Uppsalatemplet – myt eller verklighet? En diskursanalys över debatten kring Adam av Bremens tempelskildring
(2020) ARKK04 20192Archaeology
- Abstract
- The aim with this bachelor thesis is to analyse the debate regarding Adam of Bremens depiction of the famous Uppsala-temple within contemporary archaeological research, with the purpose to determine how the scholars have approached the question about the credibility and truth of the depiction. The purpose does also include examining the main viewpoints and their arguments within this debate. The questions that I then ask are as follows; wich arguments are presented as evidence for each viewpoint? And what archaeological and litterary material are presented to support each argument and viewpoint? The method used for achieveing the purpose of this thesis is the three-dimensional model created by Norman Fairclough, wherein one separatedly... (More)
- The aim with this bachelor thesis is to analyse the debate regarding Adam of Bremens depiction of the famous Uppsala-temple within contemporary archaeological research, with the purpose to determine how the scholars have approached the question about the credibility and truth of the depiction. The purpose does also include examining the main viewpoints and their arguments within this debate. The questions that I then ask are as follows; wich arguments are presented as evidence for each viewpoint? And what archaeological and litterary material are presented to support each argument and viewpoint? The method used for achieveing the purpose of this thesis is the three-dimensional model created by Norman Fairclough, wherein one separatedly analyses the three different levels of discourse. The material used in this analysis is relevant research from modern times addressing the debate round Adam of Bremens depiction, as well as extracts from the Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum itself. Within my analysis I have divided all relevant scholars and their work into three different discourses. Within the first discourse the main attitude towards Adam of Bremens depiction was quite positive. These scholars described the depiction as an authentic and honest source of information, thus letting the debate foucus foremost on the appearance of the temple. During the period of the second discourse the views of the depiction are by contrast conciderably more critical, wich shows by how these scholars interpret the Gesta solely as a literary construction, and also render the ”temple” as a church. Finally in the third discourse, scholars view Adam of Bremens work as a useful and rewarding source, as long as it may be interpreted with caution. From my analysis I have concluded that all the available and relevant sources have increased in both amount and variations in correlations witch the growth and development of archaeology as an academic subject. It also seems that a pattern can be seen between the viewpoints and the academic roots of the scholars in question. Regarding how the studied materials have been produced, all scholars within discourses one and three, have produced their texts by source pluralistic means, and have also interpreted previously existing sources with a rather positive approach. The Scholars included in the second discourse have both produced and interpreted sources with quite a critical view. Occurences that might have influenced discourses one and three are mostly related to the discoveries of new archaeological materials. As opposed to the thoughts and ideas of the processual and post-processual archaeology, as well as the critical views of the Weibull-school of thought. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/9005529
- author
- Andersson, Nell LU
- supervisor
- organization
- course
- ARKK04 20192
- year
- 2020
- type
- M2 - Bachelor Degree
- subject
- keywords
- Adam of Bremen, The Uppsala temple, Gamla Uppsala, Critical Discourse Analysis, Old Uppsala
- language
- Swedish
- id
- 9005529
- date added to LUP
- 2020-08-17 11:02:06
- date last changed
- 2020-08-17 11:02:06
@misc{9005529,
abstract = {{The aim with this bachelor thesis is to analyse the debate regarding Adam of Bremens depiction of the famous Uppsala-temple within contemporary archaeological research, with the purpose to determine how the scholars have approached the question about the credibility and truth of the depiction. The purpose does also include examining the main viewpoints and their arguments within this debate. The questions that I then ask are as follows; wich arguments are presented as evidence for each viewpoint? And what archaeological and litterary material are presented to support each argument and viewpoint? The method used for achieveing the purpose of this thesis is the three-dimensional model created by Norman Fairclough, wherein one separatedly analyses the three different levels of discourse. The material used in this analysis is relevant research from modern times addressing the debate round Adam of Bremens depiction, as well as extracts from the Gesta Hammaburgensis Ecclesiae Pontificum itself. Within my analysis I have divided all relevant scholars and their work into three different discourses. Within the first discourse the main attitude towards Adam of Bremens depiction was quite positive. These scholars described the depiction as an authentic and honest source of information, thus letting the debate foucus foremost on the appearance of the temple. During the period of the second discourse the views of the depiction are by contrast conciderably more critical, wich shows by how these scholars interpret the Gesta solely as a literary construction, and also render the ”temple” as a church. Finally in the third discourse, scholars view Adam of Bremens work as a useful and rewarding source, as long as it may be interpreted with caution. From my analysis I have concluded that all the available and relevant sources have increased in both amount and variations in correlations witch the growth and development of archaeology as an academic subject. It also seems that a pattern can be seen between the viewpoints and the academic roots of the scholars in question. Regarding how the studied materials have been produced, all scholars within discourses one and three, have produced their texts by source pluralistic means, and have also interpreted previously existing sources with a rather positive approach. The Scholars included in the second discourse have both produced and interpreted sources with quite a critical view. Occurences that might have influenced discourses one and three are mostly related to the discoveries of new archaeological materials. As opposed to the thoughts and ideas of the processual and post-processual archaeology, as well as the critical views of the Weibull-school of thought.}},
author = {{Andersson, Nell}},
language = {{swe}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Uppsalatemplet – myt eller verklighet? En diskursanalys över debatten kring Adam av Bremens tempelskildring}},
year = {{2020}},
}