Talk:Gokstad ship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"Gokstad Ship" or perhaps better "Gokstad ship" is correct because Gokstad is the name of the farm where the ship happened to be found. We have no idea what the ship's name was, or even if it had a name... Stan 05:02, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


You seem to be correct, Stan (if I did understand your comment correctly). I changed from "The Gokstad was a Viking Ship..." to "The Gokstad ship was a Viking Ship...". Gokstad is a geographical area in Sandefjord, historically related to the farm.

With regards to "ship" or "Ship": perhaps someone else has opinions? Petter Nordby 28 June 2005 22:44 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title of the article then be "Gokstad ship" and not "Gokstad Ship"? Grumpy444grumpy 15:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I think so. One can find plenty of usages either way, but capitalizing "Ship" makes it look too much like an (inappropriate) proper name, to my eyes. Stan 21:56, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the move, "blued" a couple redlinks as it turns out. Stan 14:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Seems like the sensible thing to do. Grumpy444grumpy 14:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Gokstad/Gogstad[edit]

Someone had changed every incidence of Gokstad to Gogstad. I'm pretty sure this is an archaic spelling, or possibly a regional one. Eitherway the commonly used English spelling is 'Gokstad', this is also the official Bokmaal and Nynorsk spelling, Vikingskiphuset and UiO who are the custodians of the ship also term it Gokstadskipet. Please leave it as such or come up with a convincing argument to calling it 'Gogstad'. BodvarBjarki (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Identity of the remains[edit]

According to the museum exhibit, the man buried with the ship died in battle: his bones show evidence of multiple unhealed wounds from edged weapons. (I have photos; there are little red arrows indicating exactly where he was stabbed and slashed.) This doesn't match the description of Olaf Geirstad-Alf's death, hence the citation needed tag. (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

How many crew does it hold again?[edit]

In Construction, we find the line "The ship could carry a crew of 40 men but could carry a maximum of 70" This seems self contradictory, and I'm uncertain what it is intended to mean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC) It has 32 oars, and would need a helmsman, so minimum 33 men. But, it was found with 64 shields on the gunwales. Does this mean it was double-crewed with 2 watches of oarsmen? Or, was it dressed this way for the funeral? I don't know.Dean1954 (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Lienhard source[edit]

Hi, I was curious about sailing properties, and so I looked up the ref nr 9, given as a source for this (text + audio link given there); but this does not contain a word of what the article says. Perhaps Lienhard did say more,, but if so, he did it somewhere else. Anyone know where? T (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)