Talk:Ivar the Boneless

Untitled

A "berserker" who had to be carried on a shield seems like a contradiction in terms. Could we have a source or some clarification? Otherwise, I suggest deletion of this claim. PhD 14:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)PhD

It seems questionable to me, too. Let's see what the authors think. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:17, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

If a child had a defect the Viking drink the child to death. Soo he had no defect

I have OI, but hadn't heard of this guy until I came here. I actually have problems with the theory that he has OI now that I've learned more of him. For one there are elements of his legend which are inconsistent with him having OI. In one case it says that he hacked a monk apart with an ax I believe. Now I don't know of any OIs that could manage that. Another issue is that in part the stories have him as basically asexual. OIs can be asexual, but as far as I know we are no more apt to be that then anyone else. However it matters because in Viking languages impotence or asexuality in a male was sometimes given the slang term of "bonelessness." There is the issue of being carried on a shield, but this could mean he simply had terrible leg injuries at an early point. Also OI is a genetic disorder that doesn't effect your legs alone. It's unlikely, as far as I know, that you could have OI in your legs but the rest of your body be completely normal. Still in some stories they do describe Ivar as a fragile military strategist who did not go out hacking people up. Instead he was only able to survive as a youth because of his father's powerful protection. So there is a theory that there are two Ivars, one of which maybe had OI and the other who was impotent. As the terms for the disparate conditions were similar they got conflated with each other. A support for this is that Ivar has a fairly long lifespan for a tenth century Viking. It was theorized then that they used the birth year for one and the death year for the other. So far that's all very speculative, but it nevertheless sounded plausible to me. Conflating two different people was fairly common in records back then.--T. Anthony 09:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

T. Anthony. We'll never know whether he had a very special kind of OI or not. If I were you, I'd appreciate the fact that even in the brutal dark ages, a man with OI could become a hero and a legend among his people. Note also that according to the sagas, his strengths were not in the body but in the head.--Wiglaf 09:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You may well appreciate it, but the fact is children with any sort of defect were abandoned to die by their parents. Not to mention even someone in full, good health was likely to die during childhood, someone with some kind of illness was dealt an even worse hand. In a warrior culture like the Norsemen had, no one would have followed a cripple into battle. No one would even respect him or let him have any power whatsoever. ÞunoresWrǣþþe (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

-less mean: loose. And in the fixed phrases: "be on the loose" or "give a loose" mean "loose" move unhampered. He get this byname becorse he drag the ships from the Baltic across ice and snow to the navigable Russia rivers and in the springtime he sail to attack Constantinople. The attack was completely crazy, but a total surprise. And he get a big payment for sail home, by the Mediterranean. He get blue (back?) men in Spain.

-less (-laus) means loose,yes but not in this case where it is used after "bein", bein also has a double meaning as it can be bone or leg. Norsealex (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Well okay. I'm both an OI and an aspiring historian though. (I'm getting my Master's soon, hopefully) Historically I think the evidence I've read so far hasn't really impressed me that he is OI. A part of me is pleased by the idea, but I like caution on declaring anyone anything. In part because if we someday find convincing evidence he's not it'll just look embarrassing. Still it is a theory that's importantly linked to him so I'm not doubting it's worth mentioning.--T. Anthony 01:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You'll also have to judge the sources differently. If Anglo-Saxon sources describe him as a brutal berserker who did things that an OI can not, they may have demonized and exaggerated him. The Scandinavian sources, AFAIK, only describe him as a planner and advisor, a more realistic role for an OI.--Wiglaf 06:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Here is what the Scandinavians said about their hero:

'He had only cartilage in his legs and so he could not walk, but had to be carried on a shield. However, it is said he was fair, big, strong and one of the wisest men who have ever lived. He was consequently the advisor of his brothers Björn Ironside, Sigurd Snake-Eye and Hvitserk.

This sounds like a man who is disabled, but whose personal qualities made him a legend together with his father and brothers.--Wiglaf 08:33, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Ivar Vidfamne is the same as Ivar the Boneless

Haabet, we are already dealing with your theories on the Swedish Wikipedia and the Danish has been averted. I guess I have to open that rfc on you.--Wiglaf 20:13, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I have a new concept. A Categorie: Verbal Traditions

soo is any conflict by historial source without importance. Haabet 10:24, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

There is already such a category: Category:Norse mythology.--Wiglaf 21:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

An old (but interesting) article in support of the OI theory can be found here: http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/i-m/ivarr01a.html .

I intend to include this link in the article --Crais459 15:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Another possibility I haven't seen mentioned, given that the word could be interpreted to mean loose bones is Hypermobility (joints) - a (sometimes) inherited condition in which the joints have much greater flexibility than normal. This condition runs in my family (every generation for at least 5 generations, including a note in a census in the 1800s), and we have Norse blood going even further back. In a severe case, it would allow someone to appear boneless at times, but would still allow them to be a berserker, particularly as in hand-to-hand combat, I found the flexibility nullified many opposing moves that rely on joint limits to work (ie throws, headlocks and armlocks). Downside was always being terrible at arm wrestling as the leverage normally found is missing. - NiD.29 (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Boneless or legless??

Should inn beinlausi really be translated boneless?? The concept is shocking(ly funny)! Bein also refers to legs, which may be a more plausible reason for the adnomen. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 23:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The translation is widely used in modern texts. We would need reliable support for an alternative. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 22:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Deleted. I didn't know what i was talking about.69.158.124.203 (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Tale of Ragnar's Sons (Old Norse: Ragnarssona Þáttr) the nickname Boneless was given to him because of his impotence: "Ivar the Boneless was king in England for a long time. He had no children, because of the way he was: with no lust or love"

In my source of the þáttur, the punctuation is different so the meaning is that he had no lust or love because of the way he was made. It also does not say that his lack of lust is the source of his nickname. So reading it as a sequel to Ragnars Saga Loðbrókar it seems more that it is referring back to a well known story that he was born with cartilage instead of bones. Óli Gneisti (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• I heard of a real modern case of where a baby was born with all cartilages instead of bones, and it caused so much deformity that he would not have been able to go on an active life like a viking. But, for another sort of "bonelessness", see Cleidocranial dysostosis (double-jointed shoulders because he was born without collarbones). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneless a minor character in Cornwell's novel

Just going to change that quickly. The article says that he is a major character in the novel, although he is referred to frequently as a great warrior he only has a few spoken words and is irrelevant in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.102.141 (talk) 16:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneless and "Ímar, king of the Northmen of all Britain and Ireland"

At the moment, this article is really about the (fictional) character from the sagas, along with a teensy bit of history and some modern culture stuff. Should it be entirely about the saga character, with McTurk et al's (unconvincing, YMMV) arguments in favour of historicity and historical-Ivarr in another article, or should there be one article on both? It seems normal (contrary to what I did with "Olaf the White") to do both in one article. If it's both, the article can hardly remain at Ivar the Boneless, but Ivarr redirects here, so there's no problem with what to call it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ivar the Boneless is a literary and historical topic of high note independently of anything else, and IMHO when all else is equal it is preferable to treat him in his own right as long as his identification with any character of clearer historicity is purely theoretical and no more than plausible or possible. Of course, the two can be easily cross-referenced; I suppose you'd have to weigh the strength of the arguments. I'd lean towards keeping the two together if their identification is highly likely or virtually certain, but I'd lean to the opposite for anything below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Downham, Woolf, O Corrain and Hudson are in varying degrees skeptical, Downham and O Corrain very much so and Woolf simply ignores Ragnar's saga in Pictland to Alba so far as I can see. Hudson appends his comments with "If the identity between the Irish and English Ívarrs is accepted ..." and Barbara Crawford also has "if" in Scandinavian Scotland. O Croinin, Early Medieval Ireland, says of the identification "the matter is controversial". Stenton too is uncommitted, "... there are many difficulties in the way of the identification ..." of Ingwar and Ímar. Jones's History of the Vikings is quite dismissive when it comes to "Olaf the White" and doesn't take Ímar in Ireland to be the same person as Ingwar in England, identifying the English one with Ivar the Boneless; Boyer's Les Vikings treats Ingwar/Ivar the Boneless as distinct from Ívarr, brother of Amlaíb. Keynes, "Viking in England" in the Oxford Ill. Hist. of the Vikings says "Ivar, if assumed to be Ímar ...". Kirby is non-committal in The Earliest English Kings. Wormald in Campbell's The Anglo-Saxon says "probably" Ivar the Boneless. Good old A.P. Smyth, of course, takes them to be one and the same, no doubt at all, while McTurk is only marginally less enthusiastic. It's not just recently that this has been a bone of contention. Lest Mr Lauder come along and accuse me of recentist bias, I checked some old books. In 1862 Robertson treated the identification as only tradition, in 1922 Walsh said that the Ivar the Boneless and Ímar "may be identified", while Moore's 1840s history of Ireland treated Ímar and Ingwar as different people, Ingwar being Ragnar's son. Plus ça change. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a recentist bias; otherwise we'll have FAs on Tasmanian sub-humans and such. Anyways, Woolf in the "Age of Sea-Kings" says:

By the middle of the tenth century the islands seem to have fallen within the imperium of the dynasty claiming descent from Ímar (known to the Icelanders as Ivarr the Boneless) who had died in 873. (p. 95)

I think what I'd say is that if Imar didn't have an influence on the tradition of Ivarr the Boneless, then you've got a situation where a guy powerful enough to create such a dynastic imperium and with all the poets and prestige of all those ancestors ... you got a situation where a guy like that isn't remembered in Icelandic tradition! Doesn't seem very plausible to me; but that doesn't matter. Your comprehensive survey of the secondary literature has enough scepticism in it that we as impartial regurgitators can't portray it as highly likely without being imbalanced; so I'd say prolly they should be treated separately. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Original research

Let's just take a look at this (and I note there are no citations at all in the section - Saxo is referred to but where is this in Saxo?: "However, in all other sources, yet all possibly later than Saxo's, the father of Sigurd Ring is given as Randver. But this is where their agreement ends and each give Randver a different ancestry, three in all. Perhaps the most plausible of these alternatives is that offered by the Hervarar saga, which gives his father as Valdar, an attractive answer in part because a certain Valdar, perhaps once identical, is named as an ancestor of the mighty Ivar Vidfamne who himself very well may contribute to the character and/or possibly be an ancestor of Ivar II Beinlaus. In any case theirs is a Danish or Scyldinglineage."

However, in all other sources - who says this?

yet all possibly later than Saxo's who says this?

the father of Sigurd Ring is given as Randver. But this is where their agreement ends and each give Randver a different ancestry, three in all. who says this?'

Perhaps the most plausible of these alternatives who says it is the most plausible?

is that offered by the Hervarar saga, which gives his father as Valdar, an attractive answer in part who calls it an attractive answer?

because a certain Valdar, perhaps once identical,who says this?

is named as an ancestor of the mighty Ivar Vidfamne who himself very well may contribute to the character and/or possibly be an ancestor of Ivar II Beinlaus. who says this?

In any case theirs is a Danish or Scylding lineage. presumably this is easily cited, but it would be nice to have a cite. Dougweller (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I confess to not having done the best with the ancestry section. The majority of it is innocently enough pieced together from this and that which I have come across, and uncharacteristically for me I do not cite any secondary sources. The sources I refer to are the primary ones themselves and the section I guess assumes too much familiarity. As far as Valdar being identical with Valdar, and thus making the Hervarar saga account more plausible, it is possible I have genuinely messed up and am guilty of a little synth or even OR there, and I say this because I can't remember my source, although it seems I have a memory of there once being one (who could just be me). I feel like I came across something or someone saying that but I'm not sure enough. It was all quite a while ago. OR of that type is not like me, but I have taken a course or two in Old Norse literature and could have played the academic here. DinDraithou (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is mainly about Ragnars (possible) ancestry, and as such if you/we/anyone manage to get this section into shape it really belongs in that article (too). High kings, Vikings and other kings may be of help, I'll send it to you Din (it's a good read, although poor Smyth really gets astrapping from O Corrain - almost a violoation of "no personal attacks" I'd say...) Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I also sent you Marios Costambeys' ODNB biography on Ivar, although this doesn't discuss ancestry at all. Finn Rindahl (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Smyth is victimised by everyone. Seemingly the Cambridge ASNC cabal wanted to have him burned as a witch! ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So looking back at what I removed, only that part about the two Valdars was possibly some variety of OR. But the whole section had another problem: while perhaps it was nearly all sourceable, it probably wasn't for the most part to the more superior secondary sources. Thus it was not the best. So we need a discussion of a very different nature. I have studied a little of the material in the past, for example Saxo, but it was literary and philological, not historical. DinDraithou (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ivar who?

As long as this article focuses (mainly) on the son of Ragnar Lodbrok, Ivar the Boneless is probably the best name per Wikipedia standards. I'm more concerned that the lead of the article doesn't really define the different references to "Ivar" we seem to be mashing together here: Ivar of the Irish annals, the shadowy Ivar of the English sources and the son of the legendary Ragnar. I see this has been discussed on this page earlier (2008) - but either way, "Ivar Ragnarsson" isn't as far as I can tell a more historical accurate name than "Ivar the Boneless".

I was about to add a cn for "Ivar [the Boneless] is widely believed to be identical with the founder of the Uí Ímair or House of Ivar", but on second thought it may be better to rewrite that part instead of digging up on of many (now rather outdated compared to recent scholarly debate) references for this - perhaps "traditionally believed" with addition of some qualification from Corrain, Downham or Etchingham? Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for that, but would also like to see a separate article for the historical figure. As far as the legendary character, I chose Ragnarsson just because "Boneless" is controversial and not well sourced. Actually a number of our articles here at Wikipedia on persons of Norse derivation active in Britain and Ireland have arbitrarily chosen names. Some scholars like to look smart by pedantically using their reconstructions of the Norse forms and this has inspired some interesting behavior here. I gave Ivar his patronymic, which is used in some scholarship and popular literature, if you try both "Ivar Ragnarsson" and "Ivarr Ragnarsson" at books.google.com DinDraithou (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Same problem with Erik Bloodaxe, but it's the WP:COMMONNAME. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:35, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but at least the issue is addressed regarding Eric. It is of course not fair to compare these two articles, as Cavila has done a very decent job with Eric (and says he'll do more next year...) while none of us has really made the same kind of efforts with Ivar. Finn Rindahl (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but at least the issue is addressed regarding Eric. Not sure I understand ... how?Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:52, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I meant that in Eric's article both the epithet and the possibility that different Erics are combined in later writings is discussed properly. I was not referring to the article title - both Eric of Norway and Eric of Northumbria will be called "bloodaxe" forever - even if Downhams "axing" should gain more support :). Apologies for mixing title and content in my ramblings... Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you mean that the current Ivar the Boneless article doesn't argue the case for different Ivars strongly enough? I think that that should be addressed in the article with reference to the title. Just like in the Erik article, having separate articles would itself be boundary WP:NPOV violation ... so we probably settle on having one article. if we do that, WP:COMMONNAME comes in. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think additional information regarding the "different Ivars" should be presented, adn if I ever have the time, sources and inclination present at the same time I may try to do that (chances are it will not happen though). I also think that a new discussion on a possible split should wait until relevant information is presented. One thing is "Ivar the Boneless" from the sagas versus the Imair/Inguar of the annals, a different thing is the identification between Inguar (brother of Halfdan) of the English sources vs Imair of the Irish sources. Corrain challenges this identification in "High kings, Vikings and other Kings", and a forthcoming paper by Etchingham (from Oslo 2005) also seem to assume they are different as well. But until such time that the article is expanded with these and other sources, the title should indeed be "Ivar the Boneless". Finn Rindahl (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

It sounds stupid, but whatever. I'm actually hoping the two are different. Imar's title is imperial and the Inguar of the English sources is not. Mary Valante argues Imar was like Olaf, Norwegian not Danish. If you ask me the Norwegians were in a better position than the Danes at the time to establish an imperium. Valante argues that the dynasty got going in a sort of Norwegian push-back, when the Danes tried to establish overlordship but found themselves overpowered. DinDraithou (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. Incidentally, I think it unlikely that they will be able to demonstrate different Ivars. If the English and Irish ones are the same, the Scandinavian saga guy will be this guy ... or at least, it could never be proven otherwise, as there's no way of proving any Scandinavian tradition independent of insular sources. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Location of the mound

I happened upon [1] in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AvXAAAAAIAAJ page 75. which claims that the burial was somewhere near Wauldby ie In Yorkshire .. one near Braffords and Wauldby Wood which is probably that in which Ivar Beenlose ... etc

This seems so obviously wrong ie William the Conquerer in Yorkshire before the Battle of Hastings.. it makes me wonder why the claim was made..

Anyway - are there any more likely burial places that could be mentioned in the text?? Thanks. Mddkpp (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Most compelling evidence comes from the dig by Biddle and Biddle at the site of the Great Army's burial place at Repton. Wilfridselsey (talk) 12:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Spelling Change

Changed the Old Norse spelling of Ivar's name - it is no longer "Īvarr", rather, it is now "Ívarr"; this is to keep in line with Old Norse transcription tradition. 93.184.91.103 (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Ivar and Ímar

A new editor changed

Ivar is widely believed to be identical to Ímar, apparent ancestor and founder of the Uí Ímair, or House of Ivar, a dynasty which at various times from the mid-9th through the 10th century ruled Northumbria from the capital of York, and dominated the Irish Sea region from the Kingdom of Dublin.

to:

Ivar is by some historians believed to be identical to Ímar, apparent ancestor and founder of the Uí Ímair, or House of Ivar, a dynasty which at various times from the mid-9th through the 10th century ruled Northumbria from the capital of York, and dominated the Irish Sea region from the Kingdom of Dublin. However, in the Irish annals, especially the annals of Ulster, witch are believed to be a contemporary source, Ímair is described as being king of all the Lochlanns in Ireland and on the British isles. In the Irish annals people of Norse/Norwegian decent are often refered to as Lochlanns, and it was widely believed by historians that Lochlann was identical to Norway. This is however questioned by many historians today, witch believe Lochlann may have been used to describe the isles around Scotland. The location of Lochlann is a matter of some debate, although there is no dispute that Lochlanns was a generic description for Norwegian-based warriors and/or insular forces of Norse descent based in the Norðreyjar or Suðreyjar and latterly in Ireland itself.

I reverted, saying that the source didn't discuss Ivar. It was returned with an edit summary saying "Annals of Ulster 873" and as I still could find nothing about the bulk of the edit in the source (only Imar) I again removed it saying "I have read the source and can't find anything about these historians, etc - please discuss at talk page". I've been told "The entry in the Annals for the year 873 clearly describes Imair as the leader of all the Norsemen in Britain and Ireland." But the Annals are being used as a source for the whole paragraph even though it doesn't mention historians, the location of Lochlann, etc. We can only use the annals as a source for Imar and even then as it's a primary source we should be focusing on what academics say about this statement in the annals. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey. First off, Im new to wiki, so you have to excuse my beginner failures, regarding replaying in the correct places and such. But, the point i was trying to make is as following: You are writing that Ivar and Imar are widely believed to be the same person. In my opnnion this is not correct, as this is very much a matter of debate, with plenty of scholars on both side. Further on, since you wrote about the possibility of the connection, i found the irish annals mentioning of Imar as rellevant.

Some historians believe Ímar and Ivar the Boneless to be identical, others claim they are two different individuals. Acording to Irish annals, Ímar was the son of Gofraid (also Goffridh, Gothfraid or Guðrøðr), witch was the king of Lochlann. The Norwegians at this point was often referred to as Lochlanns by the Irish. Lochlann was widely accepted among scholars as being identical to Norway, recently however this has been questioned, among others by Donnchadh Ó Corráin. His and others theory is that Lochlann was the "viking Scotland" (Norse/Norwegian settlements on the Scottish islands and northern mainland). Whether the Irish annals refered to Lochlann as Norway or to the Norse settlements is Scotland is still a matter of debate, however by the 11th century the term had come to mean Norway. Acording to Donnchadh Ó Corráin there is no evidence that any branch of the royal Danish dynasty ruled in Ireland. He also claims that Ímar´s brother, Amlaíb Conung, witch often has been identified as part of the royal Norwegian dynasty (Ynglingene) was infact not. He strongly argues for that both Ímar and his brothers were part of a Norse dynasty sentered in and around the Scottish mainland.

The Norwegian historian Kim Hjardar and archaeologist Vegard Vike claims that Ímar is the same person as the Dane Ivar the Boneless, and that he and the Norwegian chieftain Amlaíb Conung (Olaf the White) arrived in Ireland as leaders of a coalition of vikings, witch goal was to take control over the viking settlements in Ireland. When the Irish annals describes Ímar and Amlaíb Conung as brothers, Hjardar and Vike claims that this has to be interpitated as a metaphor for "warrior brothers" or "brothers in arms".

My referances dont work here, but head over to the "Uí Ímair" page here on wikipedia, they should work there. And please excuse my lack of experience.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattamatikk (talk • contribs) 22:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC) --Mattamatikk (talk) 22:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Refs

Thanks. You're new and there can be a big learning curve here. My point was that the source, the Annals, didn't discuss the main material in the text you added. You obviously have sources for that and should use them. Read WP:VERIFY, WP:RS and WP:NOR. And I haven't done much in this article, certainly I didn't write the bit you are discussing. Good luck. You might need help with citations. Dougweller (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Ímar

These two pages might be better served merged or at least incorporate information across them Smasongarrison (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

A problem is that there is no consensus amongst historians that they are the same person, as you can see at Ímar#Origins. Ben MacDui 19:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Ditto, no scholarly consensus that these are instances of the same person. Against a merge, but all for sharing scholarly information across articles, where sourced of course. 2600:1700:1111:5940:D9F6:63D1:857A:104 (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

This is ALL WRONG

This one thing is wrong almost every bit. And even spelled wrong… 71.31.3.189 (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

King of Lochlann reference

Hi, I'm researching this period for a book and wanted to know where this information comes from. This particular point is not referenced. I suspect it is correct but wondered what was the original source? Thanks.

'The identification of the king of Laithlind as Gothfraid (i.e., Ímar's father) was added by a copyist in the 17th century. In the original 11th-century manuscript, the subject of the entry was simply called righ Lochlann ("the king of Lochlainn"), which more than likely referred to Ímar, whose death is not otherwise noted in the Fragmentary Annals.' PH8288 (talk) 12:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)