Academic literature on the topic 'Copenhagen (Denmark) – Social conditions – 18th century'

This paper sheds light on the German (Danish at that time) theologian Balthasar Münter’s authorship and focuses on how his writings adapted to his intellectual, social and cultural surroundings. Münter served as a preacher in the German congregation in Copenhagen between 1765 and 1793 and left many writings to posterity, including 17 volumes of sermons. These texts are written in a public and political environment, offering shifting conditions for the church. The reflection concentrates on how he changed his preaching and teaching under the different conditions the church was offered in this period. A central question is what Münter is doing when preaching, writing and teaching, i.e., how he wanted this to be understood by the 18th-century reader? This approach to 18th-century intellectual history draws on the speech act theory, such as this theoretical foundation developed by the British intellectual historian Quentin Skinner.

Folkelige og sociale bevagelser. Nyere forskningsretninger og kvalitative forstaelser[Popular and Social Movements. Recent Research Approaches and Qualitative Interpretations]By Vagn WahlinHowever fascinating Grundtvig himself is as a central figure in 19th century Denmark, we, the citizens of the Third Millennium, have to ask why and how he is also interesting today and how his word, work and influence spread. Part of the answer to that fundamental question lies in the fact that he was the right man at the right place at the right time, with the right tidings to tell some clergymen and many peasant farmers on their dominant, middle size, family farms that they were the core of the nation. But part of the answer is to be found in the fact that his followers managed to elevate him to the influencing position as an inspirer and prophet of a broad popular movement that lasted for generations after his death. This popular, national and Christian movement of the Grundtvigians interacted in the social and political development of more than a hundred years with the other broad popular and ideological movements of Denmark such as the Labour Movement, the more Evangelical movement of the Home Mission, the Temperance movements, the Suffragists and women’s organizations, the associations of the world of sport, the political and youth organizations, etc. They were all active on the local level and soon also on the national level and, from the 1880s and onwards, established more firm organizations and institutions to deal with practical matters such as schools, boy scouts, community houses, soccer stadiums, magazines, newspapers, political associations, trade unions, as well as organized economic and anticapitalistic activities by co-operative dairies, breweries, slaughterhouses, export companies etc. As long as the agrarian sector of society (until around 1960-1970) dominated the national export to pay for the large import of society, that pattern of popular movements, also in the urban industry, influenced most of Danish history and life - and is still most influential in today’s post-modern society.During absolutism (1660-1848), organized social activities and associations were forbidden or strictly controlled. Yet a growing and organized public debate appeared in Copenhagen in late 18th century, followed by literary and semi-political associations amongst the enlightened, urban bourgeoisie. Around 1840 the liberals had organized themselves into urban associations and through newspapers. They were ready to take over the power of the society and the state, but could only do so through an alliance with the peasant farmers in 1846 followed by the German uprising in 1848 by the liberals in Schleswig-Holstein.In Denmark there existed a rather distinct dividing line - economic, cultural, social and in terms of political power - between two dominant sectors of society: Copenhagen, totally dominant in the urban sector, in contrast to the agrarian world, where 80% of the population lived.In the urban as well as in the agrarian sectors of society, the movements mostly appeared to be a local protest against some modernization or innovative introductions felt as a threat to religious or material interests - except for a few cases, where the state wanted an enlightened debate as in the Royal Agrarian Society of 1769. Whether the said local protesters won or lost, their self organization in the matter could lead to a higher degree of civil activity, which again could lead to the spread of their viewpoints and models of early organization. The introduction of civil liberties by the Constitution of 1849 made it more easy and acceptable for the broad masses of society to organize. However, with the spread of organizations and their institutions in the latter part of the 19th century, an ethical and social understanding arose that the power of the organized citizens should be extended from the special or vested interests of the founding group to the benefit of the whole of society and of all classes.So everybody who contributes positively, little or much, to the upholding and development of Danish society should be benefited and embraced by the popular movements. Around 1925 the Labour Movement as the last and largest in number and very influential had finally accepted that ethical point of view and left the older understanding of the suppressed army of toiling and hungry workers. The people, the ‘folk’, and the country of all classes had then been united into ‘Danmark for folket’ (a Denmark o f by and fo r the people).So while a social movement may be an organization of mere protest or vested interests or a short-lived phenomena, a ‘folkelig bevagelse’ (popular movement) became what it was at first - in the understanding of the majority of the Danes, but not in the eyes of the 19th century bourgeois and landowner elite - a positive label. It is still so today, though it is now questioned by many of the more internationally-minded members of the new elite. The word ‘folk’ in the term ‘folkelig bevagelse’ is so highly valued that nearly all political parties of today have included it in their names. For the majority of people, Danish and popular and movements stand for the organized societal activity of those who accept the language, history, culture including religion, landscapes, national symbols, etc. of Denmark and who incorporate all this as a valid part of their self-understanding just as they actively take part in the mutual responsibility for their fellow countrymen. This general attitude is most clearly demonstrated when it is severely breached by some individual or group.With the addition of the Church and the Christian dimension, we have what is the essence of Grundtvig’s heritage. Without this source of inspiration, the popular movements up to a generation ago would have been different and perhaps of less importance, and without the popular movements, Grundtvig’s influence would have been less important in Denmark of the last hundred years. We may best understand this as a process of mutual dependency and of a mutual societal interaction.

The article aims to identify trends in the study of modern European society in the context of a pandemic. The foundation of the source base for the analysis was European media reports. The information array was processed using quantitative assessment methods and interpreted from the standpoint of the approach of the Copenhagen School of security studies. The school attracted attention at the turn of the 21st century by adapting a number of constructivist ideas to the subject field of the study of international relations. The school became famous thanks to the developments carried out at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (Denmark) from 1988 to 2002 by a group of researchers led by Barry Buzan. Other participants of the school are Ole Waever, Jaap De Wilde, Richard Little. The central publication of this project was the monograph Security. A New Framework for Analysis (1998). The basis of this analysis was the ideas of societal security, securitization of the most problematic issues in the media and of regional security complexes. The main disadvantages of the school's approach are the specific understanding of society in constructivism, which is considered as a phenomenon relatively autonomous from the state, the limited validity of the concept, the analysis of security through a set of changeable states and contexts. Despite a number of comments made to the school, the school's approach allows us to speak about the specifics of European society as a whole. The focus of the European media in the context of a pandemic is on socio-political problems, it gradually shifted towards the topic of the pandemic in 2021. Nevertheless, political issues still occupy a central place in the focus of international security perception. Quantitative analysis shows the prime importance of traditional issues at the pan-European level. The pandemic did not displace, but rather caught up with it in the total amount of information. The European media show the “subsidence” of the panEuropean level of security before the national one in the conditions of a pandemic as a regional security complex. Not only COVID-19 played a role here, but also Brexit and other internal processes of the region's development: difficulties with flights, the introduction of immunity passports, restrictions on movement, lockdown in some countries (Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and France). As a result, in 2021, national measures to overcome the development of the pandemic led to a decrease in the number of reports on general regional issues. There is a certain shift in emphasis towards the problems of societal security, which objectively reflects the reaction of the European communities. Within the social field, which is the specificity of the European region, the sphere of restriction of personal and political rights of people plays a critical role. At the same time, in the context of the development of regional protest sentiments, this aspect is an important factor in the formation of a pan-European societal agenda. The situation with the reaction to COVID-19 affected the fundamental values of society, not individual countries, but European identity as a whole. This allows us to speak about the formation of a general level of social self-identification.

Canon and oblivion. The memorials of archaeologyThe article takes its point of departure in the sun chariot; the find itself and its find site at Trundholm bog where it was discovered in 1902. The famous sun chariot, now at the National Museum in Copenhagen, is a national treasure included in the Danish “Cultural Canon” and “History Canon”.The find site itself has alternated bet­ween experiencing intense attention and oblivion. A monument was erected in 1925; a new monument was then created in 1962 and later moved in 2002. The event of 1962 was followed by ceremonies, speeches and songs, and anniversary celebrations were held in 2002, during which a copy of the sun chariot was sacrificed.The memorial at Trundholm bog is only one of several memorials at archaeological find sites in Denmark. Which finds have been commemorated and marked by memorials? When did this happen? Who took the initiative? How were they executed? Why are these finds remembered? What picture of the past do we meet in this canon in stone?Find sites and archaeological memorials have been neglected in archaeology and by recent trends in the study of the history of archaeology. Considering the impressive research on monuments and monumentality in archaeology, this is astonishing. However, memorials in general receive attention in an active research field on the use of history and heritage studies, where historians and ethnologists dominate. The main focus here is, however, on war memorials. An important source of inspiration has been provided by a project led by the French historian Pierre Nora who claims that memorial sites are established when the living memory is threatened (a thesis refuted by the many Danish “Reunion” monuments erected even before the day of reunification in 1920).Translated into Danish conditions, studies of the culture of remembrance and memorials have focused on the wars of 1848-50 and 1864, the Reunion in 1920, the Occupation in 1940-45 and, more generally, on conflicts in the borderland bet­ween Denmark and Germany.In relation to the total number of memorials and public meeting places in Denmark, archaeological memorials of archaeology are few in number, around 1 % of the total. However, they prompt crucial questions concerning the use of the past, on canon and oblivion.“Canon” means rule, and canonical texts are the supposed genuine texts in the Bible. The concept of canon became a topic in the 1990s when Harold Bloom, in “The Western Canon”, identified a number of books as being canonical. In Denmark, canon has been a great issue in recent years with the appearance of the “Danish Literary Canon” in 2004, and the “Cultural Canon” and the “History Canon”, both in 2006. The latter includes the Ertebølle culture, the sun chariot and the Jelling stone. The political context for the creation of canon lists is the so-called “cultural conflict” and the debate concerning immigration and “foreigners”.Canon and canonization means a struggle against relativism and oblivion. Canon means that something ought to be remembered while something else is allowed to be forgotten. Canon lists are constructed when works and values are perceived as being threatened by oblivion. Without ephemerality and oblivion there is no need for canon lists. Canon and oblivion are linked.Memorials mean canonization of certain individuals, collectives, events and places, while others are allowed to be forgotten. Consequently, archaeological memorials constitute part of the canonization of a few finds and find sites. According to Pierre Nora’s thesis, memorials are established when the places are in danger of being forgotten.Whether one likes canon lists or not, they are a fact. There has always been a process of prioritisation, leading to some finds being preserved and others discarded, some being exhibited and others ending up in the stores.Canonization is expressed in the classical “Seven Wonders of the World”, the “Seven New Wonders of the World” and the World Heritage list. A find may be declared as treasure trove, as being of “unique national significance” or be honoured by the publication of a monograph or by being given its own museum.In practice, the same few finds occur in different contexts. There seems to be a consensus within the subject of canonization of valuing what is well preserved, unique, made of precious metals, bears images and is monumental. A top-ten canon list of prehistoric finds from Denmark according to this consensus would probably include the following finds: The sun chariot from Trundholm, the girl from Egtved, the Dejbjerg carts, the Gundestrup cauldron, Tollund man, the golden horns from Gallehus, the Mammen or Bjerringhøj grave, the Ladby ship and the Skuldelev ships.Just as the past may be used in many different ways, there are many forms of memorial related to monuments from the past or to archaeological excavations. Memorials were constructed in the 18th and 19th centuries at locations where members of the royal family had conducted archaeology. As with most other memorials from that time, the prince is at the centre, while antiquity and archaeology create a brilliant background, for example at Jægerpris (fig. 2). Memorials celebrating King Frederik VII were created at the Dæmpegård dolmen and at the ruin of Asserbo castle. A memorial celebrating Count Frederik Sehested was erected at Møllegårdsmarken (fig. 3). Later there were also memorials celebrating the architect C.M. Smith at the ruin of Kalø Castle and Svend Dyhre Rasmussen and Axel Steensberg, respectively the finder and the excavator of the medieval village at Borup Ris.Several memorials were erected in the decades around 1900 to commemorate important events or persons in Danish history, for example by Thor Lange. The memorials were often located at sites and monuments that had recently been excavated, for example at Fjenneslev (fig. 4).A large number of memorials commemorate abandoned churches, monasteries, castles or barrows that have now disappeared, for example at the monument (fig. 5) near Bjerringhøj.Memorials were erected in the first half of the 20th century near large prehistoric monuments which also functioned as public meeting places, for example at Glavendrup, Gudbjerglund and Hohøj. Prehistoric monuments, especially dolmens, were also used as models when new memorials were created during the 19th and 20th centuries.Finally, sculptures were produced at the end of the 19th century sculptures where the motif was a famous archaeological find – the golden horns, the girl from Egtved, the sun chariot and the woman from Skrydstrup.In the following, this article will focus on a category of memorials raised to commemorate an archaeological find. In Denmark, 24 archaeological find sites have been marked by a total of 26 monuments (fig. 6). This survey is based on excursions, scanning the literature, googling on the web and contact with colleagues. The monuments are presented chronological, i.e. by date of erection. 1-2) The golden horns from Gallehus: Found in 1639 and 1734; two monu­ments in 1907. 3) The Snoldelev runic stone: Found in c. 1780; monument in 1915. 4) The sun chariot from Trundholm bog: Found in 1902; monument in 1925; renewed in 1962 and moved in 2002. 5) The grave mound from Egtved: Found in 1921; monument in 1930. 6) The Dejbjerg carts. Found in 1881-83; monument in 1933. 7) The Gundestrup cauldron: Found in 1891; wooden stake in 1934; replaced with a monument in 1935. 8) The Bregnebjerg burial ground: Found in 1932; miniature dolmen in 1934. 9) The Brangstrup gold hoard. Found in 1865; monument in 1935.10-11) Maglemose settlements in Mulle­rup bog: Found in 1900-02; two monuments in 1935 and 1936. 12) The Skarpsalling vessel from Oudrup Heath: Found in 1891; monument in 1936. 13) The Juellinge burial ground: Found in 1909; monument in 1937. 14) The Ladby ship: Found in 1935; monument probably in 1937. 15) The Hoby grave: Found in 1920; monument in 1939. 16) The Maltbæk lurs: Found in 1861 and 1863; monument in 1942. 17) Ginnerup settlement: First excavation in 1922; monument in 1945. 18) The golden boats from Nors: Found in 1885; monument in 1945. 19) The Sædinge runic stone: Found in 1854; monument in 1945. 20) The Nydam boat: Found in 1863; monument in 1947. 21) The aurochs from Vig: Found in 1904; monument in 1957. 22) Tollund Man: Found in 1950; wooden stake in 1968; renewed inscription in 2000. 23) The Veksø helmets: Found in 1942; monument in 1992. 24) The Bjæverskov coin hoard. Found in 1999; monument in 1999. 25) The Frydenhøj sword from Hvidovre: Found in 1929; monument in 2001; renewed in 2005. 26) The Bellinge key: Found in 1880; monument in 2003.Two monuments (fig. 7) raised in 1997 at Gallehus, where the golden horns were found, marked a new trend. From then onwards the find itself and its popular finders came into focus. At the same time the classical or old Norse style of the memorials was replaced by simple menhirs or boulders with an inscription and sometimes also an image of the find. One memorial was constructed as a miniature dolmen and a few took the form of a wooden stake.The finds marked by memorials represent a broader spectrum than the top-ten list. They represent all periods from the Stone Age to the Middle Ages over most of Denmark. Memorials were created throughout the 20th century; in greatest numbers in the 1930s and 1940s, but with none between 1968 and 1992.The inscriptions mention what was found and, in most cases, also when it happened. Sometimes the finder is named and, in a few instances, also the person on whose initiative the memorial was erected. The latter was usually a representative part of the political agency of the time. In the 18th and 19th centuries it was the royal family and the aristocracy. In the 20th century it was workers, teachers, doctors, priests, farmers and, in many cases, local historical societies who were responsible, as seen on the islands of Lolland and Falster, where ten memorials were erected between 1936 and 1951 to commemorate historical events, individuals, monuments or finds.The memorial from 2001 at the find site of the Frydenhøj sword in Hvidovre represents an innovation in the tradition of marking history in the landscape. The memorial is a monumental hybrid between signposting and public art (fig. 8). It formed part of a communication project called “History in the Street”, which involved telling the history of a Copenhagen suburb right there where it actually happened.The memorials marking archaeological finds relate to the nation and to nationalism in several ways. The monuments at Gallehus should, therefore, be seen in the context of a struggle concerning both the historical allegiance and future destiny of Schleswig or Southern Jutland. More generally, the national perspective occurs in inscriptions using concepts such as “the people”, “Denmark” and “the Danes”, even if these were irrelevant in prehistory, e.g. when the monument from 1930 at Egtved mentions “A young Danish girl” (fig. 9). This use of the past to legitimise the nation, belongs to the epoch of World War I, World War II and the 1930s. The influence of nationalism was often reflected in the ceremonies when the memorials were unveiled, with speeches, flags and songs.According to Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and Inge Adriansen, prehistoric objects that are applicable as national symbols, should satisfy three criteria. The should: 1) be unusual and remarkable by their technical and artistic quality; 2) have been produced locally, i.e. be Danish; 3) have been used in religious ceremonies or processions. The 26 archaeological finds marked with memorials only partly fit these criteria. The finds also include more ordinary finds: a burial ground, settlements, runic stones, a coin hoard, a sword and a key. Several of the finds were produced abroad: the Gundestrup cauldron, the Brangstrup jewellery and coins and the Hoby silver cups.It is tempting to interpret the Danish cultural canon as a new expression of a national use of the past in the present. Nostalgia, the use of the past and the creation of memorials are often explained as an expression of crisis in society. This seems reasonable for the many memorials from 1915-45 with inscriptions mentioning hope, consolation and darkness. However, why are there no memorials from the economic crisis years of the 1970s and 1980s? It seems as if the past is recalled, when the nation is under threat – in the 1930s and 40s from expansive Germany – and since the 1990s by increased immigration and globalisation.The memorials have in common local loss and local initiative. A treasure was found and a treasure was lost, often to the National Museum in Copenhagen. A treasure was won that contributed to the great narrative of the history of Denmark, but that treasure has also left its original context. The memorials commemorate the finds that have contributed to the narrative of the greatness, age and area of Denmark. The memorials connect the nation and the native place, the capital and the village in a community, where the past is a central concept. The find may also become a symbol of a region or community, for example the sun chariot for Trundholm community and the Gundestrup cauldron for Himmerland.It is almost always people who live near the find site who want to remember what has been found and where. The finds were commemorated by a memorial on average 60 years after their discovery. A longer period elapsed for the golden horns from Gallehus; shortest was at Bjæverskov where the coin hoard was found in March 1999 and a monument was erected in November of the same year.Memorials might seem an old-fashioned way of marking localities in a national topography, but new memorials are created in the same period as many new museums are established.A unique find has no prominent role in archaeological education, research or other work. However, in public opinion treasures and exotic finds are central. Folklore tells of people searching for treasures but always failing. Treasure hunting is restricted by taboos. In the world of archaeological finds there are no taboos. The treasure is found by accident and in spite of various hindrances the find is taken to a museum. The finder is often a worthy person – a child, a labourer or peasant. He or she is an innocent and ordinary person. A national symbol requires a worthy finder. And the find occurs as a miracle. At the find site a romantic relationship is established between the ancestors and their heirs who, by way of a miracle, find fragments of the glorious past of the nation. A paradigmatic example is the finding of the golden horns from Gallehus. Other examples extend from the discovery of the sun chariot in Trundholm bog to the Stone Age settlement at Mullerup bog.The article ends with a catalogue presenting the 24 archaeological find sites that have been marked with monuments in present-day Denmark.Jes WienbergHistorisk arkeologiInstitutionen för Arkeologi och ­Antikens historiaLunds Universitet

The layout and organisation of wooden houses in Aalborg from 1050-1600This analysis of the layout, organisation and use of wooden houses in Aalborg in the period 1050-1600 is based on the remains of 39 buildings from a total of 11 different excavations carried out between 1962 and 2008. Wooden houses have been excavated at 41 sites in Aalborg, but at only 12 of these sites was the level of recording adequate to permit inclusion in this analysis. In addition, Aalborg has 23 half-timbered houses dated prior to 1600, seven of which still stand on their original site. Out of this total of 62 wooden houses, 25 examples provide good information on layout, organisation and use and therefore form the backbone of this study.In terms of date, the main weight of the excavated houses lies in the 15th century, while the 14th century is poorest represented. Looking exclusively at the 23 best-preserved houses, the distribution is more uniform throughout the Middle Ages; however the 14th century remains underrepresented (tables 1 and 2).None of the houses in the present assemblage has been excavated in its full extent. Even so, it is apparent from the data that the width of the houses was very uniform: generally 5-6 m in the case of the excavated houses. The reason for this is probably that wider houses would require longer tie beams and thereby have a weaker construction. The houses were probably built with a framed construction that contained insufficient timber to stabilise a wider structure. The length of the houses varied as the timber-framed buildings have a modular construction made up of bays. The length of a house can therefore be increased as required by simply adding further bays.Regionality is a major question in the discussion of layout, organisation and use and as all the primary material for this study derives from Aalborg, it is possibly only representative of the situation in Northern Jutland. Studies of 18th century farmhouses show that regional differences do not necessarily follow the usual regional groupings and, moreover, that they can be quite considerable (fig. 4). Variation between houses can also be the result of the different housing requirements of the various social strata.If the study’s best preserved houses are examined in the light of the above, three things become immediately apparent: All the houses, with only two exceptions, are situated with their gable extending all the way out to the street, and secondly, also with two exceptions, they are located along Aalborg’s main thoroughfare. Finally, all the houses lie in a dense, intensive settlement. Despite the small sample size, the material reveals so many similarities between the houses that it can be considered to be homogeneous. Consequently, it is able to shed light on the prevailing conditions in the gable-fronted houses which faced on to Aalborg’s main street.A collective overview of the layout and organisation of the houses is best illustrated by figures 2 and 3, where the house outlines are arranged in chronological order. As is apparent, partition walls have exclusively been identified running across the houses, and the number of rooms in each of them is modest. In the houses dating from the period 1050-1300 it was apparently normal to have a large room out towards the street, and in several instances the presence of some form of hearth has been demonstrated here. The room behind this was generally slightly smaller or of the same size as that at the front. The houses from the period 1350-1600 are, as in the preceding period, very uniform. They all have a large room out towards the street, but it is not possible to demonstrate whether this room was heated. The most striking common feature of the houses is that there are hearth structures in the rearmost or middle room; these are interpreted as representing the kitchen regions in the houses. The layout and organisation of two of the timbered-framed houses match that of the two latest, excavated houses. In both cases there is a large room out towards the street; this room was heated by a jamb stove. Behind this room lies the room with the kitchen hearth arrangement. In general, it can be said that the layout of Aalborg’s medieval and early Renaissance town houses was not particularly complicated and there were only very few rooms. The differences between the two periods 1050-1350 and 1350-1600 lie primarily in where and how the hearth was situated in the house.The presence of fixed hearths can be relatively easy to demonstrate archaeologically, because charcoal and burnt clay are durable materials. Out of the 39 houses that were examined, a fixed hearth was not identified in only 12 cases, and of these houses without a recognised hearth, most had been only partially excavated. The evidence suggests that throughout the entire Middle Ages in Aalborg it was usual to employ stoves and open hearths side by side. This is in direct conflict with the accepted view that hearths were replaced by stoves during the course of the Middle Ages. It is not possible to ascertain whether this variation results from regional differences or a statistically inadequate sample (tables 3 and 4).If a stove is sited with the stokehole in one room and the stove chamber in the next, it becomes possible to heat a room without it being plagued by smoke (fig. 5). Some of Denmark’s earliest examples of jamb stoves were found in Aalborg and the two best examples were excavated at Algade 9. The two houses in question have been dendrochronologically dated to the 1120s (fig. 6) and the 1170s (fig. 7), respectively. One of them, house 8, was a direct replacement of the other, house 5. Both are well-documented with unequivocal traces of partition walls.The jamb stove heated the second room back from the street which, as a consequence, was warm and comfortable without the inconvenience of smoke. All the other hearths were located in the first room out to the street and activities which required a hearth must necessarily have taken place here. This way of organising the dwelling must, on the basis of the material analysed here, have been usual in the Early Middle Ages, up until the 14th century. Of the 15 houses dated to this period, the same pattern can be recognised, more or less, in eight of them. Probably the earliest house with a jamb stove was excavated at Bredgade 7 (fig. 2, house 2) and is dated stratigraphically to the end of the 11th century.In none of these Early Medieval jamb stoves has it been possible to demonstrate the use of “potkakler” – hollow ceramic tiles – in the stove construction. These tiles first appeared in Aalborg in the 15th century. Consequently, there is no connection between the introduction of “potkakler” and the introduction of jamb stoves to Aalborg.The evidence suggests that hearths after the 14th century, compared with the preceding period, were positioned further back in the house. The most marked traces of hearths are now to be found in the middle part of the house, corresponding to the second room in from the street. In houses 18, 20, 21, 22 and 23 on figure 3 there are complicated hearth structures which are, in all cases, interpreted as kitchen facilities (fig. 8). Consequently, the kitchen moved back in the house and it seems that this change took place after the middle of the 14th century. The position of the hearths in the two timber-framed houses 24 and 25 is almost identical to that seen in the houses from the Late Middle Ages. The kitchen hearth was located in the second room back from the street and was built up against the partition wall. The front room could thereby be heated with a jamb stove with a stokehole in the kitchen. This resulted in a heated but smoke-free room.In the two well-preserved houses 5 and 8, the presence of a door has been demonstrated between the front two rooms in the buildings, interpreted as the living quarters in the houses. As these buildings were gable-fronted houses, the main door must have opened to the street and access to the house’s second room, the one with the jamb stove, was therefore through the front room. This front room with the hearths was probably the most public room in the house. There are no traces of doors in the part containing the living quarters in the Late Medieval houses, but in the two timber-framed houses, a main door in the gable leads into the front room. This room was probably a more public room than the kitchen room behind it. There was direct access between the two rooms. In both houses, the kitchen room has a further outer door which must be perceived as a back door.In Denmark, fixed, raised wall benches are considered to be a completely standard fixture in the dwelling houses of Viking times and the Middle Ages. Their use ceased in Denmark during the course of the 13th century, a development which can be partially confirmed by the evidence from Aalborg. The wall benches probably went out of use because this was the time when movable furniture became more widespread.The excavated remains of the wooden houses in Aalborg demonstrate that, in the course of the Middle Ages, a change took place in the internal organisation of the houses. The main development was that the cooking hearth was moved from the front room further back in the house. As a consequence, cooking no longer took place in the first room encountered on entering the building. In the Early Middle Ages, a relatively standard pattern can be observed in the internal organisation of houses in Aalborg. At the front of the house, out towards the street, there was a room which contained all the house’s hearths. It was also from here that a jamb stove was fired, which heated the room behind. The smoke-filled front room would have been the first room people came into in the house, while the room behind would have been smoke-free. This latter, more comfortable room probably functioned as the house’s living-/bedroom. The fact that it was necessary to go through the first room in order to reach the more comfortable room behind suggests that the rear room was more private than that at the front. The room with the hearths was probably the place where externally-directed activities such as trade took place.In the excavated houses from the Late Middle Ages, the kitchen region is no longer found to be in the room out towards the street. It is unclear how the front room was used, but one possibility is that it had the same function as in the later timber-framed houses, i.e. as an entrance hall with externally-directed functions. The activities which took place around the house’s main hearth had possibly become of a more private nature and were therefore, together with the hearth, moved away from the front, more public, room.This change in internal organisation appears to have taken place during the course of the 14th century. If this is true, then it coincided with a series of other social changes and upheavals such as the agricultural crisis, the population decline, the plague epidemics and consequent changes in family structure. It is not inconceivable that the reason for the revised preferences with regard to specific types of dwelling organisation has its basis in these altered family patterns. The Late Medieval way of organising a dwelling next underwent changes at the beginning of the 17th century.Christian G. KlingeNordjyllands Historiske Museum

Collections of antiquities on Danish manorsBefore the establishment of the public museum system and during its first phase after 1807, important activity concerning the relics of antiquity was managed by the estates (fig. 3). This resulted in the creation of collections with varied contents, including Danish antiquities. These were either bought or found within the estate district as was the case with the pieces of ”danefæ”, which the peasants found and brought to the manor (according to a decree from 1737, all treasures found in the Danish soil must be handed over to the king or – later – the state. Such finds are called” danefæ”). It is notable that the collection of danefæ took place according to a decentralised structure, as described in King Frederik V’s public notice from 1752, which also stated that a reward is given in return. According to this, the king delegated his right to collect danefæ to counts and barons, who could then again pass it on and cash the reward. The danefæ became the nucleus in many collections (fig. 4). This category of landowners kept their central position to archaeological work for a long time. Their right to collect danefæ lasted until 1853, and the practice of delivering antiquities found on the estate at the manor went on until modern times.The early museum collections, the kunstkammers and collections of curios of the 17th and 18th centuries, are well described in the literature on museum history. However, only little attention has been paid to the collections of the 19th and early 20th centuries. For instance, the collections of Broholm on Fyn (fig. 9), of Nr. Vosbjerg in Western Jutland, of Brattingsborg on Samsø, and of Valbygaard (fig. 1) and Lerchenborg on Sjælland have all been thoroughly described, but only individually (note 5), not as a phenomenon. This article is based on information from a few selected archives supplemented by spot tests involving a number of manors and several museums in areas with many estates (note 14). ln spite of the limitations induced by the source material it is the aim of the article to throw light on as many collections as possible to reach a general view. The article focuses on the manor collections as a phenomenon and on the museum development and museum traditions to which these collections belong , with the emphasis on the 19th and early 20th centuries.The article is based on two archives,Victor Hermansen’s papers in the Royal Library, indicated in the lists I-V with the signature of ”gl. Bib. VH” and the part of the report archive in the National Museum / Danish Prehistory, listed as ”NM, Oldtiden”, which contains the private collections. The material has been described using five time references: Before 1807 (list I); 1807-1848 (list II); 1848-1892 (list III); and finally 1892-1919 and 1919- the present time (both in list IV) (fig. 2). The time divisions were the result of an overall evaluation of the material, the type of collections and the intellectual, mental and social motives behind the collecting activity. Although the types of collections from different periods overlap and late examples of early collection types do occur, it is still obvious that the ideal for collector’s activity changed in the course of time.The review begins with the period 1807-1848, at the start of which the ”Royal Commission to the Safe keeping of Antiquities” was to become the foundation stone of the public museum system.1807-1848: landowners and others put much work into the issue, which the ”Commission” had been appointed to safeguarding. Danish artefacts were collected as never before. A flow of artefacts arrived at the collection in the capital from several landowners on Fyn and elsewhere. As in the beginning of the previous period, the landowners were also taking part in excavations, in protecting relics of antiquity and in publishing archaeological treatises.1848-1892:The public museum services were established. The new keeper of the Danish antiquities, the archaeologist J.J.A. Worsaae travelled the country to collect information, and he specifically contacted the landowners, knowing that these were key figures within archaeological research (fig. 5 and 10). Consequently, the landowners changed the way they dealt with archaeology in line with the development of the profession as initiated by Worsaae, who went in the direction of a more scholarly method and a dissociation of philosophy and history, which had been closely connected to archaeology. King Frederik VII’s (1848-1863) personal interest in archaeology had a positive influence on the development of the profession and contributed to its growing popularity among the landowners and the public.1892-1919: This period began with the Old Nordic Museum changing its name into the National Museum, and Sophus Müller becoming its curator. The landowners continued their archaeological activity, especially on those estates, which had a tradition for this (fig. 6). However, in the correlation between these archaeologically interested and active landowners, the National Museum gained more authority due to its growing expertise. Not only did the museum engage itself in the landowners’ investigations, it also took over the work and continued it on its own terms. But at the same time the museum staff showed appropriate consideration to the landowners, who according to the constitution had the right of owners hip to extensive areas with artefacts and relics of the past. Cooperation was necessary for the growth of the profession. The landowners had unlimited rights to those finds of artefacts and structures that were not danefæ or listed relics. However, the registers of the National Museum from this time show that after the excavation, the landowner often gave the finds to the museum.This period also saw conflicts between the provincial museums and the National Museum, caused by Sophus Müller’s policy of a centralised museum structure, which gave the provincial museums little liberty of action (note 7). We lack a coherent description of the private artefact collectors’ part in this game. A closer examination of some of them, such as Beck on Valbygaard, the private collectors associated with the museum in Odense, and Collet on Lundbygaard suggests that they were sometimes on one, sometimes on the other front in this controversy (note 9 and 47).After 1919: In 1919, the privileges and special duties of the nobility were cancelled, a development parallelled in the rest of Central, East and Northern Europe. The advanced position in the government previously held by this social class had ended to be replaced by the public sector of the democratic society of which the modern museum system forms a part. However, some estates carried on the tradition of building up collections of artefacts even in this period, and a few landowners opened museums on their estates (fig. 7). These are late activities in the long tradition of archaeological activity on the manors. Both in this periods and the previous one, the interest in collecting artefacts spread down the hierarchy of the manors to the employees and to the farmers on the small holdings. Today almost every family holding owns a collection of artefacts found on the property.To throw light on the changing intellectual context of which the artefact collections on the manors formed part, from the collections of the late Renaissance until the present, the article includes the collections of curios and minerals from the 17th and 18th centuries (list I). Most royal and princely courts in Europe had a kunstkammer with a wideranging content. The archive information used for this article has shown that in Denmark in the 19th century, these collections were not exclusively connected to the nobility or the manors. It is a common trait that the collector was a learned person, an academic or a high official or a well- educated nobleman with or without property. To agree with this, both in Denmark and internationally, a well-equipped library was attached to the collection as a fixed element (fig. 8). Some kunstkammers were attached to grammar schools, orphanages and student hostels. Through purchase and sale parts of the collections changed owner and location from time to time, as for instance the collection of Jesper Friis, which can be followed in written so urces from the 17th century through the following centuries and for a couple of items even into the antique collection of the National Museum.Around 1800, the Romantic Movement and the national currents increased the interest in Danish arte facts and relics of the past. Via folk high school education, which was inspired by the Nordic mythology and attached importance to the prehistory and early history of the nation, this interest spread into the population. As opposed to the earlier collections, which formed part of a learned environment characterised by a classical, humanistic education, the many manor collections, which had their prime in the period of c. 1860-1919, formed part of a practical agronomy universe, where demanding farming techniques were pushed into effect and where hunting and outdoor life was an important part of life. At the same time the landowners put much strength into renovating buildings and erecting fine manor complexes, a natural consequence of the wealth that originated from the corn sales. In an era where natural sciences and practical trades were given pride of place, the turn of archaeology away from the old humanistic method and tradition within philology and history towards the exact sciences will have contributed to the populariry of the profession.The private collections of artefacts have a larger professional and intellectual value than what is usually attributed to them. They were made at a time when the creation of rype collections of artefacts, suites, were in fashion. Information on find conditions and contexts are therefore rare. In the 20th century, professional archaeologists valued these collections according to the presence of find information, and so many of them were split through exchange. The fact that many of these artefacts were from the time before the parish accounts (a registering of relics of the past initiated by the National Museum) and thus – when it comes to the local artefacts – told of the relics of the past that had been situated on the estate earlier, but had been demolished in the early, active farming years of the first half of the 19th century. Also, the ethnological value of these collections has been disregarded.The article ends with considerations as to the public / the private. Nowadays these two notions create two separate rooms. ICOM’s ethical rules for museums have a clear definition, stating that a professional museum activiry is in compatible with private collecting activity.The history of the private collections of arte facts throws light on the development from the time before the public sector, when landowners and other private persons were supporting archaeology and the public museum initiative economically, politically and professionally. The profession developed from here and in a continued interaction between the professionals and the private collectors. Even when today there is a clear distinction between public and private, there are some interesting reminiscences left. Without the contribution and support of the public, archaeology would have difficult conditions.Karen Løkkegaard PoulsenMariboTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

Defence date: 16 December 2013
Examining Board: Professor Bartolomé Yun-Casalilla, European University Institute, (Supervisor); Professor Hilde Sandvik, University of Oslo (External Supervisor); Professor Ida Bull, Norwegian University of Science and Technology; Professor Luca Molà, European University Institute.
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
This thesis investigates the relationship between masters and domestic servants in Copenhagen and Christiania between 1750 and 1850. Living and working together, their relationship was structured around a contract between two individuals and at the same time specific norms dictating the master's responsibility for his servant's moral and physical well-being. In turn, the servant was instructed to be deferential and respectful. I examine how the relationship between master and servant was legitimized, enforced and contested in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, a time of economic, political and societal change. In the thesis, I argue that the master-servant relationship was transformed during the period 1750 to 1850. Hiring contracts became shorter, preoccupation with family life cast servants as outsiders and an increasing separation of work and home life relegated them to the realm of what came to be categorized as private, while they still continued to be contracted labour. At the same time, servants in Copenhagen and Christiania were waged workers throughout the period 1750 to 1850, and there seem to have been little indication that either masters, mistresses or the servants themselves viewed the servants as integrated members of the family. Yet, throughout the century between 1750 and 1850 there was a continued emphasis on the servant's subordination, and language that stressed their subjugated status in the household persisted in law, in civil lawsuits between masters and servants and in fiction and prose on domestic service throughout the period 1750 to 1850. But while the fact that servants were subordinate members of a household subject to the authority of the master as well as hired help often working on contracts of six months or less was not perceived as contradictory in 1750, it came to be so by 1850. By the late eighteenth century legal minds began to struggle with whether legislation on the master-servant relationship should be classified as a contractual law or family law. It became a problem of taxonomy; a problem that continued to manifest itself during the nineteenth century when work and family came to be perceived as increasingly separate.

The provincial ‘matadors’: Between royal favour and the envy of the burghers. The Otte dynasty in Ekernførde in Schleswig 1700–1770 The Otte dynasty did not possess notable land in the town of Ekernførde in Schleswig in 1700–1770, and its members did not become landlords, and the family members owned only two estates near their residence. Thus, Ekernførde should not be considered a ‘landlord town’ as defined by Finn-Einar Eliassen. However, Christian Otte and his son Friedrich Wilhelm Otte gained a dominant position in the town. Their path to success was facillitated by unique business talent, the social networks they built, and their contacts in the local council and the central administration in Copenhagen. The Otte dynasty managed to establish the largest single-proprietor shipping company in Denmark outside Copenhagen. Therefore, one must conclude that Ekernførde was, for a certain period, a privatised monopoly town. This occurred despite the fact that the Danish state systematically kept a tight grip on urban sites by providing state tenants with power and authority. In addition, these statal measures were underpinned by manifold administrative and judicial regulations. Yet statal bureaucratisation of the towns in Denmark did not prevent ‘matadors’ like the Otte family from growing and obtaining strong economic and social positions. They also benefited from royal favour, which triggered envy and dissatisfaction in other merchant families. One should not assume that the Otte dynasty is a unique example of ‘matadors’ in Denmark, and they were not the only ones who anchored their dominant position without owning the land the town was built on, but rather on various political and economic resources. Consequently, this study of Ekernførde indicates that other small towns in Denmark most likely fostered dynasties and ‘matadors’ temporarily. However, it is clear that Schleswig became less controlled by statal bureaucracy compared to other parts of the Danish Realm. More studies are needed to explore the whole picture of the political economy of Denmark in the 18th century.