). Others told this couple that their interpretations were wrong. Well, it is now well proven what interpretations were wrong.

 

Knowing that there was no proof as to Asa Ulfsdatter's parentage I knew that I must focus on certainty. Certainty reveals the level of probability. What I discovered about the research of others as it pertained to Asa Ulfsdatter was that what was presented as facts is nothing more than interpretations, assumptions, and opinions.

 

Also, I realized that I had to focus on history and well as genealogy. I studied the geographic settings during the medieval times, the migrant and settlement patterns, kinship, and much more. I studied (as best as possible) the men named Ulf in Norway during the medieval times. I also studied the men named Alf. What I did was study the main component and its subsidiaries.

 

I claim not to be an expert at anything. I make no attempt at convincing anyone of anything. I thought that I would share my findings with those having interest in Asa Ulfsdatter. I am sure that there will be opponents to my research. They will post here with their interpretations, assumptions, and opinions. The difference between them and myself, I will not present the interpretations, assumptions, and opinions as being facts. I will respect your intelligence.

 

The main argument in articles pertaining to Asa Ulfsdatter's parentage is the focus on there only being one Arnstein Ulfson. Here is why that is next to being impossible. During the 14th and 15th centuries the life expectancy was 30 years. That means that half of the people at that time could expect to live at least to the age of 30. If a person during that time period made it to the age of 20 then that person could rightfully expect to live for another 43 years (the numbers are approximates). That places the probable life span at the mid-60s. To pick an age, lets say that in 1363 Arnstein Ulfson was 24 years of age, giving his birth year at 1339. In 1419, Arnstein Ulfsson would have been 80 years (most probable he would have been in his 90s). Doing the calculations, there was much less than 1% probability that a person during that time period would have lived to the age of 80 or more. That places a more than 99% probability that there were 2 men named Arnstein Ulfson.

 

My findings gives me (does not have to be you) at least a 95% certainty that Asa Ulfsdatter was the daughter of Ulf Holmgeirson. Those are my conclusions, they do not have to be yours.

 

If one accepts that Asa Ulfsdatter, Arnstein Ulfson, and Olaf Ulfson (Olaf appears to have been ignored) were siblings, then, one has to accept that their father was Ulf Holmgeirson. If one does not accept these 3 as siblings, then, one must accept that approximately half of the men in Norway named Ulf had children living in Onsoy and/or ties to Onsoy.

 

This is a long post, time to stop for now.

[JR Olsen]

Here is a brief summary of my research. Please keep in mind that it is a brief summary. I do not have interest nor time to write a book detailing my research and findings.

 

 

Asa Ulfsdatter's Parentage

 

Research Qualifications:

 

20 years experience in research (humans, geography, genealogy, and much more. 16 years of research in personal family history. Research Service to assist others with their family history research. Past co-ordinator with a genealogy project (at a county level). Publication of a family history book. Currently: working on the preparation for the publication of research material on human behaviour.

 

Declaration:

 

Although there is personal ancestry to Asa Ulfsdatter there is no agenda nor slight of the studied material and the conclusions thereafter. Annoyance by published material pertaining to Asa Ulfsdatter's parentage influenced this study. The trash published on Cecilia Jonsdatter not having heirs and the complete nonsense on the usage of the wrong Arnstein Ulfsson by those determined to exploit the naive nature of the readers of said trash and nonsense need to be rectified.

 

Research/Study:

 

The following research/studies led to the evidence-based empirical, theoretical (and every component between the two) conclusions.

- studied all known men in Norway and Sweden during the Middle Ages with the name Ulf/Ulv.

- studied all known men in Norway and Sweden during the Middle Ages with the name Alf

- a quick-study on men with the name Ulfsson/Ulvsson

- studied Norway's geography during the Middle Ages

- studied the habits and patterns of the people of Norway pertaining to the inhabitants and migration

- studied the farms and farm ownerships

- studied kinship in Norway- specifically the Haftorssoner kinship

 

Attention:

 

The enclosed text material is a summary of the research/study that led to the evidence-based empirical and theoretical conclusions.

 

Findings:

 

The geography of Norway limited the inhabitants ability to accumulate settlements. These limitations had in time woven patterns in the geographic fabric of Norway. There were several patterns woven due to the clustering of nobility. It is estimated that during the joining of the latter 14th century with the beginnings of the 15th century there were 200 families in Norway with nobility status. These families became clusters due to kinship by blood and/or by marriage. Kinship influenced the geographic settlements. Also, the closely knitted kinship was due to that era being of hostile times. Hostility or the fear of kept the clusters in tact. The clusters would have been strategically determined and placed.

As it pertains to Jon and Sigurd Haftorsson, their descendants, and kinship, their horizontal clustering in Boregsyssel allowed them to dominate that territory. That domination was not determined by the amount of land occupation or ownership, but more by kinship presence in that area.

Jon Haftorsson would have strategically chosen Huseby in Odenso in Borgesyssel due to its geographic closeness and accessibility to water (for means of transportation) and the powerhouse Tonsberg. Landownership being the wealth-of-the-day, and for security Jon Haftorsson, his descendants, and their kin purchased and/or inherited much of Odenso in Borgesyssel (and other areas in Norway). Jon Haftorsson's status in the ranks of nobility would have influenced him to own large land parcels. This is evident in Odenso, especially in the western section of Odenso. An analysis of various text material and supporting evidence (Norwegian Diplomas, witness statements, collaborating statements, publications - books and articles) reveal that Jon Haftorsson owned a large section of western Odenso. This land ownership includes the section that later became known as Elingard. Referring back to the hostility times, Jon Haftorsson would have left himself wide open to hostile acts if he did not own or at least control the land bordering the waterway leading to his manor.

 

Men named Ulf/Ulv during the Middle Ages: During that time period the name Ulf/Ulv was a rare name in Norway and Sweden, at least as it pertains to nobility. It being a Viking name (for the most part) meaning Wolf probably did not encourage parents to give that name to their sons. An analysis of the habits and patterns of the men in Norway and Sweden with the name Ulf/Ulv reveal that these men likewise of all other men were territorial. The people of that time did not travel broadly within their homeland. These men with the name Ulf/Ulv likewise of all other men surrounded themselves with kin, the closer the kinship the better.

 

There are only two men with the name Ulf/Ulv known to have family ties and land in Odenso, and these men were Ulf Jonnson and Ulf Holmgeirsson. Ulf Jonsson's children are known. Their landownership in Odenso is known. If there was any other Ulf with family and/or land ties to Odenso there would be at least one mention of it somewhere in the Norwegian Diplomas and/or some other publication.

Without doubt: There was an Ulf with family in Odenso. His children were Asa, Arnstein, Olaf, and possibly others. There is no way conceivable that there would have been that many Ulfssons/Ulfsdatters in one small area and not be kin. Besides Ulf Jonsson, the only other Ulf in Odenso or at least having kin in Odenso was Ulf Holmgeirsson. Also, going through the process of elimination excludes all other men with the name Ulf/Ulv. Olaf Ulfsson inherited land in Odenso at a time period that coincides with Ulf Holmgeirsson's death. Coincidence? You decide.

 

Conclusion:

 

Since there is no text material stating the names of Asa Ulfsdatter's parents there is and never will be 100% proof to the parents of Asa Ulfsdatter. However, it is important to conclude through qualified research/study the highest probable percentage of certainty. By means of careful analysis and through the proper process of elimination and a comprehension of the woven pattern laid out by the people of that time period let it be known that this research/study conclude that there is a 95% to 99% certainty that Asa Ulfsdatter's father was Ulf Holmgeirsson.

 

[Håvard Moe]

For ordens skyld: Dette vert òg diskutert på NSF sitt middelalderforum her: http://genealogi.no/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=356

 

Just for the record: This is also being discussed at NSF's medieval forum here: http://genealogi.no/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=356

Endret April 11, 2014 av Håvard Moe

[JR Olsen]

Not anymore. The focus is now here. The only reason for the discussion on the other forum was due to myself challenging Lars Loberg to a public discussion.

[JR Olsen]

I feel there is a need for a  further explanation.

 

RE: Asa Ulfsdatter

 

There appears to be two focal points dictating that she could not be the daughter of Ulf Holmgeirsson and Cecilia Jonsdatter. I am not certain if it is proper on this forum to mention the names of authors, so I will not.

 

1. An author clearly assumed that land in Sweden believed to have been owned by Cecilia Jonsdatter was in 1469 owned by Cecilia's brother's grandchildren/great grandchildren. Based on the ownership in 1469 the author concluded (assumed) that Cecilia Jonsdatter did not have children. The gap in time dictates that the author's conclusion holds no value. There is no possible way that value could be placed on such an assumption due to the possibility that Cecilia Jonsdatter's children/grandchildren could have conveyed that land to their relatives either by means of a land transaction involving money or trading of land.

 

2. A couple of authors have lent their comments to there being one man named Arnstein Ulfson (mentioned in the diplomas 1363, 1407, 1419). Their evaluation involving the likelihood of Arnstein Ulfson and Asa Ulfsdatter being siblings and the probable age of Arnstein Ulfson (based on the 1363 diploma) dictates that Asa could not be the daughter of Ulf Holmgeirson and Cecilia Jonsdatter. First and foremost, it is clearly their interpretation and assumption that led them to such conclusions. They clearly use manipulation of information and dates to justify their conclusions.

 

One author (or more) stated that Arnstein Ulfson would have easily been 25-30 years of age in 1363 and perhaps more, placing his birth year at 1333-1338. In all probability he was older than the 25-30 years. Regardless, would it not be foolish to believe that Asa Ulfsdatter was born in that year range (if she was that Arnstein Ulfson's sister)? The author continues by saying that Asa Ulfsdatter and Arnstein Ulfson may not have been siblings. The obvious relationship may have been through Asa Ulfsdatter's husband Oluf Thorsteinson. Well, the 1419 diploma names the following: Oluf Thorsteinson (an Oluf Thorsteinson was married to Asa Ulfsdatter); Halstein Kaliper (said to have been married to an Ulfsdatter) and Arstein Ulfson. A lot of Ulfsdatter/Ulfson involvement.

 

Lets sum it up. Their initial argument was that due to Arnstein Ulfson's age and the likelihood that he was a brother to Asa Ulfsdatter excluded any probability that Asa was the daughter of Ulf Holmgeirson and Cecilia Jonsdatter. That was nothing more than an assumption that Asa Ulfsdatter was in the age range as Arnstein Ulfson. Simply foolish. Now, the story has been changed, by some and not all, due to the utterly nonsense seen in the initial statements. What is confusing and interfering with getting to a clear and probable conclusion on Asa Ulfsdatter is the ever-changing story by a few today.

 

Are you now confused? I am typing it and it is confusing me. Should I quote the old saying - too many cooks in the kitchen.

 

I realize that there is no easy way to get information out there without possibly confusing people more than they already were.

[Are S. Gustavsen]

All,

 

There is a dire need for the initiator of this discussion to bring substance to the argument, rather than conducting circular argumentation on empty statements.

 

I look forward to a more sober and balanced presentation of the matter. So far the argument presented has been lacking the quality of scientific approach. Clearly, the discussion stands to gain on statements being substantiated and properly referenced.

 

Throughout the postings above there is complete lack of reference to authority, which in turn takes away needed credibility. Hence, all the statements set forth seems to be based solely on the initiators personal opinion.

 

Sincerely,

 

Are

[JR Olsen]

Just when I thought I was done......

 

I am trying my best to abide by this forum rules. I am not certain what or why something can be stated. If my comments appear to be against said rules, let me here and now publicly apologize.

 

Since a representative from the NST has challenged me, I now have the right to reply giving my thoughts on the NST. NST claims that their writings are scientific.

 

Here is some science:

 

Regardless of focusing on the 1419 diploma, the 1407 diploma, and/or the death range for Arnstein Ulfson, the fact remains the same. Science dictates that there is a 99% probability that there were two men named Arnstein Ulfson. If proof is wanted, then conduct proper research and the results will clearly reveal the science behind the statements. I am not here to conduct research for others. If one believes that my statement are wrong, well, provide the proof/science to back up your claims. Don't simply say that I am wrong, prove it or at least provide a high level of certainty that I am wrong.

 

I also expect others to have a comprehension of my statements. Here is what appears to be a problem for...others. There appears to be a lack of ability in understanding the difference between proof and certainty. I thought that I explained my approach clearly, however, I can not do anything about a person's inability to comprehend. I did not come here and state that I have proof nor did I suggest that I have proof. I clearly stated that my research was based on certainty. NST is asking for certainty references? Well, they can contact the author of the research and he will be happy to inform them of his certainty.

 

Continuing with the talk on scientific articles. Where is the science behind the statements made by authors of articles relating to Asa Ulfsdatter. How is it science by stating that given the age range of Arnstein Ulfson and the likelihood that he and Asa Ulfsdatter were siblings there could be no connection between Asa Ulfsdatter and royalty? Especially when science dictates that there were two Arnstein Ulfsons. I do not make up stuff. Any person with the qualifications can do the math and see that I am right. Science is my backer. Don't like my statements, then go fight with science.

 

The representative of NST appears to believe that I need to explain myself to him. I answer to nobody. I stand firmly behind my research and statements.

 

I have provided a foundation for the people with interest in Asa Ulfsdatter. It is now their choice to use that foundation or to ignore it. My research has served me well, and it changes my life in no way if others decide not to accept the findings of my research.

 

The unfortunate thing about all of this is that it will probably confuse people more than they were. They are receiving information from different directions, and do not know what is correct and what is garbage. Also unfortunate is that there will always be at least one person who wants control. He/she will attempt to control what others believe. That will result in a dis-service to genealogy.

 

I am done here. My objective was to reveal my findings, period. I have no interest in attempting to convince others to accept my findings. If I see a reasonable question I may address it, otherwise I am done.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read my postings.

 

 

[Lars Løberg]

There really is no reason to be confused here. The basic facts are simple. Åsa Ulfsdotter is mentioned only once in a Medieval source, after her own death. The source connects her to a husband, one son and two sons-in-law. The document gives no decisive clue as to her origin. Thus, her parents or her place of birth are both unknown and will continue to be so until someone manages to come forward with a study that in a scientific way is built on sources with sufficient refernces so that any other researcher can easily control both method, sources and results. Such a study will not be published in years. Thus, anything stated above in this discussion hinting at possible parents of Åsa is nothing but - well, garbage. And it should be treated accordingly.

[JR Olsen]

Lars Loberg

 

You conveniently choose information that benefits you. You state that Asa Ulfsdatter is only mentioned once. Not necessarily true. What about the other diploma that mentions an Asa Ulfsdatter. You ignore that one because it takes credibility away from you.

 

Before I continue, the people at NST are disrespecting this forum and its users. You would not allow such a debate on the NST forum, yet you come here and be disrespectful. Want a blunt discussion, then lets go to your forum.

 

You have stated that you know of several men named Ulf with ties to Onsoy. Post the information here or provide a link to such information. We both know that that information does not exist.

 

The fact that you and others can not comprehend basic research reveals much about your ability as researchers. My research is as basic as it comes. Why then should I waste my time explaining more of my research to people lacking the ability to understand the basics? Your article is based on nothing more than interpretations. Norwegian historians (and that is what you are) do not have a strong reputation when it comes to interpretations. The damage was done due to the treatment of and lack of support to the research that led to the discovery of a Viking settlement in North America. Let me assure you that your article on Asa Ulfsdatter is not taken seriously by researchers and others outside of Norway.

 

Since most of your article on Asa Ulfsdatter involves Arnstein Ulfson and his relationship to Asa Ulfsdatter, then I challenge you to prove that there is not a 99% probability that there were two men named Arnstein Ulfson. That is not to say that Arnstein Ulfson was not in the less-than-one-percent category. You for the most part followed the article written by Atle Stenar Langheidl(?). He also failed to conduct proper research. Your reputation is damaged due to your following as oppose to leading.

 

Any qualified genealogist will comprehend my summary. They will pick up on the bottom line that I mentioned a couple of  times. The revealing part to you not and the NST not being genealogists is the fact that you failed to comprehend the bottom line statement. It is so basic in the field of genealogy. It is baffling that you did not comprehend it.

 

Here is my challenge to you:

 

1. Prove that there could be only one Arnstein Ulfson

2. Prove that there were two Asa Ulfsdatters

3. Prove that Cecilia Jonsdatter did not have children

4. Prove that Asa Ulfsdatter was not of high social ranking

5. Prove that Ulf Holmgeirson could not be a father to Asa Ulfsdatter

6. Prove that you studied the kinship in Onsoy and surrounding areas

7. Prove that you have knowledge on the vertical and horizontal components of social mobility during the medieval times

8. Prove that Jon Haftorson did not own Elingard

9. Prove that the land known as Elingard was not once part of Huseby

10. Prove that you are a qualified researcher

 

If you can prove the majority of the above mentioned, I will seriously consider forwarding a detail copy of my research. If you can not prove the majority of the above mentioned, your statements on my research being garbage is, well, garbage.

 

 

[JR Olsen]

For those with interest, here is a copy of the diploma mentioning an Aasa Ulfsdatter. Lars Loberg previously ignored it because it contains a level of probability that Asa Ulfsdatter may have been a descendant of Jon Haftorson.

 

 

 

b.XIII s.64

Sammendrag:
Gunsten Thorgrimssön erkjender, at han har oppebaaret de Penge, som As-
mund Asmundssön efter en Sexmandsdom var skyldig at betale ham paa
Aasa Ulfsdatters Vegne.

 

Kilde:
Efter Orig. p. Perg. fra Buöen i Mandal. Begge Segl, der have hængt i lösskaarneRemmer af Brevet, mangle.

 

Nummer: 83.

Dato: 13 Septbr. 1420. Sted: Bjoraa(Evje).

Brevtekst (fra den trykte utgaven):
Ek Gvnsten Þorgrimsson kennis med þesso mino opno
brefve at ek hafer vpboret af Asmvnde Asmvndasson sva mer vel
at nøgher þa þenigha sem han var mer skyldvgh a vegna Asso
Vlfs doter med vi manna dome til merra saninda sette Eriker
Þollefssson sit insile med mino insile firir þetta bref en giort var
a Biora sem ligger j Efio sokno fredagen nest firir kros møsso
vm havstet ok a xxxi are rikis okkars virdvlix her®a herra Erix
med gvds nadh Norix kvnungs vere gud med oss.

 

[Are S. Gustavsen]

"Richard"/J R Olsen/Richard Olsen (thus; in lack of a credible full name),

 

There seems to be a complete lack of understanding on your part regarding what constitutes scientific genealogy. 

 

First, (1) the burden of proof is always to be carried by the claimant. The rationale is simply this: Anyone can claim anything about everything, if they are not required to substantiate their allegations/statements. Having to prove other people's statements wrong, may seem as an intelligent approach to a layman. For a scientist, it's simply applying non-scientific methodology to matters that cannot be satisfactorily resolved without the help of science. Applied to your set of challenges set forth to Mr. Loberg (i.e. Løberg) in  #10, you are misconstruing the very concept of science, by wanting other people to do the work you are not wiling to do yourself.

 

Second, (2) you have yet to present any issues of error pertaining to any genealogical literature dealing with the people you are referencing in your postings. Well, referencing may be too strongly put, you are actually only providing random mention of quite a few names, without really attempting to clarify exactly which part(s) of Løberg's or other authors work you wish to oppose and the reason why you are opposing. One should think that if there were a genuine issue of material fact present in your argumentation, you would want to present your case in the best possible way. Being ill-prepared and claiming blunt superiority while dishing out verbal nonsense is hardly the recommended approach in matters that demand meticulous accuracy and the ability to assess degrees of complexity without drawing far-fetched conclusions.

 

The bright side: It is not too late putting an end to you misrepresenting yourself. Please tell us who you are (full name) and what is bothering you (state the issues). Please do so in a way that is comprehensible and try to make it easy for people to follow your thoughts. You may have seen something other researchers have missed. However, the quality of your writing must improve substantially. What we have seen so far is not up to par, at all. In fact you are failing, given that you actually were trying to convince someone about something. As of now, you are not convincing anyone of anything.

 

Sincerely,

 

Are 

Endret April 15, 2014 av Are S. Gustavsen

[Lars Løberg]

I've obviously managed to make one person completely loose his temper. I guess that is also one of the qualifications that makes him such an excellent researcher?

 

Jokes aside. I have nothing to prove to you. Nor am I interested in a detailed copy of your so called "research". That will serve none of us any good. My conclusions have been published in an article in a scientific journal. Every source used is listed with references so that any other researcher can easily check my sources and redo my testing to see if he or she comes up with the same result or not. You, my friend, haven't proven a thing yet. You're so full of allegations, but you haven't done research until you have published something. Feel free to write an article, send it to a scientific journal and see if your methods and your results qualify for publishing. Your work will then be evaluated by fellow researchers. They will decide if you qualify to call yourself a researcher or not. My work has gone through that process, yours has not.

 

I do, however, ask that you kindly read my article and respond to what you read there without completely changing the entire context or message. You claim that most of my article involves Annstein Ulfsson. Is that really so? It certainly is not. Over 9 pages Annstein is mentioned in only 10 out of 43 paragraphs. More than half of those paragraphs simply refer to what others have published on Annstein Ulfsson. He is not a vital part of my article, nor is he a part of my conclusions. In fact, if you read my article, you will easily see that my views on him are much closer to your own than to any of the researchers I refer to. I state at page 323 that a preliminary conclusion is that the hypothesis that Åsa and Annstein were siblings is not validated.

 

The main part of my article, and my conclusion, deals with Åsa Ulfsdatter herself. The message is simple: There is neither proof nor evidences or even indications of a connection between Åsa Ulfsdotter and the Royal family. So far you have not come up with anything that changes this picture.

 

You may have your own opinions about Norwegian historians and Norwegian genealogists. With a few remarkable exceptions, Norwegian historians have contributed little to World history. Vice versa, with some, mainly Scandinavian, exceptions, foreign historians have not contributed much to Norwegian history as a science. The picture is the same, or even worse when it comes to genealogy. Not one single American genealogist has ever contributed significally to the understanding of Medieval Norwegian genealogy, even though one actually was honoured by the King of Norway for trying to do so. The reason is quite simple. The Norwegian society in the Medieval ages functioned in a way that very few foreigners have been able to fully grasp and to understand.

 

I must warn you, though, that if you persist on stating that Åsa most likely was a (illegitimate?) daughter of Ulf Holmgeirsson you will not only face conclutions made by mediocre Norwegian genealogists. You may agree or disagree with Lars-Olof Larsson, but you cannot ignore his conclusions. But it is not only him and Atle Steinar Langekiehl who have contributed to the complete falsification of your hypothesis. You must also relate to the world's foremost expert on the Leijonbalk family, the undisputed nestor of Swedish genealogy dr. Hans Gillingstam.

 

Then back to Åsa Ulfsdotter and the Evje-diploma. If you had known your historiography, which is always useful, you would have also known that the 1420 diploma from Evje was brought up in this connection by the late Tore H. Vigerust in a discussion on this forum in 2005. A brief debate put it down as not connectable to the Åsa Ulfsdotter at Elline. On top of geographical distance and the lack of the appropriate noble title the main reason was that the Åsa from the Evje-diploma could not have been married to Olav Torsteinson when she gave her power of attorney to Gunsten Thorgrimsson. Knut Fjogstad assumed that the Evje-Åsa probably was a sister of Gro Ulfsdotter who lived in the same area, again proving how common the name Ulf was in Norway.

 

 

[Leif Biberg Kristensen]

“Arguing with anonymous strangers on the Internet is a sucker's game because they almost always turn out to be—or to be indistinguishable from—self-righteous sixteen-year-olds possessing infinite amounts of free time.” -- Neal Stephenson

[JR Olsen]

How many times do I have to say it before you get it. There is no proof. My research was based on certainty. I did not come here claiming to have proof.

 

Here is the main problem pertaining to NST. You claim that your textual material is scientific. You claim that the writings on Asa Ulfsdatter are scientific. One does not have to be highly intelligent to see that there is nothing scientific about the statements made on Asa Ulfsdatter. In that regard the statements are misleading. You did not have to state that the articles are backed by science. You could have provided the articles and let the quality or lack thereof be determine by the readers. You are too free with the use of the word scientific. If you did not include the word scientific with the articles, I would not have posted here. There is nothing scientific about the articles, especially the text involving Arnstein Ulfson and the article by Lars Olof Larsen. There is nothing scientific about the article on Asa Ulfsdatter written by Lars Loberg.

 

Do not make the mistake of attempting to insult my intelligence. I will make you appear to be in kindergarten. You are doing the same as you are accusing me of doing. I have 30+ years of studies on human behaviour. I could write a book detailing the mentality of NST. By the way, Lars Loberg, you did not make me lose my temper. I always remain calm. I understand that it is not easy to understand the tone of text or the author of said text.

 

The only reason I challenged Lars Loberg was due to his "evaluation" of my summary. Who evaluates a summary?

 

As for your statement on my identity. I did not properly identify myself on the NSF due to not wanting any association with said NSF. As for on this forum, well the staff and I know why. Simply put, it is none of your business.

 

I did not attempt to prove that the articles were wrong. I firmly stated that there is no science behind them (pertaining to Asa Ulfsdatter). I challenge you to send copies of said articles to scientists and ask for an evaluation on the scientific content.

 

Mr Gustavsen, is that enough clarity for you? The remaining components of your last post are nonsense so I will not entertain them.

 

Lars Loberg, you continue to manipulate textual material and interpretations. I have no further interest in wasting my time with a pompous.....

 

 

[Berit Gullbekk]

http://forum.arkivverket.no/forum-6/announcement-2-ordensregler-for-debattene/

[Lars Løberg]

I can only conclude that the words science and scientific has a completely different bearing in Europe and in the US. Lars-Olof Larsson's study was published by the University in Lund in a series of scientific publikations. My article was published in a journal certified by Norsk samfunnsvitenskapelig datatjeneste as a scientific journal. Scandinavian universities as well as NSD promote scientific research in the traditional scholarly meaning of the word.

 

Lund has produced scholars for more than 500 years. To state that there is nothing scientific about the article (thesis and book, not article) by Lars-Olof Larsson could have been seen as an insult both towards professor Larsson and his University, but the allegation is so insane that it says a whole lot more about the source of the allegation than what it says about a Swedish scholar and his alma mater.

 

You may be able to write a whole book on the mentality of NST (interesting byitself, since NST is the journal, not a person or groups thereoff), but you seem to be completely incapable of writing even a small scientific article on Åsa Ulfsdotter. That seems strange to me. Then again, for that article you would have been tested. Being tested is probably not your strong side?

[JR Olsen]

Could it be true? Do Lars Loberg and myself possibly agree? Stay tune for the book (humour). I will agree that perhaps the focus on the words science and scientific is different in Norway than other countries. Now, to clarify. I did not say that the meaning is different, but the focus may be different. Perhaps there is a need to agree to disagree on the usage of the words science and scientific. Regardless, I believe that it is ill-fitting to connect the words science and scientific to Asa Ulfsdatter. I will further clarify that I did not state that the overall writings by those authors do not have scientific backings. I did state that the parts relating to Asa Ulfsdatter do not have scientific backings.

 

I am completely capable of such writings. You may be correct on one thing. I may not be able to write any size of an article on Asa Ulfsdatter that would contain scientific backings (since such backings do not exist).

 

I have presented a foundation that the members of NST (or whatever they prefer to be known as) could use to continue their "scientific" research on Asa Ulfsdatter. However, they decide to view it as being useless. Well, it is their lose. Apparently, if one is not a member of such an elite society (Norwegian Genealogy Society) (more humour) then one does not qualify to write thesis, articles, and/or books on any topic within the subjected genealogy.

 

The link provided by Berit. If that was directed to me, and since I have no interest in translating it, it was a waste of your time. I do appreciate your effort.

[Anne Hildrum]

The link Berit provided was the rules for entering the forums here:

 

Før du deltar i debattene, må du kjenne til personvernerklæringen for Arkivverket, og spesielt det som går på deltakelse i debattforane:
"Dersom du ønsker å delta i debatter på digitalarkivet.no, må du gi opplysninger om deg selv slik at de som er ansvarlige for tjenesten, kan se hvem du er. Navnet ditt blir også offentliggjort sammen med debattinlegget.

 

Which states that before you participate in the debates you need to know the privacy rules of Digitalarkivet, and especially those related to the forums.

If you want to join the debates you are required to give information about yourself such that those responsible for the service can see who you are. YOUR name will also be published with your contribution.

You may dislike the rules as a lot do, but they adhere to the rules and post under their full names as Digitalarkivet requires.

 

I guess she assumed you were able to read Norwegian due to the subject you are discussing.

[JR Olsen]

That is disappointing. It is not the Norway I love and admire. Apparently, at least a few, are prejudice towards foreigners posting on this forum and the NSF. If not, they would have checked the usernames on this forum prior to postings comments. As for NSF comments towards foreigners, well, that is expected.

 

Hopefully, this thread can be put to rest. My objective has been reached. One only has to search the name Asa Ulfsdatter and on the first page of results are links to this forum and that other one. Easy and quick. Thank you to all for your assistance.

 

 

[Christian Arentz]

Unnskyld, men jeg forstår ikke helt hvorfor denne debatten fokuserer mere på deltagernes antatte motiver, enn faktiske mulige slektsrelasjoner. Såvidt jeg kan forstå, dreier debatten seg om hvorvidt Åse Ulfsdatter var datter av Ulf Jonsson (sønn av Jon Havoresson), eller av Ulfs søster Cecilia g.m. Ulv Holmgeirsson Lejonbalk.

 

Er dette virkelig en BIG DEAL som fortjener slike opphetede debatter, eller har  jeg misforstått situasjonen?

 

  

[JR Olsen]

Christian Arentz, thank you for a logical post. It is more reasonable than those other guys. The focus should be on the possible/probable parentage to Asa Ulfsdatter. You hit on a key word, motive. The others have a monetary gain to discredit my research/statements. I have nothing to gain or lose. To be honest, I do not care if they believe my research, do not believe my research, or if they print out my research and use it as toilet paper (I think it is ok to say that here).One of the main problems that I have noticed about the discussions/debates/ arguments pertaining to Asa Ulfsdatter is that there are a few individuals wanting to control what others believe and accept in relation to Asa Ulfsdatter. I believe in presenting information and allow each individual to decide how much or how little to place on that research. They may accept all, part of it, or none of it. Each and every person involve in genealogy should have access to all relevant information to read and decide for themselves. No person has the right to deny information to others nor do they have the right to deny a person(s) a probable family history (as long as the probability is not presented as proof)

[Christian Arentz]

As to the signification of scientific, one has to differentiate between social sciences and natural sciences. Personally, I have pursued two master`s degrees within both regimes, one in Norway, and the other one in the United States. Additionally, I have pursued a doctorate combined within the two countries. And it is really astonishing: The focus on the words "science" and "scientific" have very different meanings in Norway as compared to the United States. Not leased the requirements for scientific proofs.

 

 

[JR Olsen]

I believe that I do understand, but you are saying that there are different focus/approach to the use of the words science and scientific?

Have you read the writings on Asa ulfsdatter? If so, and according to the focus in Norway, would you say that those writings have scientific backings?

 

I do appreciate your logical approach to this thread.

[Christian Arentz]

Please show me the writings, if they are avaialble, as I haven`t seen them as yet.

However, in general, your approach of probabilities seems to be within the natural sciences, as i understand your interpretations.

 

 

[JR Olsen]

Here are more questions for anyone qualified to answer.

 

1. Internationally, is one focus believed to be stronger than the other (domination)?

 

2. Is the focus in Norway internationally accepted or approved by the experts?

 

3. Is Norwegian science based on possibility or probability?