Academic literature on the topic 'Man (Prehistoric), Denmark'

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

We’ll have trouble now!The Archaeological Society of Jutland was founded on Sunday, 11 March 1951. As with most projects with which P.V Glob was involved, this did not pass off without drama. Museum people and amateur archaeologists in large numbers appeared at the Museum of Natural History in Aarhus, which had placed rooms at our disposal. The notable dentist Holger Friis, the uncrowned king of Hjørring, was present, as was Dr Balslev from Aidt, Mr and Mrs Overgaard from Holstebro Museum, and the temperamental leader of Aalborg Historical Museum, Peter Riismøller, with a number of his disciples. The staff of the newly-founded Prehistoric Museum functioned as the hosts, except that one of them was missing: the instigator of the whole enterprise, Mr Glob. As the time for the meeting approached, a cold sweat broke out on the foreheads of the people present. Finally, just one minute before the meeting was to start, he arrived and mounted the platform. Everything then went as expected. An executive committee was elected after some discussion, laws were passed, and then suddenly Glob vanished again, only to materialise later in the museum, where he confided to us that his family, which included four children, had been enlarged by a daughter.That’s how the society was founded, and there is not much to add about this. However, a few words concerning the background of the society and its place in a larger context may be appropriate. A small piece of museum history is about to be unfolded.The story begins at the National Museum in the years immediately after World War II, at a time when the German occupation and its incidents were still terribly fresh in everyone’s memory. Therkel Mathiassen was managing what was then called the First Department, which covered the prehistoric periods.Although not sparkling with humour, he was a reliable and benevolent person. Number two in the order of precedence was Hans Christian Broholm, a more colourful personality – awesome as he walked down the corridors, with his massive proportions and a voice that sounded like thunder when nothing seemed to be going his way, as quite often seemed to be the case. Glob, a relatively new museum keeper, was also quite loud at times – his hot-blooded artist’s nature manifested itself in peculiar ways, but his straight forward appearance made him popular with both the older and the younger generations. His somewhat younger colleague C.J. Becker was a scholar to his fingertips, and he sometimes acted as a welcome counterbalance to Glob. At the bottom of the hierarchy was the student group, to which I belonged. The older students handled various tasks, including periodic excavations. This was paid work, and although the salary was by no means princely, it did keep us alive. Student grants were non-existent at the time. Four of us made up a team: Olfert Voss, Mogens Ørsnes, Georg Kunwald and myself. Like young people in general, we were highly discontented with the way our profession was being run by its ”ruling” members, and we were full of ideas for improvement, some of which have later been – or are being – introduced.At the top of our wish list was a central register, of which Voss was the strongest advocate. During the well over one hundred years that archaeology had existed as a professional discipline, the number of artefacts had grown to enormous amounts. The picture was even worse if the collections of the provincial museums were taken into consideration. We imagined how it all could be registered in a card index and categorised according to groups to facilitate access to references in any particular situation. Electronic data processing was still unheard of in those days, but since the introduction of computers, such a comprehensive record has become more feasible.We were also sceptical of the excavation techniques used at the time – they were basically adequate, but they badly needed tightening up. As I mentioned before, we were often working in the field, and not just doing minor jobs but also more important tasks, so we had every opportunity to try out our ideas. Kunwald was the driving force in this respect, working with details, using sections – then a novelty – and proceeding as he did with a thoroughness that even his fellow students found a bit exaggerated at times, although we agreed with his principles. Therkel Mathiassen moaned that we youngsters were too expensive, but he put up with our excesses and so must have found us somewhat valuable. Very valuable indeed to everyon e was Ejnar Dyggve’s excavation of the Jelling mounds in the early 1940s. From a Danish point of view, it was way ahead of its time.Therkel Mathiassen justly complained about the economic situation of the National Museum. Following the German occupation, the country was impoverished and very little money was available for archaeological research: the total sum available for the year 1949 was 20,000 DKK, which corresponded to the annual income of a wealthy man, and was of course absolutely inadequate. Of course our small debating society wanted this sum to be increased, and for once we didn’t leave it at the theoretical level.Voss was lucky enough to know a member of the Folketing (parliament), and a party leader at that. He was brought into the picture, and between us we came up with a plan. An article was written – ”Preserve your heritage” (a quotation from Johannes V. Jensen’s Denmark Song) – which was sent to the newspaper Information. It was published, and with a little help on our part the rest of the media, including radio, picked up the story.We informed our superiors only at the last minute, when everything was arranged. They were taken by surprise but played their parts well, as expected, and everything went according to plan. The result was a considerable increase in excavation funds the following year.It should be added that our reform plans included the conduct of exhibitions. We found the traditional way of presenting the artefacts lined up in rows and series dull and outdated. However, we were not able to experiment within this field.Our visions expressed the natural collision with the established ways that comes with every new generation – almost as a law of nature, but most strongly when the time is ripe. And this was just after the war, when communication with foreign colleagues, having been discontinued for some years, was slowly picking up again. The Archaeological Society of Jutland was also a part of all this, so let us turn to what Hans Christian Andersen somewhat provocatively calls the ”main country”.Until 1949, only the University of Copenhagen provided a degree in prehistoric archaeology. However, in this year, the University of Aarhus founded a chair of archaeology, mainly at the instigation of the Lord Mayor, Svend Unmack Larsen, who was very in terested in archaeology. Glob applied for the position and obtained it, which encompassed responsibility for the old Aarhus Museum or, as it was to be renamed, the Prehistoric Museum (now Moesgaard Museum).These were landmark events to Glob – and to me, as it turned out. We had been working together for a number of years on the excavation of Galgebakken (”Callows Hill”) near Slots Bjergby, Glob as the excavation leader, and I as his assistant. He now offered me the job of museum curator at his new institution. This was somewhat surprising as I had not yet finished my education. The idea was that I was to finish my studies in remote Jutland – a plan that had to be given up rather quickly, though, for reasons which I will describe in the following. At the same time, Gunner Lange-Kornbak – also hand-picked from the National Museum – took up his office as a conservation officer.The three of us made up the permanent museum staff, quickly supplemented by Geoffrey Bibby, who turned out to be an invaluable colleague. He was English and had been stationed in the Faeroe Islands during the war, where he learned to speak Danish. After 1945 he worked for some years for an oil company in the Gulf of Persia, but after marrying Vibeke, he settled in her home town of Aarhus. As his academic background had involved prehistoric cultures he wanted to collaborate with the museum, which Glob readily permitted.This small initial flock governed by Glob was not permitted to indulge inidleness. Glob was a dynamic character, full of good and not so good ideas, but also possessing a good grasp of what was actually practicable. The boring but necessary daily work on the home front was not very interesting to him, so he willingly handed it over to others. He hardly noticed the lack of administrative machinery, a prerequisite for any scholarly museum. It was not easy to follow him on his flights of fancy and still build up the necessary support base. However, the fact that he in no way spared himself had an appeasing effect.Provincial museums at that time were of a mixed nature. A few had trained management, and the rest were run by interested locals. This was often excellently done, as in Esbjerg, where the master joiner Niels Thomsen and a staff of volunteers carried out excavations that were as good as professional investigations, and published them in well-written articles. Regrettably, there were also examples of the opposite. A museum curator in Jutland informed me that his predecessor had been an eager excavator but very rarely left any written documentation of his actions. The excavated items were left without labels in the museum store, often wrapped in newspapers. However, these gave a clue as to the time of unearthing, and with a bit of luck a look in the newspaper archive would then reveal where the excavation had taken place. Although somewhat exceptional, this is not the only such case.The Museum of Aarhus definitely belonged among the better ones in this respect. Founded in 1861, it was at first located at the then town hall, together with the local art collection. The rooms here soon became too cramped, and both collections were moved to a new building in the ”Mølleparken” park. There were skilful people here working as managers and assistants, such as Vilhelm Boye, who had received his archaeological training at the National Museum, and later the partners A. Reeh, a barrister, and G.V. Smith, a captain, who shared the honour of a number of skilfully performed excavations. Glob’s predecessor as curator was the librarian Ejler Haugsted, also a competent man of fine achievements. We did not, thus, take over a museum on its last legs. On the other hand, it did not meet the requirements of a modern scholarly museum. We were given the task of turning it into such a museum, as implied by the name change.The goal was to create a museum similar to the National Museum, but without the faults and shortcomings that that museum had developed over a period of time. In this respect our nightly conversations during our years in Copenhagen turned out to be useful, as our talk had focused on these imperfections and how to eradicate them.We now had the opportunity to put our theories into practice. We may not have succeeded in doing so, but two areas were essentially improved:The numerous independent numbering systems, which were familiar to us from the National Museum, were permeating archaeological excavation s not only in the field but also during later work at the museum. As far as possible this was boiled down to a single system, and a new type of report was born. (In this context, a ”report” is the paper following a field investigation, comprising drawings, photos etc. and describing the progress of the work and the observations made.) The instructions then followed by the National Museum staff regarding the conduct of excavations and report writing went back to a 19th-century protocol by the employee G.V. Blom. Although clear and rational – and a vast improvement at the time – this had become outdated. For instance, the excavation of a burial mound now involved not only the middle of the mound, containing the central grave and its surrounding artefacts, but the complete structure. A large number of details that no one had previously paid attention to thus had to be included in the report. It had become a comprehensive and time-consuming work to sum up the desultory notebook records in a clear and understandable description.The instructions resulting from the new approach determined a special records system that made it possible to transcribe the notebook almost directly into a report following the excavation. The transcription thus contained all the relevant information concerning the in vestigation, and included both relics and soil layers, the excavation method and practical matters, although in a random order. The report proper could then bereduced to a short account containing references to the numbers in the transcribed notebook, which gave more detailed information.As can be imagined, the work of reform was not a continuous process. On the contrary, it had to be done in our spare hours, which were few and far between with an employer like Glob. The assignments crowded in, and the large Jutland map that we had purchased was as studded with pins as a hedge hog’s spines. Each pin represented an inuninent survey, and many of these grew into small or large excavations. Glob himself had his lecture duties to perform, and although he by no means exaggerated his concern for the students, he rarely made it further than to the surveys. Bibby and I had to deal with the hard fieldwork. And the society, once it was established, did not make our lives any easier. Kuml demanded articles written at lightning speed. A perusal of my then diary has given me a vivid recollection of this hectic period, in which I had to make use of the evening and night hours, when the museum was quiet and I had a chance to collect my thoughts. Sometimes our faithful supporter, the Lord Mayor, popped in after an evening meeting. He was extremely interested in our problems, which were then solved according to our abilities over a cup of instant coffee.A large archaeological association already existed in Denmark. How ever, Glob found it necessary to establish another one which would be less oppressed by tradition. Det kongelige nordiske Oldsskriftselskab had been funded in 1825 and was still influenced by different peculiarities from back then. Membership was not open to everyone, as applications were subject to recommendation from two existing members and approval by a vote at one of the monthly lecture meetings. Most candidates were of course accepted, but unpopular persons were sometimes rejected. In addition, only men were admitted – women were banned – but after the war a proposal was brought forward to change this absurdity. It was rejected at first, so there was a considerable excitement at the January meeting in 1951, when the proposal was once again placed on the agenda. The poor lecturer (myself) did his best, although he was aware of the fact that just this once it was the present and not the past which was the focus of attention. The result of the voting was not very courteous as there were still many opponents, but the ladies were allowed in, even if they didn’t get the warmest welcome.In Glob’s society there were no such restrictions – everyone was welcome regardless of sex or age. If there was a model for the society, it was the younger and more progressive Norwegian Archaeological Society rather than the Danish one. The main purpose of both societies was to produce an annual publication, and from the start Glob’s Kuml had a closer resemblance to the Norwegian Viking than to the Danish Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. The name of the publication caused careful consideration. For a long time I kept a slip of paper with different proposals, one of which was Kuml, which won after having been approved by the linguist Peter Skautrup.The name alone, however, was not enough, so now the task became to find so mething to fill Kuml with. To this end the finds came in handy, and as for those, Glob must have allied him self with the higher powers, since fortune smiled at him to a considerable extent. Just after entering upon his duties in Aarhus, an archaeological sensation landed at his feet. This happened in May 1950 when I was still living in the capital. A few of us had planned a trip to Aarhus, partly to look at the relics of th e past, and partly to visit our friend, the professor. He greeted us warmly and told us the exciting news that ten iron swords had been found during drainage work in the valley of lllerup Aadal north of the nearby town of Skanderborg. We took the news calmly as Glob rarely understated his affairs, but our scepticism was misplaced. When we visited the meadow the following day and carefully examined the dug-up soil, another sword appeared, as well as several spear and lance heads, and other iron artefacts. What the drainage trench diggers had found was nothing less than a place of sacrifice for war booty, like the four large finds from the 1800s. When I took up my post in Aarhus in September of that year I was granted responsibility for the lllerup excavation, which I worked on during the autumn and the following six summers. Some of my best memories are associated with this job – an interesting and happy time, with cheerful comradeship with a mixed bunch of helpers, who were mainly archaeology students. When we finished in 1956, it was not because the site had been fully investigated, but because the new owner of the bog plot had an aversion to archaeologists and their activities. Nineteen years later, in 1975, the work was resumed, this time under the leadership of Jørgen Ilkjær, and a large amount of weaponry was uncovered. The report from the find is presently being published.At short intervals, the year 1952 brought two finds of great importance: in Februar y the huge vessel from Braa near Horsens, and in April the Grauballe Man. The large Celtic bronze bowl with the bulls’ heads was found disassembled, buried in a hill and covered by a couple of large stones. Thanks to the finder, the farmer Søren Paaske, work was stopped early enough to leave areas untouched for the subsequent examination.The saga of the Grauballe Man, or the part of it that we know, began as a rumour on the 26th of April: a skeleton had been found in a bog near Silkeborg. On the following day, which happened to be a Sunday, Glob went off to have a look at the find. I had other business, but I arrived at the museum in the evening with an acquaintance. In my diary I wrote: ”When we came in we had a slight shock. On the floor was a peat block with a corpse – a proper, well-preserved bog body. Glob brought it. ”We’ll be in trouble now.” And so we were, and Glob was in high spirits. The find created a sensation, which was also thanks to the quick presentation that we mounted. I had purchased a tape recorder, which cost me a packet – not a small handy one like the ones you get nowadays, but a large monstrosity with a steel tape (it was, after all, early days for this device) – and assisted by several experts, we taped a number of short lectures for the benefit of the visitors. People flocked in; the queue meandered from the exhibition room, through the museum halls, and a long way down the street. It took a long wait to get there, but the visitors seemed to enjoy the experience. The bog man lay in his hastily – procured exhibition case, which people circled around while the talking machine repeatedly expressed its words of wisdom – unfortunately with quite a few interruptions as the tape broke and had to be assembled by hand. Luckily, the tape recorders now often used for exhibitions are more dependable than mine.When the waves had died down and the exhibition ended, the experts examined the bog man. He was x-rayed at several points, cut open, given a tooth inspection, even had his fingerprints taken. During the autopsy there was a small mishap, which we kept to ourselves. However, after almost fifty years I must be able to reveal it: Among the organs removed for investigation was the liver, which was supposedly suitable for a C-14 dating – which at the time was a new dating method, introduced to Denmark after the war. The liver was sent to the laboratory in Copenhagen, and from here we received a telephone call a few days later. What had been sent in for examination was not the liver, but the stomach. The unfortunate (and in all other respects highly competent) Aarhus doctor who had performed the dissection was cal1ed in again. During another visit to the bogman’s inner parts he brought out what he believed to be the real liver. None of us were capable of deciding th is question. It was sent to Copenhagen at great speed, and a while later the dating arrived: Roman Iron Age. This result was later revised as the dating method was improved. The Grauballe Man is now thought to have lived before the birth of Christ.The preservation of the Grauballe Man was to be conservation officer Kornbak’s masterpiece. There were no earlier cases available for reference, so he invented a new method, which was very successful. In the first volumes of Kuml, society members read about the exiting history of the bog body and of the glimpses of prehistoric sacrificial customs that this find gave. They also read about the Bahrain expeditions, which Glob initiated and which became the apple of his eye. Bibby played a central role in this, as it was he who – at an evening gathering at Glob’s and Harriet’s home in Risskov – described his stay on the Persian Gulf island and the numerous burial mounds there. Glob made a quick decision (one of his special abilities was to see possibilities that noone else did, and to carry them out successfully to everyone’s surprise) and in December 1952 he and Bibby left for the Gulf, unaware of the fact that they were thereby beginning a series of expeditions which would continue for decades. Again it was Glob’s special genius that was the decisive factor. He very quickly got on friendly terms with the rulers of the small sheikhdoms and interested them in their past. As everyone knows, oil is flowing plentifully in those parts. The rulers were thus financially powerful and some of this wealth was quickly diverted to the expeditions, which probably would not have survived for so long without this assistance. To those of us who took part in them from time to time, the Gulf expeditions were an unforgettable experience, not just because of the interesting work, but even more because of the contact with the local population, which gave us an insight into local manners and customs that helped to explain parts of our own country’s past which might otherwise be difficult to understand. For Glob and the rest of us did not just get close to the elite: in spite of language problems, our Arab workers became our good friends. Things livened up when we occasionally turned up in their palm huts.Still, co-operating with Glob was not always an easy task – the sparks sometimes flew. His talent of initiating things is of course undisputed, as are the lasting results. He was, however, most attractive when he was in luck. Attention normally focused on this magnificent person whose anecdotes were not taken too seriously, but if something went wrong or failed to work out, he could be grossly unreasonable and a little too willing to abdicate responsibility, even when it was in fact his. This might lead to violent arguments, but peace was always restored. In 1954, another museum curator was attached to the museum: Poul Kjærum, who was immediately given the important task of investigating the dolmen settlement near Tustrup on Northern Djursland. This gave important results, such as the discovery of a cult house, which was a new and hitherto unknown Stone Age feature.A task which had long been on our mind s was finally carried out in 1955: constructing a new display of the museum collections. The old exhibitio n type consisted of numerous artefacts lined up in cases, accompaied ony by a brief note of the place where it was found and the type – which was the standard then. This type of exhibition did not give much idea of life in prehistoric times.We wanted to allow the finds to speak for themselves via the way that they were arranged, and with the aid of models, photos and drawings. We couldn’t do without texts, but these could be short, as people would understand more by just looking at the exhibits. Glob was in the Gulf at the time, so Kjærum and I performed the task with little money but with competent practical help from conservator Kornbak. We shared the work, but in fairness I must add that my part, which included the new lllerup find, was more suitable for an untraditional display. In order to illustrate the confusion of the sacrificial site, the numerous bent swords and other weapons were scattered a.long the back wall of the exhibition hall, above a bog land scape painted by Emil Gregersen. A peat column with inlaid slides illustrated the gradual change from prehistoric lake to bog, while a free-standing exhibition case held a horse’s skeleton with a broken skull, accompanied by sacrificial offerings. A model of the Nydam boat with all its oars sticking out hung from the ceiling, as did the fine copy of the Gundestrup vessel, as the Braa vessel had not yet been preserved. The rich pictorial decoration of the vessel’s inner plates was exhibited in its own case underneath. This was an exhibition form that differed considerably from all other Danish exhibitions of the time, and it quickly set a fashion. We awaited Glob’s homecoming with anticipation – if it wasn’t his exhibition it was still made in his spirit. We hoped that he would be surprised – and he was.The museum was thus taking shape. Its few employees included Jytte Ræbild, who held a key position as a secretary, and a growing number of archaeology students who took part in the work in various ways during these first years. Later, the number of employees grew to include the aforementioned excavation pioneer Georg Kunwald, and Hellmuth Andersen and Hans Jørgen Madsen, whose research into the past of Aarhus, and later into Danevirke is known to many, and also the ethnographer Klaus Ferdinand. And now Moesgaard appeared on the horizon. It was of course Glob’s idea to move everything to a manor near Aarhus – he had been fantasising about this from his first Aarhus days, and no one had raised any objections. Now there was a chance of fulfilling the dream, although the actual realisation was still a difficult task.During all this, the Jutland Archaeological Society thrived and attracted more members than expected. Local branches were founded in several towns, summer trips were arranged and a ”Worsaae Medal” was occasionally donated to persons who had deserved it from an archaeological perspective. Kuml came out regularly with contributions from museum people and the like-minded. The publication had a form that appealed to an inner circle of people interested in archaeology. This was the intention, and this is how it should be. But in my opinion this was not quite enough. We also needed a publication that would cater to a wider public and that followed the same basic ideas as the new exhibition.I imagined a booklet, which – without over-popularsing – would address not only the professional and amateur archaeologist but also anyone else interested in the past. The result was Skalk, which (being a branch of the society) published its fir t issue in the spring of 1957. It was a somewhat daring venture, as the financial base was weak and I had no knowledge of how to run a magazine. However, both finances and experience grew with the number of subscribers – and faster than expected, too. Skalk must have met an unsatisfied need, and this we exploited to the best of our ability with various cheap advertisements. The original idea was to deal only with prehistoric and medieval archaeology, but the historians also wanted to contribute, and not just the digging kind. They were given permission, and so the topic of the magazine ended up being Denmark’s past from the time of its first inhabitant s until the times remembered by the oldest of us – with the odd sideways leap to other subjects. It would be impossible to claim that Skalk was at the top of Glob’s wish list, but he liked it and supported the idea in every way. The keeper of national antiquities, Johannes Brøndsted, did the same, and no doubt his unreserved approval of the magazine contributed to its quick growth. Not all authors found it easy to give up technical language and express themselves in everyday Danish, but the new style was quickly accepted. Ofcourse the obligations of the magazine work were also sometimes annoying. One example from the diary: ”S. had promised to write an article, but it was overdue. We agreed to a final deadline and when that was overdue I phoned again and was told that the author had gone to Switzerland. My hair turned grey overnight.” These things happened, but in this particular case there was a happy ending. Another academic promised me three pages about an excavation, but delivered ten. As it happened, I only shortened his production by a third.The 1960s brought great changes. After careful consideration, Glob left us to become the keeper of national antiquities. One important reason for his hesitation was of course Moesgaard, which he missed out on – the transfer was almost settled. This was a great loss to the Aarhus museum and perhaps to Glob, too, as life granted him much greater opportunities for development.” I am not the type to regret things,” he later stated, and hopefully this was true. And I had to choose between the museum and Skalk – the work with the magazine had become too timeconsuming for the two jobs to be combined. Skalk won, and I can truthfully say that I have never looked back. The magazine grew quickly, and happy years followed. My resignation from the museum also meant that Skalk was disengaged from the Jutland Archaeological Society, but a close connection remained with both the museum and the society.What has been described here all happened when the museum world was at the parting of the ways. It was a time of innovation, and it is my opinion that we at the Prehistoric Museum contributed to that change in various ways.The new Museum Act of 1958 gave impetus to the study of the past. The number of archaeology students in creased tremendously, and new techniques brought new possibilities that the discussion club of the 1940s had not even dreamt of, but which have helped to make some of the visions from back then come true. Public in terest in archaeology and history is still avid, although to my regret, the ahistorical 1960s and 1970s did put a damper on it.Glob is greatly missed; not many of his kind are born nowadays. He had, so to say, great virtues and great fault s, but could we have done without either? It is due to him that we have the Jutland Archaeological Society, which has no w existed for half a century. Congr tulat ion s to the Society, from your offspring Skalk.Harald AndersenSkalk MagazineTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

Amateur archaeologists in DenmarkThe article briefly sums up the history of amateur archaeology in Denmark and mentions the most renowned amateur archaeologists and collectors of artefacts, mainly from the island Fyn. Attention focuses on describing the close collaboration between amateur and profession al archaeologists, which has resulted in the institution of museums all over the country, often through donations of extensive artefact collections from skilful and wealthy amateur archaeologists.The first museum was established in Copenhagen by Ole Worm (1588-1654), who studied the Danish prehistory. The king, Frederik III (1609-1670), made the museum into a kunstkammer, which included not only archaeological artefacts but also curiosities. Later, the artefact collections were gathered in the Old Nordic Museum, which became the present National Museum in 1892.Ole Worm’s contemporary, the nobleman Jesper Friis (1593-1643) of Ørbæklunde on Fyn created an extensive and comprehensive kunstkammer including two Egyptian mummy coffins (fig. 1). Another native of Fyn, Professor Thomas Broder Bircherod (1661-1731) also had a collection of curios. In the 19th century, Lauritz Schebye Vedel Simonsen (1780-1858), the owner of the manor Elvedgård, and Niels Frederik Bernhard Sehested (1813-1882), owner of the manor Broholm, had large collections of artefacts. The latter was a talented amateur archaeologist, who undertook systematic excavations of almost 400 Iron Age graves on the Møllegårdsmarken site. The finds were published in well-illustrated books. Sehested had a small museum built in the manor garden, where he exhibited his finds. The museum still exists (fig. 2). He also experimented with the practical manufacturing and use of prehistoric tools – a novelty at the time (fig. 3). Even King Frederik VII (1808-1863), once the governor of Fyn, was a passionate collector, who undertook or initiated many excavations.The 20th century saw many wealthy amateur archaeologists, who built museums and issued archaeological publications, as for instance the prefect of the island Bornholm, Emil Vedel (1824-1909), who – assisted by the teacher, Johan Andreas Jørgensen (1840-1908) – made comprehensive investigations into several hundred graves at Lousgaard on Bornholm. Vedel initiated the horizontalstratigraphic excavation method, which resulted in the introduction of the Pre-Roman Iron Age in Danish archaeology. As an acknowledgement for this, Emil Vedel was appointed vice president of ”Det kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab,” a credit to an amateur archaeologist!The chemists Christen Mikkelsen (1844-1924) and his son, Poul Helweg Mikkelsen (1876-1940) represented two generation s of very active amateur archaeologists on Fyn. Both left large private collections, which they willed to The National Museum and Fyns Stiftsmuseum (the museum of the diocese of Fyn) (fig. 4). Poul Helweg Mikkelsen is especially remembered for his excavation of the Ladby Viking ship. Out of his own pocket he paid for the building of a cupola covering the Viking ship, which was left in situ, thus making this Viking ship grave unique in Scandinavia.JensWinther (1863-1955), a grocer on the island of Langeland, paid a museum with his own money (fig. 5). He was a skilful amateur archaeologist, who carried out numerous excavations and introduced a new excavation technique, surface digging, involving the gradual exposure of the surface through the removal of thin successive earth layers – a technique that set a fashion. His excavations at the Troldebjerg site functioned as training excavations for future professional archaeologists. For instance, P.V. Glob, the later professor of archaeology and keeper of national antiquities, was one of Winther’s ”pupils”. Also Winther’s lifelong housekeeper, Miss Hornum, was a skilful amateur archaeologist – so skilful that she was invited to take part in the excavation of Inuit settlements in Greenland. Later she was admitted the second female member of ”Det kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab,” following professor Brøndsted’s recommendation.Svend Dyhre Rasmussen (fig. 6), an amateur archaeologist from Sjælland, found the famous medieval high-backed fields and the adjoining village of Borup Ris. His fellow islander, Karl Kristian Nielsen (fig. 7) was a hardworking amateur archaeologist, who undertook both prehistoric and medieval excavations for forty years. He was a modest, self-taught man working as a charcoal burner and thus nicknamed ” the learned charcoal burner”. He was the first amateur archaeologist honoured with the membership of ”Det kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab” (fig. 8).The article also mentions the wide section of the population – comprising all classes – that has contributed to collectin g and preserving our relics of the past in such a comprehensive manner. Another purpose of the article is to show the connection between important events in Danish history and the amateur archaeological initiatives that resulted from them. The article gives a survey of Danish amateur archaeology, which is organised in numerous associations that stimulate the public interest in this field.A new initiative was the founding of a countrywide organisation of amateur movements, the SDA, in 1990 (fig. 9).The SDA has initiated courses, publication of an amateur archaeological periodical and the ambitious project, ”Operation Golden Horn” aiming at a countrywide registration and mapping of finds and relics. The history of the amateur archaeologist associations on Fyn is described, including examples of the work of smaller groups (fig. 11). The cooperation between amateur archaeologists and museum employees on Fyn culminated in 1984 with the exhibition” Past time and spare time”.An important part of amateur archaeologists’ work is the participation in the annual excavation camps, where the amateurs enjoy the pleasure of finding artefacts and learn how to register them scholarly correctly. Cooperation on a Scandinavian level resulted in a Nordic Amateur Archaeologists’ Excavation Camp (the NAU) in connection with Odense’s 1000th anniversary in 1988 (fig. 12). Since then, similar excavation camps have been held in other Nordic countries, and in Estonia. The cooperation with Estonia has given a wider perspective, which includes international cooperation at different levels.The amateur archaeologists’ knowledge of their own neighbourhood has proved important, as they co nt act the profession al archaeologists when farming methods or public construction work is unexpectedly revealing archaeological finds. In such cases, retired and unemployed amateur archaeologists have made an ”ambulance service”, which offers assistance to museums at short notice. Another special initiative was taken by the amateur ar chaeologists on Bornholm, who created a special branch for detector amateurs. This has helped both Norwegian and Swedish museums investigating known sites and thus gain a more differentiated picture of Iron Age settlements. A third special branch of amateur work is the investigation of the submarine settlement of Tybrind Vig, which is an example of a well functioning coopertion with the marine-archaeological group in Fredericia.When in the 1991, Professor Henrik Thrane, Doctor of Philosophy, made the Hollufgård Museum on Fyn and its collection s more user-friendly and accessible to the public by creating ”open stores”, he also gave the amateur archaeologists the possibility of self-tuition. The publication of the archaeological journal ”Archaeology and the natives of Fyn” in 1979 was a result of cooperation between the museum and amateurs (fig. 13). Finally, in 1993, the SDA journal now carrying the name of” Archaeology for everyone” was published. To stimulate the interest in archaeology among the youth, so-called Hugin and Munin clubs have been started, with branches in Copenhagen, on Fyn and in Jutland.The Erik Westerby foundation (initiated by this famous amateur archaeologist) was created to support Danish archaeologists. In 1994, Axel Degn Johansson was the first amateur archaeologist to receive the price, along with 100.000 Dkr, and later another twelve amateur archaeologists have enjoyed grants and presents of money from the foundation.Finally, the importance of the amateur movement for the present and the future is mentioned, and it is stressed that good cooperation between amateurs and museum professionals is very important. Amateur archaeologists will also benefit from the new and refined methods of dating and analysing archaeological finds and – when detecting new finds in the field – of the exact position determination offered by the GPS system. The importance of publicattention on archaeology is stressed, and so the interest of amateur archaeologists is seen as a necessary part in the important and comprehensive task of preserving the past for the future.Jane Kjærgaard AndresenOdenseTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

Forlev NymølleA sacrificial site from the late Pre-Roman Iron AgeForlev Nymølle is situated in a small stretch of boggy land in the northern part of the river valley of Illerup Å north of Skanderborg. During peat digging in 1947, eight small clay vessels from c. 400 AD and a few fashioned wooden items were found. However, it was not until 1960 that museum keeper Harald Andersen, Moesgard Museum, started a major and very careful excavation, which last ed until 1966. Twenry-four areas, making up 325 m2, were excavated along the southern edge of the present peat bog (fig. 1). Forlev Nymølle is still one of the largest and best documented finds off ertiliryrelated sacrificial finds in Northern Europe. The finds, which primaril y consist of potsherds, bones from domestic animals, wooden items, patches of charcoal, and – not the least – stones were concentrated in small heaps relatively close to the old lakeshore. Nine find concentrations (I-IX) were separated, excluding “concentration X”, which comprises the clay vessels found in 1947 (fig. 15).The individual find concentrations measure between 1.5 and 9 m2 , and although their contents vary greatly, they are all characterized by layers or small heaps of hand or head size stones (fig. 9, 16). Among these, a remarkable amount is light quart zite stones or flint, and their occurrence has made many scholars suggest that the throwing of stones were a central element of the sacrificial act. Potsherds and so me long ashwood sticks (fig. 6, 8, 12, 25, 26) form part of almost all stone heaps, whereas the depositing of bones from domestic animals seem to be more selective (fig. 31). Concentration I differs further by containing a simple anthropomorphic figure, which may have stood upright in the stone heap (fig. 2-3), and a bundle of flax (fig. 4). Most find concentrations seem to represent a single sacrifice, except for concentration I, which is interpreted with certainry as having been used more than once.Some heavy tree trunks foun d in the immediate viciniry of some of the find heaps are thought to have functioned as a trackway from which the sacrifices could be made.The form and appearance of the individual concentrations are thought to be the result of depositing (fig. 7) including ritual stone throwing.Most bones are intact, except for a few that are split (this is interpreted as evidence for the deliberate extraction of marrow) and are marked by fire.They were mainly found in concentration II and Ill and come chiefly from small, but harmoniously built domestic oxen. Bones from sheep and goats are also present, but only a few bones from dogs and horses and from a single hare were registered. A human bone, the fragment of a shoulder blade with cutting marks and polished edges – perhaps an amulet? – was also found.The pottery, which could be assembled to make more or less complete vessels, dates the activities to the late Pre-Roman Iron Age (fig. 5). Two sacrificial horizons may be isolated (fig. 17), one of which belongs to the time between c. 200 and 150 BC (fig. 13-1 4,19) and the other to the time between c. 100 and 50 BC (fig. l0a-b, 1la).The area does not seem to have been used during the final phase of the Pre- Roman Iron Age, from 50 to 0 BC.Among the more curious items is a wooden idol and some long ashwood sticks. The wooden idol, which lay in concentration I, was made from a forked oak branch. It has a length of 2.74 meters and a very simple form with out the obvious emphasizing of the sex, which characte rizes the idols from Braak and Wittemoor (fig. 23-24) and others. The branches make up the legs, and the upper part of these have been chopped in order to accentuate the swayed hips. The sex may be indicated by a small notch at the point of bifurcatio n (fig. 18). As both ethnographic and some prehistoric figures are decorated (fig. 20-22), the idol was carefully examined, but no traces of colour, lashing etc. were found. Pottery found with the idol dates from 200-150 BC.Ashwood sticks are a normal occurrence in Forlev, represented as it is by 17 or 18 sticks from at least seven of the nine concentrations, and they seem to play a central part in the sacrificial ceremonies. They are characterized by a systematic choice of wood type, form, fashion and method of sacrifice. All were made from ashwood, they have a length of up to two meters, and one end is always finished with a cut, cross-going, triangular part. They were made from the outermost part of the trunk , the curved, de-barked side of which makes up the outside, whereas the inside is carefully carved (fig . 25). They were often laid down in pairs as a “set” consisting of a slender and a more heavy stick. They were made for the purpose, as the axe cut s are completely fresh (fig. 26). No parallels are known, but they resemble some long plank idols found in bogs in Lower Saxony (fig. 27). The function is pure guesswork – were they percussion instruments or prinlitive figures? The sticks are accessories of both sacrificial horizons.The rest of the wooden items from Forlev are also difficult to interpret, but seem to belong to the household sphere (fig. 28). However, some – like the 2.62-cm long smoothed ashwood stick (fig. 29) and the hazelwood club (fig. 30) may have functioned as ceremonial accessories.It appears from a comparison with other comprehensive finds of fertility sacrifices, such as Hedelisker, Varbrogård, Bukkerup, and Valmose- Rislev in Denmark, Käringsjön from Western Sweden and Oberdorla in Thuringia, that this find group has several features in common. The sacrificial areas are often large and characterized by relatively long periods of use. Often each locality has many small depositing sites with pottery, bones,and carved wooden objects, which are usually thought to have been sacrificed in water. Layers or heaps of stones and different branch-work are other characteristics.It is impossible to decide whether these features express common ideas, and a closer stud of the in dividual localities seems to stress the variety, even between neighbouring and contemporary sites such as Forlev Nymølle and Hedelisker. Local traditions seem to play an important part.Fertility sacrifices could be expected to follow a certain, cyclical pattern , but it has been impossible to determine such a pattern at Forlev, where the sacrificial ceremonies are not assumed to have been very numerous either. Even if we assume that the whole lake shore was full of sacrificial offerings with the same density as concentration I-III, it would be difficult to reach a number corresponding to an annual sacrifice. As several of the separated deposits seem to represent the very same action, the activity level is reduced further. Hence, the sacrifices, which are assumed collective and made by a whole village or the inhabitants of a smaller area, should rather be linked with certain events. This assumption seems to be supported by the separation of two sacrificial horizons.Today, it is generally accepted that the religious aspect was strongly integrated into the daily life of prehistoric man, and seen in the light of our present knowledge of settlements, burial customs, etc. our knowledge of the religious manifestation s is still very limjted.That is why even today, Forlev Nymølle appears to be a unique find without any clear parallels.Jørgen LundAfdeling for ForhistoriskArkæologi Aarhus UniversitetMoesgårdGenstandstegninger: Jørgen Mührman-LundGenstandsfotos: Photolab, MoesgårdUdgravningsfotos: Harald AndersenTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

Emma Bentz: I stadens skugga. Den medeltida landsbygden som arkeologiskt forskningsfält(Mette Svart KristiansenLine Bjerg: Romerske Denarfund fra Jyske Jernalderbopladser – En Arkæologisk Kulegravning(Thomas Grane)Helen Clarke & Kristina Lamm (red.): Excavations at Helgö XVII(Margrethe Watt)Walter Dörfler & Johannes Müller (red.): Umwelt – Wirtschaft – Siedlungen im dritten vorchristlichen Jahrtausend Mitteleuropas und Südskandinaviens. Internationale Tagung Kiel 4.-6. November 2005(John Simonsen)Peter Gammeltoft, Søren Sindbæk & Jens Vellev (red.): Regionalitet i Danmark i vikingetid og middelalder. Tværfagligt symposium på Aarhus Universitet 26. januar 2007(Karl-Erik Frandsen)Annika Larsson: Klädd Krigare. Skifte i skandinaviskt dräktskick kring år 1000(Ulla Mannering)Henriette Lyngstrøm: Dansk Jern: en kulturhistorisk analyse af fremstilling, fordeling og forbrug(Jørgen A. Jacobsen)Søren Olsen: Udflugt til fortiden. Guide til 80 gådefulde fortidsminder i Danmark(Palle Eriksen)Ditlev L. Mahler: Sæteren ved Argisbrekka. Økonomiske forandringer på Færøerne i vikingetid og tidlig middelalder(Hans Skov) Peter Rowley-Conwy: From Genesis to Prehistory. The Archaeological Three Age System and its contested reception in Denmark, Britain, and Ireland(Anne Katrine Gjerløff)Henrik Skousen: Arkæologi i lange baner. Undersøgelser forud for anlæggelsen af motorvejennord om Århus 1998-2007(Lotte Hedeager)Dagfinn Skre (red.): Means of Exchange. Dealing with Silver in the Viking Age(Jens Christian Moesgaard)David M. Wilson: The Vikings in the Isle of Man(Ray Moore)

The bronze deposits from Resenlund and Brøndumgård In the Late Bronze Age, bronze deposits in fields and bogs constitute a large part of the archaeological material. Huge values were deposited in the ground during this period, and the archaeological material witnesses a wide-ranging custom of sacrifice. The deposits are therefore central to the understanding of the societies, which once left their items in the ground, and new finds contribute to a more varied impression of the picture already existing of the Late Bronze Age. This article presents two hitherto unpublished deposits from the Early Bronze Age, both from Northern Jutland. These deposits contain bronze objects, which may throw new light on the ritual practice of the North Jutland society and its social identity during period IV (1100 BC - 900 BC).The composition of the Brøndumgård depot is special in that it contains part of hitherto unknown artefacts. The depot consists of a belt plate, fragments of at least two cuff-shaped bracelets, fragments of three mounts, a bronze ring, a sickle, two four-spoke wheel pendants, an eight-spoke wheel pendant, part of a neck ring with the head of a horse, and five bronze nuggets. The belt plate and fragments of a cuffshaped bracelet date the find to period IV. The decorations on the eight-spoke wheel pendant and the mounts also point towards period IV. The dating of the find is thus hardly questionable. The Brøndumgård depot was probably buried in a double- conic earthenware pot. The deposit was found at the bottom of a ridge originally marking the border of a wetland area. Several prehistoric mounds are preserved on top of the ridge. The location of the find – in a border area between firm ground and wetlands – indicates that the deposit should probably be interpreted as a wetland sacrifice; a gift to the gods at the edge of a bog, which was considered a magical gateway between the world of the humans and the supernatural during large parts of prehistory.The original use of the mounts is difficult to determine. Their form does not indicate a use as bucket mounts. Harness plates are another possibility, but so far, such horse mounts are not known from other finds. The bronze may have been fixed to the leather armour of a warrior, but no other finds support this theory. As a last suggestion, the mounts may have been fixed to the body of a carriage. The bronze ring supports this assumption. Apart from rings, the carriage mounts known from the Urnemark and Hallstatt Cultures include oblong, ornamented metal plates similar to the mounts from the Brøndumgård depot. It should be stressed that these are not imported mounts, as the decoration is very similar to the decoration occurring on the cuffshaped bracelets, which are considered a local Jutland product.Thus, cult wagons probably existed during the Late Bronze Age in Scandinavia. The question is: to what extent, and when? Already during the Early Bronze Age, the Trundholm Sun Chariot from Northern Zealand and the two-wheeled chariot from the rock carvings at Kivikgrav in South-eastern Scania indicate that the wagon had a central function in the iconography of the Early Bronze Age. We just lack finds of wagon parts in the archaeological material from the period to tell whether the pictorial representations of the Early Bronze Age reflect actual events.The use of wagons for ceremonies and cult processions can therefore probably not be compared to the Central European Urnemark Culture’s influence on Northern Europe until the Late Bronze Age. It is thus not until the emergence of the Urnemark Culture that the wagon plays a visible part in Central European cult. Here, the wagons are known from several well-preserved graves, which provide fine possibilities for reconstructing the look and function of the wagons. As a rule, the wagons have four wheels and a rather small body, which would have made them unsuitable for the transportation of large, heavy wagonloads. Furthermore, the body is decorated with metal plates. The rich ornamentation combined with the small, unpractical size and the fact that they were used as grave goods in rich graves all indicate that the wagons were used for processions connected to the Central European cult.In Denmark, we have but a few complete finds of wagon plates from the Bronze Age. In the absence of such complete metal plate finds, it is much more difficult to recognize metal plates as part of possible wagon ornaments. It is therefore necessary to intensify the attention concerning plates and other metal items, which may have been riveted onto wood. If such plates are found in connection with horse equipment, which naturally often occur in the same context as wagon parts, this may considerably strengthen their interpretation as wagon plates.Perhaps the eight-spoke wheel pendant should be interpreted as part of a horse’s equipment? Maybe as some sort of horse harness jingles attached to the bridle – although the eye for hanging seems too small compared with other finds of definite horse bridle jingles. In stead, the wheel pendant could have been attached to another part of the harness.The four-spoke type of wheel pendant has not previously been found in Scandinavia, but in a much larger version it is known from the Period II- grave from Tobøl in Western Jutland. The wheel with four spokes is also known from the Early Bronze Age iconography. As a pendant, the wheel with four spokes is a phenomena first occurring in Northern Europe at the same time as the Urnemark Culture begins to influence the form of objects in the Late Bronze Age. Probably, the four-spoke wheel – like the eight-spoke wheel – is from a horse’s harness.In Northern Europe, several deposits combining women’s jewellery and horse equipment are known from period V. The fact that these two artefact types are often found together in the deposits may reflect a fixed practice of some ceremony or cult act. Perhaps the deposits are really elements from a ceremonial procession – in which the wagon played a prominent part – sacrificed to the supreme beings. In the Brøndumgård depot, the women’s jewellery and horse equipment is even supplemented by possible wagon plates, and the find thus supports the hypothesis presented above that the ceremonial procession included women, horses, and a wagon. Women’s jewellery and the horse and wagon equipment were probably made by the same bronze caster, and perhaps the objects were meant to be a complete ceremonial outfit for a woman and a wagon. In the Bronze Age, it was not an unknown phenomenon that special jewellery sets were made as a complete whole, and it is therefore not altogether impossible that a complete set of equipment for a woman and a wagon were made by the same craftsman.Perhaps the depot is even containing the remains of a priestess’ equipment, ceremonial wagon included? In this respect, the Roman writer Tacitus’ retelling of the myth concerning the fertility cult of the goddess Nerthus is especially interesting – in spite of the fact that the myth was written down almost 1000 years later than the dating of the Brøndumgård depot. The horse-drawn chariot is central in Tacitus’ account, as each year, somewhere in the northern part of the free Germania, a procession with Nerthus in a horse-drawn ceremonial chariot passed from village to village to announce the coming of spring and fertility. The myth shows that the tradition of a ceremonial chariot was probably predominant in Northwest Europe during the Early Iron Age. It is therefore not unlikely that the ceremonial chariot, perhaps driven by a priestess, was part of the ritual practice in Jutland during the Late Bronze Age, and that it remained a strong tradition until the Early Iron Age.The Resenlund depot consists of three spiral arm rings, two sickles, a double button, three fragments of cuff-shaped bracelets, three parts of neck rings, a socketed spear head, a dress pin, a bronze celt, and part of a sword blade. All artefacts were probably of Scandinavian origin, possibly from the area around the Limfjord. It is not always possible to determine whether the depot was placed in a container, for instance a clay vessel. Several of the items were ruined prior to being deposited, whereas others were old and worn. The depot was probably deposited in the course of the Bronze Age period IV, between 1100 and 900 BC, as quite a few of the items date from this time.The depot thus comprises many different artefact types, and both weapons, women’s jewellery, and tools are represented. From the composition, the depot may be interpreted as a sacrifice representing a cult act managed by one or more wealthy peasants connected with arable land. The wear marks on the jewellery probably indicate that they were inherited items that may have been in the family’s possession for generations, before they were handed over to the ground. The depot itself may be interpreted as a sacrifice to the superior beings, perhaps to thank for success and fertility. At the same time, the sacrificial act itself may have helped support the position of the leading families in the local community.The two deposits from Resenlund and Brøndumgård were both deposited within the same area near the Limfjord between 1100 and 900 BC, and they both contain items with a form and an ornamentation specifically characteristic for this particular area. Both deposits were found in connection with water or wetlands, as is characteristic of the sacrificial practice of the Late Bronze Age culture in Scandinavia. However, the composition and context in the two deposits differ, and so the two finds tell individual stories.The composition of the Resenlund depot makes it interpretable as a sacred depot, with numerous different artefacts representing one or more peasant families. In favour of this interpretation is the fact that the depot contains items belonging to more women and at least one man, as well as a sickle, which may indicate that the sacrifice was connected to agriculture and fertility.The Brøndumgård depot may be part of a ritual procession sacrificed to the supreme beings. The women’s jewellery and horse and wagon equipment were probably made by the same bronze caster, and perhaps the items were meant as a complete ceremonial outfit for a priestess and her chariot. The Resenlund depot may reflect the cult act of one peasant family, which perhaps included people from a small neighbourhood – as opposed to the Brøndumgård depot, which may have been the remains of a ceremonial procession including a larger number of people. The deposits may thus be the result of two different ceremonies and cult acts made by different groups of society, but probably within the framework of the same fertility cult and practice of ritual sacrifice.Period IV of the Bronze Age was a very innovative era as regards the creation of new artefact types. Many new variants of women’s jewellery and other ornaments turn up in this period only to disappear again from the find material in period V. The variations within the ornaments are especially expressed within North and Central Jutland, to which a large number of artefacts are specific within period IV. They are artefact types, which were almost solely used in Jutland, and in this respect, this area differs from the rest of Scandinavia. Fig. 18 shows the artefacts that Evert Baudou considers special Jutland types, such as the specially ornamented bone buttons and pendants found in large numbers in graves in the Mid-Jutland area. To these special Jutland types, I would like to add the three wheel pendants from the Brøndumgård depot, which – with the five wheel pendants from the Sæsing depot – also constitute a special Jutland type during Period IV.The characteristics of the Jutland artefact types made Baudou suggest that judging from the unique artefact types in Jutland, we could be dealing with two tribal groups in Denmark during Period IV. A Jutland tribe mainly concentrated in North and Middle Jutland, and a tribe on the islands.The question is whether it is not too much of a simplification to divide Denmark into two tribes, as the artefacts reflect a more complicated situation. However, the idea of several regions having existed in the Danish area – individual cultural units with mutual contact – is not unlikely. The two wealth centres of Boeslunde in Western Zealand and Voldtofte on Southwest Funen may represent two independent regions in Denmark, to which the North- and Central Jutland period may be added as a third region due to its special artefacts. We thus get at least three regions in Denmark during the Late Bronze Age. In period V, we no longer have the same difference between South Scandinavian artefacts, and the distinctive character of the Jutland material seems to disappear. This does not mean that North and Central Jutland loose influence – on the contrary. However, we see a certain uniformity within the Nordic artefact material from Period V.In Period IV, North and Central Jutland was a region where people expressed their affiliation through the way they chose to decorate themselves. The area was probably inhabited by an independent people or tribe – assumed on the grounds that this is the place in Late Bronze Age Scandinavia where the find material mostly seems to reflect a region with unique artefact types expressing individual cultural traditions and a social identity.Jeanette VarbergInstitut for Antropologi, Arkæologi ogLingvistik, Aarhus UniversitetTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

The archaeologist Erik WesterbyUp-front researcher on a spare-time basisThe centenary of the archaeologist and lawyer Erik Westerby, born in 1901, is the occation of this ac count of his career. It is a tale of a talented person’s magnificent achievements in his vainly fight for a seat on the scientific Parnassos.Erik Westerby had out standing intellectual talents within more of the areas important for car ying out a rchaeological research at a high level. Initially, however, a youthful and ill-concealed belief in his own talents gave him problems getting on with the conservative research environment of his contemporaries. In addition he had to struggle with a complicated mind of his own.From his youth, Westerby’s dedication to archaeology was directed to the exploration of the oldest times. He was the first to present a settlement from the late Ice Age: the Bromme site, and until today he has remained one of the famous names within the early Stone Age research in Denmark.His mind was set on archaeology, and yet he chose a more sec ure way of earning a living and became a lawyer. Parallel to the law studies, he worked so vigorously with archaeology that it is difficult to understand how he managed to graduate with good marks in an extraordinarily short time. In 1929, he settled as an independent lawyer in Copenhagen, in an office close to the High Court and the National Museum.The Stone Age settlement of Bloksbjerg in northern Copenhagen was the object of Westerby’s first large-scale field work (fig. 1). Nineteen years old, he published the preliminary results of the excavation.The following year he extended his knowledge of the Palaeolithic Period of France during a one-month study visit in Dordogne, an area rich of archaeologi cal finds.These studies were carried out with great thoroughness and included carefully documented test excavations at some of the classical sites.When he was 26, Westerby published a thesis on the early Stone Age in Denmark, taking his own settlement investigations as his point of departure. In this book, the term “the Mesolithic Age” was introduced in Danish terminology. Here, he also argued for the individual culture eras being named after important find localities. The early part of the Mesolithic Age in Denmark (which prior to this was often called “the Bone Age”) was hence to be called the Maglemose Era and the late part the Ertebø1le Era.The local academic dignit aries met this termino logy with severe criticism. Nevertheless, it was gradually accepted far beyond the Danish borders.From a modern point of view, the book was a very com etent archaeological presentation. It was submitted to the University of Copenhagen as a dissertation. However, the established scholars showed their disapproval by simply rejecting it.To add insult to injury, the promising youth was even humiliated in public by members of the National Museum’s staff. Among other things they pounced on the claim that a widely occurring, yet hitherto unnoticed type of flint tool, the burin, was to be found in the settlement inventories of the early Stone Age in Denmark. Today, we all know that Westerby was right, but in the 1920s, this claim was received differently by the few professional archaeologists in Denmark. Westerby was considered unsuited as a professional archaeologist, and so his profession was to stay the law.His next large project was the testing of the theory that coastal settlement had existed before the Ertebø1le Era Through reconnaissance expeditions to reclaimed fiords, he established co mpr ehensive traces of coastal settlement from a time berween the Ertebølle Culture and the Maglemose Culture. This era is now called the Kongemose Era, but it could just as well have been called the “Gislinge Era” due to his rich settlement find of this era in the Lamme fiord in North-West Zealand. However,Westerby decided to play down the sigruficance of his new find and refrain from such a pretentious terminology.In 1933, the results of Erik Westerby’s investigations of the reclai med fior ds were published. The energetic, Stone Age knowledgeable Therkel Mathiassen, who was employed by the National Museum that year, was interested in the Gislinge site, but he did not get an opportunity of excavating it until seven years later. And this was not to be the last place where Westerby’s and Mathiassen’s paths crossed.Erik Westerby’s next large project was to find signs of late Ice Age settlements in Den­mark – until then, this era was on ly represented by stray items. To do this, he carried out comprehensive field reconnaissance, which among other things led to his arrest by both the Danish police and the German occupying power due to his unu sual activities in the landscape.In 1938, he realised that the Amose bog in Western Zealand was a true treasure chest when it came to Mesolithic settlements. This realisation led to a short article in the reputable scholarly magazine , Acta Archaeologica. The article presents the results of a small trial excavation on the Øgårde locality. Having expressed reservations due to the limited and provisional character of the investigation, he concluded that there were pottery sherds in a closed context from the Maglemose Era, and that this was therefore the hitherto oldest pottery find in the world (fig. 2).Westerby called on the National Museum to undertake the responsibility of further investigation into the Åmose settlements, and Therkel Mathiassen immediately took it up on himself to take care of it. When a few years later he published the results of his very comprehensive investigations of for instance Øgårde, the sensational (and wrong) conclusion, that the Maglemose culture knew how to make pottery, was maintained.From Westerby’s diary we know that at the age of thirty, he regretted having been induced to deal with law. Archaeology fascinated him much more, and here he had exceptional talents. In private, he was a lonely person, and his legal work suffered from his great commitment to archaeology.The striking gesture of handing over further work concerning the Åmose settlements to the National Museum may therefore be understood as an attempt to get out of aneconomically, socially, and professional dead end. He probably hoped that the museum would encourage him to carry on the investigations and that he would be given the necessary means to do so – perhaps in the form of permanent employment.If indeed such hopes were behind Westerby’s gesture, then they were completely ignored. Therkel Mathiassen left him no further possibilities of carrying on the work in Åmosen. He even walked on Westerby’s pride by publicly mentioning him in line with local artefact collectors, who helped the museum with its work in the bog.However, Westerby continued his systematic field reconnaissance elsewhere on Zealand. In the spring of 1944, on the edge of a bog near Bromme, northwest of Sorø, he found flint tools of a kind that made him conclude he had come across settlement traces from a late Ice Age settlement (fig. 4, 6, and 7). The National Museum quickly offered to help with the investigation. However, the sensatio al find had disturbed Westerby’s state of mind, and he declined the proposal for fear of Mathiassen (fig. 5) taking over the management of the investigations.Physical and mental over-exertion caused Westerby to seek medical treatment in the autumn of 1944 . As he had no recovered by the spring of 1945, he informed the National Museum of the situation and turned over further investigation to the museum. His approach to the museum was an unspoken request that he was given the possibility of leading the investigation against proper payment. However, the signal was ignored, and Mathiassen immediately began the planning of a large-scale investigation. Westerby inspected the investigatio , and a written controversy followed, in which he expressed his reservations about Mathiassen’s methods, interpretations, and professional ethics, before having a mental relapse.Westerby’s miserable mental and economical situation now caused his sister, Hjørdis Westerby, to contact the National Museum , and without her brother’s knowledge, she expressed his wish of a museum employment, which for years he had been too proud to express. A marked change in the museum’s course followed. Therkel Mathiassen wrote and offered Erik Westerby a favourable arrangement. Westerby answered,“The letter will be opened, read, and if necessary answered when my health and my doctor permits it”. Whether Westerby ever opened the letter is unknown.The following spring Mathiassen wrote another couple of letters in his new, generous manner. The latter of these was found unopened among the papers left behind by Westerby. The good initiative had come too late.In the spring of 1946, Erik Westerby, helped by his sister Hjørdis, wrote a scholarly presentation of his investigations of the Bromme settlement.The manuscript included remarks that could be easily interpreted as a critical comment on the National Museum. As Westerby did not want to delete them, the result was that he never saw the presentation published in its entirety. Mathiassen published his results from the site in a large article in 1948. A later reinvestigation of the complete find material from the site has shown that Westerby’s critical remarks on Mathiassen’s methods and interpretations were justified.I t is worthy of note that not only did Westerby find the Bromrne settlement; he also recognized the finds on this site as being from the late Ice Age. Later it has become evident that Bromme was not the first late Palaeolithic settlement to be found or published withom the archaeologists realizing the correct age of the artefacts.In the last months of 1946, Erik Westerby left Copenhagen in order to become a member of the legal staff on the police station in Ringkøbing, West-Jutland. In his spare time, he continued to cultivate his interest in archaeology. He gave himself the extreme task of finding traces of human habitation in Denmark prior to the last Ice Age. A gravel pit near Seest in the western part of Kolding especially attracted his attention. Here, remains from for instance rhinoceros and forest elephant were found in the melt water gravel from the Ice Age. The gravel pit finds included some man- made flint items, which may be from the Ice Age layers.At that time,Westerby’s professional competence finally gained unreserved acclaim. The then recently appointed leader of the Prehistoric Museum in Århus, professor P.V. Glob, was behind this. Among other things, he arranged Westerby’s participation as a Danish represent ative in an international congress to mark the centenary of the find of the famous Neanderthal skull (fig. 8).In Ringkøbing, Westerby gradually became a known figure (fig. 9), and his extraordinary housing conditions added considerably to his reputation as an eccentric – a status he seemed to cultivate with pleasure (fig. 11-12).When he first arrived in the town, he was assigned one of the more modest rooms in the local hotel. Here he stayed for 33 years! Erik Westerby’s eccentric personality may lead to the convenient conclusion that he was unsuited for anemployment at the National Museum. It should therefore be stressed that he functioned as a highly respected police official in Ringkøbing (fig. l0) until according to the state rules he was forced to retire at the age of 70.The story of Erik Westerby’s professional career inevitably casts a shadow over those archaeologists at the National Museum who were actively opposing him. And it must be emphasized that the negative appraisal should not just apply to the rank-and- file scholars, but also the leading profession als, who failed to create the possibilities for Westerby’s obvious talents to be exploited to the full.Each scholarly environment should be conscious of the fact that success does not just depend on the available economic resources. The profession’s ability to provide a breeding ground for new ideas and gifted persons – even when this seems to be conflicting the individual convenience a nd prestige of established scholars – is no less important. If the management is weak and lacking in visions, then the environment tends to pursuit in dividu l goals. The result is often a bad atmosphere. It is a common idea that lack of funds causes lack of constructive athmosphere. However, it may just as well be the lack of constructive athmosphere, which causes lack of funds.Danish archaeology is indebted to Erik Westerby for handing over the key localities for investigating the Early Stone Age, and for his instructive examples in methods and systematism. We are also indebted to his sister, Hjørdis Westerby,for showing our profession a great gesture after the death of her brother: due to her economy and business sense, she was able to found the Erik Westerby Foundation in support of Danish archaeologists. The capital of the foundation comes from the estate left by her brother and from a large gift of money from her.Anders FischerKulturarvsstyrelsenTranslated by Annette Lerche Trolle

The Later Prehistory of North-West Europe provides a unique, up-to-date, and easily accessible synthesis of the later prehistoric archaeology of north-west Europe, transcending political and language barriers that can hinder understanding. By surveying changes in social forms, landscape organization, monument types, and ritual practices over six millennia, the volume reassesses the prehistory of north-west Europe from the late Mesolithic to the end of the pre-Roman Iron Age. It explores how far common patterns of social development are apparent across north-west Europe, and whether there were periods when local differences were emphasized instead. In relation to this, it also examines changes through time in the main axes of contact between the various regions of continental Europe, Britain, and Ireland. Key to the volume's broad scope is its focus on the vast mass of new evidence provided by recent development-led excavations. The authors collate data that has been gathered on thousands of sites across Britain, Ireland, northern France, the Low Countries, western Germany, and Denmark, using sources including unpublished 'grey literature' reports. The results challenge many aspects of previous narratives of later prehistory, allowing the volume to present a distinctively fresh perspective.

As a species, we have always been mobile and migration was a habitual feature of prehistoric life.This open-access volume uses archaeological case studies mainly from the European Neolithic, but also from the Pacific, the US Southwest, the medieval Migration Period and the historical Great Lakes, to discuss how a focus on small-scale inter-personal relations – on the power struggles, negotiations and choices that people make in everyday settings – can help us understand migration events in archaeology. While much archaeological scholarship, using isotopes and aDNA, focuses on migrations as large-scale phenomena and crisis responses, this book offers a new approach by exploring how moving on was embedded in social practice. This book offers a novel reinterpretation of how the political aspects of migration shaped past people’s worlds in Europe and beyond, drawing on archaeological, historical, linguistic and aDNA evidence. Overall, the conclusion is that a bottom-up approach can help us to understand migration in the past at a variety of scales, in many different regions of the world The ebook editions of this book are available open access under a CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licence on bloomsburycollections.com. Open access was funded by the Centre of Advanced Studies in Oslo. As a species, we have always been mobile. But while we are now very good at recognizing that migrations happened (using e.g. isotopes and aDNA), to date we have developed only a limited range of ideas about why they happened and how. Using case studies from the Pacific, the US Southwest and Great Lakes areas and the medieval Migration Period in Europe, we build up a coherent theoretical focus on small-scale inter-personal relations – on the power struggles, negotiations and choices that people make in everyday settings – and use this to better understand migration events in archaeology. To show the potential of these insights for prehistoric settings, we offer a novel reinterpretation of how these political aspects of migration shaped the European Neolithic, which provides the majority of the case studies in this book. These cover different scales: larger-scale processes of ethnogenesis at the time when Denmark, Britain and Ireland were first settled by farmers; how household migration and mobility helped settle the Alpine foreland region; and how migrant individuals may have facilitated processes like linguistic change in the third millennium BCE. Overall, we argue that a bottom-up approach focusing on small-scale decisions can help us understand the archaeological record at a variety of scales, in many different regions of the world. While these narratives are less linear than many of the more overarching models on offer, this focus on the inter-personal also offers a necessary corrective for how we envisage migration today.

Scotland was the part of Britain that adopted the Three Age System most rapidly and completely. This chapter will argue that there were probably two main reasons for this. The first was that there were some intellectual similarities between Scotland and Denmark, and there had for a long time been strong links between the archaeologists of Edinburgh and Copenhagen—far stronger than ever existed between London and Copenhagen. The second was that, like Denmark, Scotland was seeking an identity rooted in its past. Scotland and Denmark share a number of characteristics. Both were (and are) small northern nations overshadowed by larger southern neighbours, and both were (and are) using their early history to protect their national identities. Although the Romans made inroads into Scotland, neither country had been incorporated into the Roman Empire, so their emergence into history was much more gradual. As scholars looked back through time, there was therefore a more gradual ‘greying out’ of historical knowledge, rather than an abrupt and brightly lit Roman threshold preceded by darkness. Both therefore had a greater willingness to use archaeological materials to shed light in the ‘grey-out’. This is probably one reason for the many archaeological links that had been established between Denmark and Scotland long before Worsaae’s visit. One important link between two key individuals worked in a rather different way, however: the friendship between the Norwegian Peter Andreas Munch and Daniel Wilson was partly based on their common mistrust of Copenhagen’s mid-century archaeological hegemony. But there were also differences between Scotland and Denmark, and these also had their effect on the course of events. The seeking of an identity rooted in the past was in Scotland an endeavour that was potentially fraught with problems. The deposed Stuart monarchy had last invaded Britain only a century before, and many Scots, particularly from the Gaelic-speaking Celtic Highlands, had supported the claim of Charles Stuart, ‘Bonnie Prince Charlie’, in his bid to become King Charles III. His defeat at the Battle of Culloden did not immediately remove the threat of a renewed invasion, and Jacobite agents remained active in the Highlands for some time afterwards (Maclean 1982).

The detailed descriptions of the physical geography in the previous chapters show the rich geodiversity of north-western Europe, reflected in its many geological landscapes (landscapes without the biological and cultural ‘furnishing’). The various geological forces, acting in time and space have created the foundation for this richness. The landscape’s framework has mainly been designed by such endogenic processes as tectonics, orogenesis, and volcanism, while its details have been sculptured by such exogenic processes as weathering, gravity, and glacial-, fluvial-, aeolian-, and marine activities. These modelling processes resulted in a very diverse geology, geomorphology, and pedology. The long scientific tradition and the rich geodiversity made north-western Europe one of the classical areas for geological research. It therefore includes many of the international case studies in earth sciences and became the cradle of numerous international reference localities such as Emsian (Rheinland-Pfalz, Germany), Dinantian (Ardennes, Belgium), Aptian (Provence, France), Danian—Dane is Latin for Denmark (Stevens Klint), Tiglian (Middle Limburg, The Netherlands), Eemian (river in western Netherlands), etc. The chronological division of glacial and fluvioglacial features is primarily based on type localities (villages, rivers, etc.) in Denmark, northern and southern Germany, and The Netherlands. Moreover, a multitude of Tertiary and Pre-Tertiary stages of the standard geological timetable have been named after type localities of geological and prehistoric sites in France. Geological landscapes such as the Maare system of the Eifel, the volcanoes on the Massif Central (France), the Saalian and Weichselian ice-pushed ridges of Germany, The Netherlands, and Denmark as well as the impressive dunes along the coast from France to the northernmost tip of Denmark have been subjects of detailed research. These geological landscapes form a unique geological patchwork. The activities of humans, especially in the last century, have damaged or destroyed many of these landscapes and sites of geological interest. However, selected sites and areas representing the geogenesis of the earth should be preserved for the benefit of science, education, and human welfare. In all European countries attention is given to landscape preservation; however, policy and practice have mainly been based on specific biological, historical-cultural, and visual landscape qualities.

In Mesolithic and Neolithic southern Scandinavia, Sus is often the animal found most commonly on archaeological sites, and it undoubtedly formed a major part of the meat diet throughout the prehistoric period. Unfortunately, it is difficult to ascertain whether this meat comes from wild boar (Sus scrofa) or domestic pigs (Sus scrofa f. domestica), as archaeologists have only the bones to go on when seeking to determine the status of the animals they study. This contribution will examine bones from a series of sites, most in Denmark but some also in Sweden. Three main areas will be considered. First, Mesolithic animals will be discussed. These are universally regarded as wild boar, and the effects of the rising sea level and consequent fragmentation of their populations will be examined. Second, Danish Neolithic and later domestic animals will be discussed; these could either have been domesticated in Denmark from local wild boar, or could have been introduced from outside along with exotic agricultural items such as wheat or sheep. Third, we will consider Middle Neolithic animals from the Swedish island of Gotland in the Baltic Sea. Wild boar were almost certainly not present on Gotland during the Mesolithic, and the animals must therefore have been introduced by human agency. However, opinion is divided as to whether they were domestic pigs, wild boar introduced to found a hunted population, or a crossbred or feral population. The sites to be examined are listed in Table 7.1. The various sites have been excavated at various times over the last century or so. Some were published shortly after being excavated, but others had to wait many years for publication. Excavation quality has certainly varied, but we believe this will probably not have exerted a major influence on the results we present. Our work is based on the mandibles, and these are large and robust. They are unlikely to be overlooked during even poor-quality excavations, and they survive better than many other parts of the skeleton. Samples are therefore unlikely to be biased either by recovery of preservation. In grouping sites by period, for example ‘Early Mesolithic’, we are certainly conflating sites of somewhat different ages.