Littérature scientifique sur le sujet « War memorials – 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

Et rids af Grundtvig-forskningen og dens stilling i efterkrigens Danmark. William Michelsen in memoriam [A sketch o f Grundtvig scholarship and its position in postwar Denmark. In memory of William Michelsen]By Kim Arne PedersenWith the death of William Michelsen a distinct era in the history of Gr scholarship reached its close, for he was the last surviving member of the small circle who (gathered in Bishop C. I. Scharling’s residence in Ribe for Gr’s birthday ) celebrated on the stroke of midnight the founding of The Grundtvig Society of 8th September 1947 [Grundtvig-Selskabet af 8. September 1947] which was to prove such an important initiative in Danish academic activity and in Danish culture more widely. In the forthcoming reinstatement of Gr in the mainstream of Danish scholarship and debate Michelsen was to maintain a long, unstinting and untiring involvement, both through his own scholarly output and through the encouragement, advice and criticism he offered to younger and rising scholars.Michelsen was markedly the product of his own background in a middleclass family linked over two generations with teaching, a liberal theological outlook and a quiet Christian piety in the home. Similarly, the motives and objectives of his involvement with Gr over his long working-life were distinctly responsive to the times through which he lived, and not least to the threats posed to democracy in the twentieth century by totalitarian regimes.Like others of his distinguished contemporaries, notably his lifelong friend Henning Høirup, he perceived Gr as »our contemporary« whose life-work remained of living relevance and should be accorded a functional place within the national cultural inheritance.Though not a theologian by formal education, Michelsen along with his generation came to be influenced by Karl Barth’s insistence that the revealed word of God must be the premise of any confession. This principle inspired his own studies of Gr’s thought-world, and particularly of Gr’s thesis of history, which in turn led him to see that religious idealism alone was not a sufficient response to the actualities of living in the present moment. Here he was also fairly clearly influenced by Hal Koch who, during the years of the German occupation of Denmark in the Second World War, was most instrumental in presenting Gr as his generation’s contemporary.With fellow-scholars such as Høirup and Regin Prenter, Michelsen found Gr’s authorship informed not only by Christianity’s radical profession of the forgiveness of sins but also, equally importantly, of a creation-theology which for them made it possible to harmonise the modem world’s scientific awareness with a belief that life and the universe were created by God. His contribution to the anthology Grundtvig og grundtvigianismen i nyt lys [Gr and grundtvigianism in a new light] (1983) is a key discussion of Gr’s conversion in 1810 and Gr’s relationship to Søren Kierkegaard. Various of Michelsen’s writings set forth Gr’s historical perspective as being based upon a mosaicchristian view, in a consciousness of Gr’s shift from faith to knowledge, from church to school around the critical year 1832. The view that he and Kai Thaning constitute opposite poles misrepresents the affinities and distinctions carefully drawn by Michelsen himself (‘Brev til en Grundtvigforsker’ [Letter to a Gr-scholar] in Dansk Udsyn 1964,443); nevertheless, his analysis of Gr’s universal-historical work formulates a significant challenge to Thaning’s reading of Gr and demonstrates the sense in which Gr was, as Michelsen later wrote in Grundtvig Studier 1983, ‘Sin samtids kritiker’ [Critic of his own times].After early work on H. C. Ørsted, Michelsen wrote his doctoral thesis, published as Tilblivelsen af Grundtvigs historiesyn [The formulation of Gr’s view of history] (Copenhagen, 1954). During this period (1941) he married Signe, niece of the Greenland explorer Knud Rasmussen who was herself an authority on Greenland and collaborated in translating Gr into the Greenlandic language. His doctoral thesis was based on an examination of the works Gr is known to have studied in his formative years (though he has been criticised for exaggerating the cohesion of the sources of influence upon Gr) out of which Gr shaped a view of history which was not a learned construct or theory but a conscious expression of the picture he formed for himself of existence.Michelsen depicts Gr as standing in opposition to the contemporary compromise between Christianity and romanticism, and as allowing the biblical perspective of history to model his own exposition of history.Characteristically, when his doctoral thesis was eventually overshadowed by the work of Sigurd Aa. Aames (1961) with its different approach, methodology and findings, Michelsen responded constructively (Grundtvig Studier 1962). Meanwhile he had been extending his own exploration of the way in which Gr’s Christian view of history developed after 1810, in Den sælsomme forvandling i N. F. S. Grundtvigs liv [The strange Metamorphosis inNFSG’slife] (1956). His two studies together raised issues-concerning for example Gr’s relationship to Lutheran tradition, his view of the divine image in man, and affinities between Gr and Kiekegaard’s existential standpoint - which ought to have generated a greater scholarly response than has been the case.Many of Michelsen’s articles in Grundtvig Studier remain indispensable items for students and researchers. He made a distinguished contribution to the great catalogue of the Grundtvig archives in the Royal Library, Copenhagen. Much work (in which his son Knud collaborated) on the transcription of unprinted Gr manuscripts and the identification of textual correlations illustrative of Gr’s philosophical thinking remains unpublished - though the big two-part introduction to Gr’s thought as reflected in his Danne-Virke (Grundtvig Studier 1985-86) to some extent compensates for this. Michelsen’s appointment (1968) to a lectureship in Aarhus University, in fulfilment of Professor Gustav Albeck’s desire to give Gr a central place in Danish studies, coincided with turbulent times which he did not find easy, but the fruits of his teaching are seen in the long series of fine articles by his pupils in Grundtvig Studies, of which he became an editor in 1969, scrupulously active to the last. In 1997 he was honoured by the Grundtvig-Selskab upon its Fiftieth Anniversary. He was an active participant in the newly-founded Grundtvig Academy in Vartov, in 2000.With William Michelsen’s death a notable Christian humanist and scholar has passed on. May his memory be held in honour.

Defence date: 2 July 2007
Examining board: Prof. Bo Stråth (EUI) ; Prof. Heinz-Gerhard Haupt (EUI) ; Prof. Annette Warring (Roskilde University) ; Prof. Øystein Sørensen (University of Oslo)
PDF of thesis uploaded from the Library digital archive of EUI PhD theses
Since the 1970s numerous museums and exhibitions have been opened and new monuments erected in many European countries. This 'memory boom' came to a head in the middle of the 1990s with the arrangements for the half-centenary anniversary of the end of the Second World War. The last 15 years have seen a tremendous change in international politics.

In 2008, both Norway and Denmark delivered major contributions to the cinematic genre of the ‘occupation drama’ (Norwegian), or ‘occupation film’ (Danish): the Norwegian film was Max Manus: Man of War (Max Manus, Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, 2008) and the Danish Flame & Citron (Flammen og citronen, Ole Christian Madsen, 2008). In Scandinavia, these generic markers refer to many films set during the Second World War and depicting the fates of Danes and Norwegians in the years 1940–5, when their respective countries were occupied by Nazi Germany. Thus, both Norway and Denmark eventually came to be on the victorious allied side of the war. The other Nordic countries had different obligations. Sweden, most importantly in the present context, was neutral and kept its independence throughout the war. This chapter will study how Max Manus: Man of War and Flame & Citron can be understood in a Swedish context, referring to Swedish history during the war, textual analyses of mainly the scenes from Sweden in the films, and the reception of the films in Sweden. That is, I analyse Norwegian and Danish perceptions of Sweden during the war, but strictly from a Swede’s point of view.