This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, both in Scandinavia and abroad, prior to the formation of the Kalmar Union in 1397. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
So Pritsak is reported to identify the Ragnvald mentioned in Ed as the daughter son of Fastve with a Ragnvald of the Jarlbanke clan. Mats G. Larsson mentions the first stone in his study "Väringar" about Scandinavians in Byzantium. He is not averse to some speculation, but he does not even mention the Jarlabanke connection, as fas as I can see. The name Ragnvald was not that uncommon. /Pieter Kuiper 13:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, Pritsak does not identify Ragnvaldr of Ed as the "daughter of Fastve". On what do you base that interpretation? Where does it say that Ragnvaldr was a girl?--Berig 13:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does not the dating of the Pr 4 style to the second half of the 11th century pose a bit of a problem for Pritsak's theory? /Pieter Kuiper 14:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how certain we can be about the dating of the styles. This source says that the style pr1 began to be used c. 1010, but Rundata dates Ög81 to the late 10th century.--Berig 14:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
