Talk:Frisii

Article updated

Updated the article with much expanded (and I hope, better) material. Created the talk page with banners. Notuncurious (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Continental.coast.150AD.Germanic.peoples.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Continental.coast.150AD.Germanic.peoples.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

The 150AD image shows the province of Flevoland it seems, land that was not there until the 1980's or so. Urk is not an island, also faulty. The whole Zyderzee is not there. Currentday Zeeland province also shows current borders with the Deltaworks, it is impossible all that land could be anywhere near dry if they are not in place. Deleting the image is probably for the best. -Lezzmeister — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.251.185.210 (talk) 13:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Relationship between ancient Frisii and modern day Frisians

I'm confused about something in the Frisii article. In the lead, we read:

• The Frisii were an ancient Germanic tribe living in the low-lying region between the Zuiderzee and the River Ems, who are the ancestors of the modern-day ethnic Frisians.

but in the article on Frisians, in the section Frisians#History, the second paragraph is:

• From the 3rd through the 5th centuries Frisia would suffer marine transgressions that made most of the land uninhabitable, aggravated by a change to a cooler and wetter climate.[7][8][9][10] Whatever population that the Romans had allowed to remain dropped dramatically, and the coastal lands would remain largely unpopulated for the next two centuries. When conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly Angles andSaxons, who intermarried with what remained of the earlier population. These people would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians.

It seems to me that the first statement from the Frisii article is not strongly supported by the information in the paragraph from the Frisians article. Could someone who knows this subject clarify this for me? CorinneSD (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's possible both are correct. Where would the Frisii have gone when their lands flooded? Most likely they would move to the nearest high ground, lands thought to be occupied by the Angles and Saxons. Moreover, this process would take awhile and be gradual, barring a very sudden change of climate. So this "Angle and Saxon" population on the fringes of the old Frisii territory would be significantly Frisii, such that when the "Angles and Saxons" moved into the Frisian lands, amongst their number would be large numbers of Frisii descendants, along with the remnant Frisii still living there. It seems improbable from a logical point of view for the Frisii to have just disappeared and dispersed into the wider Germanic world rather than trying to stay on in the nearest high ground, from where they would hope to return to their lands, given that as individuals and families they would have no way to predict how long their lands would be flooded. So while the Frisians are "not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii", in all probability they substantially are. There's just no way at present to prove this conjecture. D P J (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not too sure about that. Archeology shows that, in the days of the migration period, the lands of the Frisii (as Tacitus described them) became unpopulated for some time. Later repopulation coincided with the migration of Angles, Saxons and Jutes to Britain. Since the English language seems to be somewhat related to the present West Frisian language, the conclusion that some of them stayed behind and settled there to become the "new" Frisians is not altogether impossible. Some theories about ethnogenesis in the migration period include that people who invaded and settled in a new area, took the name of the former inhabitants of that country, because they were associated with that name by the outside world. The Boi (from Bohemia) and the Toi (from Thuringia) for instance, both Celtic tribes, were replaced by a Slavic and Germanic population during these times. They took the name of the new country they were residing in. Bohemians and Thuringians took an invented identity. The same could be true of the modern Frisians. The historian Blok, writer of the Dutch work "De Franken in Nederland" (The Franks in the Netherlands) suggested that the old population of the Frisian lands (Tacitus's Frisii) moved away to the south to join the Franks. Just to be replaced by people from Saksony and the Jutland peninsula (Angles, Juts and what have you). The use of the "sk" or "sch" combination in the modern Frisian language (which also occurs in Dutch) may be an implication of their partly Scandinavian heritage. Of course this is all very ambiguous. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

The original text is far too dramatic here and echoes Dutch language expressions (sloppy use of future tense and pluperfect). I made some repairs. There is indeed archeological evidence of a remaining population, especially in the Groningen area. The general idea that depopulation was the result of sea level rise is outdated since two decades, though general surveys still repeat the older view. Long-term tectonic movements are largely irrelevant here; moreover, in some regions (e.g. Jutland) they actually led to surface rise! Climatic deterioration might have resulted in more storm surges, but cooling off is inversely linked to long-term sea level rise. Most village sites have been silted over, but this might as well be the result of migration wars, depopulation and lacking maintenance of terps and ditches.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The Dutch wiki-page for the Frisii mentions since a few days the relation between the old Frisians and the Franks. Already in 1954 de Bonen demonstrated that at least some part of the Frisians was absorbed into the Franks. But lately it is demonstrated that Frisii and Frank mean both the same. It means both 'free'. There is a saying in the Netherlands 'Frank and Free'. Meant as a doubble confirmation and using alliteration. Very common in the early middel age poetry. So the 'old' Frisians did not just disapear, they started calling themselves with an alternative word for 'Free', most likely when more tribes joined the Franks like the Usipeti, Tencteri, Sugambri en Bructeri. Doesn't it make sense to start with a new name for a new tribe, but still with the same meaning for 'Free' as to say that they do not belong to the Roman Empire? And indeed, the Frisians were never part of the Roman empire. Although they were very friendly towards them and payed a form of taxes. It is very likely that they were economicaly very tight connected to the Romans. Most likely it was not the water that drove them away, as they had already dealed with fluddings for 500 years, but the Roman third century crisis causing hyperflation. In Vlaanderen, less then 400 km to the south, the Roman economical structures stayed in tact and that must have been reason to move. 300 years later the Franks must have still known that the area was called Frisia but it was never important enough to mention. Only when the new Frisians became wealthy in the fith/sixth century it became important enough for the Franks to start writing about the new Frisian inhabitants. We dont know if the Franks remembered the Frisian inherritage like they still new that some Franks were of Sugambri descent. Lz89z1 (talk) 19:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

We should keep in mind that Wikipedia aims to summarize what has been published in the fields with the most relevant expertise. It is not part of our mission to debate beyond what is published. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Huns?

The article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huns says:

 In the German "Saga of Tidreck of Bern", its written versions beginning from the 13th century, the Huns are called Frisians. Frisia was often called Hunaland in the Middle Ages.[111][112]

Is this correct? If so, it should be mentioned on this page. Bayle Shanks (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

excess speculative material about neighbouring peoples in the lead

I have removed the following from the lead. It currently does not reflect anything explained in more convincing detail in the body of the current article, is not well-sourced, and it interrupts discussion of the Frisii themselves. Perhaps something similar but better written can eventually be integrated into the body of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

In the Germanic pre-Migration Period (i.e., before c. 300 AD) the Frisii and the related Chauci, Saxons, and Angles — so closely related that their languages were probably mutually intelligible, Old Frisian considered the closest language to Old English — inhabited the Continental European coast from the Zuyder Zee to south Jutland. All of these peoples shared a common material culture, and so cannot be defined archaeologically. On the east they were originally bordered by the Ampsivarii who lived at the mouth of the Ems until AD 58, at which time the Chauci expelled them and gained a border with the Frisii. The Chauci to the east were eventually assimilated by their presumed descendants the Saxons in the 3rd century.

References

article needs some work

I think it will not surprise watchers of this article if I say that the boundary between this article and Frisians, and to a lesser extent Frisiavones is not so clear right now, or easy for readers or editors to follow. We might need to move things between the articles. Comments/advice welcome. Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

According to the way the articles about Frisia are currently set-up, with the strong emphasis on the appearance and re-appearance of the Frisii/Frisians, the section in this article about Frisians in early medieval literature really shouldn't be in this article at all, but rather in one about the "Frisians". To possible destination articles I'm looking at are Frisians and History of Frisia. Neither is really in a state where it will be easy to fit this section yet, but it seems like something to work towards unless someone has a better idea.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

Concerning the archaeology of the migration period the Bazelmans 2009 article is a good one we already have but as it says, at that time more archaeological work was needed. Therefore I have been looking for newer sources, and found many, but this means I should delete this material from the article. I place it here in case we see something we still need:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

If there were any Frisii left in Frisia, they fell victim to the whims of nature, civil strife and piracy. After several hundred years of favorable conditions, the natural environment in the low-lying coastal regions of northwestern Europe began to deteriorate c. 250 AD and gradually worsened over the next 200 years. Rising sea levels and storm surges combined to flood some areas. Many deserted village sites were silted over. The situation was probably aggravated by a shift to a cooler, wetter climate in the region as well as by the introduction of malaria and other epidemic diseases. In the 3rd and 4th centuries the population of Frisia steadily decreased, and by the 5th century it dropped dramatically. Archaeological surveys indicate that only small pockets of the original population stayed behind (e.g. in the Groningen coastal marshes). The coastal lands remained largely unpopulated for the next one or two centuries. As soon as conditions improved, Frisia received an influx of new settlers, mostly from regions later characterized as Saxon, and these would eventually be referred to as 'Frisians', though they were not necessarily descended from the ancient Frisii. It is these 'new Frisians' who are largely the ancestors of the medieval and modern Frisians. Their Old Frisian language, however, was more intricately related to Old English spoken by their relatives settling abroad, than to the Old Saxon language spoken by the people staying behind in Germany. Arguing against the replacement theory, recent excavations in the coastal dunes of Kennemerland show clear indication of a permanent habitation.

References

I think these sections or something like them is really more for the Frisians article, but I preserve them also here for now:--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

Reappearance of "Frisians" in the Middle Ages The Panegyrici Latini in c. 297 is the last mention of the Frisii by that name. There is no mention of them by any other name for nearly three centuries, when the name re-emerges as 'Frisians'. These later references are all connected to the ascendancy of the Franks under the Merovingians, who referred to the people who had resettled the lands of the ancient Frisii as 'Frisians'. The interpretation of these references to 'Frisians' as references to the ancient Frisii has occasionally been made. The Byzantine scholar Procopius, writing c. 565 in his Gothic Wars (Bk IV, Ch 20), said that "Brittia" in his time (a different word from his more usual "Bretannia") was occupied by three peoples: Angles, Frisians (Φρἰσσονες) and Britons. Procopius said that he was relating information from an informant, likely a member of a Frankish delegation to the court at Byzantium, and did not assert the information as fact. Other information that he related included the assertion that there were no horses in Britain, that Hadrian's Wall separated the temperate parts of the island from the uninhabitable parts, and that 'countless people' had attested that Britain was the home of dead souls. His information about Britain, while occasionally useful, is not considered authoritative. The Frisians are unlike the Saxons not mentioned in the 6th-century Frankish Table of Nations, nor in the Etymologiae of Isidore of Seville. Venantius Fortunatus was a poet to the Frankish Merovingian court and wrote a eulogy to the Merovingian king Chilperic, who had died in 584. A list of peoples who were said to fear Chilperic's power is given and includes the Frisians, as well as the Suebi, Goths, Basques, Danes, Jutes, Saxons, and Britons. The eulogies of this age were intended to praise the high status of the subject, and the sudden reappearance of a list of old tribal names fitted into poetic meters is given little historical value. The context is poetic license rather than historical accuracy. In the Ravenna Cosmography, composed about 700 on the basis of antique maps and itineraries, the Danes, Saxons en Frisians ("Frisones", "Frigones", "Frixones", or "Frixos") are mentioned together several times. The Frisians ("Fresin" or "Freisin") are (unlike the Saxons) also mentioned in 7th-century Irish lists of the 72 peoples of the world, contained in the Auraicept na n-Éces and in In Fursundud aile Ladeinn, as well as in the poem Cú-cen-máthair by Luccreth moccu Chiara. Here the name of the Frisians is included in a metrical rhyme, wedged between the Franks and the Langobards. The alliterative verse, probably derived from an unknown Frankish source, is also used in Beowulf and Widsith as "Froncum and Frysum" or "mid Froncum … ond mid Frysum". It must have been the base for a popular medieval riddle, Old French "franc o frison", and its Dutch derivate "frank en vrij" ('frankish and free'). The 12th-century Book of Leinster, obviously citing an older tradition, lists the Franks and Frisians, together with the Langobards as guests and subjects of the legendary king Cormac mac Airt. In later literary traditions, such as Layamon's Brut, Frisians are also listed as subjects of King Arthur. Their country, however, was often conflated with Phrygia, the homeland of the Trojans. Based on older traditions might have been the 15th-century Eachtra Thaidg Mhic Céin, which tells the story of slave raiders from the country of the Frisians ("cricha Fresen"), living on the edges of a landscape full of huge sheep and colourfull fowl. Coins with the obverse and reverse inscriptions 'AVDVLFVS FRISIA' and 'VICTVRIA AVDVLFO', as well as 'FRISIA' and 'AVDVLFVS' have been found at Escharen, a village in the Dutch province of North Brabant. The stylistic quality suggests that they are of Northern Frankish origin of that era rather than Frisian, besides which a local production using a self-descriptive country name (i.e., 'FRISIA') would be unheard of in that era. In medieval literature Frisia appears in the Old English heroic poem Beowulf, which tells a story of events of the early 6th century, as well as in the Widsith and several other poems. In Beowulf, the Geatish king Hygelac is killed while raiding Frisia. It has been noted that Gregory of Tours (c. 538–594) mentioned a Danish king Chlochilaichus who was killed while invading Frankish territory in the early 6th century, suggesting that, in this instance, Beowulf might have a basis in historical facts. However, Gregory was writing little more than fifty years after the events and may have based his story on eyewitness accounts, yet he makes no mention of Frisia or the Frisians. The poems are not considered by scholars to give a reliable account of historical events, as they largely rely on literary conventions, lore and tradition. As a reflection of these conventions and as a mirror of the society in which they emerged, they are, nevertheless, an important source. The Historia Brittonum by Nennius gives a list of 33 ancient cities of Britain, among them 'Cair Peris', its location unspecified. It also contains a reference to the Picts and Orkney and a place 'ultra mare Frenessicum'. The 'Cair' in 'Cair Peris' is reasonably taken to be Welsh 'Caer' (fort), while 'Peris' is a matter of speculation and conjecture, including the supposition that it is a reference to 'Frisians'. In the context of the Historia, the 'mare Frenessicum' coincides nicely with the Firth of Forth. While the Historia is often useful to scholars, it is also the source of storyline details that have no discernible provenance. It was written more than 500 years after the last unambiguous reference to the ancient Frisii (the Panegyrici Latini in c. 297), and at a time when medieval Frisia and the Frisians were playing a dominant role in North Sea trade. The idea that the Frisians might have settled in Scotland and Ireland has triggered several imaginative histories. Some 19th-century writers even suggested that the Fomorians actually may have been Frisians, based on the disputed etymology of Fomorians as 'the underseas ones'. These suggestions, however, have not been followed up by subsequent research and their conclusions are not supported by modern scholarship.

References