text:
Talk:Sigtuna Municipality

(As a reaction to David Parker:) I'm pretty sure Sigtuna was the capital of Sweden; I visited the town last summer as a tourist, and this was told in the Tourist Office and museum. I also checked out some other web-encyclopedia's: they state the same. And as you wrote, it was the royal centre of the country. -- User:jheijmans Hi, J. I'm not at all sure, because the museum site avoids using the word: Sigtuna was definitely a royal centre, and until the 12th century the most explicitly urban, but an article by museum director Sten Tesch (http://195.190.203.17/museer/eng/history/readmhis.htm) says that:

 * "The fact that Sigtuna was the only town in the kingdom of Sweden during the eleventh century does not mean that the Lake Malar region, where Sigtuna was located, was the center of the kingdom.... Sigtuna can be seen as an expression of the need to centralize political and ideological control in an area where true royal power was weak"

This seems the description of a provincial stronghold for the projection of royal power, rather than a capital proper. I think the confusion arises in part from the terms "first town" which Sigtuna appears to have been, both chronologically and, until the 12th century at least, in size, or "chief town", again true until at least the 12th C: both expressions are easy to read as "capital", when they don't necessarily carry that meaning. I'm very wary of useing the term "capital" at all in these formative periods of western countries, but I think the description is especially of doubtful appropriateness to Sigtuna, for all the town's enormous importance and interest. User:David Parker

I agree with you that the use of the word capital may indeed be not completely appriopriate in this case, though since it was the seat of the king, I would not be afraid to use the word. But let's not, to be on the safe side. User:Jheijmans

title: Talk:Sigtuna Municipality