Justin, When you are Dealing with these subjects, history, genealogy etc you have to concider them as social science. In other words have an advanced approach to theory of science with many perspectives in order to be as correct as possible with a specific viewpoint. The so called interdisciplinary science has grown far (see it as the equivalence of quantum physics in physics.) It has to be interdisciplinary or more advanced social science to be understood. And in order to do so you need to use a science that is not like the old fashioned science of nature which could claim that one perspective is stronger than another perspective. How constructive would that be in social science. You have to falsify as much as you can all the time, and lay pussels. Try to find new pieces and see if they fit, otherwise youhave to relay them. Not create the pieces in the pussel yourself. And this should be a process that is going on all the time.
The Svealand - theory, as you refer to is really false indeed. It doesnt hold water to anything. The latest 30 yrs this has become quite obvious among different people as we look at things in a more advanced way than before.
Atleast we can forget about the Svear as something to be in the Area of Svealand of today. That was manufactured as a part of Sweden much much later and has nothing to do with Swedes or not. It was the area of jurisdiction (courts etc) in Sweden as a unitary state. And now they are used in the weathermaps in tv most of the time. From the beginning Värmland was a part of the Götaland of today aswell, (old ties to Västergötland and "old" Sweden)
Svear is most likely a gathering-name of all the swedes (from danish, german and norweigan perspectives. And first of all the areas most close to Denmark, Norway and the rest of western Europe.
Ofcourse it has had burial mounds etc, even in the area of Uppsala of today. But compare them with the Burial grounds in Västergötland, much older and larger)
My answer in Paranthesis:
Johan, it's a reasonable argument but not so certain as you say. Archaeology shows that the site of what is now Gamla Uppsala was occupied during the Bronze Age, with buildings and burial mounds.. It was not called Uppsala originally, but it's not clear when the name changed so it's not clear whether it could have been the place referred to by Adam of Bremen and Snorri Sturluson.
(You are right, it is not clear, this is what i am saying) (ofcourse even Uppland of today had some burial grounds as the province came up from the water - but compare the megalith foundings in Västergötland - connected to advanced society and Ubsola cults.. How many of them do you find in Uppland?
Both of them apparently thought it was at Gamla Uppsala. Adam says it was near Sigtuna. Snorri says it was in Old Sigtun at Lake Mälaren.
(As I have said before you should check from the links I send you - there are 29 Uppsala names in Västergötland and according to the link only 7 or similar in "Uppland". So there can be an Old Uppsala (Gamla Uppsala) elsewhere than Uppland!!? And Snorri doesnt say that it was in lake Mälaren - he says it was by the lake Lagrinn! Huge difference. Who says that Lagrinn is Mälaren? :) By the way, during this time Mälaren was a bay of the sea, not a lake...if we use interdisciplinary science in this way with a little bit of geology into the area of archeology or genealogy it is suddenly so much easier)
The problem is that archaeologists have not found anything that could match Adam's description. When I was in college the usual explanation was that Adam was exaggerating to make a more glorious past. Nowadays, there is this other theory
that Adam and Snorri were wrong about the location, or that they have been misread.
(Who says so? Ofcourse we have - this is what i am telling you. The pieces fit much better in Västergötland) (Ofcourse they can claim that Adam and Snorri had it wrong or misread - when it doesnt fit with the theory!! You must have both theory and Empiri!! The official theory of today has only theory.
Here is a balanced presentation of the main points:
http://www.wilmer-t.net/fornnorden/AncientNordic/Ubsola.html
(What about this link? Is it more true just because these guys say? Where are their arguments, and in what way is backed up - compare to theories backed by arguments and empiria.
Nothing is certain. I think the most reasonable position is to doubt both sides until there is more evidence. (I agree)
Yet, both Adam of Bremen and Snorri Sturluson, both writing much earlier, thought the Uppsala cult center was at or near Sigtuna, which is near what is now Gamla Uppsala. That's 200 years earlier than the name change.
(they can still refer to Västergötland or any other place or places that one place in Uppland that is now called Uppsala. There are places in Västergötland called Sigtuna too. Even plural, Fornu Sigtunir. Sigtuna as a new town in a new consolidated territory could easily been named Sigtuna after the old plural Fornu Sigtunir)
People get so caught up arguing, I wonder why no one thinks of the obvious -- there could have been two cult centers, one for the Svea and one for the Geats, both worshiping the same or similar gods.
When you start watching, there are always more theories ;)
(Most likely another kind of cult north of the Väster and Östergötland - did they found traces of women in the thhree mounds in Uppsala? Can it be a maternal sociaety - like in Finland and Estonia at this time.. ?
And remember - theories, yes - but what about Empiria and Arguments
ETc Etc
