Academic literature on the topic 'Copenhagen (Denmark) – Social conditions – 19th century'

Med udgangspunkt i det moderne h&oslash;jhus' f&oslash;dsel i det 19. &aring;rhundredes USA samt f&aelig;nomenets internationale historie, belyser artiklen h&oslash;jhusets historie og udbredelse i Danmark. Fra velf&aelig;rdsstatens funktionalistiske boligkolosser i midten af det tyvende &aring;rhundrede, over 1970'erne og 80'ernes modreaktion og 'sm&aring;t er godt'-mentalitet til de seneste &aring;rtiers individuelle og amerikansk inspirerede<br />prestige-projekter med vartegnsambitioner, s&aelig;ttes den danske udvikling ind i en europ&aelig;isk kontekst og prioriteret bevidsthedshistorisk forklaringsramme. Siden midten af det tyvende &aring;rhundrede har erhvervsh&oslash;jhuse i bycenteret h&oslash;rt til de mest karakteristiske tr&aelig;k ved storbyers udvikling verden over, men i Danmark er den slags h&oslash;jhuse endnu relativt sj&aelig;ldne. Ogs&aring; i danske byer peger udviklingen i de seneste &aring;r dog i retning af flere h&oslash;je, markante byggerier i eller n&aelig;r bymidten.<br /><br />Abstract:<br />In recent decades, the distinctive urban setup, with a nucleus dominated by clusters of office towers, has spread to most parts of the world. Economic growth and structural conditions are obviously of fundamental importance for this development, but as the present article shows, the limited construction of such centrally located high-rise buildings in Danish (and European) cities may also be put into a framework of history of consciousness. The first modern skyscrapers were erected in American cities in the late 19th Century, but it was not until the middle of the 20th Century that a related, but dissimilar development gained momentum in Europe and Denmark. In Copenhagen, as well as in other European cities, office towers fitted badly into the the maze of streets in the city centres, and they also conflicted with the laws that restricted building heights. Because of the post-war shortage of housing and the rapid economic growth of the 1950s and -60s, the first high-rise buildings in Denmark were built in the mid-1950s in the form of suburban residential towers. Since then, these pre-fabricated concrete towers have affected the Danish townscape for better and perhaps especially for worse; and this may be one of the reasons why high-rise buildings fell into disrepute in Denmark. At any rate, the first generation of high-rise buildings in this country was mostly suburban, and a child of European modernism and functionalism. Due to a fear of Americanization and the ruining of Copenhagen"s "unique" low skyline, only a few "American" highrise buildings were allowed to be built in Copenhagen"s inner city in this period. From the early 1970s until 1990, practically no high-rise buildings were constructed in Denmark. The building activity was affected by low economic growth; and in addition, the bad experience from the 1950s and -60s influenced the new catchword of the building industry: dense, low. Since the last decade of the 20th Century, however, high-rise buildings have once again become fashionable in Denmark. Not all types of high-rise buildings, though, but characteristic and unique "American" commercial high-rise buildings in or near city centres. This development may be seen not only in Copenhagen, but also in several of the larger provincial towns. Public opposition to these towers is still significant, but as a consequence of increased globalization and the race for attracting multinational companies and the favour of the professions, municipal councils in Denmark are bending over backwards to signal progressiveness and an attractive business environment - for instance by stimulating the<br />construction of office towers.<br />

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

»Grundtvig and Kierkegaard «Otto Bertelsen: ‘The Dialogue between Grundtvig and Kierkegaard’. Published by CA. Reitzel, Copenhagen, 1990, 129 pp.By Hellmut ToftdahlThe comparison between Kierkegaard and Grundtvig has presented a temptation for many scholars. It has led to widely different conclusions about similarities and differences. Each generation, intent upon seeking a deeper understanding of the conditions of human life and the existential message of Christianity, is likely to find that a personal attitude to the two giants in the spiritual life of the 19th century must inevitably be taken.Otto Bertelsen not only compares the ideas of the two thinkers, but also reviews them in a mutual perspective. The material provided is comprehensive and proves that the two knew each other very well. The writer also makes convincing conjectures about what they may have meant by this or that passage, and what they may have read from each other’s works. This makes for a vivid and captivating presentation and prepares for the main thesis of the book: that the dialogue between them was more extensive than has been assumed to far. In particular, the admiration felt by the young Kierkegaard for the rebellious Grundtvig, who announced that the Word of the Lord was missing in His own House, and brought himself in opposition to the Establishment with .The Rejoinder of the Church. (‘Kirkens Genmæle’), is lucidly described so as to show how the reformer dream was a characteristic they shared. Grundtvig wanted an ‘external’ reformation by making the national church so free that even a Kierkegaard would be able to be a clergyman in it. Kierkegaard wanted an ‘internal’ reformation by presenting the Christian demand in such radical terms that everybody must desist from being counted as ‘Witness for Truth’. If he was only allowed this ‘concession’, not one iota of change in the existing church government would be required. The writer points out that during the Church Battle Kierkegaard becomes so radical in his attacks on the Christian church that the Establishment would not have been able to survive if it had accepted the criticism.Aspects of material history are also included in the comparison. Bertelsen shows how they were both keenly aware of the suppression of the proletariat by the established church. But for both of them, social indignation was an emotion, closely linked with the charity of Christianity and a universal, liberal understanding of how miserable material conditions may deprive man of his dignity. Neither of them harboured any notions of a class revolution, but they both shared worries that a democratic, materialistic mass culture will lead the individual away from its destiny as a .divine experiment.. To Kierkegaard the cure against this would consist in an intensification of the spiritual life of the individual, while Grundtvig counted on raising the consciousness of the individual through enlightenment of the people. Bertelsen intimates that Grundtvig and Kierkegaard ‘might, together, re-vitalize the folk high school’.The book should be recommended as a quick, but thorough and honest introduction to both thinkers. It shows that the need for a personal experience of religion has not been invented by new-religious movements of the present time, but was a vital challenge for the stagnant understanding of Christianity of the previous century. It also shows that the theology of personal experience does not necessarily contest the validity of the belief that the Christian faith is essentially something unchangeable that exclusively depends on the faith in Christ. Now, towards the end of this century, which, after substituting ideologies for religion, sees ideologies crumbling, the book serves as a reminder of what we lost when we turned materialism and the social state into the Absolute.With regard to the question of maintaining one’s original identity under the external pressure from a massive socialization, which is both powerful and systematic, the dialogue between the two thinkers has acquired a renewed relevance, not just for individuals, but for whole peoples whose identity and living space is threatened by the paternalistic systematization of the present. Bertelsen’s book is a good book for Danes to bring with them into the coming Europe!

The original location of the Danish rune stones The rune stones have always constituted an important source concerning the Viking Age. However, from the establishment of the humanities and the empirical specialisation in the 19th century until c. 1980, the inscriptions have been the main focus. Recently, a more overall, interdisciplinary approach has been adapted in the study of the rune stones. And whereas the inscriptions are the main source for the philologists, landscape archaeology is most suited for the study of the original location of the rune stones.This article presents aspects concerning the original location of the Danish rune stones. The material is presented using two key words, which the author finds central to the attempt to pin down what was important to that age, namely monumentality, and visibility. After that she discusses the possible relation between Danish rune stones and special sites, primarily thing sites, burial sites, and large farms. The choice of these particular categories are based on a comparison with Swedish conditions. The treatment of the question about the association with special sites may be seen as a movement from the actual source material to the mental landscape of the time.Rather more than 200 rune and picture stones are known from Viking Age Denmark, i.e. the present Denmark and Southern Schleswig, Scania, and Halland, but exclusive Bornholm (Fig. 1). Only twelve of these are still in their assumed original location: The Ø. Løgum-stone in South Jutland (DR 15), and the Färlöv-stone in Scania, both erected during the Early Viking Age; the Glavendrup-stone (DR 209) erected on Northwest Funen during the first part of the 10th century; and the following from the time between c.950 and 1050 – the time span in which most rune stones were erected in Denmark. In Jutland, these are Bække 2 (DR 30), Randbøl (DR 40), Jelling 2 (DR 42), and Sjellebro; and in Scania: Fuglie 1 (DR 259), V. Karaby (DR 321), V. Strö 1 and 2 (DR 334 and 335), and Ö. Vemmenhög (DR 268). Add to these the Malt-stone, originally located by the Kongeå River; and the Snoldelevstone (DR 248) on East Sealand, the original locations of which are known, albeit they are now in the Sønderskov Museum and the National Museum, respectively. In the case of another 64 rune stones, the original location may be pointed out with more or less certainty and precision. These 78 rune stones, about which we have some – more or less precise - information (as opposed to a guessed location), thus make up our her source material.To summarize, the material unambiguously points towards monumentality, visibility, and exposure having been the decisive factors to the rune stone erectors when choosing a location for their monument. The connection with large mounds, stone settings, bridges, and – as is the case with a couple of later stones – stone churches (Lund 2, DR 315 and Nr. Åsum, DR 347) is marked, as is the proximity to what is supposed to be long road stretches and communication points. Also, older monuments such as burial mounds and rock carvings seem to have constituted important links to the past, to the ancestors, and to the tradition. Both the Glavendrup- monument, Klebæk Høje with the Bække-stone 2, and the ship setting in Jelling involved older mounds within the newly established monument, just as the new Christian monument of Harald Bluetooth combined tradition and renewal in a sophisticated manner.At the same time, it is characteristic that the rune stones – and monuments altogether – carried a message meant for the posterity, which was the whole idea behind making them. The material used for the rune stones – granite – symbolises constancy, if anything; the use of inscriptions is another way of securing against oblivion, and as a third and further emphasis of the historical character, the memory inscriptions were often followed by a memory formula (for instance Randbøl DR 40: May these runes for Thorgun live long) or a curse protecting the monument. This very preserving quality of the rune stones – and the motion towards a society with a written language – may have been the seed of the rune stones being increasingly used as a form of legal documents in connection with inheritance, boundaries, etc. Both aspects are known to a limited extent from Danish rune stones (such as the mentioned Gunderup 1), and to a larger degree within the late Norwegian and Swedish rune stone material. This function may also have been attached to the thing sites, where public and binding declarations were made.Not surprisingly, when encircling the message of the rune stones, the preservation of the memorial for the posterity is central. That is its explicit message. Apart from this, the very act of erecting a stone and the person or persons behind this, were essential to the custom. The social act of erecting a stone in memory of a deceased reflects pride, honour, and duty. The location of the stone stresses the fact that visibility and publicity and the coupling of the past and the future were decisive factors to the or Viking Age humans who were looking for a suitable location for their rune stone.Gunhild Øeby NielsenInstitut for Antropologi, Arkæologi ogLingvistik, Aarhus UniversitetTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

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

AbstractSituating historical intellectuals within a wider Danish “Golden Age” is common in Kierkegaard research, but there are few explanations for why this period occurred and why it would develop as a single cultural entity. I review a prominent example in the secondary literature, Bruce Kirmmse’s Kierkegaard in Golden Age Denmark, and then present, through the use of structural hole theory, an alternate interpretation of the Golden Age’s origins and cultural makeup-one that portrays it as both intellectually heterogeneous yet structurally cohesive. Furthermore, I suggest that the evolution of Kierkegaard’s pseudonymous authorship, rather than being exogenous to this cultural system, was definitively shaped by the social processes that produced the Danish Golden Age.

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.