Talk:King of the Geats

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.

I added Karl as rex Gothorum. We have reasons to believe he was this, because in his book "De tyrannide papae" Lars Banck mentions a letter from Hadrianus IV, in which Hadrianus addresses Karl as rex Gothorum. Naturally, and sadly, it seems as if this letter no longer exist.

The article is perhaps a little confusing as it is, and maybe it would be a good idea to just mention the latin title for the historical kings. An example would be to call Ingold I a rex Visigothorum.

Two names to add would be Hallsten and Karl av Edsvära: Hallsten because in the papal letter from around the year 1080 we hear of reges Visigothorum I and A: and Karl av Edsvära because in some Icelandic sources he is actually called a king. We have reasons to guess that Karl av Edsvära was ruling Västergötland independently, even though he probably was only a mere lawman of Västergötland.

/Mof

Good addition. I wonder which Icelandic source Karl of Edsvära was king, just of curiosity. However, I disagree with your removal of text, because at this time, you simply had to be accepted at the Stones of Mora to be king of Sweden. The people of this time would have been very surprised if they learnt that when Svearike came to be pronounced Sverige, during the late Middle Ages, it was to cause many/some people in the 21st century to understand Svearike and Sverige as different concepts. Using the English form Sweden while conceptually making a difference between Svearike and Sverige is anachronistic in this article, and frankly POV. BTW, according to the excellent site Tacitus.nu the distinction was introduced for Geaticist reasons in order to add the victories of the Goths to the victories of Sweden.--Berig 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An expression such as "core provinces", is a loaded expression. It is not a good idea to use them, unless we clearly define what we mean, and can show that we have very good reasons to assume that we are right. It is not enough to mention Mora stenar, because we have no evidence for that ceremony before the end of the 13:th century. Not wanting to start an endless debate, I will just note that the prevalent view of present day Swedish historians, is that Västergötland and Östergötland were the core provinces of our state for some 250 years (1000-1250 AD) Not everyone has to share that view, but foreigners, reading the text as it is, will be in for a surprise if ever they were to talk to a Swedish historian.

So, there's a simple solution, just remove a text that establishes something that has not been proven. After all, it is difficult to see how it is relevant to the subject in question.

I am also a bit skeptic about mentioning Ragnvald and the expression non-Geatish (if that is what it said). The reasons are that an expression like non-Geatish is an ethnical label. It is better to just call him a king in or of Sweden.

Icelandic sagas is actually not my cup of tea, so I cannot point to the exact reference. It is just something I have read. However, I'll have a look and see if I can find where he is mentioned as such.

Are you talking about a distinction between Sverige/Svearike? Hm... I will read that tacitus.nu text and see what it says.

Mvh, Marcus

Uh, I forgot: I have to ask, where do the English name versions come from? Like: wouldn't it be better if Ingold I was called Inge den äldre? /Marcus

Of course people adhering Götaland theory can apply to a famous logic fallacy by saying that there is "no evidence" for the stones of Mora earlier than the 13th century, knowing full well that the time prior to this is poorly documented. However, hailing the king on top of a stone is a tradition much much older than the Viking Age. Moreover, both according to Västgötalagen and Saxo Grammaticus, the people of Västergötland had no say in the election of the Swedish king, only the people of Svealand (what the people of Västergötland did was to accept his overlordship, not deciding whether he was the king of Sweden). In addition to this, all the early sources that I know of describe Götaland and Sweden as different countries (although Götaland mostly was under the rule of the king of Sweden). I assume that you are Swedish. In this Danish translation of Saxo's work, you can read that the Geats elected Magnus the Strong, but they had no right to do so since it was the right of the Swedes to elect the king. Saxo further writes that when the newly elected king of Sweden (Ragnvald Knaphövde) came to Götaland, he was killed. This means that Västergötland was not a core province, although most of the medieval kings were of that extraction and preferred living in that more Christianized province. Calling eastern Svealand "the core provinces" is only stating that eastern Svealand was the central meaning of "Sweden" at the time, and where the king of Sweden was elected. I don't know where the English forms come from.--Berig 06:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

(Strange system they've got here, with how pages are saved and such.)

I saw that you were willing to interpret "core provinces" as simply meaning lands around Mälaren. It is true that a word like Svitjod probably refers to those lands, see for example Swidhido in Erikskrönikan, but in that case the sentence is redundant and says nothing. It is like saying, London is the biggest city in London. As I see it, the most reasonable interpretation is that the writer actually thinks those lands were some kind of core in our medieval kingdom. A word like core carries notions of where we would expect to find some kind of powerbase and so on, as indeed you interpret it with your thoughts about laws and Saxo.

However, it is not enough to point towards one law and one book, for to draw such far-reaching conclusions as you do. This should be self-evident since there was a debate. I am not going to bore those who read with examples that does not support your point of view. I am just going to say they are abundant, and that present day historians in Sweden have acted upon them. Simply put, the article expresses the views of a provincialist fringe. (And I might add, that from what I've seen, this is not the only article with such problems.)

What I will do is to have a look at one of the examples that you put forth. I should add that, as far as I know, Tore Nyberg is the man who thought the following up.

1. Chronicles has a tendency. In Saxo, Magnus Nielsen is a bad person. This is because Magnus murdered Knud Lavard, father of Valdemar den store. Lavard and the Valdemars are good persons in the book, perhaps inevitably so, since they were by then part of the ruling house. This means that the actions of Magnus are portrayed as something dark and bad.

2. Saxo writes some time during the years 1200-1210. He mentions that the choice of Magnus was illegal, thus telling us that he knows how Swedish kings were elected in 1131.

There are two main arguments as to why he is not credible.

1. The tendency.

2. Saxo was not even born in 1131, and the election of king in Sweden is a question that is only peripheral to him.

Objectively, it is quite possible that the people around Mälaren had no say, or played no important part in the election of Swedish kings in 1130.

That's Saxo for you. So as you see, it is no good to go mining for facts in old books, for those facts might not mean what one thinks.

So, please, can we now take it the easy way out, and just remove this loaded expression?

Mvh, Marcus

Now I've read that page at tacitus.nu . My opinion of it is that it is far from being excellent, even though it might be right in its distinction between Sverige and Svearike. That text also carries loaded words like 'ledande folkstam' or what it was. It also does not problemize ethnical labels. That is necessary because we know that ethnicity changes over time. All in all, a dangerous and bad page.

Mvh, Marcus

If you disregard contemporary primary sources (Saxo wrote in the same century as the events he described), you will have to cite reliable mainstream published works. I strongly doubt that you can provide a single reliable source (not any of the self-published works which support the Götaland theory) that claims that Saxo and Västgötalagen were wrong in this case.--Berig 08:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

What can I say, once again some meaningless attempt at guilt by association. How does that rhyme with your reference to logical fallacies? You have to understand that Tore Nyberg is mainstream, so am I, and so are a great host of present day Swedish historians, you know, those that depict the lands around Mälaren as some sort of rebellious periphery for no small stretch of time. What's more, you have the burden of proof, look it up if you will. Therefore it simply helps you none to tell me what to do. It is your work, I suggest you start with Curt Weibull, and then perhaps with time you will come to know what historians have known for a long time.

I had really hoped that my words would be enough, but obviously not. I think it is time for you then, to explain to us about Mora stenar and how you can be so sure that a king of Sweden always had to go through a ceremony there. Then you can show us the connection and relevance it has to your thoughts of "core provinces". Please note here that kings underwent many ceremonies. When you have done that, you can explain to us exactly how kings were chosen around the year 1130 and in the beginning of the 13:th century, and how that process means that the core provinces of our kingdom were to be found around Mälaren.

If you cannot do that, then I suggest we have to conclude that such an expression is best left out of the article, after all, such expressions are in none of the latest textbooks used at universities in Sweden. They only appear in texts of a provincial fringe.

National history is no child's game, and, I repeat, one can't just mine for facts. To sum up, the articles thoughts about "core provinces" are just wishful thinking. A suggestion to you is that you read up on historical theory, method, and what today's medievalists are saying.

/Marcus

No it is absolutely not a child's game, as your consternation clearly shows. This discussion is not about whether 12th century-14th century Swedish kings preferred to reside in Götaland, but how to define the relationship between Västergötland and eastern Svealand. Note that I intend to keep the crank Götaland theory out these articles unless its followers provide citations from scholarly sources. Please, give me a single scholarly source telling me that the kings of Sweden were elected in Västergötland, and not just accepted as kings, and that both Saxo and Västgötalagen lied. I will check it out of sheer curiosity. It is you who come to an old article with POVs that rock the foundation of early Scandinavian history and so it is on you that the burden of proof lays.--Berig 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. Why do you think you live in the kingdom of Sweden instead of the kingdom of Götaland? Do you think the name of your country was a matter of confusion?--Berig 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

PPS. In order to make this discussion easier to follow, I will add the following quotes from 12th century and 13th century sources, which you know are the earliest ones available. I must say that I despair as you have already declared that you don't accept them as evidence.

1. C. 1200. Saxo wrote in book 13 of Gesta Danorum (Danish) my translation: "However, the king of Sweden was dead and in spite of the fact that it was the right of the Swedes to elect the king, the Geats put aside the right of others and decided to elect Magnus king."
2. 13th century, Västgötalagen, the law of Västergötland confirmed this by saying Sveær egho konong at taka ok sva vrækæ meaning "it is the Swedes who have the right to elect king and to dethrone him".
3. 13th century Hervarar saga also describes the right of the Swedes to choose and depose a king when it says "They drove King Ingi away; and he went into Vestergötland. Svein the Sacrificer was King of Sweden for three years.". Note that according to a papal letter Inge was for a time only king of Västergötland and not of Sweden.
4. c. 1225, the Icelandic historian Snorri Sturluson referred to the election at Mora (although corrupted to Mulathing) and the right of the Swedes to depose the king of Sweden, if they chose to, in a speech made in front of king Olof Skötkonung (c. 1018): "So our forefathers went to work when they drowned five kings in a morass at the Mula-thing, and they were filled with the same insupportable pride thou hast shown towards us.".

You should accept even Hervarar saga as evidence concerning events in the 1070s and the 1080s, because Nationalencyklopedin accepts it as evidence. Note also that according to standard history writing Uppsala öd was the basis of Swedish kingship, not any "Skara öd". These sources have greater weight than either you or me, and if you consider these unanimous sources as late forgeries or blatant lies, please cite scholarly sources which say that they are. It is pretty obvious that the king of Sweden was not elected in Västergötland, only accepted.--Berig 11:13, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, where shall I start?

Well, first the view of present day historians. Mainstream historians simply do not hold this to be true. You are of course free to label persons like Dick Harrison, Thomas Lindkvist and Maria Sjöberg as followers of crank theories, but know that only a small small minority do so.

The simple fact is that historians like these do not agree with you about any Swedish core provinces around Mälaren: either they say nothing in the matter, perhaps because it is not a very fruitful question, or they actually say something different than you. Here are two quotes from Dick Harrisons book "Jarlens sekel".

p. 256 'De småländska bygderna låg liksom Uppland i rikets periferi'

p. 138 'Kanske var Visingsöborgen först och främst ett bekvämt och lättillgängligt residens för dåtidens kungar, för vilka Götaland utgjorde det svenska rikets centrum.'

This is the mainstream view, this is what is taught at universities. Opposed to this view, we have a few right wing dinosaurs whose ideas went bad a long time ago. Many of those persons are laughed at among scholars, and they are pitied for having been born too late.

Things being as they are, it is you who have to provide citations from scholarly sources, and not the other way around. After all, your views are those of a small provincialistic minority.

Next, let us have a look at your argument.

You say that lands around Mälaren were core provinces of Sweden. As support for that view you mine for facts. At face value these sources seem to support that view. But the job of a historian is to be a skeptic. The historian questions sources and asks if they really say what it seems. An experienced historian will approach a subject with a great deal of doubt. This is because it is known that, through the ages, many old truths have been turned into garbage. If you want to read about this, may I suggest "Historical evidence and Argument" by David Henige.

Time to revisit Mora stenar then. This election ceremony is mentioned in sources from the 14:th century. Unfortunately for you, Snorre do not mention it. You may believe that Mula is Mora, but it is just wishful thinking. Furthermore, Even if Snorre had written about Mora, it has to be remembered that it is a source from the 13:th century, and that he doesn't mention any ceremony. Therefore, this ceremony, attested in the 14:th century, does not support your claim. Read more about this in the works of Elsa Sjöholm and Dick Harrison.

Your other evidence were Saxo and äldre västgötalagen. I have already dealt with Saxo. You may believe what you will, but that source cannot be used as you suggest. You would do well to have a look at what I wrote again, because that is how historians work.

The law then: the fact is that we are uncertain as to what the word 'Sveær' actually means. Had you read the law, you would have known that 'af mandrapi' is worded in such a way that we have reasons to believe that västgötar could be included in the term. Dick Harrison writes some about this in "Jarlens sekel".

p. 124 'Lagtextens ord om kungatagande svear kan alltså syfta på (1) upplänningar, (2) folk i Mälardalen, (3) folk i hela det svenska politiska systemet, (4) stormannagrupper i allmänhet. Och så vidare: texterna är på tok för få och vaga för att ge utrymme för slutgiltiga tolkningar.'

I am not surprised that you brought up a bunch of other sources. I will not bother to deal with them because the above should be more than enough. Rather, I will ask you how it can be that mainstream Swedish historians view matters so differently from you? Might it be that there are also evidence that do not support your point of view? I think so, and the job of the historian is not to put forth one's own pet theory, but to try to construct a durable and plausible view of the past.

This means, that when one wants to establish as a fact an expression like 'core provinces' one has to look at all available evidence, and one has to question sources, and one has to define the expression, and one has to frame it in time.

To sum up your work so far then: it is no more worth than saying, 'the moon is a green cheese, therefore lands around Mälaren were the core provinces of Sweden'.

I am quite certain that you will be unable to force a closure on the question, and - whereas you are entitled to your view - it would be a good idea to accept that it is that of right wing provincialists.

Certainly it is ok for wikipedia to express the views of an extremist minority. In that way, nationalistic myths can be spread to youngsters and foreigners. However, evidence does not support the loaded expression 'core provinces', and mainstream historians do not support it. In view of that, it would be a good thing to remove it.

Mvh, Marcus

I read some of wikipedia's policies now. With that I feel I have good reasons to change the text so that it just mentions these kings, without references to 'core provinces'. As I said before, the expression is loaded, and it is by far an understatement to say that the jury is still out. Berig will have to show, both that the expression is relevant to the subject in question, and that it is what Swedish historians say. I can only wish him good luck.

Marcus

I will ignore your erroneous insinuations about my political views for now, although they are personal attacks which are forbidden on WP. It may surprise you, but in spite of Dick Harrison's focus on the consolidation of Sweden during the 13th century, the official Swedish royal line still starts with the 10th century king Eric the Victorious and we don't know whether his rule extended to Västergötland. Do not confuse the importance that is given to Götland during the 13th century with any scholarly support for the Götaland theory.--Berig 16:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, there is a medieval historian who visited Västergötland in 1219 and that is the Icelandic lawspeaker Snorri Sturluson. He met Eskil Magnusson, the lawspeaker of Västergötland in person, and so Snorri is a contemporary witness. Let us see what Snorri says about the situation of Västergötland in Sweden:

In Svithjod it was the old custom, as long as heathenism prevailed, that the chief sacrifice took place in Goe month at Upsala. Then sacrifice was offered for peace, and victory to the king; and thither came people from all parts of Svithjod. All the Things of the Swedes, also, were held there, and markets, and meetings for buying, which continued for a week: and after Christianity was introduced into Svithjod, the Things and fairs were held there as before. After Christianity had taken root in Svithjod, and the kings would no longer dwell in Upsala, the market-time was moved to Candlemas, and it has since continued so, and it lasts only three days. There is then the Swedish Thing also, and people from all quarters come there. Svithjod is divided into many parts. One part is West Gautland, Vermaland, and the Marks, with what belongs to them; and this part of the kingdom is so large, that the bishop who is set over it has 1100 churches under him. The other part is East Gautland, where there is also a bishop's seat, to which the islands of Gotland and Eyland belong; and forming all together a still greater bishopric. In Svithjod itself there is a part of the country called Sudermanland, where there is also a bishopric. Then comes Westmanland, or Fiathrundaland, which is also a bishopric. The third portion of Svithjod proper is called Tiundaland; the fourth Attandaland; the fifth Sialand, and what belongs to it lies eastward along the coast. Tiundaland is the best and most inhabited part of Svithjod, under which the other kingdoms stand. There Upsala is situated, the seat of the king and archbishop; and from it Upsala-audr, or the domain of the Swedish kings, takes its name. Each of these divisions of the country has its Lag-thing, and its own laws in many parts. Over each is a lagman, who rules principally in affairs of the bondes: for that becomes law which he, by his speech, determines them to make law: and if king, earl, or bishop goes through the country, and holds a Thing with the bondes, the lagmen reply on account of the bondes, and they all follow their lagmen; so that even the most powerful men scarcely dare to come to their Al-thing without regarding the bondes' and lagmen's law. And in all matters in which the laws differ from each other, Upsala-law is the directing law; and the other lagmen are under the lagman who dwells in Tiundaland.[1]

In the early 13th century, Västergötland was legally dominated by the lawspeaker in Tiundaland, i.e. in Gamla Uppsala, Uppland, and Uppland was the location of the Thing of all Swedes. To claim anything else is fantasy and wishful thinking, but OTOH, the Götaland theory is according to the historian Lars Gahrn a "belief that resists everything".--Berig 21:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Look up the policies that you refer to in other discussions. They clearly state 'no original research' and NPOV Your actions here fail on both these accounts.

I am sorry if you think I meant it as a personal attack when I mentioned that the expression 'core provinces' is a belief bandied about by right wing provincialists. It was just meant as a description of those that write about this. But since you reacted, perhaps it can give you an impetus to thoughts about not equaling Harrison, Sjöberg and Lindkvist to followers of weird theories.

As to your new evidence here. I have already told you that methodologically it is impossible to do like you do. It is called mining for facts. Historians simply do not work like that.

I am not surprised that you dug up new facts to support your view, but they awail to nothing. You see, that sort of behaviour merely serves to confirm one's own pet theory. It is not what historians should do. So far I have showed you how your three first evidences actually didn't support your point of view. I could go on, but out of respect for the policies here I will not.

To sum up then, in support of a loaded expression, you act as a judge over the past, and a judge over present day historians. You choose to support just one side, thus displaying a gross bias.

Now, as you can see, this discussion is already fairly long. That should give birth to the understanding that the expression in question is not something that can just be sneaked into a text. It has to be removed, or the footnotes to these two words will end up being far far longer than the rest of the article.

Certainly the question in itself is interesting, and it is worthy of an own article under Swedish history: a neutral article of course, where the writer doesn't act as arbitrator, or where he chooses the view that is being taught at universities, written in textbooks for students there, or written in recent popular works by historians.

So in point of view of the policies here, all you have to do is to cough up quotes that settles the question. As I said before: good luck!

Mvh, Marcus

I should add that this constant referal to some nutty theory is a misrepresentation of the issue here. It is just a bad attempt at creating a strawman.

Marcus

Oh no, is this article really the right place to wage the alleged war between the alleged Götaland school and the alleged dinosaurs of Swedish historiography. This article should be about the actual kings of Geats in the first place, and at least not in any primary way of kings of both Svears and Götars. For the kings of the Geats, any controversy over which were Sweden's core provinces after 1000 CE is quite irrelevant. Suedois 21:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

How true: those kings died a long time ago, and probably they do not care about all this ;-) However, it is an extremely important matter for people living today, for nationalism has caused the death of millions. We do not have to repeat the follies of ages past. We can choose to write articles that are based on what historians say. As a service, I'll point out that thoughts like those of Berig's were outdated already a hundred years ago. Just read "Fäderneslandets historia för gymnasiet" by Odhner and Hildebrand. Nowhere do they write about Mälardalen being any core provinces of Sweden.

If we look at the development over the last 20 years or so, only one historian has supported these provincialist claims. Let me just make a table.

Do not speak about core provinces in Mälardalen Bibi Sawyer Peter Sawyer Dick Harrison Thomas Lindkvist

Supports that extreme point of view Lars Gahrn

That point of view is also supported by a dangerous dabbler in history, who is an archaeologist and a writer of popular works.

Berig will have to show that my understanding of the matter is wrong. He can do so by quoting from books used at universities, by pointing towards relevant articles, in the NE for example, or by referring to recent theses. So far, as I see it, the expression is a gross misrepresentation of the scholarly debate.

I don't know about policies as to how long time he should be given, but two weeks should be more than enough.

I should add here also that so far, what we have seen is that he is unable to support his claim, and he has been unable to defend his interpretations of different evidences. It should serve him as food for thought, and make him understand that the best and simplest thing is to just report what historians are saying in an as objective way as possible.

Mvh, Marcus

This is not a page for you to fight some kind of strawman that you name "nationalism has caused the death of millions", because I cannot see how this discussion relates to "nationalism" and I don't understand how traditional Swedish history writing has caused the "deaths of millions" either. The discussion deals with the fact that you promote a fringe theory that purports that Västergötland was the cradle of Sweden. When you are confronted with facts you accuse me of "mining for facts" without presenting anything of your own. The only thing you have been able to present is the fact that most modern historians generally ignore early medieval Swedish history since it is poorly documented. This silence is not evidence for the Götaland theory, in any way. As far as I am concerned, a published article where a professional historian named Lars Gahrn presents of your favourite theory as a "belief that resists everything" is a more reliable source than an anonymous WP editor. It is impossible to claim that the fact that some modern historians ignore the Götaland theory controversy is evidence for the Götaland theory. The logic you present does not work.--Berig 12:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PS. I assume that when you talk of a "a dangerous dabbler in history, who is an archaeologist and a writer of popular works", you refer to the archaeologist Mats G. Larsson who has been awarded for his works on early Swedish history. I should warn you that it may not look credible calling an awarded scholar "a dangerous dabbler".--Berig 13:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly then, you are unable to support your claims. You accuse me of using a strawman argument, when in fact you do just that. My suggestion and action was to remove a loaded expression that is not supported by present day historians. My acts are a far cry from your accusations.

I did not accuse you of anything, I just stated what you did. You must understand that this method of yours is impossible, and out of kindness I told you.

I should say here that I am sorry for asking you for evidence. I didn't know that this wasn't a place to discuss such matters. Even so, it is noteworthy that you have been unable to defend you interpretations. You are even unaware of a hundred years of scholarship; about Saxo for example.

It is meaningless to cite Lars Gahrn about this nutty theory, because I haven't claimed anything. The person doing the claiming is you. Btw, some people would possibly say that Lars Gahrn himself has strange theories.

http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/rec_litteratur/did_13942991.asp

Dick refers to a debate in which Lars participated. I'll not venture further into the matter, but just say that Lars is not a mainstream historian.

Your position is untenable and based on misunderstandings. To help you then, I will define the discussion for you. The question is this: were lands around Mälardalen the only core area for the Swedish medieval kingdom during the years 1000-1250? The means we have is to cite relevant literature.

I will help you and do just that.

Here's from Dick Harrison's book "Sveriges historia medeltiden".

p. 62. 'Det framväxande rikets kärnland. De bygder som under äldre medeltid utvecklades till centrala kärnområden för den svenska kungamakten utgjordes av de bördiga slättmarker som låg i anslutning till sjöarna Vättern och Mälaren.'

It is interesting to note that he uses an expression like kärnland (heartland, core). The lands he mentions in connection with the expression is, Västergötland, Östergötland, Attundaland, Fjädrundaland, Tiundaland, Södermanland and Västmanland. This view is being shared by a vast majority of historians and archaeologists.

My suggestion to you is that you read Dick's book, and Thomas Lindkvist's, Maria Sjöberg's. Another suggestion is that you read some articles in journals. For example, in the latest issue of META, there's a mainstream article showing present day thoughts.

And I am not anonymous. My name is Marcus Gustafsson from Gothenburg. I live at Kapellgången 2:1253, 41131 Göteborg, and from my point of view, a hundred years of scholarship is worth more than Lars Gahrn's article, especially since it is not relevant for this discussion.

Mvh, Marcus

It is interesting to note that you connected "dangerous dabbler" with Mats G. Larsson. Why do you do that connection? /Marcus

I thought you referred to Mats G Larsson as he is an archaeologist who writes on early Swedish history, and does not agree with you.

This is what the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities's board of editors writes:

Den största folkstammen, som hade givit sitt namn åt riket och som hade förträdesrätten att utse en gemensam kung, var svearna, som bodde i landskapen omkring Mälaren, fr a i Uppland. Två andra stamland hörde till sveakungens rike: götarnas vid Vänern, huvudsakligen bosatta i det område som kom att kallas Västergötland och östgötarnas land mellan Vättern och Östersjön ( se Östergötland ). Quote retrieved January 19, 2007

In translation:

The greatest tribe, which has given its name to the kingdom and which had precedence in the election of a common king, were the Swedes/Svear who lived in the regions around Mälaren, and most notably in Uppland. Two other tribal lands belonged to the realm of the Swedish king: that of the Geats around Vänern, mainly settled in the region which was to be named Västergötland, and the land of the east Geats between Vättern and Östersjön.

So, sorry, but the Swedes around Mälaren had precedence in the election of the king of Sweden, even according to what is the latest fashion in Swedish history writing.--Berig 14:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

PS, the board of editors of the Swedish Museum of National Antiquities also call the Mälaren region "Svearikets kärnland", i.e. the "core country of Sweden" contrasting it with Västergötland:

Någon gång o 1100 har en viktig förändring ägt rum i Svearikets kärnland: kyrklig och världslig administrativ indelning har genomförts och kung Inge har kommit tillbaka. Kungadömet har fr o m då varit säkrare etablerat i Mälarområdet, och de hedniska makterna har fått ge upp motståndet, även om det dröjde ända till 1130-t innan Upplands biskopssäte kunde flyttas fr Sigtuna till Uppsala.

I gengäld har västgötarna valt en da. prins till separat kung på 1120-t, och efter dennes död 1134 har landskapet styrts av jarlar, antagligen under nominell överhöghet av da. kungar några årtionden, tills Sverker d ä och efter honom Erik Jedvardsson vann erkännande där.(Quote retrieved January 19, 2007).

Translation:

Sometime c. 1100, an important change had taken place in the core country of Sweden: eclesiastical and secular administrative divisions had taken place and king Inge had returned. The kingdom then had a firmer position in the Mälaren region and the Pagan powers had had to give up their resistance although it would take until the 1130s before the bishopric of Uppland could be moved from Sigtuna to Uppsala.

In return, the West Geats had elected a Danish prince as a separate king in the 1120s and after his death the region was ruled by jarls, probably under the nominal supremacy of Danish kings during a few decades until Sverker the Elder and after him Erik Jedvardsson were accepted there.

Since the Museum of National Antiquities represents the present conception of Swedish history, the text should remain as it is. It appears to be debatable whether Västergötland should even be considered a part of Sweden before the 13th century. It was apparently a contested area between Sweden and Denmark.--Berig 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, well I remember from historiska världar how one of those responsible wrote that many of the texts were written by an enthusiast or enthusiasts not really educated in history. Since the text really made me astonished I wrote them and asked some questions about it.

Here's some snips, btw. hopefully I will get more info during the week.

I wrote:

'Min egen åsikt är att texten inte återspeglar uppfattningarna hos dagens historiker. Två ord problematiseras inte. De är orden största, och svearna. Jag undrar vad ni menar med största, och hur ni har mätt det. Vidare undrar jag över er uppfattning om lagar gentemot medeltida verklighet. I dagens debatt råder det ju en stor osäkerhet över etniska begrepp och faktiska processer.'

'Jo, så undrar jag vem som har skrivit texten. Är det en historiker?'

My contact answered:

'Svaret torde dock vara att den Medeltidens ABC som ligger ute på webben i sökbar form är den icke uppdaterade 1981-versionen, och att texten speglar dåtidens uppfattningar.'

To protect the guilty :-D I will also make a short report of the rest, instead of writing something that might disclose an identity. My contact says, 'I fully understand your ponderings', and is of the opinion that the web has been used in a way that is not exactly correct.

To sum up then, texts signed by the 'red' on www.historiska.se, are off the shelf. They have no value for this debate, more than as a reminder of an old paradigm, and of how difficult it can be for historians to communicate their ideas to a wider audience.

I am sorry, but that is how it is, and the text does not represent anything.

Also, it would be a very good thing if you were to argue for just one thing at a time. As it is now, you seem already to make three claims at the same time.

1. Core provinces = lands around Mälardalen 2. Sweden was nothing else than those lands 3. An argument about Västergötland not being part of Sweden.

What you have to do is to concentrate on my definition of the discussion, anything else and the eventual results are totally meaningless, except of course that they tell us that you like the connection between the expression core provinces and lands around Mälardalen.

Now Berig, it is like this, a polity has a name, but that doesn't mean that it always is exactly the same thing. There is therefore plenty of room for interpretations. We also have a lot of evidences that do not support your claims.

So I have a question for you: have you read any of the following four books? If not, I strongly advice you to. They are important for the understanding of how historians and archaeologists think.

1. Dick Harrison: "Sveriges historia medeltiden" 2. Thomas Lindkvist, Maria Sjöberg: "Det svenska samhället 800-1720" 3. Peter, Birgit Sawyer: "När Sverige blev Sverige" 4. Carl Löfving: "Gothia som dansk/engelskt skattland : ett exempel på heterarki omkring år 1000"

Let me also suggest the following two for some thoughts about ethnicity and nationalism.

1. Patrick J. Geary: "The Myth of Nations" 2. John Hines: "The Anglo-Saxons From the Migration Period to the Eighth Century"

For more information you can read Swedish journals; META for example. There is an interesting article there in the latest issue, that deals with thoughts about ethnicity.

Mvh, Marcus

So, some two three weeks have gone now, and still no answer to my latest text. In my opinion it means that Berig has understood just how untenable his position is.

To further investigate what the orthodox view is, I read the article about Sverige in Nationalencyklopedin. The elucidated reader will not be surprised to hear that it doesn't say one word about these "core provinces". Nationalencyklopedin is from the year 1995, and to my knowledge there is no newer encyclopaedia with a different view.

I will give Berig until next Monday to come up with some relevant information. If he does not, I will change the text.

Mvh, Marcus

I have been busy for a while. Seeing as now quite some time has passed and Berig has failed to address the above, I changed the text into a simpler and more correct one. If anyone wonders about the issue at hand, I can only refer to present day scholarly debate in Sweden.

Mvh, Marcus

Sorry, but you read Dick Harrison in a very slanted way where Västergötland was the cradle of Sweden. If Dick Harrison speculates about what went on in the mind of a 13th century king, it is *his* speculations and not "standard history". Do not confuse Dick Harrison's emphasis on Götland in the evolution of Sweden as a Christian state in the 13th century with a scholarly endorsement of the Götaland theory (which has received no acceptance among university historians).--Berig 16:33, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

My argument is that the loaded expression has to be backed up. Thus, I have pointed towards what historians say, and what they do say implies that there is no support for the expression.

Dick Harrison is a main stream historian, and it is not up to us to determine what kind of history it is he writes. Our only job is to accurately depict what experts are saying, don't you agree?

It so happens that over the last 20 years or so, there is only one historian, Lars Gahrn that subscribes to the ideas that you champion here. He is also supported by an archeologist, Mats G. Larsson, you know, the person you connected with the word dabbler. However, that support is irrelevant, because Mats is not a historian, and is not trained to deal with texts as sources.

Simply put, today we have another paradigm compared to 30 years ago; Dick writes standard history and is very much part of the present day orthodoxy.

Let us recapitulate your defense.

1. You tell us what ancient writers say to us. That is original research, and as far as I understand, it is not allowed. Take Saxo; I have mentioned both Tore Nyberg and Curt Weibull (I think), both of them say that one cannot take Saxo at face value. Yet you do.

2. According to you, we can let the expression remain in the text, because of:

a) the existance of some other weird theory b) I was anonymous c) I read in a slanted way.

A is not relevant, b is not relevant, and c has not been proven.

Now, if c is right, it should be easy to prove. You can just provide us with the relevant quotes, like I have tried to do.

Not that I understand how wikipedia actually works, but I think that in some 2 weeks, if I see no response, I will try to get a third opinion.

Mvh, Marcus