Talk:Stave church

Untitled

I was suprised that this article treated the Stave churches as a uniquely Norwegian phenomenon, an apparent breach of NPOV.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 12:30 (UTC)

I have not changed this but it seems like a slight error in the article. Stave churches was built over most of northern europe, but only survived in Norway and a few other places.

When I get around I add some additional references. There is one in Greensted, allthough the similarity with the norwegian in style is doubtfull. The similarity in construction is striking but what's important I leave to others to decide. There is also the one mentioned in Hedared, and I don't know much about that either. There is even one with a similar construction on Iceland even if that one is even more distant from the norwegian stave churches.

What's important I guess is the construction and the craftmanship they had those who built them!

Last note, I also have to figure out what to do about replicas built not only i later years but even the one in Germany around 1810-something.

Agtfjott 20:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to forget, there is one in Russia, don't remember to much about that. Is it Novgorod? The previous soviet regime claimed it wasn't a stave church because they refused the belief that they had any influence from the west.

Agtfjott 20:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

There are some references to a stave church given to Iceland as a gift for the celebration of 1000 years of christianity on Iceland. I have not found anything about it except for a reference to the location. Agtfjott 21:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it correct that a church on Iceland is been debated as being a stave church? It has moldbanker along the walls. Don't know what that translates into. Agtfjott 21:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This needs further documentation Agtfjott 22:40, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Removed stuff

The biggest stave church in Norway is Heddal stave church. Recent radiocarbon dating show that Heddal stave church might actually be the oldest Stave Church in Norway, dating from the end of year 1000. The best preserved is Borgund stave church in Lærdal.

Heddal is not one of the oldest; none of the standing ones are from the 11th century. John Oslo

Greensted church

Unless someone finds a reference which clearly states that this isn't a stave church it should be listed as a stave church. Agtfjott 12:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You can turn it around: unless you find a reference, where it is clearly stated that it is a stave church, it should not be listed as such.--Wiglaf 12:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

A stave church is defined by what is called a tilevegg in norwegian and stavlegje, and the placement of the corner posts on grunnstokker. See no:Stavkirke for a drawing.

Greensted church relates more to the construction of wooden buildings at that time, and not so much to the Norwegian stave churches.

Heathen temples

I'm tempted to remove this as I can't remember any valid reference to archeological evidence of such temples. Later research indicates that the reason is that there wasn't any such temples. There are although historical references to heathen grounds at the places where many of the churches are built.

The claims of heathen temples often are an attempt to explain the artwork and form of the churches, but this is more likely to come from common art of the time. The building itself is a natural extension of common construction work of the time and does not indicate by itself that the buildings are christian versions of heathen temples.

In fact, many (most?) of the present churches are built on places where there has been earlyer churches. How can this be so? because there are archaeological evidence of previous so called post churches, and often those where built on top of christian burial grounds, with christian graves underneath that church.

No archeological material shows any traces of heathen worshipping underneath any of the standing churches, unfortuneatly... JOhn, Oslo

Agtfjott 12:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

POV

I have to add a POV warning since the article claims that the Norwegian churches are the same as "authentic" in contrast to e.g. the English and the Swedish ones.--Wiglaf 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussed your tagging of the article on #wikipedia and it is removed.

Reference your claims if you still want to add this tag.

Agtfjott 18:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So you have decided that Hedared stave church is not authentic? Why don't you reference your claim?--Wiglaf 18:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

From the site Hedared Stave Church (official site):

Länge ansågs Hedareds stavkyrka vara från tidig medeltid (1100-1300-talet) eftersom den företräder
en äldre, "primitivare" byggnadskonstruktion, stavbyggandet.

En dendrokronologisk undersökning av byggnadsvirket har dock givit vid handen att virket fälldes
någon gång mellan 1498-1503, med 1501 som förmodat fällningsår. Denna datering stärks även av ett
biskopsbrev från 1506, där "kyrkans uppbyggande" omnämns.

Säkerligen har det ändock funnits en stavkyrka i Hedared redan i tidig medeltid, som troligen på
grund av rötskador, ersatts med en ny kyrka. Sockenborna tycks då ha bestämt sig för att uppföra
den nya kyrkan med samma teknik som den gamla.

A rough translation "This is a reconstructed church from 1501".

In addition, there is a list of 28 known stave churches, and the article is going to be rewritten to follow that list. That imply that some churches are to be moved to "Other stave churches", including some Norwegian.

Agtfjott 18:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you insist on using a highly charged expression such as authentic you will have to define authentic in a way that everybody can agree on. Otherwise it will be POV. Please tell me why the Swedish and the English churches are not authentic, i.e. fake.--Wiglaf 19:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The word in use is "Authentic stave churces" and "Official list". If you want to change that you will have to rewrite a number of books.

If anyone have problems with the wording I guess "Stave churches on the official list" could be used, although I clearly states the churches as reconstructed. It is you who introduces fake churches. A church can't be fake. It is either a church or it is not a church, and it can be built by a secific technique or not. If a church is reconstructed after a fire it won't become authentic, like Fantoft stave church can't be authentic as it is now reconstructed.

Fantoft stave church is still on the official list in the article as I still have not got a reply from my reference in the community to how they are going to categorize the churc, altough I assume it will be removed from the official list.

Agtfjott 19:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry Agtfjott, but you are misunderstanding something very special here: You are talking of Norwegian authentic stave churches vs Norwegian non-authentic stave churches, by Norwegian standards. This is very POV if applied to non-Norwegian buildings. What you could do is to explain this in a separate section on Norwegian stave churches and describe that it is a Norwegian standard for Norwegian stave churches.--Wiglaf 19:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

All remaining stave churches which are not reconstructed and are not of other origin, or periods, are in Norway. If you find an other such church, built in the same period, with the same technique, still standing, I will be very glad and I belive the community will rejoice.

I do not talk about "Norwegian authentic stave churches", I'm talking about authentic stave churches and of those all remaining are in Norway.

Agtfjott 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

It is very POV to claim that a stave church constructed ca 1500 is not authentic.--Wiglaf 20:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you claim it to be a church which should be on the list, fine. But give me references to someone who backs your claim. It should be easy to verify if your right. Util then I use the published books, statements from people (researchers) in the community (University of Bergen), the internet, and what Sandhult municipality in particular says themselves at the referenced website.

If you are interested in stave churches, why don't you use time and try to track down information about the other places in sweden which had such churches? As I recall there are even found archeological evidence of post churches in Sweden?

Agtfjott 20:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that you should define clearly what your authorities consider to be "authenticity" when stave churches are concerned, and then we can discuss whether it is relevant here.--Wiglaf 22:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The criteria is clearly stated in the article, but sure, a link to the article is already been sent for peer review by an english professor. Agtfjott 00:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing

• We need some status about the churches on Iceland.
• The stave churches in Sweden, what are missing, was there any differences
• Denmark, anything known
• The stone reliefs in Germany, do they bear enough similarities
• Ornaments, which churches has any known similarities to norse mythology and can they be connected to norse mythology at all
• Can any of them be clearly connected to heathen places

Agtfjott 00:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add to the article do so but add references and do some research into the area. There are already a lot of material missing about now dismantled Swedish stave churches, not to mention the Swedish, Danish and English post churches with palisades. Greensted has a lot more in common with those churches.

Specifically, the following should be checked

• What relations exist to Goltho in Lincolnshire, specifically how it relates to post churches
• Make an article about the remaining old parts of Greensted, note what do exist and what's removed, and note the rebuilding of the churc in 1835, and don't forget the controversy over the dating of the church (the dating to 845 vs the dating to before 1013)
• The church of St. Mary in Kilpeck in Herefordshire, the dragon head
• Maria Minor in Lund should have an entry somehow, perhaps photo if anyone have photos
• Hemse church on Gotland, perhaps it is possible to get a photo of the remaining parts?
• Mære church needs a full article by itself, possibly with a description of the old norse heathen place in the area (and the photos by Nina from the church!) make a note over the controversy this rises
• Nørre Hørning church on Jylland, an old stavlegje with a dragon head
• The old stone church in Jelling, and the old post churches in the area

The present list of official stave churches is not a Norwegian list as such but a list used by the research community. Professor Svanberg had lectures at University of Oslo spring 2001, and according the lecture note he claimed "there are no Swedish stave churches left". We are about to validate why this is so because of the controversy about Hedared stave church.

The version sent for peer review is this one

Agtfjott 13:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it is a definately a medieval church. I am used to scholarly discourse and disputes, and I am also very curious as to how they have argued that it is not medieval and not built in stave church style.--Wiglaf 13:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This is also why I requested a clear definition of what is an authentic stave church. Whichever way you turn it, the Hedared church is medieval, and AFAIK it is a stave church.--Wiglaf 13:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, then I will ask you kindly once more to give references for your claim. I can find no references so will you please add some?

There are churches been built today in "stave church style", the same way you could build a church in gothic style. No one would although reference a gothic church from 2005 together with gothic churches from the medieval ages. Whem it comes to which years is within the period and which is outside, there are other churches on the list which are older then Hedared and it is disputed whether they should be on the list or not. And it is rebuilt churches which are not on the list because they are rebuilt. Hedared would be the latest of all on the list and one of the most heavilly changed.

When it comes to dating of the church, some of the construction parts are from timber dated by dendroconology to 1498-1501. Timber for a stave church or similar wooden construction would be dried for some years, and as a co-author clearly pointed out, one of the other datings was optimistic due to this. Normal rules would imply that those construction details dates after 1500 but not later than some decades after that point in time. Then again add that very little of the original church remains today.

I find the whole discussion a bit frustrating, using to much time on a reconstructed wooden church on the spot of an old Swedish stave church. The reason why it is interesting isn't because it is, or is not, one of the original stave churches (authentic norwegian if you prefer) but because it was rebuilt. Why did they do that? There was other more common constructions at that time.

If you keep changing the article would you please be so kind as to add references? Thanks.

Agtfjott 17:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Other stave churches which is out of the official list, although they seems as obvious candidates as stave churches

• Vang stave church

Is still standing where it was moved to in the 1840's: Bierotovice in Poland, as a gift to the parish there. Lots of mistakes in the reconstuction, but charming history. John Oslo

• Fantoft stave church

Burned in 1992. The new is a 'copy' -not charming John Oslo

• Fåvang stave church

Not much left of medieval construction. Not much to see ... John Oslo

Agtfjott 17:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

There is one very important difference between Hedared and later "fake churches". Those who build Hedared probably rebuilt an older one which had burnt down, and it was at least a century before anyone cared about Old Norse style.--Wiglaf 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that I do not refer to Hedared as a fake church, this is your interpretation and yours alone. Agtfjott 15:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Maybe this one? Wooden Church, Miskolc // Gargaj (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorting of churches

Nina, thanks for the reference to Svensk konsthistoria! If at least one reference clearly states that it is a stave church we are on fairly safe ground.

Perhaps we should drop the notion of the official list, at least one seems to argue that this list isn't correct. We could add a reference saying which one are on the list and which one are not, then add a quote from Svanberg if that is important or simply drop it at all.

If the Swedish church is included, then probably Vang and Fåvang has to be included to, and then the reference to the 28 churches (those on the authentic lis) must be changed or removed.

We could rewrite the section "The authentic stave churches", "The official list", "The stave churches on the official list", "The stave churches on the official Norwegian list" or whatever it ends up as into "Old stave churhes" and "Later stave churches". Then move all those built after 1800 into the later section. This would clearly be a much wider time period than usual but hopefully it is acceptable for all and we can move on. Greensted and Hedared would be put into the section "Old stave churches" and the discussion about age, type and distinction between saxon and norse origin have to be taken elsewhere.

Agtfjott 15:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Old stave churches

What is the status of the two stave churches in storage at Norsk Folkemuseum

At Norsk Folkemuseum in Oslo, you'll find the Stave Church from Gol in Hallingdal. It was taken down in 1884, as the parish had got a new church in 1882. In 1885 it was re-erected in this park next to the Summer Mansion of the King of Norway at Bygdøy. The reconstruction used several of the remaining stave churches as model where deatils were missing. It seems to be fairly correctly restaured even in small details: the old church records from the 17th century onwards in detail describe changes done to the building, and the 'design' of the church follows the architecture in churches in nearby parishes. The church is in good shape today, and is fully authentic as stave church! John in Oslo

The two churches Torpo stave church and [[]] is signed, Thorolf made this church. Likewise is it found similar signs in Lomen stave church, Høre stave church and Øye stave church. Is there any implications?

These runic inscriptions are interesting, but in the two latter cases, it is little help in dating the buildings. JOhn, Oslo

Demolished

Only use those with interesting artifacts and/or pictures

Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Historisk Museum translates to Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo, [Historical museum]

Various

• Granhults church built 1217, Sweden, Photo at a Swedish web site, in a section for stave churches. Not a stave church but a log church (timber church) [1]

This church looks like an old swedish stave church, for example like Skaga stave church, but that is only a similarity in shape, not in construction.

Archeological sites

Try to limit this section or it is going to be huge

• Thorarinsstadir archaeological excavation Þórarinsstaðir í Seyðisfirði, — in ehrm.. Icelandic? =)

Also Þórarinsstaði, Þórarinsstöðum, and Þórarinsstaða according to avar

Some references for Thorarinsstadir archaeological excavation

1. Steinunn Kristjánsdóttir (2004). The Awakening of Christianity in Iceland. Discovery of Timber Church and Graveyard at Þórarinsstaðir in Seyðisfjörður. Part I and II. GOTARC serie no 31. Gothenburg: Department of Archaeology, University of Gothenburg.
2. Steinunn Kristjánsdóttir (2004). Träkyrkan på ödegården Þórarinsstaðir i Seyðisfjörður: en viktig länk i den tidiga kristnandeprocessen i Norden. XXI. Nordic Archaeology Conference, Akureyri, September 6-9, 2001. Ritstjóri: Garðar Guðmundsson. Bls. 197-202. Reykjavík: Félag íslenskra fornleifafræðinga.
3. Kristjánsdóttir, S., Macchioni, N. and Lazzeri, S. (2001). An Icelandic medieval church made of drift timber, - the implications of the wood identification. Journal of Cultural Heritage 2. Bls. 97-107.
4. Steinunn Kristjánsdóttir (2003). Timburkirkja og grafreitur úr frumkristni. Af fornleifauppgreftri á Þórarinsstöðum í Seyðisfirði. Árbók hins íslenska fornleifafélags 1999-2000. Bls. 113-142.

Definitions

The difference in definition (swedish definition differ from the norwegian and icelandic)

Beteckningen stav är något oklar men kan sägas avse ett vertikalt
byggelement - i Sverige syftar termen på väggplankorna, medan den
i Norge är förbehållen de kraftiga, bärande stolparna. En S. är
helt uppförd i stående virke. Detta i motsats till timmer - och
skiftesverkskyrkor.

This leads to definition problems when it comes to post churches (stolpekirker) and palisade churches.

I guess the article can focus on the definition in use in Norway and Iceland, then note the difference and if necessary add additional articles about specific variations. There is one about post churches. If Greensted is described is noted here it will be necessary to define a palisade construction, and then the post church construction should also be mentioned.

Later stave churches

• Scandinavian Heritage Park in North Dakota, USA
• Bílá in Tjekkia, church from around 1870 (Influence from paintings by I.C.Dahl according to Jurí Langer Alvheim & Eide, Kirkearkeologi og kirkekunst, ISBN 82-90359-60-8, page 217 ff.)

• Hopperstad stave church replica at Heritage Hjemkomst Interpretive Center

Norwegian words in the article

Is the words in english correct? Someone should check it out. Perhaps the norwegian words should be removed but I don't know if swedish, danish or icelandic has words for all those elements. Perhaps keep them until we are sure.

User:Agtfjott

I have removed the text indicating that stave is a purely Scandinavian word. It is actually called stave in English too. Grumpy444grumpy 15:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a case where people's urge to Anglicize & convert to quasi-politically correct NPOV language have done us a disservice. The original word in Norwegian is stavkirke; when one does ones best to Anglicize that you get stave church – a rather confusing conglomeration. But it has has been repeated for long enough that it is accepted terminology - so we must go with it.

Stave is indeed a word in English. My Webster's Unabridged gives 14 definitions; the closest relevant one is long thin strip of wood used for construction of barrel. I’m rather sure that this sense of stave is not what the original author intended, since Haugen’s Norwegian English Dictionary would suggest stav is "pole". Staver is the plural, meaning "poles". In English this term has usage of stav became staff; you can see common roots – but we’ve diverged.

Can you live with my recommendation for the wording as: ( in the Norwegian language staver)? In this context I think it makes the most sense.

Williamborg 20:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I can, although it would be interesting to find the etymology of the term, both in Norwegian and English. When and where was it first used? Is it originally a Norwegian word or was it used all over Scandinavia? Grumpy444grumpy 21:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting question. Etymology is science-like but not a strict science (it’s a little hard to develop a hypothesis, pose an experiment & test the results to confirm ones hypothesis in etymology). With that caution…

• First one needs to find information on the probable language of origin. Old Norse, is the logical place to start, but since modern Icelandic is the descendant language which has diverged the least from old Norse (& since I don’t have an old Norse dictionary handy), it is reasonable to look for the etymology in Icelandic.
• So I pulled out my copy of “A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic” (by Geir T. Zoëga, Clarendon Press, 1910). In Old Icelandic the word stafr means: 1) post in a building, 2) stave of a cask, or 3) staff. In Old Icelandic the word stafn means: 1) the prow of a ship or 2) the gable end of a building. (‘v’ & ‘f’ being the voiced & unvoiced version of the same sound results in their being used fairly interchangeably in older writing)
• So I’d posit that:

• 1) the post in a building, a staff & a stave in a cask indeed come from a common origin,
• 2) that the word stafn meaning gable end of a building is a more likely source of the word that was combined with kirke to form stavkirke since a dominant characteristic of the stavkirke is pronounced ship’s-prow-like gables, &
• 3) if one goes back to the Proto-Norse language both stafr & stafn probably descend from a single common word - perhaps something like staf meaning big stick.

• As to Scandinavian or Norwegian – since the majority of the known stavkirke were/are Norwegian, Norway does have a claim, but all old Nordic language are similar (my Norwegian father could speak to our Danish neighbor with only occasional difficulty). How about old Norse.
• At the very least, I'd now propose a change to the previous page. But i'd like ot take one more step first...
• My daughter, who’s working on her degree in linguistics (studying Slavic languages), knows a professor of Old Norse. I’ll pass this speculation on to her & see if this discusion provides a professor of Old Norse a great source of humor.

Williamborg 03:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

And after reading the article again, I read several of the references. It appears that the first two references ( The stave churches of Norway & Stave Church - Medieval Wooden Churches in Norway) offer differing versions which appear to depend on how you interpret the word of origin as stafr or stafn. So after all that, I suspect this is a debate and not a clear answer. Williamborg

Nice work Williamborg! I agree with the current version stating it as an ON word.Grumpy444grumpy 08:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your kind words.

To follow-up on my query above, my daughter advises her old Norse professor did indeed get a chuckle out of my using “A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic” (by Geir T. Zoëga, Clarendon Press, 1910) as the closest thing I had to old Norse. Turns out it is the definitive dictionary for old Norse – so it’s indeed close enough. She also indicted that there are no references or early publications that would contradict the proposed etymology, so it is a reasonable guess as to the etymology. The only thing that would improve on it is getting it published in a peer reviewed journal – but that’s something I can’t arrange.. Williamborg 03:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I also wondered about the name in english but found it was quite common. I've nearly newer heard anyone else used. There are some pages on the net focusing on the churches as old norse heathen temples which invents names for them. Without dwelving to much on those pages, most of it is not very .. err.. factual.

I believe the old form is stafr but I'm not completly sure. I've never seen an article in english using the name stafr church. perhaps I'm ignorant on this. I would use the same form as the one used by Riksantikvaren if in doubt.

The norwegian article is rater filled with references to avoid any discussion about the origins of the stave churches. There will also be a presentation at the University of Oslo one of these days about the problem with dating of the church in Norway. I'll try to attend the presentation.

— John Erling Blad (no) 17:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

For a somewhat indicative use of the word stave church se for example State of the Environment Norway >> Culutral heritage >> Stave churches. This is a page linked to by Riksantikvaren.

Many of the norwegian words describing the construction are in use in other scandinavian languages but there are also rather well defined english words for some of the construction details. I will strongly encurage any translators to use those established terms. Mail me and I can mail you a scan of a page with those english terms. — John Erling Blad (no) 17:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

introduction self-contradictory?

I was just link-hopping along, and noticed that the introduction to the article is self contradictory. The exact text (second paragraph, emphasis added):

All of the surviving stave churches except one are in Norway, but related church types were once common all over northwestern Europe. The only remaining medieval stave churches outside Norway are one dating to approximately 1500 located at Hedared in Sweden and one Norwegian stave church that was relocated in 1842 to the outskirts of Krummhübel, Germany, now Karpacz in the Krkonoše mountains of Poland. One other church, the Anglo-Saxon Greensted Church in England, has many similarities but is not universally regarded as a stave church.

I'm not sure how to fix this, especially since I haven't a clue if the they're the 'exceptions' or not. Thedanomyte (talk) 02:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Stave church. 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/20080421161219/http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Norsk/Fagemner/Bygninger/Kirker/Stavkirker/?module=Articles%3Baction%3DArticle.publicShow%3BID%3D2201 to http://www.riksantikvaren.no/Norsk/Fagemner/Bygninger/Kirker/Stavkirker/?module=Articles;action=Article.publicShow;ID=2201
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930014438/http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/artikel.asp?id=11098 to http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/artikel.asp?id=11098
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051025072545/http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/ to http://www.historiska.se/histvarld/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)