Talk:Curmsun Disc

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Archaeology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Archaeology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Archaeology 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Norse history and culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the North Germanic 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sweden Low‑importance Sweden portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Denmark Low‑importance Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Poland Low‑importance Poland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Poland 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Reference to Mr. Ben Affleck

Section "Origin" contains the following statement:

"....The entrance to the crypt was accidentally discovered by 12-year-old (according to Swedish archaeologist Sven Rosborn) Heinrich Boldt (actor Ben Affleck's maternal great-great grandfather), who was playing with some younger children at a construction site near the ruined chapel. ...."

This statement -as far as it concerns Mr. Affleck's maternal ancestry- lacks profound prove!

It is totally correct and absolutely proven that Mr. Affleck's maternal great-great grandfather is a man who emigrated from Prussia to the US anytime before 1850. His name -at least partly- anglicized was, Henry Boldt. BUT: it is not proven at all, that this "Henry Boldt" is identical with the said-to-be "Henry Boldt / Heinrich Boldt" who "accidentally discovered the Curmsun Disc".BorEliz20 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, and it has been removed again as unsourced (and irrelevant trivia) by me and an anon editor.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Failed verification, ambiguous use of terms

"Surface analysis by a gemologist, Jonny Westling,[ref 1: westlingvardering.se] appointed by the Swedish Chamber of Commerce and Lloyd's/Brookfield Underwriting, Stockholm, showed natural inclusions and patination.[ref 2: thecurmsundisc.com]

1. Ref 2 from this sentence failed verification, see The Curmsun Disc website – Metallurgical Analysis. Accessed today, seems complete, but has nothing on who appointed the gemologist, Jonny Westling. His website connects to this Wiki article, maybe he added the info (not allowed)?
2. "Swedish Chamber of Commerce": which? There are several. Maybe The Swedish Chamber of Commerce for the United Kingdom, but maybe not.
3. "natural inclusions": Meaning what? Metals in the alloy contained impurities from smelting process, or casting mistake (see Inclusion (casting))? Arminden (talk) 13:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

   Nothing happened her yet, @Arminden. I reakted now, when looking at the Swedish article on this and then check here. To namedrop a persons webpage (Westling) with no link to the dish does not make it a source. I delete it now. Adville (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No mention of dubious authenticity

Danish archeologists are highly dubious about the entire story of Sven Rosborn and the claimed events surrounding its disovery, and have questioned whether the disk is authentic at all. I don't think this article can be considered neutral or objective untill this perspective is prominently included. Here s a danish webarticle about Rosborn's claims, and reactions from Danish and Norwegian archeologists. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I added a short section with this information. Mårtensås (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone removed it wholesale, so I added it back with a bit of expansion and elaboration.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@Maunus: Could there be a possible WP:COI with user AnnSydow? Over 7 years they have only edited pages closely related to Sven Rosborn's publications, removing critical opinions (diff 1 from 2019, diff 2 from 2023 that removed my section), (re)adding irrelevant information about Ben and Casey Affleck (diff 1, diff 2) or uncritical photos of the Curmsun disc in various articles such as Pomerania during the Early Middle Ages (diff), Ottonian art (diff), and Crux gemmata (diff).

Clearly this is not a regular history interest; the user is only focused on this specific disk and on citing Sven's publications, and over an extended time period as well. From the username and the language (academic English, but with some telling grammatical errors like "Page are ready", "US Americans" and referring to "as described in Swedish newspapers" which indicates familiarity with the language), they seem to be Swedish. Personally connected to Sven? Mårtensås (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Or emotionally connected to Ben Affleck, who knows. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The user just returned to remove a reliable source, add an unreliable source, and change the meaning in the "Authenticity controversy" section. The authors of that source do not appear to believe that the disc is authentic in any way, so softening the language to "dating" sounds like an NPOV violation to me. Woodroar (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Pontus Weman Tell source

It looks like this source by Pontus Weman Tell was restored to the article (along with some associated claims) with the edit summary of The work of P. Weman was written under supervision of Ph D Jens Nieling at the Center of Black Sea Studies at Aahus University. However, this does not appear to meet our requirements for scholarly sources. The source was self-published at academia.edu, not in a peer-reviewed journal. Per the author's own bio, he has degrees in unrelated fields (Economics and Law) that terminated at the master's level. Our requirements allow for doctoral dissertations that have undergone peer review, and in some cases master's dissertations that have been peer-reviewed and are widely cited by scholars, but that is not the case here. Thoughts from others? Woodroar (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

How to summarize scholarly disagreement in the lead

This edit removed the following sentence from the lead: Most scholars believe the Curmsum Disc to be a forgery, while some believe it is genuine but disagree on the dating. The edit summary mentioned that it was unsourced, although sources are not required in the lead section. I believe that the sentence is a neutral summary of the Analysis section. On the one hand, we have Sven Rosborn's findings, which are now supported by Karen Schousboe. On the other hand, we have Marek Kryda, Kurt Villads Jensen, Jes Wienberg, and Jens Ulriksen disagreeing with those findings. Steffen Harpsøe gave a different date, but also stated that he isn't certain if the disc is genuine. That says to me that the majority POV among scholars is that the disc is a forgery. Thoughts? Woodroar (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Dear Woodroar, I believe you are misinterpreting the sources. We have following facts: Rosborn has presented his version of dating based on his analysis which are partly supported by Schousboe. Marek Kryda is also supporting the Rosborn’s dating but he insists that the mound in Wiejkowo is a proof of a non-Christian burial. Borth Jes Wienberg and Jens Ulriksen have never commented the disc's dating. They have however strong doubts about the Gesta translation which is a separate story. The only one who ever made statements on the dating issue is Kurt Villads Jensen who said that the dating of gold is impossible. Villads Jensen never presented an alternate dating theory and that means in scientific world that he is just speculating. You forgot to mention the National Archives of Denmark. Here you have an official statement and the dating is late 11th century. Please keep in mind that within archaeology we only have assumptions in case of an object which is non-organic. Therefore, both Rosborn, Harpsoe and Villads Jensen use the words like maybe, might be or probably etc. The use of these words only means that none of the involved scholars take their own theories for granted. At the same time no one is really questioning the disc age. There is one, Bogucki, who claims that his own ancestors created the disc in 17th century. His version is highly questionable because he visited Lund University in 2018 and asked for a grant to further analyze the disc. He did not get one and since that time his is just spreading some fake news. If we summarize your question, then the correct answer would be to point out the 10th or 11th century (maybe 17th or 18th as well) as possible periods when the disc was created but to add that a correct dating is not possible as the object was not discovered during an archaeological excavation. Current version of the lead must be changed as it is misleading and undermines what established “players”   within the filed are talking about. Ystadsbo1956 (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

The object is now kept at the Royal Palace in Stockholm. Who even suggests that it is a forgery? DiplomatSthlm (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply, Ystadsbo1956! Some comments:

videnskab.dk quotes Jes Wienberg as saying "Man forundres over, at den kristne kong Harald Blåtand overhovedet får en guldskat med sig i sin grav." (Google translate: "One is amazed that the Christian king Harald Bluetooth even took a gold treasure with him to his grave.") How is this not a comment on the gold items?

videnskab.dk also quotes Jens Ulriksen as saying "Dateringen af 'gravhøjene' til vikingetid hviler ikke på noget som helst andet end hans personlige antagelse." (Translation: "The dating of the 'burial mounds' to the Viking Age is based on nothing other than his personal assumption.") How does this not involve the disc?

A letter in the Journal of Swedish Antiquarian Research by Kurt Villads Jensen and Wojtek Jezierski says "Det enda någorlunda säkra gällande guldskivan är emellertid att den påträffats i en skokartong i Malmö. Guldskivan är inte heller möjlig att datera och ser inte ut som något annat föremål vi känner från vikingatid – eller någon annan tid." (Translation: "The only thing that is reasonably certain about the gold disc, however, is that it was found in a shoebox in Malmö. The gold disc cannot be dated and does not look like any other object we know from the Viking Age – or any other time.")

videnskab.dk also covers Kurt Villads Jensen, saying "Ifølge Kurt Villads Jensen ligner den ingen anden kendt mønt fra vikingetiden, og guld kan faktisk ikke dateres præcist. Guld kan til gengæld til enhver tid smeltes om. Skiven kan derfor potentielt være en forfalskning lavet på et hvilket som helst tidspunkt af guld fra vikingetiden, bemærker professoren." (Translation: "According to Kurt Villads Jensen, it resembles no other known coin from the Viking Age, and gold cannot actually be dated precisely. Gold, on the other hand, can be remelted at any time. The disc could therefore potentially be a forgery made at any time from gold from the Viking Age, the professor notes.")

You mention that Mateusz Bogucki is "fake news", but his viewpoint here is cited by two sources. That's incredibly important on Wikipedia.

Wojciech Filipowiak is also reported as saying "It can be objectively stated that both the disc and the written source, as well as the circumstances of its discovery, are completely unreliable and one should not draw conclusions about Jomsborg, Wolin or Harald Bluetooth on their basis."

We have to balance these secondary sources against Sven Rosborn and Karen Schousboe, both of whom self-published their claims (Rivengate AB and Medieval Histories). Note that on Wikipedia, primary and self-published sources, especially scientific articles, tend to carry less weight than secondary sources—and especially when they've been challenged for a variety of reasons.

Wikipedia isn't a scientific journal, and whether or not an expert like Kurt Villads Jensen has proposed an alternative date doesn't matter to us. We're here to summarize what reliable, secondary sources say about these subjects. Additionally, we're not obligated to follow official statements from government bodies such as the National Archives of Denmark.

If you have any other issues or questions about the sourcing, please let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I am reading your quotations and find that only Villard Jensen says that the disc could potentially be a forgery. The important word here is “potentially”. To understand me and others who oppose your changes to this article, you must think like historians and archaeologists do. Below are some examples:

videnskab.dk: you quote Jes Wienberg as saying "Man forundres over, at den kristne kong Harald Blåtand overhovedet får en guldskat med sig i sin grav." (Google translate: "One is amazed that the Christian king Harald Bluetooth even took a gold treasure with him to his grave.").  This assertion is nothing more than a theory that the Curmsun disc could not have been placed in a Christian grave. Wienberg believes that even if the disc was found in Wiejkowo, it cannot be connected to the grave.

videnskab.dk also quotes Jens Ulriksen as saying "Dateringen af 'gravhøjene' til vikingetid hviler ikke på noget som helst andet end hans personlige antagelse." (Translation: "The dating of the 'burial mounds' to the Viking Age is based on nothing other than his personal assumption.") It is generally accepted that the Viking Age ended year 1066 AD with the Battle of Stamford Bridge. In this section Ulriksen’s criticizes Kryda not Rosborn. Regardless of that he is not making any claims that the disc is a forgery. He is only pointing on a date later than 1066 AD.  

I don’t really know how to summarize this scholarly disagreement, but Rosborn has only been criticized for connecting the Curmsun disc with the death of Harald Bluetooth and the village of Wiejkowo. His opponents suggest that there is nothing that proves that there was ever any grave in Wiejkowo and that the disc can be of a later date. By now, most accepted version is the one presented by National Archives of Danmark and it is late 11^th century.

If you take the above into consideration, then you should agree that the claim that the majority of scholars in the field have doubts about the authenticity or provenance of the disc is just misleading.

One last thing… The disc was never found in a shoebox… According to the press it was found in a casket with old buttons: https://www.expressen.se/kvallsposten/maja-11-hittade-skatt-fran-harald-blatand/ Ystadsbo1956 (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a miscommunication here. My point with the quotations above isn't only about the disc being a forgery, but that there are a spectrum of objections to Rosborn's thesis, ranging from criticizing certain elements (dating, provenance, etc.) to believing that it is a forgery. Woodroar (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that I wrote "authenticity" in the lead when I meant "dating". I've fixed that. My apologies if that lead to the miscommunication I mentioned above. Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Fringe topic?

I have concerns that the Curmsun Disc may be a fringe subject. I've started a discussion at the Fringe Theories noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Curmsun Disc. Woodroar (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

I've updated the article based on suggestions at the Fringe noticeboard and the overwhelming number of reliable sources that disagree with the initial findings about the disc, or that believe it's an outright forgery. Woodroar (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

September 2025 edits

I've reverted several edits removing reliable, secondary sources that positively characterize the Curmsun Disc as dubious or a forgery. These were replaced with a statement that researchers are simply unsure, which I consider whitewashing. Another added source appeared to give credibility to the Expedition Unknown findings, though it didn't mention the Curmsun Disc at all. As mentioned in comments here and at the Fringe Theories noticeboard, the theories put forth by Sven Rosborn are self-published and increasingly the minority viewpoint. Our NPOV policy, particulary DUE, stresses that we need to give prominence to viewpoints in reliable sources, and that means the majority of experts who find serious faults with Rosborn's findings. Woodroar (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have an academic degree, and I work daily with analysis of sources. The changes I have made have been a consequence of a deep examination and many conversations with my colleagues. By removing my revisions, you are putting some scientists, mentioned in the article, into a tricky situation as you indicate that they have created certain theories which they never stated at all. Some of these scientists may also feel that their reputation has been damaged by your revisions.

Also, the fact that you are removing a reference to a statement made by one of the largest universities in Denmark is also an indication that you have your own agenda. With all due respect, especially after your long involvement in Wikipedia, you do not seem to realize that through your misinterpreted quotes you are insulting a Danish university and one of Denmark's foremost archaeologists, Søren M. Sindbæk. Søren would never risk his reputation and call the Curmsun Disk an artifact (Expedition Unknown) unless he was certain that the disc was made sometime in the late 11th century. This follows the assessment made by the National Archives of Denmark, which was partly based on research conducted at Lund University. The conclusions were published in the National Archive’s journal Siden Saxo. However, you cite Siden Saxo as a source stating the opposite, that Curmsun Disk is not authentic. Have you read Siden Saxo's article? The article is available in Danish and only in print. The title translated from Danish is: Mysterious golden disc from ancient times. You don't even seem to have translated the title but have concluded that Siden Saxo is also behind all the conspiracy theories. This is a serious violation of Wikipedia's rules and we, who are a larger group of researchers, will actively work to make proper corrections to this article so the reader gets a fair chance to form his/her own opinion based on true and only true facts. I also apologize for my bad English. UlrikTheResearcher (talk) 18:53, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I have not read the Siden Saxo source, no. I am trusting the editor summarized it fairly when the article was created. Their summary includes phrases like "According to a theory", "the disc may have been created", "There is a possibility", which suggests that Steffen Harpsøe did not emphatically state that the dates were correct or that the disc was genuine. (If that summary is incorrect, perhaps you could provide a better translation?) This seems to match what Søren M. Sindbæk said on Expedition Unknown: "well, the jury's out". He didn't empathically state that the disc was genuine, either.

Ultimately, it appears that there is a spectrum of reactions to the disc, ranging from unsure to forgery, which I've tried to convey in the article. If you can suggest a better way to express that, I'd be happy to hear it. If, as you say, I've misinterpreted quotes, I would certainly like to hear that as well. Please be as specific as possible!

As far as my agenda goes, I want articles on Wikipedia to reflect what the sources state. I initially thought the Curmsun Disc was an interesting item, but as I read more scholarly sources, I found that most experts either doubt the published findings of the Curmsun Disc or believe the disc to be an outright forgery. (I've also found that expert opinions outside of journals have leaned toward it being a forgery, which I found interesting. However, I have not included them as they wouldn't meet our requirements for sourcing.) Because most experts have expressed doubt or believe the disc to be a forgery, it is Wikipedia policy to state that. It is against policy to simply list facts and let our readers decide. If that's not what you meant, I apologize If I've misread your comments here. Woodroar (talk) 20:07, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please believe me that I am not a supporter of any of the theories regarding the dating. At the same time there are only two valid theories. It is Sven Rosborn's theory, and the one presented by Siden Saxo. What is not stated in the cited sources but is stated in locked online articles or printed articles is that the Curmsun disc has been analyzed by experts appointed by Lloyds and an isotope analysis was done then which clearly showed that the disc's age was approximately 950 +/- 200. It was an analysis based on the concentration of Helium, Uranium and Thorium. The insurance letter from Lloyds is presented in several of those sources which are locked due to subscription requirements. I will see if I can get more information about that. 213.158.36.246 (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I have now received the necessary confirmation that Lloyds has insured the disc in 2016. The insurance policy was obviously based on the results of gold examination. I will upload the documents to Internet Archive. UlrikTheResearcher (talk) 22:54, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how helpful that would be. Was the policy published and analyzed by a reliable source? Woodroar (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2025 (UTC)