Diskussion:Stabkirche Gol

Dieser Artikel war am 23. August 2009 der Artikel des Tages.

…

Sorry, ist wohl mehrfach versetzt und umgebaut worden? -- smial _disk 10:57, 5. Mär. 2009 (CET)

Sie wurde von 13. Jahrhundert bis 1880 mehrfach umgebaut. Dann versetzt und schliesslich rekonstruiert. Geht das nicht aus dem Artikel hervor? Ps. du bist eingeladen, den Artikel zu reviewen: Wikipedia:Review/Schreibwettbewerb#Stabkirche_Gol ;-) --Micha 11:02, 5. Mär. 2009 (CET)

Die Entwicklung war mir undurchsichtig beim ersten, schnellen Lesen. Ich hatte das für typos gehalten, weil ich im Hinterkopf hatte, daß das Ding irgendwann nach Oslo versetzt wurde. -- smial _disk 12:02, 5. Mär. 2009 (CET)

Du hast die 1976 geknipst. Kannst du die Fotos einmal hochladen? Ich will nämlich etwas überprüfen, was vermutlich zwischen 1950 und heute umgebaut wurde aber nirgens erwähnt ist. --Micha 13:43, 5. Mär. 2009 (CET)

Ich mag keine Rotlinks in der Einleitung ;-) Ein kurzer Artikel über Waldemar Hansteen wäre deshalb nicht schlecht. --Voyager 13:06, 31. Mär. 2009 (CEST)

erledigt ;-) und merci fürs Durchlesen! --Micha 15:52, 31. Mär. 2009 (CEST)

Review von no:Brukerdiskusjon:Roede#Gol_stavkirke zwischen 6. März 2009 und 31. März 2009

Hello Roede. I'm writing for the german Wikipedia writing contest about the Gol stavkirke de:Stabkirche Gol. I was looking for the source of the information about this exact information of the collection of 387 crowns by the Fortidsminneforeningen. But it is an edit of an IP user: [1]. (So is this information true?). And I'm looking about the information of the transportation by sleds to the near railway station in 1884. You added Ulsaker, H.: Gamletida, i Gol kyrkje – Hemsedal kyrkje 1882-1982 – Festskrift, Gol 1982 to the article. [2]. Is it written there? Do you have this Festskrift? If yes, is it possible, that you can scan it or copy it and send it to me? That would be great! Thank you very much in anticipation. --Micha L. Rieser 6. mar 2009 kl. 20:31 (CET)

Guten Tag, Micha L. Rieser! Excuse my writing to you in English. Although I can read German, I don't dare to try writing it. The mysterious IP user 83.109.169.101 is in fact my humble self. In those days, my status as a logged-in contributor would sometimes disappear for some incomprehensible reason. I can assure you that there is a reliable source for the exact amount collected by Fortidsminneforeningen, and for the description of the difficulties with the transportation. But from at home, where I am now writing, I don't have all the literature I would need. I'll search for my source and answer your question as soon as possible. I think that the Festskrift from 1982 is not the source, but I'll try to find it anyway. Good luck with the writing contest!

Roede 8. mar 2009 kl. 15:40 (CET)

Hello Roede. Das sind gute Neuigkeiten! Wenn Sie die Quelle ausfindig gemacht haben und mir das wieder mitteilen könnten, würde mich das sehr freuen. Ich habe einem Aniquariat «By Og Bygd» besorgt, welches zwar sehr detailiert auf die Runeninschriften und «Ristningere» eingeht, aber die Geschichte rund um den Kauf der Kirche steht leider nichts drin. Besten Dank im Voraus! --Micha L. Rieser 8. mar 2009 kl. 16:04 (CET)

Just want to add that Roede should know a lot about this church! ;) — Jeblad 8. mar 2009 kl. 17:30 (CET)

Yes, that would be great, because I have really a lot of questions! For example: What paintings are actually on the right side of the choir? On the left side, there are the evangelists, but what is on the right side by the portal? In some picture I can see, that there must be also an incription but what exactly is written there? I dind't found any picture or description about the right side! Also I didn't found any description about the inscription on the top of the eucharist scnene and the incription on the left and right side of it. It is maybe old German, but I can't read it. Also I'm looking for any better descripton or a picture of the south portal and the choir portal. I only found out that they have to be rebuild completely in 1884-1885. But I didn't found any picture or description about the carvings and what they really look like. The most literature I have only describe the same details and those ones not very deep. That's a little bit frustrating if you're looking for every little detail about this church. :-/ So, you see, if you are looking for details because of a writing contest, you will find out, that exact details about less focused aspects are extremely rare. --Micha L. Rieser 8. mar 2009 kl. 18:00 (CET)

Hello, Micha. The source to answer all your questions is the pamphlet published by king Oscar II in 1885, the first guide-book to the world's first open air museum. "Gols gamle Stavkirke og Hovestuen / paa/ Bygdø Kongsgaard. / Med Illustrationer, / uddeles / som gave fra Hans Majestæt Kongen." Christiania 1885. I have scanned the relevant pages, which I will send to you tomorrow - if you would be so kind as to give me your e-mail address, either here, or directly to me: lars@roede.no. I have included very good illustrations of the wall paintings in the choir, the eucharist painting, and the south portal - a new replica of the very damaged original, and very similar to the west portal, which is preserved, but not depicted. I have also included, from the same source, the description by Architect Waldemar Hansteen of the transportation and re-erection, and some notes on the economy of the project. This is the source for my information about the results of the drive to collect money. It confirms that the sum - disappointingly - amounted to no more than 387 kroner. My bus is leaving - I have to stop for now. But you'll get the pages and some more material tomorrow. - Roede 9. mar 2009 kl. 15:53 (CET)

Wow! I just sent you an e-mail. Thank you very much. --Micha L. Rieser 9. mar 2009 kl. 17:15 (CET)

Thank you very much for the information! I just got it by e-mail. If you understand german I welcome you as a reviewer for my article de:Stabkirche Gol. Maybe there are some mistakes. Example: I wrote that the planks of the apsis were earlier used as floor boards. But I'm not sure if that is really correct. It is my interpretation of the details in the book Claus Ahrens, Die frühen Holzkirchen Europas, Katalog, S. 284. --Micha L. Rieser 10. mar 2009 kl. 10:03 (CET)

Where is this painting?

Hello Lars. I have another question. Where exactly is this painting? In the front of the altar? --Micha L. Rieser 10. mar 2009 kl. 13:57 (CET) I found the answer already in this file: [3] but nowadays there is a cloth on the altar [4] and the chandeliers aren't on its place. --Micha L. Rieser 10. mar 2009 kl. 14:55 (CET)

I'll do some reading tonight and see if I can find any faults in your writings. With regard to the painted altar frontale, I don't know where it is at present, but my guess is that the museum has put it on storage (or maybe in the exhibition of eccelesiastical art) for reasons of security and conservation. The church has a climate that is not propitious for art treasures, and thieves would have be reckoned with. In addition to the chandeliers that you mention, lots of artefacts have been removed during the post-war period. Also, the medieval bench shown on the left in your picture (from Heddal stave church) is now in the indoor exhibition. Also missing is the crucifix that used to hang above the choir portal, the vessel for holy water, teh candlesticks on teh altar, and probably some other relics. – Roede 10. mar 2009 kl. 15:32 (CET)

Hello Lars. Thank you for those details. I already wrote that the crucifix and the bench have been removed because they are mentioned in a lot of books but are not on current pictures anymore. - Do you know what actually happened to the plate outside in front of the church on the roof of the nave? It is here [5] and it can be seen on a scheme in a book of Bugge and on pictures from the 1940s, but it is missing on pictures from the 1970s until todays. ... - I know I ask a you a lot and you already did a lot for me, but is it possible that you could scan the picture from the other two portals too? It would make a great gallery in the article and would be a good ressource on commons. --Micha L. Rieser 10. mar 2009 kl. 16:25 (CET)

I just found the book in a library in Bern! So no need for scanning it anymore, I can do it on my own. Ps. I painted some plans in SVG, if you want use it [6] [7]. I've not finished yet, because there are some mistakes. When I've finished, i will upload it to commons. - A question: Are you interessted in other stave churches? My aim is to improve every single article about every stave church in the german Wikipedia in the next months. It are about 32 (30 original stave churches and Fortun and de:Gustav-Adolf-Stabkirche). Let me know if you are interessted. --Micha L. Rieser 11. mar 2009 kl. 14:26 (CET)

Ps. have you seen this [8]? The new replica in Gol has a north portal, which is absurd! North was in the old believe a dangerous direction because of demons and ghosts of the night. The most stave church doesn't have a north portal. Sometimes they are be secured with own carvings. Why has this replica a north portal? So it isn't an exact copy of the Gol stave church in Oslo. Makes no sense to me. --Micha L. Rieser 11. mar 2009 kl. 16:10 (CET)

Guten Abend, Micha. The north portal in the replica in Gol is probably not so stupid as you think, considering the situation, with access from the north side. Of course, with one portal too many it is not a faithful replica, only an approximation. There are many other digressions from the real church, too. But a north portal is not really absurd. Some existing stave churches have north portals, and many lost ones had them. Heddal, Stedje, Ål, Fortun, Rinde, Vangsnes and Vang, to name a few. I do not care so much for speculations about belief in demons and ghosts, of which we really know very little.

What book did you actually find in Bern, was it the royal guide book of 1885, or Dietrichsons of 1892? Some other sources that would be of interest to you are these two in German:

"Denkmale einer sehr ausgebildeten Holzbaukunst aus frühesten Jahrhunderten in den innern Landschaften Norwegens" / J. C. C. Dahl, Dresden 1837; and

"Die Holzbaukunst Norwegens in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart" / Lorentz Dietrichson und Holm Hansen Munthe, Berlin 1893. This one has drawings by architect Holm Munthe of some stave churches as well as his own designs for Kaiser Wilhelm's hunting lodge and "stave church" in Rominten in Ost-Preussen and his "Matrosenstation Kongsnæs" at Potsdam.

I don't know when and why the carved wooden sign on the facade of Gol church was removed. All the buildings put up by king Oscar in his pioneer open air museum had similar signs, beautifully carved, with a royal crown above an inscription stating where the building came from, and when it was re-erected at Bygdøy. Some of them are preserved in the buildings themselves or stored elsewhere at the museum, but from my years as a curator there I can't remember seeing the one from the church. But it would surprise me if it is completely lost. My guess is that these signs were taken down because the museum management felt them to be foreign and disfiguring elements, and because they were a bit jealous of the fact that this part of the museum was not the creation of the Folkemuseum, but of a king who did not follow orthodox museological principles. Norsk Folkemuseum chose not to celebrate the centenary in 1981 of this predecessor, the world's first open air museum and the inspiration for the one in Stockholm.

It is only during the last 20 years that the museum has seen fit to announce proudly the background of this romantic museum.

By the way, only the (replica) south portal is depicted in the pamphlet of 1885 and in Dietrichsons book, but there might be drawings in some of hte newer books. Also, if you haven't already found it out, the altar frontale that is now missing belonged to Heddal stave church, but was acquired by the king together with the neighbouring Hove house from Heddal.

I did not find time to read your German article thoroughly today or yesterday, but maybe tomorrow. – Roede 11. mar 2009 kl. 21:49 (CET)

Hello Lars. The interpretation is from Erich Burger in Norwegische Stabkirchen - Bauweise, Geschichte, Schmuck because of the reused carvings of the old Urnes stave church on the north side. It is not plausible it is reused because of respect of the handcrafts. The carving is rude shortened by an axe. (This not shows a lot of respect of the handcraft) It is more plausible it is reused because of its "function" it still had to secure the north side of influences of the spirit world. That is also the reason that one pillar on the north side is also carved. The idea that the spirit world is real and has an influence to the life of the people was also long time part in the common believe of the christian world. That is also the reason that a lot of christian churches have Vannkaster on its surface. And a sad development of this "believe" in a spirit worlds with demons and ghosts is the persecution of "witches". In this case the idea, there is something like a "clean" christianity without any believe in heathenish ideas is a new development. And it is a strange development, because other creatures like angels of the good side are still in the believe of many christian people todays, but the creatures of the evil side like demons are called nowadays as fairytale. On a scientific view it is an very interesting development in the current christian believe that the creatures of the good side isn't called a superstition too. - Other point: You told me, that there are stave churches with north portal but the most have not. This can't be by accident.

Other topic :-) : I found the royal guide book of 1885 in Bern that is amazing. Never thought that there is a royal guide book in Switzerland too.

The farmer Bjørn Frøysaak und his family. Donated (?) 1699 to the church.

I already could have a look to "Denkmale einer sehr ausgebildeten Holzbaukunst ..." from Dahl in the Library of Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zürich but could not take it home because of its age. The scans the library could do, would be very expensive. So I just ordered an original print by a norwegian antiquariat (which is expensive too, but I have then an original in my collection). I want to make professional scans of the pages for further article about Urnes and Heddal and maybe I will upload the whole book to wikisource or commons, so that other can use it too.

The book "Die Holzbaukunst Norwegens in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart" from Dietrichson is a great hint. I didn't know it before and I try to get somewhere.

I have another question: I found the picture of the farmer which was alleged "donated" to the Gol church. Maybe you know more about it. Was it donated to decorate the inside of the church or only for the ecclesiastical municipality for other reasons?

Take your time for the review. The contest goes the whole month. I will finisch the article about 20. March and after that date it is the intensive review time. Thank you very much for all the help and information! --Micha L. Rieser 12. mar 2009 kl. 11:29 (CET)

Hello again, Micha! Regarding the north side and the evil spirits, I stick to my rationalist beliefs and the fact that north portals are not uncommon. The painting of Bjørn Frøysaak and his family would certainly have been given to the church, as a Denkmal to a respectable member of tne Gemeinde. I don't know much about it, but is probably not meant as a decoration. Perhaps he gave money for some purpose related to the church, as did the many other good farmers who paid for the wall paintings in 1652. – Roede 12. mar 2009 kl. 13:24 (CET)

Hello Lars. I read a lot earlier in a book that the boards of the apsis where used in the ceiling. But when I was writing the architecture part I couldn't remember it exactly and so I thaught it could be used in the floor but was unsure about it. So it is not really a theory it is only my personal mistake. After you wrote me, that they were used in the ceiling I could remember that I read exactly that somewhere else too. - The north portal: Of course you're right. That is not a scientific fact it is more a simple speculation. But I will write about this speculation about the possibilty of a peculiar meaning of the north side and other directions (east-west) in the architecture of stave church in the further compendium article about all stave churches (de:Stabkirche). I think it is an interessting speculation about the functionality of the carvings. I think it is not dispensable if I name it what it is: a speculation. --Micha L. Rieser 12. mar 2009 kl. 15:04 (CET)

Thank you for the feedback I just got by mail and answer some question above. --Micha L. Rieser 12. mar 2009 kl. 13:38 (CET)

A answer to your question in the feedback: Also, I strongly reject your theory of “eine eigene synkretische Religiosität als Vermischung des neuen Christentums mit alter nordischer Mystik.” Where did you get that idea? -> Erich Burger. I thaugt it's plausible theory but maybe it's wrong. Is he the only author which speculates about syncretic elements in the stave churches? -> If so I have to revise a lot about my conceivabilities about stave churches... Could you in that case please read this chapter de:Stabkirche#Synkretismus and tell me, what you think about it. I don't want that wikipedia spreads such a private and individual belief of one author (Burger). --Micha L. Rieser 12. mar 2009 kl. 17:13 (CET)

Obviously not the only one: [9] (!?). Is this esoteric? --Micha L. Rieser 12. mar 2009 kl. 17:41 (CET)

Short description of this book "Heidenchristen im Norden": "Mit archäologischen, historischen und bildlichen Quellen wird das heidnisch-christliche Spannungsfeld im Norden beleuchtet. Die Wikinger haben es den Missionaren offensichtlich nicht leicht gemacht. Ihre Selbstzeugnisse lassen aber nicht nur Widerstand erkennen, sondern auch lebenskluge, zum Teil geradezu humorvolle Anpassungsfähigkeit. Am besten hätte ihnen wohl gefallen, wenn sich Odin und Christus verbündet hätten. Zumindest haben sie, den Quellen nach zu urteilen, in ihrem eigenen Leben immer wieder versucht, augenzwinkernd in heidnisch-christlicher Koexistenz zu leben. Dieses Phänomen erstreckte sich im Norden über den langen Zeitraum vom 9. bis zum 11. Jahrhundert, von Nachzüglern abgesehen. Die pragmatische Lebensform und der offensichtlich schmerzhafte Übergang vom Polytheismus zum Monotheismus werden hier reich illustriert dargestellt." - This is the author: http://www.uni-muenster.de/UrFruehGeschichte/publcape.htm --Micha L. Rieser 12. mar 2009 kl. 17:47 (CET) I just ordered the book :-)

Micha, You have led me into lands that are foreign to me. I know something about general history and architectural history, but I am no expert on religious history. But I do know that there are not enough reliable sources to make very sweeping statements about religion during the viking age. Viking society was hardly literate, the mythology had been handed down orally over many centuries before it was written on parchment, foreign observers may have misunderstood what they saw, and archeological material is abundant, but does not speak clearly. For these reasons I am skeptical when I am told what our ancestors were thinking. The author of "Heidenchristen in Norden" is evidently a very learned man. But his book is obviously about the encounter between heathen vikings and christian missionaries during the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries, well before the present stave churches were built, and well before christianity was firmly established in Scandinavia. He is probably right in his assumptions about this long transitional period, when people of the north gradually got to know the new religion, some of them converted, and some remained faithful to their old beliefs. Of course there would have been a lot of syncretism around during this probably chaotic period. But the existing stave churches belong to a much later time, and the people who commissioned them were good christians - priests or high-ranking persons. People who openly practised the old religion were persecuted, and no one would want to build something that could lead him into trouble. Erich Burger seems to me more speculative, although I have not read anything he has written. I need more hard evidence or better arguments before I am convinced that the stave churches are the products of “eine eigene synkretische Religiosität als Vermischung des neuen Christentums mit alter nordischer Mystik.” My position is that the stave churches are products of a well established catholic church, not a Vermischung between two religions. Another matter is that among common people of the time, and probably among quite few from the aristocratic segments as well, all kinds of misinterpretations and lots of superstition must have been rampant. But that vernacular undercurrent would not be expressed in church architecture.

There is evidence of a lot of unauthorized practises in some stave churches. For example, stillborn or aborted babies, who would not be allowed an ordinary christian burial, were sometimes buried clandestinely in minuscule coffins under the floor or behind loose stones in the foundation walls. A lot of other archaeological material found in the churches may best be explained as evidence of magical practises or superstition. But such practices belong to the dark undercurrent, and literally not in the open light of the new faith.

I have had a look at the chapter on Synkretismus in the German article on stave churches. I doubt the following statement: "Da die Stabkirchen in der Übergangszeit vom Heidentum zum Christentum gebaut wurden, finden sich an ihr viele synkretische Elemente." The stave churches were not built during the transitional period. Much of the what follows is quite true, but the problem is how to interpret the facts. In my opinion, references to ancient Nordic mythology does not necessarily prove that people actually believed in the old religion. To me it is very interesting that Norwegian Wikipedia articles about stave churches do not discuss such matters as syncretism and magic elements in the churches.

Due to my limited knowledge about these matters, I cannot evaluate the veracity of the theories about possible pagen elements in the stave churches. You will have to consult experts on the religious life of mediaeval Norway. Unfortunately, I don't know people to recommend. But you may find it useful to see how one of the foremost experts on the art of the stave churches interpret their sculptures and carvings: Hohler, Erla Bergendahl, Stavkirkene – Den dekorative skurd. I Norges kunsthistorie, bind 1, Oslo 1981, s. 252-355, ISBN 82-05-12265-2.

Hohler, Erla Bergendahl, Norwegian Stave Church Sculpture, volume 1-2 Oslo 1999,ISBN 82-00-12748-6. – Roede 12. mar 2009 kl. 22:46 (CET)

Hello Lars. I'm now overthinking a lot. I earlier wrote the chapter about syncretism on stave churches in the German article also because of the impressions from the book of Erich Burger. I will read his book again to be sure that I was not following my personal missinterpretation. But I'm almost sure that it is his conclusion that the norwegian rural society had his own religiosity with syncretism and the stave church are the outcome of this believe. The historic background I wrote in the Gol stave church article and the overview article was also written under the impression of his book and seem also to be incomplete and wrong concluded. - The stave churches were in fact catholic churches since their erection and never had a syncretic logic. The alleged syncretic elements which could be found are more witnesses of the old technique about how to build with wood and how carve wood and is similiar to basilica churches which followed also the contcept of how to build old roman basilica as a place for the court and the marketplace. Also the altars in a lot of catholic churches followed the concept of the altars in roman temples. But all this later elements which follow historically the same concepts has nothing to do with a syncretic religiosity.

I will ask you in the following days for some sources of some facts you gave me. I hope that is o.k. for you. I need it because the German wikipedia demands for references for all facts in a featured article. For example if I want to write the 200 rural stone churches you mentioned as an argument I had to bring the evidence. --Micha L. Rieser 13. mar 2009 kl. 11:08 (CET)

I read some text of Erich Burger's book during lunch time. It is not exactly what he wrote that there was a syncretic religiosity. So it was a lot my own misinterpretation. But this thing mislead me completely: 1. He wrote that he has no source or evidence about it, but that he think the myth and stories of the heathenish time still must been alive by the common people. So they accepted christianity but the stories and myths of the earlier centuries were still in the common awareness. That is because a lot of heathenish elements found the way to the stave churches. 2. He wrote that the stave churches were symbols for the rural autonomy in architecture work, because they used their own technique because at the same time churches were build with a technique of foreign (imported) stone architecture in the cities. 3. He also wrote that the rural people had a own language development. (You told me was wrong at this time.) - So it seemed to me like the rural people had a own religiosity between christianity and nordic myths and because of there independency in language and culture of the cities they built their own buildings for the actual syncretic believe. But because of your inputs, I see that this obviously is wrong concluded. ... --Micha L. Rieser 13. mar 2009 kl. 15:35 (CET)

Hello Micha. You could probably increase the number af mediaeval rural stone churches in Norway. There were perhaps close to 250 of them, according to the latest count. I wrote 200 from memory, but our foremost expert Hans-Emil Lidén in his book "Middelalderen bygger i stein"(Oslo 1974) estimated the total number for the whole country to be approximately 200 out of 1200. He has later found more; in an article in the periodical "Sten" (no. 2, 1992) he wrote that there were altogheter around 1300 churches, 1000 wooden ones and almost 300 in stone. Norwegian wikipedia has the same numbers, adding that half of them (ca. 160) are more or less preserved, mostly in the country. There were perhaps 50-60 stone churches in the small towns, but only very few still exist. I recommend the Norwegian Wikipedia article: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norske_middelalderkirker_i_stein#cite_note-0

Your best reference for these figures would be the first book on the list below, by Øystein Ekroll, 1997, page 13. Here is the complete list from no.wikipedia, all written by scholars of good reputation:

• Ekroll, Øystein, Med kleber og kalk, Norsk steinbygging i mellomalderen 1050-1550, Oslo 1997, ISBN 82-521-4754-2
• Ekroll, Øystein, Stige, Morten, Havran, Jiri, Middelalder i Stein bind 1 i serien Kirker i Norge, Oslo 2000, ISBN 82-91399-09-3
• Lidén, Hans-Emil, Middelalderen bygger i Stein, Oslo 1974, ISBN 82-00-01396-0

By the way, some wooden churches were also built in urban areas, but all of them have disappeared. I am happy to learn that you have lost faith in the author Berger: From what you tell me, his writings seem to be very speculative, and not based on solid knowledge about mediaeval Norway. He obviously is badly informed about linguistic developments. His point no. 1 is true, no. 2 is partly true, but no. 3 is far off the mark. You have been misled to conclusions that do not follow from the facts presently accepted. So forget about Berger, and tone down the stuff about syncretism. – Roede 14. mar 2009 kl. 13:01 (CET)

Hello Lars. Back to the hard facts. Yesterday I have made some correction and improvements of the article but I'm missing some references. Can you find out where you got the information so that I can set a reference to prove it. I need the sources of the following statement:

1. A source of the fire (26. Mai 1822) of the church Grue and the following edict to change the portals in Norwegian churches.
2. A source of the reconstructions of the westportal of the Gol church because of that. (I guess it is in the royal guide book. I don't have it yet.)
3. A source of the conclusion that there must have been a pulpit in the center of the church.
4. A source of the gallery on the north side. (I haven't understood that. I wrote «Galerie» but haven't an idea what exactly that was and for what it was used for.)
5. A source that Waldemar Hansteen had not the heart to remove the apsis painting. (Is there a explanatory statement in the royal guide book?)
6. A source of the church Hopperstad as model for the bargeboard? (I think also royal guide book?)
7. A source that the viking ship theory of Dietrichson is discredited (because the similarities to other roof construction in west europe.)

I removed the whole history part because I want to rewrite it completely. Thank you very much in advance! --Micha L. Rieser 14. mar 2009 kl. 12:33 (CET)

Micha, I cannot do all your research for you, at least not from home, with only a limited library near me. But I will give you some hints:

1. The Norwegian wikipedia article http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grue_kirke-brannen is probably not good enough, as it has no references. But you will find the exact number of victims (116) there. A good source would probably be the local history of Grue, "Grueboka" by Harald Hveberg, Published by Grue kommune 1948-49, 3 volumes. I have no access to old law texts, so I cannot give you the date and wording of the law that was passed after the fire. It is "common knowledge" and referred to by practically all authors of books on old churches, but usually without reference to any source.
2. It may be in the royal guide book, which I don't have at home. Christie & Christie write: «Den tjente som vestportal helt til kirken ble revet, men var blitt en del forhugget». They mean the rebates for the door(blade) that were hewn into the sides of the 'columns' on each side of the opening, without saying so explicitly, and without mentioning the reason. You may get away with this reference: Christie, Håkon og Sigrid, Norges kirker – Buskerud, Oslo 1981. Gol kirke, pp. 39-60. Ref. p. 44. If that is not good enough, you will have to write that one can clearly observe how during restoration new wood was fitted into the rebates and carved with a reconstruction of the original vegetable ornament.
3. The pulpit was not in the centre, but grafted onto the southeastern corner column of the central room. Again, it seems not to be mentioned in any of the texts I have seen, and as a post-Reformation item it was not documented before demolition, not transported to Oslo, and probably just discarded. You can only rely on the testimony of this writer, who for 18 years was responsible for the maintenance of the church. One can clearly see on the shaft of the column the scars that were made when the pulpit was mounted. They were filled in with wood during restoration. Pulpits came into the churches after the Reformation, and were usually placed as in Gol, in the southest corner of the nave, sometimes on the opposite side. Christie & Christie (1981), p. 53: «Prekestolen var ny og malt i 1736. I 1840 omtales den som 'meget slett».
4. A 'galleri' in Norwegian is a "shelf" with seats for the congregation, one level above the floor. It was post-Reformation in Gol and therefore not documented or preserved, so noe one knows what it looked like. But in your books about stav churches, you can probably fine pictures of something like. Galleries would be put in when the congregation grew too large to seat everybody on the flooer, usually on the north side in order not to block the windows in the south wall, sometimes on two or three sides of the nave. In stave churches the columns were well placed to support such galleries. And therefore in Gol church, at the same level above the floor, one can see filled-in horizontal incisions that were made to fasten a beam that must have been part of the gallery floor. One possible source: Norsk Folkemuseum – Friluftsmuseet, Norsk Folkemuseum 1996, ISBN 82 90036-49-3. p. 107. «Men 1880-årenes ideer om restaurering medførte at en fjernet gallerier, vinduer, benker og prekestol fra tiden etter reformasjonen». Christie & Christie (1981) wrote this, page 52: «Om interiørets utseende før flyttingen til Norsk Folkemuseum er det få opplysninger. Koret var innredet med stoler, prekestolen sto på sydsiden, og i vestre del var oppført et galleri.»
5. Waldemar Hansteen's thoughts about the choir wall paintings are unknown to me. I don't have his text on the process of reconstruction here now, he may say someting about it. But it is logical to conclude that veneration made Hansteen preserve the paintings, even if every other trace of the post-reformation interior was eliminated. One other point is that the paintings were evidence for the correct reconstruction of the choir and apsis, or at least the correct order of the planks. Perhaps he was reluctant to destroy this evidence?
6. I agree that Hopperstad may be mentioned in the 1885 guide-book by Nicolaysen or Hansteen. (But it is self-evident by comparing photos or elevations that the model is not Borgund, but Hopperstad.
7. I cannot take the time to look up texts that refute Dietrichsons viking ship theory. The best evidence for its discreditation i probably that it is not mentioned by more recent stave church scholars. Perhaps you should just skip this theory. The purposes and functions of a ship and a roof are so different that any similiarity would be mostly coincidental – both were made by skilled carpenters, and wood was their material.

Two other things: Torstensen was probably a carpenter - not a "Mauermeister". He is usually referred to as "byggmester", so I think "Baumeister" would be a good title.

This sentence does not make sense: «1802 und 1803 verbreiterte man das Schiff auf 8,8 Meter, indem man den Laubengang ins Schiff integrierte, die Wand entfernte und die Säulenkonstruktion des Laubengang entfernte und eine neue Wand mit neuen Ecksäulen gebaut wurde.» Der Laubengang wurde viel früher entfernt. Die neue Wand hat man i 1802-03 auf neues aufgebaut. According to Christie & Christie, the new walls were not placed exactly in line with the old 'svalgang' walls, but about 1/2 meter farther out: «Utvidelsen ble foretatt på den måten at midtrommet ble beholdt som det var. Omgangens konstruktive skjelett med hjørnestaver, stavlegjer, strebebjelker og kransen av bueknær ble beholdt, mens omgangens plankevegge ble fjernet. Noen av gulvplankene ble funnet sekundært brukt som gulvplanker da kirken ble revet (Hansteens beretning). De nye ytterveggene ble angivelig reist der svalgangsveggene tidligere hadde stått. Det utvidede skipet ville da ha vært ca. 8,80 m bredt. Grunnmurene på kirketuften tyder imidlertid på at skipet har vært ca. 10 m bredt etter utvidelsen. Lengden lar seg heller ikke bestemme sikkert, ... Innvendig fikk skipet flat himling.» (p. 44) – Roede 14. mar 2009 kl. 15:57 (CET)

Hi Lars. Wow, thank you! «I cannot do all your research for you (…)» -> I know. :-) And I understand that. I'm thankfull of giveing me the information you're able to give and feel like it. It's clear that you have limited resources too. You gave me such interesting information and mostly new answers opens new questions. This is what happened. But don't feel pressed about my questions! If you don't have any ressources left, just tell me. --Micha L. Rieser 14. mar 2009 kl. 16:28 (CET)

I just corrected the two things you mentioned and hope that they are correct now and ordered christie & christe and Norsk Folkemuseum – Friluftsmuseet on my library. Do you know Leif Anker, Kirker i Norger : Stavkirker? --Micha L. Rieser 14. mar 2009 kl. 17:06 (CET)

Not well, but I think that it is a good book. (Stave churches are really not my field!) – Roede 14. mar 2009 kl. 17:25 (CET)

Graffiti of Gol church (armed horseman)

"(Stave churches are really not my field!)" :-) - But you truly have a profound knowledge of the Gol stave church. - Just let me one thing about this, I want to explain something: «You can only rely on the testimony of this writer, who for 18 years was responsible for the maintenance of the church» -> I believe you completely. The thing is that the German Wikipedia is the strictest Wikipedia of the demands of sources (even more when you try to write a featured article). So this would be a primary source which is not verifiable by others and it could be removed by someone else. Only allowed are secondary sources. If you had done a publication on that, I could use it as footmark. If you just told me that fact by email it could become a problem in the vote for a featured article because nobody can verify it. And that has absolutely nothing to do if I believe you or not. It's only the demand of the German Wikipedia of a scientific, verifiable writing in featured articles. This article for example (nn:Gol stavkyrkje) with only a few literature and only two Footnotes would never ever become a featured article in the German Wikipedia. And only that is the reason why I obtrusive asking for secondary sources. ... --Micha L. Rieser 14. mar 2009 kl. 17:37 (CET)

This is the only featured article I was able to write until now de:Stadtkirche Bremgarten and it costed several hours of research. I try to redo that in the Gol church article and I'm very confident because of all the information you gave me that I will achieve it. So thank you very much for that valuable help! --Micha L. Rieser 14. mar 2009 kl. 18:13 (CET)

Ps. you actually have made a publication: Roede, Lars: The open air museum – an early contribution, i Report 15th Meeting of the Association of European Open-Air Museums, Stockholm 1991 s.6 9-72. It is in the literature list in the Norwegian article. Are there any facts you wrote me so that I can use this as a footmark? --Micha L. Rieser 14. mar 2009 kl. 19:01 (CET) If yes, i'll buy it [10] ;-)

I don't know if this article is important enough to merit any footnotes in your German article. Most of what I wrote was borrowed from Tonte Hegard's important book "Romantikk og fortidsvern", 1984. I delivered my paper at the 1991 meeting of the Verband Europäischer Freilichtmuseen, arranged that year in Stockholm to celebrate the centenary of Skansen, considered by everyone at the time to be the world's first open air museum. It was my evil purpose to sow some doubt in everyone's mind and disclose the fact that king Oscar's little museum in Oslo was in fact 10 years older. It was a lot of fun for me when I, at the end of the lecture, could present the director of Skansen with the guide-book of the very first open air museum, printed in 1888, three years before Skansen was founded. I can quote here what I wrote about the stave church, after the introduction and some paragraphs about the first building put up at Bygdøy, a farmhouse of 1738 from Telemark:

The next building acquired for the Royal Collection was the Gol stave church from about 1200. This time the initiative definitely came from the Monuments Society, anxious about the proposed demolition of the old church upon the completion of the new one in 1881. The Society bought the materials, but had neither the site nor the money to rebuild and restore it.

In March 1881, the Society wrote to Holst, sounding out his interest in the church. This was just before Mr. Hove gave his house away. There is reason to believe that Holst already had plans for more than one building in his collection, and that Nicolaysen knew about the plans – possibly because the idea was his in the first place.

On March 31, 1881, Holst agreed to take the stave church into his collection. Nicolaysen wrote back, applauding the choice of a site, and at the same time suggesting further acquisitions: " ... in order to facilitate the formation of a clear conception about the characteristic features of each one compared to the others, all the buildings would have to be rebuilt in the same place, ..." Furthermore, Nicolaysen enclosed a sketch for the lay-out of a fully developed museum with eight buildings.

The materials would have to be transported during the winter, due to the long distance and the bad roads. Delayed by two mild winters, the marterials did not arrive at Bygdøy until early in 1884. The Society intended a public collection to raise the funds for the reconstruction, estimated to cost 6,500 kroner, but the cotributions amounted to 423 kroner only. (That was the figure given by Hegard, different from the one mentioned in the guide book). At this point the King saved the project when he announced that he would cover all the remaining expenses. Construction started in the autumn of 1884, and the restoration was completed in 1885.

The rest of the article tells about the next three buildings in the museum, the visit to Bygdøy by Mr. Hazelius of Nordiska Museet, and the arguments for the theory that he got the idea for his own open air museum in Stockholm from the one at Bygdøy. And the fate of the King's museum after the death of Holst in 1890. – Roede 16. mar 2009 kl. 18:51 (CET)

I just found two mails of you from 9. March which found the way to my spam folder! Oops! It is the mail where you transcribed all incribtions of the apsis painting and chancel paintng. That's the reason I haven't wrote it in the article yet... --Micha L. Rieser 16. mar 2009 kl. 09:54 (CET)

Good luck! There are better transcriptions in the guide book. – Roede 16. mar 2009 kl. 18:54 (CET)

Hello Lars. Short question: What has Nicolay Nicolaysen actually to do with the Gol stave church? Was he a consulter of the society or of the king? I did not see his official role or function. --Micha L. Rieser 21. mar 2009 kl. 22:14 (CET)

Guten Morgen, Micha!

Nicolaysen (1817-1911) studied law, but was more interested in archaeology. He was a member of Foreningen til norske Fortidsminnesmerkers Bevaring from its foundation in 1844, and became its president (formann) in 1851 - a position he held until 1899. From 1860 he combined the work for the Society with the job as government antiquarian, charged with the task of "occypying himself with the prehistoric relics of the realm" - a precursor to the Riksantikvar, whose office dates from 1912. In his capacity as state archaeologist he excavated around 1400 burial mounds! His connection to the Gol church was his role as adviser to chamberlain Christian Holst, administrator of the royal estate at Bygdøy. Holst was also a founder of the Fortidsforening, and the two men knew each other well. Nicolaysen probably drew up the plans for the royal open air museum and certainly advised Holst about suitable buildings to acquire. He had unsuccessfully tried to buy the first building, Hovestua, for the Society about ten years earlier, and told Holst to try again on behalf of the king - which was a success, as Mr. Hove decided to present it to the king as a gift. See also his biographies here:

http://www.snl.no/.nbl_biografi/Nicolay_Nicolaysen/utdypning

http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolay_Nicolaysen

Glück auf, Micha! – Roede 22. mar 2009 kl. 11:26 (CET)

Hello Lars. Thank you very much for the second review. I'm not finished yet, because there are some things missing. History, Plans, more Details to the paintings... I will all do before end of march. You gave me some input on my german discussion page. So I have some question, because I think I missinterpreted you in some points.

1. "you do not mention the low benches along the walls of the nave." -> Do you mean the very low shelf (about 10 cm)? If yes, what is his function? I will mention it in the plans and the legend.

There are low benches along all four walls of the nave. You can see them on the plan in the royal guide-book, and in the sections. The seat is a plank about 30 cm wide, resting on a very low "arcade". Total height about 25 cm. They are mentioned in the text, page 11: "I Skibet fik endel af Forsamlingen sin Plads paa de faste Vægbænke, Kvinderne paa nordre Side, Mændene paa søndre; de øvrige maa vel have indtaget en staaende Stilling, da der nette fandtes løse Bænke." Nicolaysen is of course describing the restored interior. These benches are usually said to be for the old and infirm to sit on, at the time before regular pews were introduced, while young and strong people would have to stand. Again, I suppose that they were copies from the ones in Borgund and other churches, since the original benches probably disappeared long before the church was sent to Oslo.

1. "If I understand you correctly, you seem to say that the pulpit was removed some time during the 17th, 18th or 19th centuries, and not present when the church was moved to Oslo." -> yes, I wrote there was a pulpit since reformation but was missing 1884. Is this wrong?

I would think so. Your source is probably Nicolaysen, page 11: "... derimod fandtes der ingen Prækestol." Here he is referring to the mediaeval situation, which is identical to the situation after restoration at the museum. As far as I know, there is no documentation of the interior at Gol before the church was taken down. Therefore, I think that Niclaysen's description refers to the middle ages. There would without any doubt have been a pulpit in the church in 1880; a Norwegian church just could not do without it. If it was post-reformation, it would have been of no interest to Nicolaysen.

1. "What about the gallery, or the scars in the columns that I interpet as traces of a gallery?" -> Ah. I havent understand that correctly, but you wrote "A 'galleri' in Norwegian is a "shelf" with seats for the congregation, one level above the floor." So that was maybe something like a "second" floor? Is there still a stave church (or other type) with a galleri, so that I'm able to imagine it? "Have you found literature that contradicts my theory that a gallery must have been put in when the church became too small for a growing community?" -> I didn't found anything about it yet in other literature. But I will mention it.

Yes, you might call it a second floor. Lots of stave churches had them, some still have them, many were removed during restorations in modern times. I'll send you a picture from Heddal stave church before restoration from home by e-mail.

1. "Lastly, the painted "alterfrontale" that was placed in the church at Bygdøy did not belong to the original church at Gol, if I remember correctly. But from where, I have forgotten." -> yes, you wrote that earlier on this page "the altar frontale that is now missing belonged to Heddal stave church" ;-)

Thank you very much. I'm really have not finished writing the article. I would say about 80 to 90% is done yet. The contest last until 31. March and you gave me a lot of information I did not build in yet but is still on my task list. --Micha L. Rieser 23. mar 2009 kl. 01:16 (CET) Ps. "Svalgang" is often described as "Umgang" in german literatur. But I think your "Laubengang" is really the better name!

I agree, because the resemblance to Norwegian 'omgang' is certain to cause a lot of confusion. In my experience a German 'Laubengang' is usually on an upper level. Could that word also be used about a contruction on the ground floor? – Roede 23. mar 2009 kl. 13:14 (CET)

typical "Laubengang" of a city on ground floor.

Laubengang is also on the ground floor. One side is closed by a wall and opened on the other side and has always a ceiling. That's because I think its the better name, because "Umgang" only means it is around something. If the side has arcades its also a de:Bogengang. So the most "Laubengänge" of the stave churches are "Bogengänge". - Thank you very much for the picture of the galeris of Heddal. Now I understand it. In German that must be named as "seitliche Emporen", because a Gallery on upper level is always an "Empore". --Micha L. Rieser 23. mar 2009 kl. 23:35 (CET)

Now I have finished the article about 95%. Tomorrow it's the last "Feinschliff"... :-) --Micha L. Rieser 31. mar 2009 kl. 02:44 (CEST)

I congratulate you on the excellent result of your heroic efforts! This is a certain winner, in my opinion. I have one or two suggestions that might make it even better, if possible. In the introduction, you refer to the Swedish-Norwegian king. That expression implies a non-existing state "Sweden-Norway". This was not one united kingdom, but two united kingdoms. Oscar's title in Norway was "King of Norway and Sweden", and of course the other way around in Sweden.

You must add one more church to your list of stave churches that have been moved to now locations. Øye stavkirke in Vang, Oppland was dismantled in the 18th century, but most of the materials were preserved, and the church was re-erected (not on the original site) in 1953.

The site at Bygdøy should be spelled "Badstubraaten" or "Badstuebråten", with no "v". (The bath-house place, in modern Norwegian "Badstubråten").

When you write about the incorporation of King Oscar's Museum in the Norsk Folkemuseum in 1907, you write that it was "umgewandelt". If I understand that word correctly, it means something else and should replaced. The King's collection was given to the Norsk Folkemuseum, which had been established as its neighbour already in 1898.

In the text underneath the picture of the south portal, you write that it was a replica of the "North Portal". A slip of the pen!

I am off to Mexico for the Easter. Good luck with the last 5 %! – Roede 31. mar 2009 kl. 15:49 (CEST)

noch mehr Bilder

Ich habe im Artikel GNorsk Folkemuseum das schöne Bild Gol stavkyrkje B.jpeg gefunden. Vielleicht lässt es sich ja im Artikel noch verwenden, stellt es doch den Zustand direkt nach dem Wiederaufbau dar. --Andibrunt 19:13, 20. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Review vom 18. April bis 17. Mai 2009

Dieser Artikel war im Schreibwettbewerb und hat leider keine Platzierung erreicht. Ich möchte ihn aber dennoch exzellent haben. Was gibt es noch zu tun? --Micha 23:13, 18. Apr. 2009 (CEST) micha, hier meine Punkte aus dem irc:

• Translozierung ist z.b. nicht OMA-tauglich  Ok
• ebensowenig "Hochsäulenkonstruktion", die müsste noch erklärt werden, im Idealfall in einem verlinkten extra-Artikel  Ok

--AnRo0002 23:46, 18. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Ich sehe nichs ausser die zwei roten Links zu entfernen. -- Glugi12 12:37, 19. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Inwiefern sind diese Rotlinks ein Qualitätsmangel? --Micha 18:45, 19. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Ein Qualitätsmangel sicher nicht. Es macht nur einen besseren optischen Eindruck. -- Glugi12 20:01, 19. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Das kann sein. Aber eine Verlinkung auf einen nichtexistierenden Artikel macht Sinn, denn er weist auf einen möglichen Erweiterungsschritt hin. Ich habe nur dann verlinkt, wenn ich eigentlich dort gerne einen weiterführenden Artikel hätte und davon ausgehe, dass es sich auch um einen relevanten Nachschlagebegriff gemäss WP:RK handelt. Aber das muss dann nicht zwingend ich sein, der den Artikel schreibt, denn es kann ein Themengebiet sein, wo jemand viel kompetenter ist als ich. Apropos Rotlinks: Es werden zum Beispiel thematische Listen angelegt, um genau solche Rotlinkssammlungen zu haben. Rotlinks nun einfach aus optischen Gründen rauszunehmen, ist deshalb die schlechteste mögliche Lösung. --Micha 22:16, 19. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Meine Notizen zur Wettbewerbsversion:

• Die Verlinkung muss verbessert werden. Begriffe wie Apsis, Chor oder Dachhaut sollten schon bei der ersten Erwähnung verlinkt werden.
• Der Abschnitt Baugeschichte konzentriert sich zu sehr auf die Zeit der Translozierung, die für meinen Geschmack etwas zu ausführlich nacherzählt wird.
  • Wieso geht der Abschnitt "Mittelalter" bis ins frühe 19. Jahrhundert?
  • Ist bekannt, wann genau die Kirche bzw. die Gemeinde protestantisch wurde?
  • Wann wurde der Wiederaufbau der Kirche beendet?
  • Eine ausführlichere Beschreibung der Nutzung der Kirche nach der Translozierung wäre wünschenswert; mir fehlen Angaben zu möglichen Restaurierungen nach 1885. Dass die Kirche erst 1907 Teil des Museums wurde, steht nur im Artikel Norsk Folkemuseum.
• Bei der Beschreibung der Innenausstattung wäre es sinnvoll, genauer darauf hinzuweisen, welche Elemente des Baus erst bei der Rekonstruktion im Jahr 1884 entstanden sind. Ansonsten ist der Abschnitt aber gut referenziert.
• Sprachlich guter Artikel, allerdings ist der Abschnitt "Architektur und Innenausstattung" etwas langatmig
• Für die selbst erstellten Grundrisse und Abzeichnungen sollten Quellen angegeben werden (basieren beispielsweise die Grundrisse auf Informationsmaterial des Museums, Schautafeln im Gebäude oder historischen Baubeschreibungen?)  Ok in der Bildbeschreibung angepasst.

=> Fazit: Potenzial für Lesenswert oder besser vorhanden, Review aber notwendig ;) --Andibrunt 19:08, 20. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

(nach BK) Auf Bitte von Micha mein Senf: Allzuviel zu bemängeln habe ich nicht gefunden.

• Die Positionskarte der Kirche auf Bygdoy halte ich für deutlich ungenügend. Wo genau auf Bygdoy die Kirche liegt, wird nicht ersichtlich, dafür sieht man halbwegs, wo Bygdoy liegt - aber auch das nicht richtig. Wüsste man es nicht, würde man nicht merken, das die Halbinsel am Oslofjord und damit am Meer liegt. Ich vermisse dagegen eine Karte mit dem ursprünglichen Standort Gol. Sinnvolle Karten wären m.E.: Position von Gol, Position von Bygdoy in Südnorwegen mit gesamtem Oslofjord, Position von Bygdoy innerhalb Oslos mit Angabe der Position der Stabkirche, Position der Stabkirche in einem Plan des Norsk Folkemuseum. Ein Ausschnitt der Karte wie sie in Liste der Stabkirchen verwendet wird (nur Translozierung der Gol-Kirche) wäre auch spannend. Hier gibt es also noch deutliches Verbesserungspotential.
• Die Geschichte der Translozierung könnte um ca. 10-20% gekürzt werden und keine Untertitel der einzelnen Jahre. So dominiert die Translozierung (und deren Hintergründe) die Baugeschichte zu stark und sie bekommt einen Stellenwert, der ihr nicht zusteht.
• Allgemein ist die Bebilderung noch suboptimal, wobei ich ganz genau weiss, dass das Norsk Folkemuseum strenge Fotografiereinschränkungen erlassen hat. Hier sind Verbesserungen ohne Abstecher in die Halblegalität wohl schwierig. Möglich ist aber wohl ein zusätzliches Bild der gesamten Kirche im Sommer (resp. einfach ohne Schnee). Das jetzige Bild ist toll, aber der Schnee nimmt den Blick auf die Holzkonstruktion schon etwas.
• Echt - sorry - schlecht finde ich den Teil "Nutzung der Kirche", sowohl früher wie heute. Und ich mag nicht glauben, dass sich darüber nichts finden lässt (es wurde offenbar ja auch norwegische Literatur konsultiert). Das ist in Sachen Exzellenz für mich ein echtes Killerkriterium, währenddem die anderen eher zur Kategorie nice-to-have gehören. Gerade bei der aktuellen Nutzung muss mehr möglich sein, ich meine gelesen zu haben (damals 2006, als ich dort war), dass dort u.a. Hochzeiten stattfinden, regelmässige Gottesdienste etc. Zur ehemaligen Nutzung lässt sich sicher auch was auftreiben. Wohl nicht von 1200, aber ev. von 1700, 1800 oder so? Und wenn sich wirklich nichts finden lässt, kann man ja generell ein paar Worte zur Nutzung von Stabkirchen verlieren. Ist all das nicht möglich, würde ich mir überlegen, den Abschnitt ganz zu streichen. Ist zwar auch nicht toll, aber kein Abschnitt fällt weniger auf als ein ganz kurzer.
• Dafür gleich nachher ein echtes Highlight des Artikels: Die Schaugrafiken! Aber leider habe ich nicht herausgefunden, von wo du die Angaben hast.  Ok in der Bildbeschreibung angepasst.
• Bei den Replikas frage ich mich, ob die Geokoordinaten nötig sind und wenn ja, ob man sie ev. nicht dezenter platzieren kann (ev. in einem Link versteckt). Ich würde die Replika-Bilder zudem als Thumbs zu den jeweiligen Abschnitten einbinden und nicht als Galerie (aber wiederum Geschmackssache)
• Den siehe-auch-Verweis auf die Liste der Stabkirchen würde ich noch versuchen, im Artikel selbst unterzubringen, evtl. unter geschichtliches Umfeld und/oder Replikas

Trotz der Kritik: Ein schöner Artikel, dem ich ohne zu Zögern das Prädikat lesenswert erteilen würde. Aber du willst ja mehr ;) -- Quarkgurke ist ein Pseudonym Protest! 19:19, 20. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

ein absolutes Detail: Sind die Bücher (Abschnitt Literatur) von 1885 wirklich in Christiania erschienen? 1885 hiess die Stadt nämlich Kristiania... -- Quarkgurke ist ein Pseudonym Protest! 22:57, 20. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Äh. So steht es drauf. D.h. norwegisch schreiben sie es „Christiana“. Kann aber sein, dass es deshalb nicht Deutsch ist. - Ps. ich habe mir deine Punkte angesehen und bin mit den meisten einverstanden. Nur bei der Bebilderung sehe ich das ein wenig anders. Ich habe nämlich extra ein stimmungsvolles Bild für die Einleitung gesucht. Und schneebedeckte Stabkirchen sehen eben sehr stimmungsvoll aus. Das erste Bild soll ja ein wenig Appetitt machen für den Artikel und weniger die Kirche in sämtlichen Details zeigen. Für die exakten Details hat es später, wo es ja gerade darum geht diese zu erläutern, ja viele Pläne und Detailfotos. Somit kommt der Leser ja in den Genuss sämtlicher Details. Vor allem die Zeichnungen Datei:Gol--exterior-front-view.png und Datei:Gol--exterior-side-view.png sind enorm exakt und zeigen das Äussere der Kirche detailreicher, als es noch viele Fotografien könnten. -Micha 15:44, 21. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Wenns so draufsteht, lass es! ;) Gemäss der norwegischen Wikipedia hiess Oslo zudem damals entweder Kristiania oder Cristiania, je nach Anwendungsgebiet, aber nicht mehr Christiania. Naja, wahrscheinlich kamen die selber schon nicht mehr draus... Zur Bebilderung: Du hast mich teilweise missverstanden: Ich finde das Einstiegsbild auch schön - und nicht 08/15. Ich finde gar nicht, dass du es ersetzen sollst. Aber vielleicht lässt sich noch eine Sommer-Ansicht zusätzlich im Artikel unterbringen. Denn diese "Standardansicht" fehlt bislang. Und eine Stabkirche im Sommer unterscheidet sich deutlicher von einer Beton/Steinkirche im Sommer, im Winter aber haben beide Schnee auf den Dächern, und Schnee sieht gleich aus (natürlich sieht man auch mit Schnee den Unterschied, aber ohne würde man ihn noch deutlicher sehen) -- Quarkgurke ist ein Pseudonym Protest! 16:19, 21. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Ok. Dann habe ich dich wirklich missverstanden. Ein Sommerbild lässt sich wirklich noch gut unterbringen. --Micha 20:02, 22. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Der Artikel bietet eine Menge Wissenswertes, ich finde ihn nicht schlecht. Es fehlt ihm aber für mein Gefühl ein wenig der Blick fürs Wesentliche. So ist zB der Abschnitt "Geschichtliches Umfeld" durchaus informativ, hilft einem aber nicht recht weiter: Er handelt allgemein von Stabkirchen (wäre ja legitim), gibt aber einem Laien wenig Hinweise darauf, was denn an den Stabkirchen interessant sein könnte. Ähnlich der Geschichtsabschnitt: Man wird einfach nicht gut durch den Artikel geleitet, bekommt keine Hinweise auf das Relevante und das weniger Relevante bzw. Beiwerk, alles erscheint gleich wichtig. Das Phänomen wiederholt sich bei der Architektur: Der Text neigt dazu, vom Lemma wegzuführen, ohne dass man so richtig wüsste warum (Beispiel die "Wikingerschifftheorie"). Er ist deshalb recht anstrengend zu lesen. Mehr Konzentration aufs Lemma (Abschweifungen kennzeichnen oder streichen) und mehr auswählende Gewichtung wären gut; so verliert man sich leicht in entzifferten Kartuschentexten und bekommt doch keine rechte Vorstellung, wie der Innenraum aussieht und was an ihm bemerkenswert ist.

Dass die Stabkirche einen Eigentümer hatte, finde ich interessant; was war das denn für einer (Namen unwichtig), wie kam er dazu, Eigentümer zu werden? "Katholisch" erscheint mir für vorreformatorische Zeiten als Anachronismus; natürlich gab es den Begriff, aber er bezeichnete nicht einen Gegensatz zu "evangelisch". Ich würde den Begriff vermeiden.--Mautpreller 17:17, 21. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Gut, danke. Ich werde jeden Abschnitt nochmals neu gewichten und den kompletten Artikel umschreiben. Ich möchte einfach keine Details (Kartuschen) streichen, weil solche Details für einen Stabkirchen Interessierten genau von Interesse sein können im Gegensatz zu jemanden, der sich nur oberflächlich informieren will. Das Füllmaterial wie geschichtliches Umfeld oder Wikingerschiffe nehme ich tatsächlich raus, denn er gehört eigentlich thematisch eher in den Artikel Stabkirche. --Micha 20:00, 22. Apr. 2009 (CEST)

Erfolgreiche Lesenswert-Kandidatur vom 19. bis 26. Mai 2009

Die Stabkirche Gol ist eine Museumskirche im Norsk Folkemuseum in Oslo und eine der 28 Stabkirchen in Norwegen mit mittelalterlicher Bausubstanz. Sie ist eine 14-Mast-Stabkirche, wurde 1884 unter der Leitung von Nicolay Nicolaysen von Gol in der Provinz Buskerud an den heutigen Standort versetzt und 1885 von dem Architekten Waldemar Hansteen nach dem Vorbild der Stabkirche Borgund rekonstruiert. Die Mastkonstruktion stammt aus dem 13. Jahrhundert. Malereien im Chor und in der Apsis sind aus dem 17. Jahrhundert. Der Dachschmuck mit den typischen Drachenköpfen wurden der Stabkirche Borgund nachempfunden.

Der Artikel hat am Schreibwettbewerb teilgenommen und wurde Dritter in der Kategorie des Publikumspreis. Er war danach im Review und ich habe viele Punkte daraus bereits umgesetzt. Ich möchte ihn eigentlich exzellent haben, habe aber momentan nicht die Zeit dazu. Meiner Meinung nach ist er aber bereits lesenswert (so hoffe ich doch). - Vergleichsartikel: Stabkirche Borgund. --Micha 01:09, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

 Pro Lesenswert ist er jetzt schon und die paar Schnitzer, die noch drin sind, dürften während der Kandidatur noch entfernt werden. Dringend angegangen werden sollte dieser Satz: Die spätere Stabkirche Gol wurde vermutlich am Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts gebaut, wie dendrochronologische Untersuchungen vermuten lassen, welche die heute noch erhaltenen ältesten Teile der Kirche auf 1212 datieren. Wenn die ältesten Teile nach der dendrochronologischen Analyse im Jahr 1212 gefällt wurden, dann ist der Bau am Anfang des 13. Jahrhunderts begonnen worden und das nicht nur vermutlich zu vermuten. ;-) Krtek76 09:12, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Dass sie dann gefällt worden, heisst aber noch nicht, dass sie umgehend verbaut wurden. Wie würdest du das denn schreiben? --Micha 15:56, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Wenn es mehrere (unterschiedliche) Hölzer am besten noch mit leicht abweichendenden Fälldaten (mit Waldkante) sind, so etwa 1, 2 Jahre plus/minus, dann ist die Wahrscheinlichkeit hoch, dass sie sehr bald nach dem Fällen verbaut wurden. Im Allgemeinen wurden Hölzer im Mittelalter saftfrisch verbaut, vor allem weil sie dann viel leichter zu bearbeiten waren. Dann schließt nicht aus, dass auch das eine oder andere Holz mal länger lag (z.B. Stangen für Rüsthölzer beim Steinbau) oder zweitverwendet wurde, aber man fällte keine 20 Bäume und legte sie dann 25 Jahre zum Trocknen weg. Krtek76 17:01, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Ich hatte mir eigentlich erhofft, dass im Vergleich zur SW-Version der Geschichtsteil noch weiter ausgebaut werden könnte, nun ist er aber leider zusammengekürzt worden. Dass die Geschichte der Kirche nach der Versetzung nur in der Einleitung erwähnt wird, finde ich alles andere als optimal. Die Verlinkung ist auch weiterhin verbesserungswürdig, Links zu Begriffen wie Chor (Architektur) oder Dachhaut machen den Artikel noch laienverständlicher und benutzerfreundlicher (vielleicht komme ich heute noch selbst dazu, dieses zu verbessern). Der Rest des Artikels war aber auch schon vorher auf einem hohen Niveau und wurde während des Reviews noch verbessert. Daher trotz der Lücken im Geschichtsteil noch Lesenswert. --Andibrunt 11:03, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Es gibt zur Geschichte vor der Versetzung praktisch keine Quellen. Es gibt bauliche Untersuchungen und folglich Vermutungen und ein paar wenige historische Erwähnungen. Aber eine eigentliche niedergeschriebene Geschichte gibt es in der Tat nicht. Deshalb ist dein Wunsch ohne Zeitmaschine so auch nicht erfüllbar. :-) - Die allgemeine Geschichte der Christianisierung und des ersten Christentums im Norden etc. gehörte meiner Meinung eher in den allgemeinen Teil von Stabkirche. Wenn nämlich dieser Teil in jedem konkreten Stabkirchenartikel eingebaut ist, ist es durch die Redundanz sehr unschön. --Micha 15:56, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Achso, du sprichts ja von der Geschihte nach der Versetung. (Nicht richtig gelesen, sorry) Ja, werde ich abklären und versuchen mit ein paar Sätzen nachholen. Viel zu sagen gibt es dazu aber nicht. Sie war bereits beim König ein Sammelstück und kurz darauf sehr schnell Teil des Museums und ist deshalb im Grossen und Ganzen im Zustand nach der Restaurierung. Die Idee ist es ja auch, sieals Museumsobjekt möglichst in diesem Zustand zu bewahren. Viel Geschichte um diese Kirche ist deshalb nicht mehr passiert. --Micha 16:01, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Das steht ja größtenteils schon in der Einleitung. Daher sollte man aber meiner Meinung nach besser die Einleitung kürzen und diese Informationen in den Geschichtsteil packen, dann endet der Geschichtsabschnitt im Artikel weniger abrupt. --Andibrunt 20:35, 19. Mai 2009 (CEST)

 Pro Ja, ich erachte den Artikel für Lesenswert. Klar das eine oder andere Detail könnten noch verbessert werden (könnten, müssen aber nicht), aber es geht hier ja um Lesenswert nicht exzelent, da dürfen kleine Ungereimtheiten bei der Gewichtung der einzelnen Abschnitte bestehen. Bobo11 12:00, 25. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Sehe ich ähnlich. Daher  Pro. --Cup of Coffee 22:34, 25. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Artikel ist in dieser Version lesenswert mit 4  Pro. --Kauk0r 00:07, 26. Mai 2009 (CEST)

Artikel des Tages

Hallo, der Lesenswerte Artikel wurde vor einiger Zeit als Artikel des Tages für den 23.08.2009 vorgeschlagen. Eine Diskussion findet hier statt. --Vux 23:39, 19. Aug. 2009 (CEST)