Talk:Temple at Uppsala

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the Norse people, 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.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Temple at Uppsala was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 20, 2007

Contents

[edit] Adam of Bremen

I think the source of Norse sagas and Gesta Danorum is Adam of Bremen, because He is older. But Adam of Bremen is a uncertain source.

[edit] Adams

Adams: Wodan (not wotan) is ecstasy and Fricco is probably erection

[edit] POV

This article shows evidence of a neo-Pagan / heathen POV as well as a few spelling mistakes. I have made some corrections, and will do more editing later. Help is appreciated. Dialogue is welcome. P.MacUidhir 19:38, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I can't see anything controversial in your edits. I look forward to seeing you improve the page.--Wiglaf 20:06, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. I will add to it eventually. I just joined Wikipedia with an actual account, and am currently working on building my watchlist of articles that I was already editing anonymously. It is good to see you are here as well, Wiglaf. I am very familiar with your work at Wikipedia, along with a few other mutual acquaintances we seem to share. P.MacUidhir 20:22, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I am glad to see someone knowledgeable contribute here. My own work on the matter has mostly been to try fill the glaring holes that I found at Wikipedia on Norse mythology and early Scandinavian history, in the hope that the work would attract others to do the same.--Wiglaf 20:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Your positive judgement is appreciated, considering what I have seen of your own work here- you are hardly a novice in Germanic subjects. My education in matters Germanic is more in the areas of languages, and specifically the West Germanic part of the culture group, but I do my best with the Scandinavian portions as well. You obviously have a wide-ranging set of interests there as well, judging from your userpage. The Norse Mythology page is becoming something I can actually respect here at Wikipedia, as an example. I plan to go browse your work with Gutnish next, probably sometime this afternoon. Slainté! P.MacUidhir 20:45, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for all your input. By the way where does the name MacUidhir originate from?

[edit] Was there a temple at all?

Interestingly enough, some recent research by respected scholars dispute the existence of a pagan temple at Uppsala. Adam of Bremen is in many ways a questionable source, and the archeological evidence is scant. Many researchers lean toward the standpoint that a "Kings hall" was built on the northern, man-made plateau behind where the church is located. This hall had sacrificial/religious functions as well as ceremonial, as the religious and political power was not separated. The idea of a "temple" with "priests" is in a way anchronistic, ie you are projecting the organisation of a christian church backwards in time. This point is controversial, but not so much as the previous set of ideas, which go back on the 1890s and the surge of swedish nationalism in those days.

Those interested in these more recent ideas should read Maja Hagermans "Spåren av kungens män"(1996) and the thesis by Henrik Janson, "Templum nobilissimum : Adam av Bremen, Uppsalatemplet och konfliktlinjerna i Europa kring år 1075" (Gothenburg, 1998) or this paper (presentation in english): http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17417419 I think that the foundations of the temple theory are a bit eroded by now...

213.66.16.41 21:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Ola Larsmo Uppsala, Sweden ola@larsmo.se

I am sorry to disappoint you, but a pagan temple was excavated at Uppåkra not long ago[1]. It is interesting that you talk of "nationalism" in the same paragraph. I sincerely hope that you do not consider disputing the temple at Uppsala to be a means to bash 19th century Swedish national romantics.--Blótgoði at Upsölum 20:49, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think you need to be bashing 19th century Swedish romantics to question the existence of this "temple". This page needs a lot of work. As fun as those passages from Snorri are to read I'm wondering if they don't constitute some sort of OR. Only the first quote mentions a temple, the second two only mention sacrifices--the existence of which prove nothing about the temple. Where does Snorri say the sacrifices were performed in a temple? Also, in regards to the first passage, take into account that for Snorri to say that a pagan God built the temple isn't exactly a statement of historical "fact"--and I mean even in Snorri's mind. Anyway maybe there was a temple, but we shouldn't assume that just because Uppsala was most probably a center of pagan religious activity that there had to be a temple. I think the previous poster was trying to point out that the idea of the pagan temple in Uppsala, as passed down to us from Adam of Bremen, Snorri, and other Christians was very possibly distorted by their own religious worlds. This might not sit well to some who may want these stories to be 100% factually accurate but the fact remains that the chroniclers were Christian and their stories have to be taken critically.PelleSmith 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Likewise the "Gesta Danorum" section has no reference to a temple, but only to Frey's sacrifices in Uppsala. This simply adds to the faulty assumption that Frey+Uppsala+sacrifice = supporting evidence for a temple. I'm not disputing the existence of the temple. Like I said, maybe it was there, but I think they way that evidence is presented here is misleading and at least borderline OR (of course it might not be OR because published authors may do the same thing). Maybe the solution is to be a little more clear on the fact that the above formula doesn't mean that there was a temple there? Any suggestions?PelleSmith 20:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I have not written the article, but I fail to see how direct citations from published primary sources could possibly constitute OR. OTHO, you'd probably prefer that the primary sources be filtered through the POVs of a revisionist scholar of your choosing. Please tell me why you feel so strongly against the temple. You can open your heart to me.--Blótgoði at Upsölum 20:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I do not feel strongly against the temple, but I don't think that we need to misslead people who come for information. Tell me how the quotes I am critical of add to what we know about the temple?PelleSmith 20:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way quotes don't constitute OR, it is how they are put together and lead together that might. What about just being more clear on what is being presented. 1)Snorri says the temple was built by Frey: quote 2) If snorri was correct then it would "seem likely" that the temple was the site of the sacrifices he also describes: quote. Or something like that.PelleSmith 20:54, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the citations are valuable as they are all that exist and they illustrate what 11-13th century North Europeans knew of the location and what went on there, whether there was a building or not. If you feel that the citations mislead, you'd better provide information from secondary sources (referenced of course) where these primary sources are discussed.--Blótgoði at Upsölum 20:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Citations may be valuable ... but most of the content of those sections is taken up by large block quotes, only one of which even discusses a temple. The entry isn't called Possible religious activity in pre-Christian Uppsala. Wouldn't it be more concise to use the citations as references for text that accurtely portrays them. "If" Frey's temple existed, then it he may have ...? Or is that too weasely? My very point is that on their own, these quotes about sacrifices in Uppsala are immaterial unless they are connected to the temple because the entry is about the temple. So if we have a speculative connection then we should just be clear about it.PelleSmith 21:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you think that citations about religious activity at the location are off-topic? Are you trolling?--Blótgoði at Upsölum 21:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Trolling? Forget it. I was trying to suggest ways of improving the entry. As to your specific comment, what I am actually saying is that the way the current version is narrated any religious activity accounted for in pre-Christian Uppsala is uncritically put forth as if it were taking place in the Temple at Uppsala. I'm just wondering if we can't be more clear, and/or if we can't be more concise than using those long quotes. This whole exchange started because I suggested that there is some merit to what the a previous poster had said, which again correct me if I'm wrong, you summarily dismissed as anti-Swedish Romanticism. Forgive me for my naivete here, but should we be pro-Swedish Romanticism? I'm a Swede by birth myself, and i don't find any need to blur what we know about our heritage with Romantic imaginings. Am I likewise an offender?PelleSmith 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Look ... when you read the entry it says "surviving accounts". What one expects is "surviving accounts of the temple", what one mostly gets from the quoted passages is surviving accounts of sacrifice (possible unrelated to any temple, and certainly not in reference to any temple). Don't you see a problem there? I'm a just crazy? Can you at least tell me if that isn't worth thinking about?PelleSmith 22:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starting over

I'm going to rearrange the "Accounts" section to reflect the fact the accounts of Frey's sacrifices are not accounts of the temple, but of what religious activity in Uppsala may have been like. Please tell me if the change is objectionable after I make it. As to whether or not the quotes could be condensed I'll leave that to others, but those were really my two concerns.PelleSmith 23:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The Adam of Bremen account seems the most notable ... in popular mentions of the temple and in the few books I've scanned. Should it be first?PelleSmith 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


Well, I simply feel that some account of the recent standpoint in swedish archeology would be a good thing... nobody questions the occurence of religious activity, but most archeologists and historians argues that all sources that mentions a temple (and perhaps human sacrifice) are too much removed in time and space from the actual period. No archeological evidence of a temple has been excavated, probably from an older, wooden church. But there is evidence of a King's hall to the north of the church site, and possibly this hall could have been the centre for some kind of religious rite. If you want to study the recent standpoint of swedish archeology, I recommend that you contact the museum at the very site in Gamla Uppsala (Old Uppsala) at http://www.raa.se/cms/extern/en/places_to_visit/gamla_uppsala/gamla_uppsala_museum.html

Ola Larsmo Uppsala, Sweden ola@larsmo.se


[edit] GA assessment – failed

Thank you for nominating this article as one that may meet the Good Article Criteria. As you will see I have failed the article at this time. My comments are as follows:

Quite a lot more work is required to get this article to GA stage. To a certain extent that is (IMO) due to a slightly Swedish form of English grammar being used. I mean no offence by this of course but, well to put it plainly, this is the English Wikipedia. That said it can be adjusted and renominated and I urge you to undertake that task.

I normally also suggest that as each adjustment is made, that editors place the template {{done}} after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.Y Done

Rather than just fail with little information it is my practice to provide some views. Towards that objective I suggest at the very least, that you:

  1. Please adjust these two sentences in the lead so that they are either expanded or conjoined in some way – rather than have such short paragraphs (The Temple at Uppsala was probably destroyed by King Ingold I in 1087 during the last known battle between the pagans and the Christians. In the year 2000, a blót was performed at Old Uppsala. This was almost certainly the first event of its kind at that location in 900 years. It was done by Swedish heathen Ásatrúer.)
  2. Did he really write this happened or did he write that others believed that it did? (Snorri Sturluson wrote that the temple had been built by the god Freyr,) – you may be quite right of course but I would appreciate some clarification – I note that later in the article a reference to when Snorri wrote this helps me to understand this more.
  3. Remove spaces on the left of any reference – there should be no space with the reference butting up against the word or punctuation on the left for example in (Adam of Bremen wrote [2] that the Swedes)
  4. Set up appropriate wiki-links for the first occurrence of the following words (eg: always green – evergreen) and also for any other important words such as (there are a number I have not included here which could do with linking): Churches; ritual; human sacrifices; pagans; air; thunder; lightning; winds; rain; good weather; harvests; immerse; well; dogs; horses; rams; cocks; pigs; goats; bulls;)
  5. Why did Adam find this distressing – some further explanation please? (All the kings and the people brought gifts to Uppsala and even the Christians had to redeem themselves by attending, which Adam found to be distressing.)
  6. None of your references go anywhere – please set up a proper reference sub-heading.
  7. The section titled Adam of Brennan requires inline citations at a number of areas which reflect the page or other detail that explicitly provides a verification point for the claims being made.
  8. The section titled Destruction is not clearly written and also requires inline citations.
  9. This sentence comes out of the blue and has no context – please adjust (Not long ago, a Christian king named Anund (Anund Gårdske) had refused to sacrifice to the gods and had left gladly for his faith.)
  10. Please expand this sentence to explain and contextualise more appropriately (When Olof Skötkonung had been baptised he wanted to have it destroyed, but the Temple at Uppsala was probably destroyed by king Ingold I in 1087 during the last battle between the pagans and the Christians.)

Please spend the appropriate amount of time on getting this ready and after you finish (and are totally happy with the content following a careful proof-read) please renominate it. If you have any questions please come to my talk page and I will try my best to answer or assist. Cheers --VS talk 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The following text directly contradicts the referenced evidence that immediately follows it: Though still maintained today in school textbooks and elsewhere, this conclusion is clearly erroneous. In Scandinavia, many churches were built in the vicinity of older pagan sanctuaries, but there is little, if any, evidence that churches were built and consecrated on top of them. Why not remove this?---- Wetman (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have cleaned up this article as it was a total mess and probably the result of numerous drive-by edits. The most disturbing point was the claim that the conversion to Christianity was completed by 1050! The northern half of Uppland was not converted until 1100, and even in the southern half which is supposed to have been converted in the early 11th century, archaeological excavations have shown that the conversion was not completed until the 13th century.--Berig (talk) 11:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)