Talk:Temple at Uppsala

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.

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

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?

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. 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)
 * The German version of the article does canvas the possibility very seriously that the temple was never a building. In that context, note that Old Norse hof is usually translated as "temple", but its German cognate Hof does not mean anything like a building, but rather an enclosed space, which would fit the picture. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

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

GA assessment – failed [[Image:Symbol unsupport vote.svg|35px]]
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 ✅ after each part that is completed as this will provide all editors with a guide of what is completed in this fashion.✅

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)

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)

Rename to: temple and sacrifices at Uppsala?
Should we change the name of this article to "Temple and sacrifices at Uppsala"? It seems that the attestations are handling these two elements at once, and therefore it's hard to disentangle the two. Therefore both subjects could be handled with ease, and these attestations that do not directly mention a temple would be more logically included. As it stands, I am tempted to remove all attestations that do not specifically and directly mention a temple outright, but since Adam's account also includes a lot of mentions of sacrifice as do the Scandinavian sources in the area, it seems logical to handle the subjects and their theories here. bloodofox: (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Or maybe something like "Norse paganism at Uppsala"? Now that what we have here is pretty solid, suggestions are welcome as to how to proceed with this before I go any further with additions (including converting the Elton translation we're currently using to the Fisher/Davidson edition). bloodofox: (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * ..Cultic centre at Uppsala? Something along the lines of that, perhaps. The temple should be given the most attention, and the importance of Uppsala in pagan times would be emphasized. –Holt (T•C) 11:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Cultic center at Uppsala" is more inclusive and less forced. I would suggest changing the layout of the page, primarily focusing on what secondary sources have to say, and then reducing the amount of "attestations" drastically.  This is a historical entry and not one about a specific a piece of literature.PelleSmith (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I can understand wanting to get in more commentary from secondary sources but I see no reason to "drastically reduce" the attestations. The article is far from being too long. Haukur (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Some of these have much less informational content than the relative space given them. For instance the second quote in the "Gesta Danorum" section has no information above and beyond the fact that sacrifice is mentioned off hand.  Two whole paragraphs at the start of the "Heimskringla" section build up to and then mention that Freyr erected a temple at Uppsala.  On a whole the "Heimskringla" section reads like a narrative summary surrounding the related passages instead of a succinct presentation of pertinent information.  In fact the "Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiae pontificum" section is written in this same style.  We should not be presenting summaries of pseudo-historical narratives that we have decided are relevant to the entry -- if they are relevant, as they surely are, they will be utilized in scholarship about cultic activity in Uppsala.  Those are the sources we ought to be using to provide an overview of such activity.  That is pretty basic to how we write entries, especially entries that are not about a piece of literature.PelleSmith (talk) 12:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please define what you mean by "literature"? The difference between history and literature is a bit fuzzy when we are talking about Gesta Danorum and Snorri, and scholars tend to disagree on where to draw the lines--Berig (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it actually matters how you define literature in this context, and I am using the term in its most broad sense anyway. "Entries that are not about a piece of literature," may still be about a subject matter which is mostly known through various pieces of literature--and again these sources may be used widely by scholars who write about the subject matter.  However, the entry is not about "Adam of Bremen's account of the Temple at Uppsala" or "Literary sources of the Temple at Uppsala".  It's title and introduction tells us that it is about the temple, yet more accurately it is about pagan cultic activity in Gamla Uppsala generally.  The pieces of literature mentioned are pieces of historical data themselves and of various reliability.  Editors here are not expected to interpret them or to simply summarize them (which is itself a rather obvious interpretation of their informational value).  Scholars do that.  The matter is different when an entry is clearly about a piece of literature or a defined genre of literature.  But when that is the case it is clear that the information presented in summary form is not meant to accurately reflect a reality outside of the literature itself.  I don't deny the ambiguity you mention, but I don't think its is relevant here.PelleSmith (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] I believe that a perfect source for this article is Sundquist's ''Freyr's offspring. Rulers and religion in ancient Svea society'' (2002). I have planned to read it for years now, but I have never got around to it. IIRC, it deals specifically with the cult at Uppsala and the king's role in it.--Berig (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the simple solution here is to leave the scope of this article to being solely about the temple itself. I will go ahead and cut all of the attestations not mentioning the temple because they're not a part of the scope. If anyone wants to use the material I've typed up recently on some other articles (like, say, for the Blót or Gamla Uppsala articles) you are welcome to copy and paste it. bloodofox: (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge
If this article is not going to be about the temple, I suggest this article be merged into Gamla Uppsala. This cult location existed because it was the political centre of a pre-Christian Germanic kingdom, and general discussions about the cult are thus tied to the location and its importance.--Berig (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The translation of Adam of Bremen from Latin
From the article: ''Adam writes that a golden chain surrounds the temple that hangs from the gables of the building. The chain is very visible to those approaching the temple from a distance due to the landscape where the temple was built; it is surrounded by hills, "like an amphitheatre." The feasts and sacrifices continue for a total of nine days, and during the course of each day a man is sacrificed along with two animals. Therefore, in a total of nine days seventy-two sacrifices occur, and, Adam notes, these sacrifices occur "about the time of the spring equinox."''

In Latin: ''Schol. 135. Catena aurea templum illud circumdat pendens supra domus fastigia, lateque rutilans advenientibus, eo quod ipsum delubrum in planitie situm montes in circuitu habeat positos ad instar theatri. ''

Monte for mountain, colli for hill. It seems like the translator has been influenced by the geograpghy around Gamla Uppsala where there are no mountains, but several mounds. There could be more errors, someone should do a new translation of the original text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.210.118.119 (talk) 12:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

What happened to the temple?
The article currently neglects to mention what happened to the temple. Presumably it was destroyed at some point by Christian iconoclasts, but is there any information as to when this happened and in what circumstances? If there is, it would be good if it could be added to the article. &#161;Bozzio&#33; 14:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Temple at Uppsala. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711190854/http://www.arkeologigamlauppsala.se/arkeologigamlauppsala/Sv/nyheter/2013/Pages/monument-discovered-in-old-uppsala.aspx to http://www.arkeologigamlauppsala.se/arkeologigamlauppsala/Sv/nyheter/2013/Pages/monument-discovered-in-old-uppsala.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:58, 29 November 2017 (UTC)