This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norse history and culture, a WikiProject related to all activities of the NorthGermanic peoples, 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.Norse history and cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and cultureTemplate:WikiProject Norse history and cultureNorse history and culture articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland articles
Isn't this article about a hill fort? Should the article be renamed? What are the specific sources that the hill fort can be denoted Swedish (in any sense of the word?). Isn't the legend about Earl Birger just a speculation among many? Clarifer 15:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It sure was Swedish. A (that is, just one) castle in Tavastia is mentioned in Swedish documents sometime before 1311 (don't remember the exact year). The finds on the hill are not from an Iron Age Finnish hill fort (have a look here how it looked like, click number 4 in the map), but date to around 1300 and are typically Swedish. Also the Russian chronicle uses the word "Nemets" for the keepers of the castle, which was also used for the Swedes. So no doubt that the castle was Swedish.
The castle hardly dates to Birger Jarl's time, but is probably built some 30 years after his death. --Drieakko 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1. I think you are a confusing a postulation (constructed from legends) with historical facts (from authentic first hand sources and archaeological finds). The history of the fort is far from certain. 2. The Finnish www-site constantly uses the term "linnavuori" for the ruines. This translates as "hill fort" in English. There are lots of medieval hill forts everywhere in the Baltic region: it is just a way to describe a certain type of fortification - and the Hakoinen ruines match the characteristics of a hill fort easily. 3. As to a Swedishness, even in the case that the Hakoinen hill fort in its latest form was indeed constructed by the Swedes it may very well be that the fortification draws on a much earlier tradition. More archeological data is simply needed. Your formulations in the text are simply too assured and the reader needs to know that they are just postulations. Clarifer 08:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the original 100+ year old excavation report, and there is no doubt this was a Swedish fortress. For example, bricks were used in all constructions right from the beginning, and there were no bricks in Finland before mid-13th century. Other finds indicate that as well. It is a general assumption that before the Swedes took over the site, there was a Finnish hill fort there (like in the Old Castle of Lieto), but that has not been confirmed by the excavations and remains a speculation only. --Drieakko 08:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why there are no traces of a possible earlier Finnish hill fort is that the site was completely levelled before the construction of the medieval castle, and all potential earlier constructions were destroyed in the process. --Drieakko 08:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then please name the sources clearly. What in the construction methods, the layout etc. etc. hints that the hill fort was made in a fashion found in Sweden? Why do all Finnish sources name it a linnavuori = hill fort? Clarifer 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Swedish name of the site is "Haga borg". The Finnish name is literal as there is no castle ("linna") to be seen any more, just the rock ("vuori") on which it stood. I think the proper Finnish term for hill forts is "mäkilinna". I don't have the report in my hands here, but it presents the finds, castle layout etc very well, and is available in major library storages in Finland. My memory fails with the name but I think it is listed in publications referenced by the article. --Drieakko 08:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About the bricks used in the castle: their size and type were almost identical with the bricks used in the crypt of the Bishop Catillus of Turku, died 1286. --Drieakko 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Finnish term mostly used for a hill fort (any hill fort) is linnavuori (common noun). Others - less used, you can google - are mäkilinna, vuorilinna and muinaislinna. Anyway, my point is: one should clearly differentiate stories from archeological deductions. Wikipedia seems confronted with all sorts of demarkations between these two. Here, what an older Finnish encyclopedia tells about Hakoinen. [1] Emphasis on the word story. It seems that not much more is known about the place even today. Clarifer 09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you seriously suggesting that there is doubt that the medieval castle in Hakoinen was not Swedish? As for the "story", the old Finnish encyclopedia refers to the legend of the Second Swedish Crusade which has nothing to do with this. --Drieakko 10:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpicking? As a story the Finnish encyclopedia denotes the interpretation that the ruins in Hakoinen represent the original Hämeenlinna (or Hämeen linna in modern ortography) "Tarinan mukaan Hämeenlinna alk. (= alkujaan) perustettiin tälle vuorelle." (=According to a story the Häme Castle was originally founded on this mountain.) This is exactly what should be avoided: making interpretations instead of deductions. Clarifer 12:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for bricks, your find is an interesting one and seems more scientific and significant. However, to designate something Swedish I suppose one should find something similar in Sweden that is older? Clarifer 09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any mainstream publication, like Suomalaisten keskiaika (ISBN-951-0-28321-6, see page 126), refers to the Hakoinen Castle as a Swedish one. If there are some recent publications that contradict this general understanding, they are freely presentable in the article, with proper references. --Drieakko 11:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If so, then you shouldn't have any trouble adding the proper footnotes and sources. Clarifer 12:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Surely. But I still fail to see reason for this discussion. Are there recent claims that the castle would not have been Swedish? --Drieakko 12:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we are really discussing about HOW archeological+historical data should be dealt with and presented in Wikipedia? I believe most Encyclopedias are very careful in making ethnic + linguistic interpretations concerning archeological sites and connecting them with legends especially if the site hasn't been thoroughly excavated. However, of course if your books state something like: "older and contemporary equivalents for the layout, the materials and the artefacts found in Hakoinen can be found e.g. in Mälardalen in Sweden" then something like your sentence is justifiable and should be supplied with a footnoted source. Clarifer 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are not "my books". Common interpretation in mainstream publications is that the castle was Swedish, and I have not come across anywhere that this interpretation would have been challenged. Kindly list here if you have contradicting references. --Drieakko 13:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The only even remotely trustworthy sources that I have at the moment access to are the www-pages of the finnish national bureau of antiquities and the site you mentioned above. Neither speaks of a specifically Swedish fortification (i.e. constructed by the swedes) so the burden of proof seems yours? I don't understand why you cannot simply revert to your sentence and add a footnote. Clarifer 13:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh. I am simply very interested in hearing if there are any new theories coming up on this. But I guess that there are not any. --Drieakko 13:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
