Gamla Uppsala
Alan Crozier
http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/01/wooden-church-found-at-old-uppsala.html
Alan
--
Alan Crozier
Lund
Sweden
Peter Alaca
> Recently published findings about Old Uppsala:
> http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/01/wooden-church-found-at-old-uppsala.html
>
> Alan
Great result! I hope to see more information on this.
And thanks for the link to Martin Rundkvist's blog.
--
º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°
Soren Larsen
> Alan Crozier wrote: Xscxf.153863$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net,
>
>> Recently published findings about Old Uppsala:
>> http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/01/wooden-church-found-at-old-uppsala.html
>>
>> Alan
>
> Great result! I hope to see more information on this.
> And thanks for the link to Martin Rundkvist's blog.
The church is currently discussed in (scandinavian lingo)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkeologi/
The pagan temple at Uppåkra (english)
http://www.virom.net/sweden/arch_histor/cap_3/cap3eng.htm
Cheers
Soren
Peter Alaca
Thanks, but that is not Gamla Uppsala.
--
pa.
Inger E. Johansson
news:43c56bf9$0$46992$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk
Well currently discussed, but known from 1920's for everyone who gone
thru earlier testdiggings reports from areas around the present church.
Not to mention that it isn't the Temple mentioned by Adam of Bremen, but
a church known to have existed until short before present church was
built!
Problem is that too many archaeologists from the so called
Uppsala-school never taken themselves time to read old works and
documents. Especially related to Catholic Churches in Sweden,
Cisterciencer and Benedictioner documentations, Annals from monestries
and above all not read the documentation for the Ortodox Church
influence in Sweden.
No matter that the Pro-Uppsala school scholars tries to make believe
that Gamla Uppsala was the origin Uppsala, the Uppsala bespoken by Adam
of Bremen and also tries to make believe that it's the Ubsola mentioned
on runestones in Västergötland, Skåne and Denmark.
It's still neither proven nor correct.
The first trying to make this belived in a larger scale, Rudbeck(ius),
went into forgery in order to prove his case.
He and almost he alone decided to change the name of the river close by
what in his days was called 'Gamla Uppsala' to Fyrisån.
Reason for this was that the Fyrisvallar around a river called Fyrisån
was mentioned in the Icelandic Sagas as floating close to the origin
Uppsala.
Of course the river couldn't be called anything else but Fyrisån if
Rudbeck should be able to prove his case.
So the river got it's present name in 17th century by this forgery.
For information re. Olaus Rudbeck please read
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaus_Rudbeck>
if you are able to read a Scandinavian language please read
<http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olof_Rudbeck_d.%C3%A4.> where more
information is given.
For information when and why 'Salaån' was given the name 'Fyrisån'
please read <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrisvellir>
It's a pro-Uppsala school url more than most, but it still give one
correct and very essential information:"The field went alongside what
was renamed the Fyris river (Fyrisån) in the 17th century to make the
connection between the river and the Sagas more obvious."
In other word in 17th century it was 'decided' that 'since Gamla
Uppsala' most have been the origin 'Ubsola',
and the Icelandic Sagas tell that the fight on the so called
Fyrisvallarna took place close to the river floating Uppsala by,
then the river Salaån must be the old Fyrisån..... :-)
If it hadn't been educated scholars who put this forward and also some,
but not as many as the Pro-Uppsala-school wants to believe, who lean on
such loose and obscure argumentations, it would have been easy to laugh
at them here and then.
But it's even more obscure things floating around from the writer of the
blogg to those who discuss the 'finding' without even taking themselves
time to read Prime and Primary sources written and not always translated
into Swedish or English.
But let's start with the present church it is a church rebuilt after a
fire in mid 1200's. There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that a
heathen 'Temple'was turned down and the church which was built in
1120's, archbishop's See from 1164, was built on top of such a Temple.
NONE non Saga and non Adam of Bremen, = None inpendent and/or reliable
documentation for such a presumption exist.
On the contrary what exists is documentation that a newly built church
after the meeting deciding that the Archbishop's See should be in
Uppsala instead of in Linköping, had it's early stucture turned down and
a Cathedral built on top of it.
So what you do have under present church is first a church from 1120's
which had walls and directions altered when the new Archbishop's Church
were built in 1164 to be the centre of the Swedish Catholic Church.
That church caught fire in mid 1200's:
"1164 blev den domkyrka i Sveriges första ärkestift. I denna katedral,
som säkert inte stod hednatemplet efter i prakt, officierade Sveriges
första ärkebiskop, cistercienmunken Stefan från Alvastra.
Kort före mitten av 1200-talet brann domkyrkan vilket blev avgörande för
att en ny domkyrka byggdes i Östra Aros, det nya Uppsala, dit borgarna
redan flyttat och dit ärkestiftet officiellt flyttade 1273.
Den eldhärjade domkyrkan i Gamla Uppsala byggdes om till
församlingskyrka. Inne i kyrkan kan man föreställa sig den ursprungliga
väldigheten när det som nu är långhus var det monumentala högkoret. Lägg
i fantasin till den ursprungliga domkyrkans tvärskepp och treskeppiga
långhus och fram träder en tre gånger större helgedom!
Kyrkans äldsta inventarium, från före ärkebiskopstiden, är altarstenen
som sägs vara gravstenen över kung Erik som mördades 1160. Erik dyrkades
snart som ett helgon - Sankt Erik - och hans ben lades i ett relikskrin
som 1273 flyttades till den nya katedralen i Uppsala. "
<http://www.svenskakyrkan.se/gamlauppsala/> press 'kyrkor och andra
byggnader' and choose 'Gamla Uppsala Kyrka'
What's been forgotten is that at that time the area we today call
Uppsala and also the so called 'Gamla Uppsala' was called Östra Aros.
Need I tell you that the name 'Salaån' which was changed to 'Fyrisån' in
17th century isn't documented before the Archbishop's See for Sweden
came to 'Gamla Uppsala' in 1164.
What actually happened was that the Östra Aros were changed to Uppsala
but todays Uppsala didn't get it's name Uppsala until 1200's. Before
1120's the 'Gamla Uppsala' was the center of Östra Aros, changed to
Uppsala and when the Cathedral was rebuilt in todays Uppsala the name
Uppsala was given the new place, the 1100's Uppsala given the name Gamla
Uppsala.
Complicated? Not if you take time reading the Chruch annals,
donationslängder, Swedish diplomas and Catholic church papers.
But it's understandable that the Pro-Uppsala school scholars of
archaeology haven't found time to do so.
Now with respect of the subjectline I will return to the blogg.
that's a very unproven assumption made in the blogg.
* First of all without dating it's impossible to say anything what so
ever
regarding age.
*Secondly without a proper excavation and validation of testresults,
dating etc.it's completely
impossible to say if the church is a Christian church or a heathen
Temple.
You also better be informed that the origin Cathedral built on top of
the torned down 1120's church were three times todays church size and as
I noted above also had other walls and direction.
In same url for Gamla Uppsala kyrka(church) as I presented above please
read:
"Lägg i fantasin till den ursprungliga domkyrkans tvärskepp och
treskeppiga långhus och fram träder en tre gånger större helgedom"
quick translation: Imagin the origin Cathedral's transept and three-sept
longhouse and you will [in your mind] see a three times larger 'temple'.
IEJ comment: than todays is understood to be what the writer of the url
relate to.
As been proven beyond resonable doubts by Henrik Janson in his
dissertation:
Templum nobilissimum : Adam av Bremen, Uppsalatemplet och
konfliktlinjerna i
Europa kring år 1075,
Göteborg : Historiska institutionen, Univ. [distributör], serie:
Avhandlingar från Historiska institutionen i Göteborg, , ISSN 1100-6781
; 21
Sammanfattning på engelska med titeln: Templum nobilissimum : Adam of
Bremen, the temple of Uppsala and the lines of conflict in Europe around
1075
Diss. Göteborg : Univ.
Adam hasn't been at all trustworty when it comes to the so called
Uppsala
Temple. Neither his aim, his describtion nor his presentation are what
the
blogg assumes.
The blogg show that once again the Gamla Uppsala pro-believers forgotten
that written works always have to be validated from more than one
position.
What's important is if the Churchfather/Historian/other writer is close
in
time, close in place and what he(more than often a he) has for intention
with his work.
Now when it comes to the assumed heathen temple. that can't have been
there at all
after Pre-Roman Iron Age and before mid 800 AD. The land around had at
that stage
still water on up to a level that made the area around the church a
lake. An so
called iron-lake which now disappeared. Had the archaeologists made a
careful study of landrise, Uppland is tipping and rising much faster in
north than in south, checking the soil, the clay and silt layers, etc
they
would have known that the deep from ground to the upper layer in the
stratification that any such assumptions falls.
landhöjningen i Söderköping bara sedan medeltidens början varit ~ 3 m.
Asklund Bror, Östergötlands geologiska historia
Fries Carl och Curry-Lindahl Kai, Natur i Östergötland, Göteborg 1949
sid 29
Östersjön förlorar varje år 10 miljarder kubikmeter vatten p.g.a.
landhöjningen36
Horn Anna red., Från Arkösund till Kråkelund,, Oskarshamn 1978 sid 2
The assumption by many of the Pro-Uppsala-school archaeologists that
Uppland
only risen 5 meter since Iron Age/Viking Age is easy to prove incorrect.
First of all we do have accurate figures for Birka island in Lake
Maelaren
and it's from 1000 AD to today approximate 5 meter for southern parts of
Uppland is correct but what's been forgotten is that the landrise from
1100
AD up to 1989 was 4 meter with decreasing landrise speed as reported by
Kristina Ambrosiani.(Ambrosiani Kristina, Arkeologi; Gamleby 1989 page
81-82)
The landrise is higher north of Uppland then on the Upplandic coast of
Lake Maelaren.
It's lower in the southern parts of Lake Maelaren and even lower
southward up to a point where the landrise doesn't exist anymore.
Now I can understand why they have arrived at their conclusions. But
what I
can't understand is that they present such drivel before it's proven
that
it's a church and not a Bronze Age house they seen using the mark-radar.
On
top of that the so called Gamla Uppsala didn't get the name Uppsala
until
after Adam of Bremens days.
I had hoped that most archaeologists knew that todays Uppsala from
beginning
was called Östra Aros.
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uppsala and Ortnamnsarkivet.
One would also have assumed that they had had any
reality check of the way from Sala to Uppsala respectively to the real
Ubsola which if long after written sources at all should be belived
trustworthy was located north and not east of Sala.
Either way in following url, as in most other pro-Uppsala 'school'
groups,
there are two unproven assumptions - and one of them is easy to disprove
the
first is an assumption out of the blue. There have never been anyone
proving
that any areas around Uppsala(neither the old or todays) or southward
been
called Sala before they changed the rivers name to 'Fyrisån' to fit the
assumptions around 'Gamla Uppsala'. But the information that todays
Uppsala
in old days were called 'Östra Aros'(Eastern
Aros) never been proven as shown in ortnamnsregistret under Uppsala Stad
for
the 'Ubsala' notation in runescripts and documents carved and/or written
in
Western Sweden and Skåne - Denmark. The real Aros was the town Västerås.
And
Fyrisån didn't get that name until Olof Rudbeck's daysas told above.
That happened at the same time he wrote about Sweden, especially Uppland
as the origin Atlantis:-)
And when he tried to prove that to be the center not only of Sweden but
the origin for all
civilization.....
"Uppsala Troligen gårdarna (byn, fäboden) där uppe, övre Sala. Hette
tidigare Östra Aros, östra åmynningen, vilket syftar på läget vid
Fyrisåns
dåvarande utlopp. "
http://web.telia.com/~u19220374/namn.htm
So at present stage only those who uses circle-proof, starting from the
unproven assumption that Gamla Uppsala is the same as Ubsola on
runestones far distance from Uppland and the Icelandic Sagas,
can be 'glad' other should be horrified given the forged name, changed
names and also the reality world's documentation which if not directly
contradict those sloopy users of circle-proofs but at least definitely
points in an other direction than the blogg assumes!
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Peter Alaca
> "Soren Larsen" wrote
>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>>> Alan Crozier wrote:
>>>> Recently published findings about Old Uppsala:
>>>> http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/01/wooden-church-found-at-old-uppsala.html
>>>>
>>> Great result! I hope to see more information on this.
>>> And thanks for the link to Martin Rundkvist's blog.
>> The church is currently discussed in (scandinavian lingo)
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkeologi/
>> The pagan temple at Uppåkra (english)
>> http://www.virom.net/sweden/arch_histor/cap_3/cap3eng.htm
> Well currently discussed, but known from 1920's
> [...]
Inger, please read and try to understand what is
presented before replying.
And if you feel the need to provide background
information on Gamla Upsale (what is appreciated,
at least by me), please do it in a more civilised and
objective manner. What you wrote here is too
irritating to be of any use.
I am not interested in unsubstantiated rants about
circle-proof, unproven assumption, pro-Uppsala,
make-believe, forgeries, falsifications, ...
Soren Larsen
OK I forgot that you are a furriner.
Much of the debate about Uppsala in Scandinavia has been
concentrated about Adam of Bremens description of a pagan "temple".,
The existence of such pagan "temples" had all but been rationalised
away as christian toipoi and interpretatio romano when the "temple"
at Uppåkra emerged complete with sacrificed weapons, gold foil
figures and a statuette of some important looking oneeyed chap.
Uppåkra is of course a central place like Uppsala and the
church relieving the pagan temple was actually not founded
on top on the temple but a bit away.
So it would be a good idea to take the indentification of the
Uppsala temple with the halls with a shovel full of salt.
This is even more so since early churches in Scandinavia often
are found in connection with magnate farms where you certainly
would expect to find greatr halls.
Cheers
Soren
Peter Alaca
> Peter Alaca wrote:
>> Soren Larsen wrote: 43c56bf9$0$46992$edfa...@dread15.news.tele.dk,
>>
>>> Peter Alaca wrote:
>>>> Alan Crozier wrote: Xscxf.153863$dP1.5...@newsc.telia.net,
>>>>
>>>>> Recently published findings about Old Uppsala:
>>>>> http://saltosobrius.blogspot.com/2006/01/wooden-church-found-at-old-uppsala.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Alan
>>>>
>>>> Great result! I hope to see more information on this.
>>>> And thanks for the link to Martin Rundkvist's blog.
>>>
>>> The church is currently discussed in (scandinavian lingo)
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/arkeologi/
>>>
>>> The pagan temple at Uppåkra (english)
>>>
>>> http://www.virom.net/sweden/arch_histor/cap_3/cap3eng.htm
>> Thanks, but that is not Gamla Uppsala.
> OK I forgot that you are a furriner.
Ah, you thought I wouldn't notice. :-)
But it is no problem, it is a good read and
with a collection of spectacular artifacts.
And I didn't know much about Uppåkra
I only thought it good to mention the complete
absence GA.
> Much of the debate about Uppsala in Scandinavia has been
> concentrated about Adam of Bremens description of a pagan "temple".,
> The existence of such pagan "temples" had all but been rationalised
> away as christian toipoi and interpretatio romano when the "temple"
> at Uppåkra emerged complete with sacrificed weapons, gold foil
> figures and a statuette of some important looking oneeyed chap.
>
> Uppåkra is of course a central place like Uppsala and the
> church relieving the pagan temple was actually not founded
> on top on the temple but a bit away.
>
> So it would be a good idea to take the indentification of the
> Uppsala temple with the halls with a shovel full of salt.
Yes, but nowis at least a precision exavation
is possible to establish to character of the traces.
> This is even more so since early churches in Scandinavia often
> are found in connection with magnate farms where you certainly
> would expect to find greater halls.
Uppåkra is a better candidate for Adam's Uppsala?
Alan Crozier
news:43c6977a$0$25583$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
No.
And don't be deceived by the superficial similarity of the names. Uppåkra
can't have been called that in the first millennium AD, when the temple and
the central place flourished. Uppåkra (upper fields) is a name that
developed afterwards, in the medieval period.
It's possible that the central place was moved from Uppåkra to nearby Lund,
as activity stops at Uppåkra at about the time the town of Lund was founded.
There is a hypothesis that Uppåkra was actually called Lund and that the
name was moved with the place, but it's only a hypothesis invented to
explain why Lund is mentioned in Egil's Saga at a time before the town
existed. But that's probably just a mistake on Snorri's part.
Soren Larsen
Indeed but the identification hall= Adams temple on the
ground that a lot of religious activity in reality took place
in the halls is still backed more by wishes to explain
than by actual evidence.
We still have words like 'hov' and 'hørg' beside the
halls as places of religous significance in the litterature
from the period.
"The Uppåkra house is special, but houses like it
and corresponding circumstances are found at
other south scandinavian places, which must be
seen as having had a central role in the iron age
community.
On the Zealand locations Tissø and Lejre are
found small buildings which because of the
accociated finds are counted as being of ritual
significance.............(discussion of possibly
religous buildings at Dejbjerg, Dankirke and
Gudme)"
Fast translation of the article 'Kulthuset i Uppåkra'
by Lars Larsson one of the excavators in
'Ragnarok, Odins verden ' Silkeborg Museum 2005.
>
>> This is even more so since early churches in Scandinavia often
>> are found in connection with magnate farms where you certainly
>> would expect to find greater halls.
>
> Uppåkra is a better candidate for Adam's Uppsala?
Nope. See Alans posting.
Anyway is Uppåkra in Scania which was Danish at the time
of Adam.
Cheers
Soren
Peter Alaca
> "Peter Alaca"wrote in message
No, no. Amsterdam is not Rotterdam or Appingendam
or Westknollendam.
I was only thinking of the possibility
that Adam projected information from one
or more places on a Uppsala.