N-TAG TEN

Proceedings of the 10th Nordic TAG conference

at Stiklestad, Norway 2009
Edited by

Ragnhild Berge
Marek E. Jasinski
Kalle Sognnes

BAR International Series 2399

2012

Published by
Archaeopress
v H W "a"0 "# I;WI;"yW
Gordon House
"0;H "y;S
Oxford OX2 7ED
;;S
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

0#y"}

d #F" ;d"v IWWS "a" W" "d SI" #F"IaW WIW"; "} W ;S"d

; ""

# I;W W ";S" W"S S ;"; "

N}0d"""""

v WS"";;S"H "WSW"KIW
#"0#y" W "; W"; ;;HW"a
K;S ;"0 "] S
"0;H "y;S
Oxford
OX2 7BP
;;S
;S ;H I

W"I W "0#y"I; ; W" "SW ; "a";" W "" " IW ";S"W; "a" ; W " "; ;;HW"a WW"
a "K;S ;"0 " "; "HW"S ;SWS"a "
; I;W W I

On war and memory and the memory of war the Middle Bronze Age
burial from Hvidegrden on Zealand in Denmark revisited
Joakim Goldhahn
Nkppcgwu"Wpkxgtukv{

Abstract
This paper discusses various memory practices and how they may have been manifested in a particular context, the famous burial from
Hvidegrd on Zealand in Denmark. The theoretical perspective is inspired by Jan Assmanns thoughts about cultural memory. Assmann
suggests that our memory comes in various forms, which are presented and analyzed here in relation to the Hvidegrd burial. The article
contains a new analysis of the content of the fascinating belt-purse from Hvidegrd and an analysis of the cremated bones from this
burial. A conclusion from these analyses could be that different kinds of memory practice are always interwoven. This might create both
problems and opportunities for an interpretative archaeology.

D-Day 60 plus 5 years later

Some years ago, a holiday I spent in Normandy and Brittany
coincided with a commemoration of the Allied landing
sixty years earlier the legendary D-Day, 6 June 1944.
At the war museum in Caen, scarred veterans, French,
German, English, Australian, Italian, and American, were
conversing with each other in a manner that suggested a
jovial and longed-for class reunion.
Chvgt" cp" kpxkiqtcvkpi" uyko" cv" Uckpv/Ncwtgpv/uwt/Ogt" "
better known as Omaha Beach, a place where it is now
hard to picture the inferno which raged all those years
ago (Ambrose 1994) I spent some days visiting war
cemeteries. Surrounded by an ocean of gravestones and
memorials, one could hardly avoid trying to visualise
some of the youths and men whose presence could still be
felt behind the anonymous symbols; many of them never
left their teens. Here and there were mourning relatives
children who never saw their fathers, mothers left alone
with their children, grandchildren deprived of the chance
of knowing their grandfathers.
Sixty years on, the sorrow and loss were still tangible.
Many gravestones were adorned with flowers and
evocative texts that slowly but surely engraved themselves
in my consciousness, in my heart: From comrades of
the U.S. 1st Infantry Division You are not forgotten!,
Thank you for saving my life, You have always been
with me, To the father I never had, and so on. The dead
continued to have a manifest, vivid existence.
A matter which struck me during this journey was the
mixture of memorial practices that these war cemeteries
exhibited; in particular, of course, the difference between
the memory practices of the Allied forces and those of the
Third Reich. The Victors dead are all laid to rest under
symbols in white (fig. 1), the colour of innocence and
eternity, while the German soldiers lie beneath sombre
basalt crosses or slabs of grey concrete with red memorial
stones.

The memory practices even differ somewhat among the

Allied forces, above all because the American cemeteries
have a more pronounced element of staging and direction.
Most of the 36,000 or so American soldiers who died in
Normandy in the summer of 1944 were repatriated. Those
who were buried in France are concentrated to just a few,
big cemeteries (www.abmc.gov); the largest number, 9,387
soldiers, among them two sons of the president Theodore
Roosevelt, Quentin and Theodore Roosevelt Jr., together
with a memorial to another 1,557 missing persons, are in
the Normandy American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer
(fig. 1).
This war cemetery well-known, clearly signposted and
much attended (around one million visitors a year) is
located right on top of Omaha Beach, where the American
forces with the largest casualties landed on June 6th. On
arrival one encounters an informative visitors centre and
uniformed military police. The cemetery is vast, around 70
hectares or some 170 acres (fig. 1). Visitors are encouraged
to join a guided tour. The graves are democratically
similar, regardless of the incumbents rank. They all face
west, towards America.
The religious affiliation of the fallen soldiers is clearly
marked by the shape of the gravestones: crosses for
Christians and Stars of David for Jews. On my visit,
American church choirs had been flown in to sing Christian
hymns and the American national anthem. The pond in front
of the memorial monument, where also General Dwight D.
Ike Eisenhower is honoured, mirrored heaven eternity.
Although actual memories of the war were few, memories
of war were still alive and strong among the visitors.
The commemoration of the fallen British soldiers follows
a somewhat different pattern (www.cwgc.org). These war
cemeteries are less prominent and more clearly linked
to specific battles and events. The biggest is located in
Dc{gwz." yjgtg" vjg"Cnnkgu" ugv" wr" vjgkt"hkgnf"jgcfswctvgtu."
and it contains 4,265 fallen soldiers (fig. 1). Another lies
across the road with an additional 1,801 soldiers. The large

237

N-TAG TEN

Figure 1. (A) the normAndy AmericAn cemetery At colleville-sur-mer, (b) the english wAr
cemetery At bAyeux, (c) the germAn cemetery At lA cAmbs. photos by the Author.

numbers are explained by the central field hospital that

was located in Bayeux during the invasion of Normandy.

of rank but the English soldiers religious affiliation cannot

not be deduced from the shape of the tombstones.

However, the most of the British war cemeteries hold

around a hundred graves, some only a dozen. Those
cv" Ecjcipgu" cpf" Nkxt{" *Ng" tgrcu+" jcxg" qpn{" qpg" gcej<"
Nkgwvgpcpv"Igtcnf"Lcogu"Octujcnn/Eqtpycnn"cpf"Ecrvckp"
George Charles Gray, both buried at the place where
they fell. This more geographically scattered memory
practice is possibly a reflection of the recognized English
gentlemans honour. Even if this might be interpreted in
several ways, but it surly reflects another attitude the war
and to death than what is materialised at the Normandy
American Cemetery.

Even the losers had to be put to rest (www.volksbund.de

1"miu+0"Vjg"nctiguv"qh"vjg"hqwt"Igtocp"yct"egogvgtkgu"kp"
Pqtocpf{." Nc" Ecodu." cdqwv" 52" mo" htqo" Dc{gwz" *hki0"
1), is poorly signposted and difficult to find. I found the
visitors centre desolate and empty; a single pimply boy,
playing war games on his computer, was the only one
running it. He paid no attention to my presence.

None of the British war cemeteries I visited had a visitor

centre or guides. Their gravestones are similar regardless

The entrance to this war cemetery is marked with a small

stone building with a minimal opening. Through this
needles eye you may glimpse a mound, approximately
30 metres in diameter and six metres high, covering a
Kameradengraben where 296 unidentified soldiers found
their final rest (fig. 1). On top of the mound, which clearly

238

joAkim goldhAhn: on wAr And memory And the memory oF wAr

refers to prehistoric monuments, stands a gigantic basalt
cross; around its base are the graves of the most senior
officers. The cemetery itself covers only 7 hectares or
some 17 acres and makes a desolate impression, caused by
the fact that only the top commanders have been honoured
with a raised gravestone, again of basalt. Some of the
lower ranks are indeed commemorated with basalt crosses
but most of them with just a slab of grey concrete with a
red memorial stone (fig. 1).
Fgurkvg"vjku"fguqncvg"kortguukqp."Nc"Ecodu"ku"Pqtocpf{u"
largest war cemetery from World War II. An area
approximately one-tenth of that of the American war
cemetery at Omaha Beach houses the bodies of no less
than 21,222 soldiers. The logistical solution was to
place soldiers closer and on top of each other; some graves
contain up to four persons. The proportion of unidentified
uqnfkgtu" cv" Nc" Ecodu" ku" oqtg" uvtkmkpi"vjcp" cv" cp{" qh" vjg"
other war cemeteries I visited during my stay in Normandy
in the summer of 2004.
Cultural memories
The remembrance and memory practices discussed above
link the life stories of individuals to collective, national
and, in this case, world events. However, in the materiality
of the war cemeteries in Normandy we find not only the
faith of individuals and the outcome of a specific historical
event but also clearly pronounced cultural characteristics
that united and divided the people who fought for their
nations and their ideologies.
Memories of the dead are also memories for the living
(Oestigaard and Goldhahn 2006). It is through tangible
monuments like the war cemeteries of Normandy that
those who survived this event express their memories,
losses and stories, as well as their visions and ideals of
the future good society and (Ashplant et al. 2004;
Cappelletto 2005; Kidd and Murdoch 2004; Mosse 1990;
Tatum 2003; Winter and Sivan 1999). The separate yet
related memory practices could be said to express what the
German Egyptologist Jan Assmann (1992) calls a specific
cultural memory.
Assmanns purpose with this notion is to have a vehicle
for considering a societys memory practice as a social
and cultural construction that serves to create and reestablish emotional bonds between individuals, families,
groups and communities, as well as within and between
cultural groups and nations, as in the examples above. The
technologies of remembrance at mans disposal, which
based on the broadest definition can be understood as a
cultural text (Assmann 1992, 2006, 123f), are languages
and oral history, actions, rituals and, last but not least,
communicative resources and mnemonic devices in the
form of material culture (Connerton 1989; Halbwachs
1992; Jones 2007; Tilley 2006).
Following Assmann, it is possible to distinguish between
episodic and semantic memory practices. The former

are more individualized and based on the life-stories

and biography of single human beings, while the latter
reflect the way we ascribe cultural values to shared
memories (Assmann 1992). These episodic and semantic
memory practices, as we have seen above, are interwoven
(Assmann 2006, 38). It is impossible to distinguish them
from one another because they are both social and cultural
constructions. These memory practices are both the means
and the outcome of each other, they build on each other
and constitute one another (Goldhahn 2009a).
Before these memory practices can be transformed into
traditions, legends, myths and history, they need to be
memorized and materialized. In communities that we, for
want of better notions, label traditional, cold, oral
or, even worse, low-technological, these phenomena
are often interwoven with a ritualised cosmic world view
(Assmann 2006, 11). It is through rituals and the use of
material culture that different but yet related cultural
memory practices can be formulated, staged, framed and
transmitted (Barth 1987; Bell 1992). Assmann calls this
communicative memory. The purpose of these ritualized
memory practices, where past and future merge with the
present (Assmann 2006, 10), is to create a bond between
individuals and social groups, what Assmann calls
bonding memory. It is through these memory practices that
the society is able to formulate and reformulate different
normative and cultural values:
Hence just as we can speak of collective memory,
we can also speak of a connective memory. When
collectives remember, they thereby secure a unifying,
connective semantics that holds them inwardly
together and reintegrates their individual members
so that they possess a common point of view (Assmann
2006, 11).
For obvious reasons, during her lifetime, a person is formed
by and related to a variety of memory practices. First, there
are those that can be linked to an individuals personal
history and the rite of passage she undergoes during her
life journey. These transitional rituals often begin before a
person is born and usually continue long after she has died
(van Gennep 1960). Then there are the memory practices
that relate the individual to the groups with whom she
interacts and is a part of during her lifetime. Regardless of
how a society is composed and structured, it will contain
a diversity of memory practices that affect and are related
to a single human being. Together, this web builds up a
background of standards and values, which Assmann calls
cultural memory: Cultural memory can be understood as
the institutionalization of the invisible religion [] the
totality of the forms in which a comprehensive symbolic
world of meaning can be communicated and handed
down (Assmann 2006, 37).
Assmann underlines the dialectical structure of these
memory practices by reminding us of the fact that
remembering is also a sublime euphemism for
forgetting: For a functioning communicative memory,

239

N-TAG TEN
forgetting is just as vital as remembering [] Remembering
means pushing other things into the background, making
distinctions, obliterating many things in order to shed light
on others (Assmann 2006, 3).

The latter cemetery also appeals more directly to the past. It

fqgu"pqv"tgswktg"owej"jkuvqtkecn"mpqyngfig"vq"eqortgjgpf"
that these cultural memories reflect the different ideals and
cultural values that were at play in World War II.

By stressing that personal episodic memories are socially

and culturally constructed, as well as vice versa, a field
is created for negotiation and renegotiation. What is and
what shall be remembered and why? There is no given
answer and in these choices we might find ways to access
some of the cultural characteristics that unite and divide
people and cultures, both in the past, in our present, and in
our common future.

By following Assmanns manifold memory practices and

focusing on an archaeological analysis, we might get the
opportunity to study how different parts of a community
created and recreated related values and normative
systems. We then open up and broaden our archaeological
analysis to several fields and analytical levels. That not
only allows us to study how different memory practices
related to each other, but also the tensions, breaking
points and contradictions that might be important for our
understanding of the historical processes that brought us
to the society we all share today. This also gives us the
opportunity to overcome the unproductive dichotomy that
has arisen between different macro and micro perspectives
in contemporary archaeology.

Assmanns vision of a societys cultural memory is

clearly related to other approaches to commemoration
and remembrance that have been formulated recently in
the archaeological field (e.g. Bradley 2002; van Dyke
and Alcock 2003; Jones 2007; Mills and Walker 2008;
Nordbladh 2007; Williams 2003, 2006, Yoffee 2007).
One thing that may distinguish Assmanns perspective
from others is his emphasis on the importance of studying
different bonding memory practices, that is, how diverse
memory practices are formulated and articulated, not only
by whom but also where, when and why this happened.
In addition, he stresses the importance of studying how
different memory practices are related to each other.
The memory practices discussed in the introduction
of this paper create ties, identities, meanings and ideals
around which to gather. But these practices differ. The war
cemeteries in Normandy may be similar and relate to the
same historical event, but the Allied war cemeteries have
c"oqtg"fgoqetcvke"uvtwevwtg."yjkng"vjg"yct"egogvgt{"cv"Nc"
Cambs is structurally and semantically more hierarchic.

In what follows, I will not discuss how war and violence

were conducted and performed during the Bronze Age in
Scandinavia per se (Goldhahn 2009a: 1550). Instead I
shall try to relate this to Assmanns notions about cultural
memory and different mnemonic practices and see how
this was manifested in a single archaeological context
" vjg" hcoqwu" dwtkcn" htqo" Jxkfgitf" pgct" N{pid{" qp"
Zealand in Denmark (Goldhahn 2009a, 2009b, Herbst
3:6:=" Mcwn" 3;;:=" Nqodqti" 3;:3+0"Vjku" okijv" gpcdng" wu"
to demonstrate how different kinds of episodic, semantic,
bonding and connective memory practices what could
be referred to as different kinds of memoryscapes are
related to each other. In doing so, I hope to demonstrate
how this intricate web of relationships might be useful for
an interpretative archaeology.

Figure 2. the hvidegrd grAve. AFter herbst 1848.

240

joAkim goldhAhn: on wAr And memory And the memory oF wAr

The burial from Hvidegrd
The Middle Bronze Age burial from Hvidegrd, dated
to approximately 13001100 cal BC, is well known and
qhvgp"swqvgf0"Qpg"qh"vjg"tgcuqpu"hqt"vjku"ku"vjcv"vjg"dwtkcn"
was excavated by the world-famous Christian Jrgensen
Thomsen (1788-1865), founder of the Three-Age System
(Grslund 1987). Moreover, the burial can be seen as a
great paradox (Goldhahn 2009b), consisting as it does
of a stone cist (which usually contains one or several

inhumation burials) in which were found only cremated

bones (Kaul 2005). In addition, a very well preserved
leather belt-purse was found in the grave, with contents
that have surprised and amazed generation after generation
of archaeologists.
The stone coffin was found in a barrow that measured
about 6 metres in diameter and was about 2 metres high
(fig. 2). After removing the roof slabs, Thomsen saw a
piece of brown cloth lying on the floor (fig. 3). The stone

Figure 3. originAl Field drAwing oF the hvidegrd cist by j. mAgnus pedersen, now in the Archive oF the
nAtionAl museum oF copenhAgen.

241

N-TAG TEN
some preserved leather straps which were held in place by
three bronze buttons with star ornaments (fig. 4), which
dates the find to the Montelius Period III, 13001100 cal
BC. They also found a well-preserved belt-purse attached
to the leather straps, and next to it a bronze fibula (Herbst
1848, 340).
Were it not for the belt-purse and its contents, the finds
from Hvidegrd were not extraordinary and would never
have earned their fame (fig. 4). The belt-purse, about 14
centimetres long and 5 centimetres wide, was ornamented
and held a number of for us enigmatic objects (Herbst
1848, 342, see fig. 5): a flint dagger that was used as a
strike-a-light (1), a bronze knife wrapped in a leather
sheath (2), a bronze razor with a handle in the form of a
horses head (3), bronze tweezers (4), a fragmented amber
bead (5) a red stone (not reproduced here), a small piece
of flint (not reproduced here), and a small shell known
qpn{"htqo"vjg"Ogfkvgttcpgcp"Ugc"*N0"Conus mediterraneus

Figure 4. the sword, FibulA And belt-purse From

hvidegrd. AFter herbst 1848.
coffin, approximately 2.15 meters long and 0.5 meters
wide, was oriented NE-E to W-SW and its eastern end
was slightly wider than the western. Thomsen also found
a wooden vessel in the western end of the stone cist but it
was so dissolved that it was beyond preservation.
The cloth originated from a cloak that had been placed on
the skin of an ox. Judging from the position of the cloak,
especially its shoulder part, the deceaseds head was at
the eastern end (fig. 3). Among the remains of the cloak
Thomsen saw a bronze sword and a few vertebrae of an
adult human being (fig. 4). The handle of the sword was in
the foot end of the coffin and the tip pointed east. Thus
the sword seemed to have been placed upside down in
relation to the corpse. The horn handle was so dissolved
that it could not be saved. The sword was found in a
scabbard made of wood and leather; this was the first time
that a scabbard from the Bronze Age was found. When they
lifted the scabbard, Thomsen found it had been attached to

Figure 5. the content oF the belt-purse From

hvidegrd. AFter herbst 1848.

242

joAkim goldhAhn: on wAr And memory And the memory oF wAr

Hwass) that had been pierced so it could be worn in a strap
as a talisman or amulet (6). There was also some tinder and
touchwood that could be used to create fire (not reproduced
here), multiple roots of various kinds (not reproduced
jgtg+." c" uswctg" rkgeg" qh" yqqf" *9+." dctm" *pqv" tgrtqfwegf"
here), the claw of a bird of prey, probably a falcon (8) and
vjg"vckn"qh"c"{qwpi"upcmg"*N0"Coluber laevis) (9). Inside the
belt-purse there was also a small bag made out of bowel or
bladder (10), in which were found additional objects: the
nqygt"lcy"qh"c"{qwpi"uswkttgn"*33+."uqog"uocnn"rgddngu"
(12) and a piece of bowel or bladder that contained some
more pebbles (fig. 5).
The sword, razor, tweezers and the strike-a-light seem to
indicate a male-attributed burial (Bergerbrant 2007), while
the inventory from the belt-purse seems to speak for itself;
it has been interpreted in religious and magical terms since
1845 (Herbst 1848). Accordingly, P.V. Glob identified the
deceased as a medicine man (Glob 1970, 93), Klavs
Randsborg as a warrior-shaman (Randsborg 1993, 122),
Jrgen Jensen as a shaman (Jensen 2002, 301-303) and
Flemming Kaul as a sorcerer or priest (Kaul 1998, 1620).
Whatever label we choose to attach to the deceased,
something that first and foremost seems to depend on
rgtuqpcn"vcuvg"cpf"rtghgtgpegu."vjg"rgtuqp"kp"swguvkqp"ecp"
be defined as a ritual specialist (Goldhahn 2007, 2009ac;
Kaul 2007). Today we know of more than 30 similar finds
of belt-purses from Denmark (Glob 1970: 93; Gunnarsson
4229="Nqodqti"3;88+0"Oquv"qh"vjgo"qtkikpcvg"htqo"dwtkcnu"
which also contained swords or daggers of bronze, which
ngf" Gddg" Nqodqti" vq" uwiiguv" vjcv" vjgug" ocikekcpu"
belonged to the upper social and political strata of the
Okffng"Dtqp|g"Cig"*Nqodqti"3;:3."9:/9;+0"
This is the most common and accepted image of the man
from Hvidegrd.
Memory practices
In what follows, we shall reconnect to Assmanns thoughts
about cultural memory and see how different memory
practices may have been manifested in the burial from
Hvidegrd. In doing so we shall not highlight a general
cultural-historical perspective, but primarily concentrate
on a specific in-depth analysis of this context. The aspects
to consider are the memory practice connected with
the creation of the burial monument, the content of the
enigmatic belt-purse, and a new analysis of the cremated
bones that were found in the cist.
The monument
The most notable memory practice during the Bronze
Age and one that has survived to our day, is the countless
monuments that were created to commemorate the dead
and the living, what Assmann would describe as a kind
of bonding memory. Analysing the Hvidegrd monument
is difficult. All we know is its diameter and height. The

mound was perceived as an old-fashioned display case and

the excavation was undertaken simply to get at closed finds
in order to improve the existing museum collection and
chronologies (cf. Gansum 2004; Grslund 1987; Svestad
1995). In addition, Thomsen was interested in spectacular
discoveries that he could present in his exhibition at the
Oldnordiske Museum in Copenhagen (Jensen 1992).
Today we know better. The creation of a barrow like that at
Hvidegrd was a collective work, guided by traditions and
beliefs. It thus also ties in with Assmanns thoughts about
both collective and connecting memory. The monument
thus related to two different recollections: a memory of
what has been, the deceased individual; and the future, the
survivors involved in the creation of the monument and
the generations that would follow them (Goldhahn 2008).
Recent excavations and analyses of Bronze Age monuments
in Scandinavia have shown that the construction of a
barrow was preceded by numerous preparations, detailed
planning and rituals (Goldhahn 1999; 2008; Holst et al.
4226=" M{xkm" 4227=" Nkpig" 4229=" O{jtg" 4226=" Vjtcpg"
1984). The location of the monuments seems to have
been chosen with care. Sometimes the surface was
dwtpv" cpf1qt" ngxgnngf" vq" hceknkvcvg" vjg" eqpuvtwevkqp" qh" vjg"
monument (Goldhahn 1999). Sometimes the earth beneath
the barrows was ploughed. Care was also taken with the
selection of materials for the monument: stones, rocks, oak
for the coffin, peat and soil, but also the seaweed, beach
sand, shells and other phenomena that were considered
essential for this task (Goldhahn 1999; 2008; Jensen 1998;
O{jtg"4226="M{xkm"4227="Nkpig"4227+0"Vjqug"yjq"ygtg"
commemorated with these larger-than-life monuments
seem to have been selected with the same care (Jensen
3;;:="Nctuuqp"3;:8="Tcpfudqti"3;96="Vjgfgp"4226+0"
According to ingenious calculations, each cubic meter
of the finished monuments seems to correspond to a
working day for an adult (Goldhahn 1999, 226). In the
case of Hvidegrd, the mound corresponds to a weeks
work for one person, which could hardly have put off
those concerned in the Middle Bronze Age, given that the
eqpuvtwevkqp"qh"Nwugjl"qp"H{p"kp"Fgpoctm"ku"guvkocvgf"
to have taken 3,200 working days to create (Thrane 1984),
while according to the same calculation, the Hga barrow
qwvukfg"Wrrucnc"kp"Uygfgp"tgswktgf"9.722"fc{u"*Nkpfuvtqo"
2009). Moreover, Bredarr on Kivik in southeastern Scania
in Sweden should have taken approximately 15,650 days
for one person to construct, or 43 people working full-time
for a year (Goldhahn 2008, 60).
Although the Hvidegrd barrow should not be compared
with the latter monuments, it was surely a tangible
manifestation of the forces that built it. Through such
burial rituals, the eschatology of the deceased and the
descendents was negotiated and renegotiated in relation
to myths and cosmology (Goldhahn 1999). Different
episodic memory practices bonded to create and recreate
semantic values.

243

N-TAG TEN
Another matter to bring up in this context is that the
creation of such a monument was never done in isolation.
The Hvidegrd burial is in fact just one of a dozen burial
monuments that we know of from the same farmstead
(Goldhahn 2009a, 7071, 8186). One of these other burials
has been excavated and is more or less contemporary with
Hvidegrd and we shall return to it below.
Similar concentrations of burial mounds from the Bronze
Age are not uncommon (see Artursson 2007; Jensen 2002;
Nctuuqp" cpf" Rgvt" 3;;5+0"Cv" Jxkfgitf." vjg{" ctg" engctn{"
positioned in relation to each other, suggesting that they
explicitly relate to the same connective memory practice.
Nevertheless, similar concentrations of barrows have
usually been considered as specific manifestations of
individuals (for criticisms see Goldhahn 2008; 2009c).
Assmanns thoughts about diverse memory practices
challenge this approach, as we shall soon experience on
purely empirical grounds in the case of the Hvidegrd
burial.
The belt-purse
Without doubt it is the fascinating belt-purse and its
remarkable contents that have attracted most interest in the
scientific worlds treatment of the finds from Hvidegrd.
Similar belt-purse findings are rather rare, but those we
know of represent a correspondingly peculiar material
ewnvwtg"*Iwppctuuqp"4229="Nqodqti"3;88+0"Oquv"qh"vjgo"
seem to contain some kind of ritual paraphernalia. As with
the small pebbles wrapped in bladder, it is hard to know
yjcv" cnn" vjgug" qdlgevu" ygtg" wugf" hqt0" Nqodqti" *3;:3+"
suggested that the pebbles, which are only about 2-3 mm
across, originate from the gastric content of a bird, possibly
the falcon whose claws were found in the same belt-purse.
Vjg"tgockpu"qh"vjg"{qwpi"uswkttgn"eqwnf"vjgp"jcxg"ugtxgf"
as the birds last meal. We know that like the Etruscans and
Romans, Germanic tribes used birds flight in the sky and
the liver of birds to construct omens and predict the future
(Tacitus 1963, 4547; Jannot 2005, 2728, 215). Possibly,
the gastric content of a bird of prey was used for a similar
purpose, to forecast the future (Schnittger 1912, 105). The
notion of prophesy and omen is substantiated by the other
contents of the belt-purse which could refer to black art,
magic and foresight.
Anyhow, the objects that were found in the belt-purse
from Hvidegrd make up a remarkable collection that
may have marvellous cosmological connotations. Several
Danish scholars, for instance PV Glob (1970), Ebbe
Nqodqti" *3;:3+." Ltigp" Lgpugp" *4224+" cpf" Hngookpi"
Kaul (1998, 2004), have also noted this. Klavs Randsborg
has summarized it well as follows (1993, 124):
we find the human kingdom clearly represented:
both male and female domains, as well as native and
foreign worlds. And likewise the animal kingdom
in the depths of the sea, on land, in vegetation, in
the sky (cf. the shamans ability to fly) and the
plant kingdom above and below ground; even parts

of the mineral kingdom and the element of fire are

represented.
According to Randsborg, the contents of the belt-purse
mirror a tripartite cosmological model of the world, which
Assmann would link to a semantic memory practice.
Other objects in the belt-purse seem to be associated
with a more personal episodic memory practice. I am
thinking here of the shell from the Mediterranean Sea, the
fragmented amber bead, the small piece of flint, and the
fragmented red stone, which all seem to carry their own
cultural biography (e.g. Kopytoff 1986), stories that were
probably associated with the owners life history. Several
of these objects, though not the shell, were placed in the
belt-purse in a fragmented state (fig. 6). The fragmentation
uggou" swkvg" fgnkdgtcvg" cpf" kv" ku" vgorvkpi" vq" tgncvg" vjgug"
finds to John Chapmans thoughts about the enchainment
of memory practice (Chapman 2000). The amber most
probably originated from the Atlantic coast of western
Jutland in Denmark (Jensen 2000). Judging from its
shape and finish, Randsborg (1993, 124) suggests that
it was reworked to a bead in the Upper Rhine area in
Germany where similar beads are found, before finding its
way to Hvidegrden on Zealand in eastern Denmark. Also
the piece of flint may have originated from a destroyed
object, but today it is impossible to determine what kind of
artefact it might have been a part of.
Here, the little red stone is also of some interest (fig. 6).
It has been assessed as reddish hematite, which is not
common in Denmark, and can accordingly belong among
the other exotic and esoteric objects from the belt-purse:
the shell from the Mediterranean Sea and the amber bead
from Germany. Although the stone is fragmented, it has
undoubtedly been worked and used as a stone tool; its
edges are faceted and clearly shaped by human hand.
One possible interpretation is that it originates from the
gswkrogpv" qh" c" dtqp|g" uokvj." wugf" rgtjcru" vq" rqnkuj" vjg"
metal and its seam after the casting process. Similar
findings are known from several Bronze Age workshops
in Scandinavia (Goldhahn 2007 with references) and from
burials that have been associated with smiths and ritual
specialists (Goldhahn 2007; Piggott 1938; Randsborg
1986; Shell 2000; Thrane 2009).
To these fragmented objects we can add a decorated piece
of bronze that was found close to the belt-purse (Goldhahn
2009a; 2009b). It is only 29 mm long and 8 mm wide (fig.
6). The decoration consists of parallel lines and there is
no doubt that it was once a part of an ornamented artefact.
The cortex is well preserved and the patina indicates
that the object was used over a considerable time. The
decorated face is slightly convex, while the other face
does not seem to have been processed with the same care.
In another context I have suggested that it derives from
the fragmented sword blade, a spear or a ceremonial axe,
where similar ornamentations are known from period III
(Goldhahn 2009b).

244

joAkim goldhAhn: on wAr And memory And the memory oF wAr

Figure 6. FrAgmented ArteFActs From the hvidegrd

grAve. photo by the Author.
Similar findings of fragmented metal objects, bronze or
gold, are fairly common in related finds of belt-purses
from the Middle Bronze Age, here approximately 1500
1100 cal BC. In his study of Belt-purses in southern
Scandinavia during the Bronze Age, from 2007, Fredrik
Gunnarsson lists about 30 similar finds; more than a third
of them contained fragmentary bronze or gold objects. The
phenomena are widespread. But how are these fragments
vq"dg"kpvgtrtgvgfA"Nqodqti"*3;:3."9;+"uwiiguvgf"vjcv"vjg{"
served as a form of payment, as a primitive kind of bronze
currency, an explanation that I have opposed in other
contexts (Goldhahn 2009a; 2009b). Instead I suggest that
these fragments should be regarded as a kind of episodic
and semantic memory practice, as trophies taken in
battle or after a successful duel like those depicted on
Bronze Age rock art from Scandinavia (fig. 7). They might
also be interpreted as a ritualized way of encapsulating the
mana and power of defeated enemies, as a sign that the
owner had taken a just revenge. Furthermore, this memory
practice might be connected to an episodic memory
rtcevkeg."cu"c"ukip"vjcv"vjg"rgtuqp"kp"swguvkqp"ycu"kpkvkcvgf"
into the brotherhood of warriors (Goldhahn 2009a).
For all we know, war, in its broadest definition, is a
ritualised world (Haas 1990; Otto et al 2006; Harding
2007; Goldhahn 2009a). This applies to individual episodic
memory training as well as to the semantic context of war.
To remember war is in many ways just as important as the
fighting and killing themselves. War shapes cultural texts
that connect the individual with the cultural values of his
or her society, and the eternal negotiation and renegotiation
of cultural memory.
According to my altered state of reality, the fragmented
objects from Hvidegrd and related contexts appear to be
directly linked to different yet related forms of memory
practice. The talisman from the Mediterranean Sea,
the amber bead, the red stone, the small piece of flint,
and the fragmented bronze object, can all be seen as an

Figure 7. bronze Age duel, rock Art From the greAt

Fossum pAnel in tAnum pArish, northern bohusln.
photo by the Author.
enchainment of memory practices, connected both with the
episodic individual biography, a bygone era, and to a more
semantic world view and the cosmological connotations
that can be associated with the various objects in the beltrwtug" *Lgpugp" 4224=" Mcwn" 4226=" Inqd" 3;92=" Nqodqti"
1981; Randsborg 1993). The collection of small pebbles
cpf"vjg"uswkttgnu"lcy"oc{"kpfkecvg"vjcv"kvu"qypgt"ycu"cdng"
to explore the future, to pronounce omens and forecasts
(Goldhahn 2007, 2009a, 2009b). The content of the beltpurse can thus be understood as an archive that was related
to an episodic memory practice, but also as a semantic
microcosm, a fragmented world full of wondrous things
that reflected the nature of the world, to what once was,
but also to what might be in the future.
The deceased individual
Who, then, was the human being who was buried at
Hvidegrden? The artefacts, such as the sword, the razor,
tweezers and the strike-a-like, all point to a male-attributed
person (Bergerbrant 2007). The cremated bones, deposited
in the central part of the stone cist, indicate a more
ambiguous picture (Goldhahn 2009a, 2009b). Caroline
Arcinis analysis shows that the remains of at least three
individuals where deposited together in the Hvidegrd
cist: an adult man, aged 2040 years, a teenager aged 17
19 years and a child aged 34 years. As all the cremated
bones were found wrapped in the cloak, it is reasonable

245

N-TAG TEN
to suggest that they were deposited together. Moreover,
the identified bones make up a rather unusual whole,
not least in that some bones, such as the pars petrosa,
that are usually well preserved after a cremation (see
Ctekpk"4227="Ctekpk"cpf"N pp"422;+."ygtg"okuukpi0"Vjtgg"
individuals indicate six pars petrosa but only one was
found. Moreover, bones from the upper part of the body
were very poorly represented, while those from the lower
parts were overrepresented. Arcinis interpretation of this
pattern, based on her experience of analyzing more than
3,000 cremation burials, is that the identified individuals
must have been cremated together and that the missing
bones were deposited elsewhere.
A rather remarkable circumstance in this context is that
another cremation burial from a barrow of similar size
and from the same period as the more famous Hvidegrd
burial has been excavated at the same farmstead. This
burial, referred to here as Hvidegrd II (Aner and Kersten
1973, no. 398), presents the same peculiar combination of
inhumation and cremation burial practices, consisting as
it does of an inhumation stone cist with a deposition of
cremated bones in the central part of the cist (fig. 8). This
barrow was excavated in 1923 and was clearly visible from
Hvidegrd I, 70 metres away (Aner and Kersten 1973,
142-143; Goldhahn 2009a, 70, 8186). The similarities
between Hvidegrd I and II are underscored by the fact
that both stone cists were slightly trapezoidal in shape (see
fig. 3, 7). Could all these similarities be a coincidence?
To ascertain the relationship between these graves, we
decided to analyze the cremated bones from the Hvidegrd
II burial. Our suspicions were strengthened when Arcini
identified two individuals in this material: an adult and
an adolescent in the same age ranges as the grown-ups
from Hvidegrd I. As with the bones from Hivdegrd I,
only parts of their bodies are represented in the cremated
bone material that were preserved, but this time with an
overrepresentation of bones from the upper part of the body
and an underrepresentation from the lower part. Arcinis
analysis also showed that bones identified in one burial
were missing from the other. For example, the right
femur with trochanter minor from the adult was identified
in Hivdegrd I and was missing in Hvidegrd II, and vice
versa; both the adults and the teenagers left femurs with
trochanter minor were found in Hvidegrd II but were
missing in Hvidegrd I (Goldhahn 2009a). Despite these
positive correlations, a total match between the bones
from the two contexts could not be achieved. Furthermore,
no bones from the child were identified in the Hvidegrd
II material. Even so, the strong correlations between the
contexts do suggest that the burials are connected:
* The barrows were similar in date and size, and located within sight from each other.
* The trapezoid stone cists were both made as if they
could house an inhumation burial but contained
cremated bones that had been deposited in the central part of the cist.

* Both samples contained bones from an adult and an

adolescent in the late teens.
* In Hvidegrd I the lower body was overrepresented, while the opposite was the case in Hivdegrd II.
* The adult mans right femur was found in Hvidegrd I and was missing in Hvidegrd II, while
both the adults and the teenagers left femurs were
found in Hvidegrd II and were missing in Hvidegrd I.
All this suggests that the individuals who have been
identified in Hvidegrd I and II were killed and cremated
at the same time, but that their remains were collected
and deposited in different burial monuments. Elsewhere I
have suggested that their deaths were caused by structured
violence or war, a possibility that is indicated by the signs
of trauma in form of a sword-cut on one of the skull bones
from Hvidegrd II (Goldhahn 2009a).
Discussion and conclusions
Human existence is bound to memory. We are what we
remember and we only remember what we are. Our ability
to memorise bridges the gap between past and present.
Memory is thus crucial to how we act in the future. How
we and our society remember, what we choose to forget,
the memory practice that is formulated and articulated
through our social interaction and the use of material
culture, are thus an important source of past and present
cultures (Assmann 2006; Connerton 1989; Halbwachs
1992; Jones 2007; Tilley 2006).
This paper has dealt with some different kinds of memory
practice in relation to a single burial monument Hvidegrd
K0"Kv"jcu"pqv"dggp"o{"kpvgpv"vq"fkuewuu"vjg"swguvkqp"qh"jqy"
war and structured violence were performed in Bronze
Age Scandinavia per se (Harding 2007; Osgood 2000;
Quiqqf" (" Oqpmu=" 4228=" Qvvq" et al. 2006; Randsborg
1995) rather how these practices were commemorated and
materialized.
Using an analogy from the Second World War in this
context may seem far-fetched and artificial. However,
ctejcgqnqi{" gxqnxgu" ctqwpf" vjg" swguvkqp" qh" jqy" rgqrng"
express themselves through the use of material culture
and how that material culture then goes about expressing
itself in people (Tilley 2006). In this case: how memories
of war reflect and shape societal ideals, norms and values
cultural memory. Although the war cemeteries discussed in
the beginning of this paper are similar in age and character
and are actually shaped by and reflect the same historical
events, they also differ. This is evident in, for instance, the
materialization of the Third Reichs hierarchical ideals and
how this contrasts with the Allied forces more pronounced
democratic ideals. Only a fraction of the dead German
soldiers are commemorated with individual tombstones,
yjgtgcu" vjg" Cogtkecp" uqnfkgtu" jcxg" gswkxcngpv" itcxgu"
regardless of status and rank. A telling illustration of this is
that two of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelts sons are
buried in the same way as the soldiers who served more

246

joAkim goldhAhn: on wAr And memory And the memory oF wAr

Figure 8. the hvidegrd ii buriAl. photo And documentAtion From the excAvAtion 1923, now in the Archive oF the
nAtionAl museum oF copenhAgen.

247

N-TAG TEN
or less as cannon fodder on D-Day. The same democratic
ideal permeates the British war cemeteries. These
different cultural values are very consciously expressed
in the materiality of the different war cemeteries, in their
intentional architecture and aesthetics.
Without doubt, the deceased individuals from Hvidegrd
I and II lived and died in another context. Yet their death
caused a similar kind of reaction and related memory
practices that seem to be triggered by sudden death. Judging
from Arcinis analysis of the cremated bones, they all seem
to have been cremated together, so it can be suggested that
they met their deaths in a relatively short timeframe and
that the triggering factor seems to have been some kind
of structured violence. The monuments that were created
cv"Jxkfgitf"kp"N{pid{"qp"gcncpf"chvgt"vjcv"gxgpv"ygtg"
probably linked to some form of episodic memory which
paid tribute to the deceased individuals, but also served
as a bonding and semantic memory for the descendents
(Goldhahn 1999, 2008).
The memory practices stories, legends and myths
that were linked to monuments like Hvidegrd I and II
were probably just as charged for the Bronze Age people
as the Normandy war cemeteries are for a visitor today.
The monument ensured that the dead continued to have
a manifest, vivid existence. In this respect, people are the
same. Moreover, monuments such as these barrows were
especially important for mobilizing community forces to
face these kinds of danger, but they also served as a cultural
memory to bond around with the purpose of avoiding new
raids, wars and other kinds of structured violence in the
future.
Another kind of memory practice seems to be connected
to the fascinating belt-purse from Hvidegrd I, where the
fragmentation of objects and animals seems to have been
a deliberate and conscious memory practice (Chapman
2000). Some of these objects for instance the talisman
from the Mediterranean Sea, the amber bead, the red stone,
the small pieces of flint and bronze objects clearly had
their own biography that links them to an episodic memory
practice. Some of these objects, as well as the other ritual
paraphernalia in the belt-purse, also expressed a semantic
memory practice that mirrored the Bronze Age tripartite
cosmology. The small stones and the jaw from a young
uswkttgn." yjkej" oc{" cnn" uvgo" htqo" vjg" icuvtke" eqpvgpv" qh"
a bird of prey, suggest for their part that the owner of this
belt-purse possessed the esoteric ability to pronounce
omens and forecast the future.
Though the belt-purse was attached to the same leather
belt as the sword, it might be reasonable to also relate the
latter ability more explicitly to structured violence in the
Middle Bronze Age (Goldhahn 2009a; Harding 2007; Otto
et al 2006). The outcome of endemic wars, raids, lootings
or individual duels is usually unpredictable but a series
of anthropological and historical sources tells us that this
esoteric knowledge was sought after. For instance, from
Cornelius Tacitus (55-117 evt) Germania we learn that

vjg" dctdctkcpu" qh" vjg" pqtvj" wugf" xctkqwu" vgejpkswgu" vq"

predict the future: bird and horse watching, through sticks,
etc. (Strabo 1989: VII, Ch. II; Tacitus 1963: 4547).
To conclude: different but related memory practices were
mediated and embodied in the burial monument and the
enigmatic material culture from the belt-purse. The beltpurse from Hvidegrd ought to be regarded both as an
archive for an episodic memory and as a semantic memory,
maybe serving as a microcosm. The belt-purse appears as
a fragmented world full of wondrous things that testified to
the nature of the world, but also to what had been and what
the future held in its hands. In this paper it has also been
suggested that the fragmentation of the objects from the
belt-purse could have been taken as a kind of episodic and
semantic trophies after a battle or duel, like those depicted
on Bronze Age rock art. It may have been an explicit
memory practice that served to rob and preserve the mana
and power of fallen enemies, or as a sign that the owner
of the fragmentary objects had taken revenge and was a
warrior of rank. In short: a memoryscape of structured
violence, of war.
A conclusion from the analyses presented in this paper
could be that different kinds of memory practice are
always interwoven, often in one and the same object and
archaeological context. This might create both problems
and opportunities for an interpretative archaeology.

Acknowledgements
I wish to thank Flemming Kaul at the National Museum
in Copenhagen and Caroline Arcini at the Swedish
National Heritage Board for their nourishing cooperation
in analysing the finds from Hvidegrd. Patrick Hort
has revised my use of the English language. Thanks!
Despite their essential efforts, none of those mentioned is
responsible for the thoughts expressed in this paper. There
is an extended version of the paper in Swedish in Goldhahn
422;c"*ugg"iqnfjcjp0ug1rwdnkegtcv0jvon+0"
References
Ambrose, S. E. 1994. D-Day. June 6, 1944. The Battle for
the Normandy Beaches0"Nqpfqp."Ukoqp"cpf"Uejwuvgt0
Aner, E. and Kersten, K. 1973. Die Funde der lteren
Dtqp|g|gkv" fgu" pqtfkuejgp" Mtgkugu" kp" F pgoctm."
Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen. Bd 1,
Frederiksborg und Kbenhavns Amt. Kbenhavn.
Arcini, C. 2005. Pyre sites before our eyes. In T.
Artelius and F. Svanberg (eds.), Dealing with the
Dead. Archaeological Perspective on Prehistoric
Scandinavian
Burial
Ritual.
Stockholm:
Riksantikvariembetet Arkeologiska Underskningar,
Skrifter 65, 6372.
Arcini, C. and" N pp." O. 2009. Tvrvetenskap lnkar
blplats till grav. In Situ"422814229."3673720"

248

joAkim goldhAhn: on wAr And memory And the memory oF wAr

Artursson, M. (ed.) 2007. Vgar till Vtland en
bronsldersbygd i nordstra Skne 2300-500 f. Kr.
Stockholm, Riksantikvariembetets frlag.
Ashplant, T. G., Dawson, G. and Roper, M. (eds.) 2004.
Commemorating War. The Politics of Memory. New
Brunswick, N.J., Transaction Publishers.
Assmann, J. 1992. Das kulturelle Gedchtnis. Schrift,
Erinnerung und politische Identitt in frhen
Hochkulturen. Mnchen. Beck.
Assmann, J. 1997. Moses the Egyptian. The Memory of
Egypt in Western Monotheism. Cambridge, Mass. and
Nqpfqp."Jctxctf"Wpkxgtukv{"Rtguu0
Assmann, J. 2006. Religion and Cultural Memory.
Stanford, Stanford University Press.
Barth, F. 1987. Cosmologies in the making. A generative
approach to cultural variation in Inner New Guinea.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Bell, C. M. 1992. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New
York, Oxford University Press.
Bergerbrant, S. 2007. Dtqp|g" Cig" Kfgpvkvkgu" " Equvwog."
Conflict and Contact in Northern Europe 16001300
BC. Stockholm Studies in Archaeology 43. Stockholm.
Bradley, R. 2002. The Past in Prehistoric Societies.
Nqpfqp."Tqwvngfig0"
Cappelletto, F. (ed.) 2005. Memory and World War II. An
Ethnographic Approach. Oxford and New York, Berg.
Chapman, J. 2000. Fragmentation in Archaeology. People,
Places and Broken Objects in the Prehistory of South
Eastern Europe0"Nqpfqp."Tqwvngfig0"
Connerton, P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Gansum, T. 2004. Hauger som konstruksjoner
arkeologiske forventninger gjennom 200 r. Gotarc
Serie B. Archaeological Thesis 33. Gteborg.
Glob, P. V. 1970. Jlhqnmgv0" Dtqp|gcnfgtgpu" ogppgumgt"
bevaret i 3000 r. Kbenhavn: Gyldendal.
Goldhahn, J. 1999. Sagaholm hllristningar och
gravritual. Studia Archaeologica Universitatis
Umensis 11. Ume.
Goldhahn, J. 2007. Ddens hand en ess om brons- och
hllsmed. Gotarc Serie C. Arkeologiska Skrifter 65.
Gteborg.
Goldhahn, J. 2008. From monuments in landscape to
landscapes in monument: monuments, death and
landscape in Early Bronze Age Scandinavia. In A.
Jones (ed.), Prehistoric Europe. Theory and practice,
56-85. Oxford and New York, Blackwell Studies in
Global Archaeology.
Goldhahn, J. 2009a. Om krig och minnen och att minnas
krig Hvidegrdsgraven revisited #2. Kalmar Studies
in Archaeology V. Kalmar.
Goldhahn, J. 2009b. I dda personers sllskap? Ngra
tankar om Hvidegrdsgraven och arkeologins
tanatologiska semantik. In I-M. Back Danielsson,
K0" Iwuvkp." C0" Nctuuqp." P0" O{tdgti" cpf" U0" Vjgfgp"
(eds.). Dda personers sllskap. Gravmaterialens
identiteter och kulturella uttryck. Stockholm Studies in
Archaeology 47, 85-111. Stockholm.

Goldhahn, J. 2009c. Smeden som kosmolog och

kosmograf ngra tankar om bronslderns hantverk
qej" rtqfwmvkqp0" Kp" L0" Nwpf" cpf" N0" Ognjgko" *gfu0+."
Hndverk og produksjon. Et mte mellom ulike
perspektiver. Oslo Arkeologiske Serie 12, 163196.
Oslo
Grslund, B. 1987. The Birth of Prehistoric Chronology
Dating Methods and Dating Systems in NineteenthCentury Scandinavian Archaeology. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Gunnarsson, F. 2007. Lderpungar i Sydskandinavien
under den ldre bronsldern. Opubl. CD-Uppsats i
Arkeologi. Ume Universitet. Ume.
Haas, J. (ed) 1990. The Anthropology of War. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Halbwachs, M. 1992. On Collective Memory. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Harding, A. 2007. Ycttkqtu"cpf"Ygcrqpu"kp"Dtqp|g"Cig"
Europe. Archaeolingua Series Minor 25. Budapest.
Herbst, C. F. 1848. Hvidegaards Fundet. Annaler for
Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1848, 336352.
Holst, M. K., M. Rasmussen and H. Breuning-Madsen
2004. Skelhj. Et bygningsvrk fra den ldre
bronzealder. Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 2004, 11
23.
Jannot, J.-R. 2005. Religion in Ancient Etruria. Madison,
University of Wisconsin Press.
Jensen, Jrgen. 1992. Thomsens museum. Historien om
Nationalmuseet. Kbenhavn, Gyldendal.
Jensen, J. 1998. Ocpfgp" k" mkuvgp<" jxcf" dtqp|gcnfgtgpu"
gravhje gemte. Kbenhavn, Gyldendal.
Jensen, J. 2000. Rav. Nordens guld. Kbenhavn, Gyldendal.
Jensen, J. 2002. Fcpoctmu"Qnfvkf0"Dtqp|gcnfgt"4222722"
f Kr. Kbenhavn, Gyldendal.
Jones, A. 2007. Memory and Material Culture. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Kaul, F. 1998. Ujkr" qp" dtqp|gu0" C" uvwf{" kp" Dtqp|g" Cig"
religion and iconography. National Museum, PNM
Uvwfkgu"kp"Ctejcgqnqi{"cpf"Jkuvqt{"5<3140"Mdgpjcxp0
Kaul, F. 2004. Dtqp|gcnfgtgpu" tgnkikqp" " uvwfkgt" ch" fgp"
pqtfkumg" dtqp|gcnfgtu" kmqpqitchk0" Kbenhavn, Det
Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.
Kaul, F. 2005. Hvad skete med den ddes sjl?
Sjlsforestillinger i Bronzealderen. In Goldhahn,
J. (eds). Mellan sten och jrn. Gotarc Serie C.
Arkeologiska Skrifter 59, 263278. Gteborg.
Kaul, F. 2007. Sotetorp endnu engang. Adoranten 2007,
5175.
Kidd, William. and Murdoch, Brian. (eds.) 2004. Memory
and Memorials. The Commemorative Century. Nqpfqp."
Ashgate.
Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things.
Commoditization as process. In A. Appadurai (ed.), The
Social Life of Things, 64-94. Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Kyvik, G. 2005. Fenomenologiske perspektiver.
Gravritualer i bronsealder. Universitetet i Bergen,
Ctmgqnqikumg"Umtkhvgt."Jqxgfhci1Ocuvgt"30"Dgtigp0"

249

N-TAG TEN
Nctuuqp." N0" cpf" T0" Rgvt" *gfu0+." 3;;50" Bronslderns
gravhgar. Rapport frn ett symposium i Lund
15.XI-16.XI 1991." Wpkxgtukv{" qh" Nwpf." Kpuvkvwvg" qh"
Ctejcgqnqi{."Tgrqtv"Ugtkgu"6:0"Nwpf0
Nctuuqp."V0"D0"3;:80"Vjg"Dtqp|g"Cig"Ogvcnyqtm"kp"Uqwvjgtp"
Uygfgp0" Curgevu" qh" Uqekcn" cpf" Urcvkcn" Qticpk|cvkqp"
1800500 BC. Archaeology and Environment 6. Ume.
Nkpfuvt o."L0"422;0"Bronsldersmordet. Om arkeologi och
ond brd dd. Stockholm: Norstedts.
Nkpig."V0" 42290" Mjeltehaugen fragment fr gravritual.
Universitetet i Bergen, Arkeologiske Skrifter,
Jqxgfhci1Ocuvgt"50"Dgtigp0
Nqodqti." G0" 3;880" Vtqnfocpfu" vcumgp0" Skalk 1966 (5),
38.
Nqodqti."G0"3;:30"Gv"vluv{mmg"htc"Jxkfgitfuhwpfgv""gp"
hilsen fra Christian Jrgensen Thomsen. I R. Egevang
(ed.), Det skabende menneske. Kulturhistoriske skitser
tilegnet P. V. Glob, 64-84. Kbenhavn, Nationalmuseet.
Mills, B. J. and W. H. Walker (eds.) 2008. Memory Works
Archaeologies of Material Practices. Santa Fe, School
for Advanced Research Press.
Oquug." I0" N0" 3;;20" Fallen Soldiers Reshaping the
Memory of the World Wars. New York, Oxford
University Press.
O{jtg." N0" P0" 42260" Trialectic Archaeology. Monuments
and Space in Southwest Norway 1700500 BC. AmSSkrifter 18. Stavanger.
Nordbladh, E. 2007. Aska och Rk om minne och
materiell kultur i nordisk vikingatid. In B. Petersson, B.
And P. Skoglund (eds.). Arkeologi och identitet, 1693::0" Nwpf." Kpuvkvwvkqpgp" h t" Ctmgqnqik" qej" Cpvkmgpu"
Historia.
Oestigaard, T. and J. Goldhahn 2006. From the dead to
the living. Death as transaction and re-negotiations.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 39 (1), 2748.
Osgood, R, and S. Monks, S. with J. Toms. 2000. Dtqp|g"
Age Warfare. Stroud, Sutton Publishing.
Osgood, R. 1998. Ycthctg" kp" vjg" Ncvg" Dtqp|g" Cig" qh"
North Europe. BAR International Series 694. Oxford,
Archaeopress.
Osgood, R. 2006. The dead of Tormarton: Bronze
Age combat victims? In T. Otto, H. Thrane, and H.
Vandkilde (eds.), Warfare and Society. Archaeological
and Social Anthropological Perspectives, 331-340.
Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.
Otto, T., H. Thrane and H. Vandkilde (eds.), 2006. Warfare
and Society. Archaeological and Social Anthropological
Perspectives. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Piggott, S. 1938. The Early Bronze Age in Wessex.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 4, 52106.
Randsborg, K. 1974. Social stratification in Early Bronze
Age Denmark. Prhistorische Zeitschrift 49, 3861.
Randsborg, K. 1986. A Bronze Age grave on Funen
containing a Metal Workers tools. Acta Archaeologica
55, 185189.
Randsborg, K.. 1993. Kivik. Archaeology and iconography.
Munksgaard: Acta Archaeologica 64 (1).
Randsborg, K. 1995. Hjortspring. Warfare and Sacrifice in
Early Europe. Aarhus, Aarhus University Press.

Schnittger, B. 1912. En trolldosa frn vikingatiden. Ett

bidrag till knnedom om ormens betydelse inom
folkmedicinen. Fataburen 1912, 98109.
Shell, C. A. 2000. Metalworker or shaman. Early Bronze
Cig"Wrvqp"Nqxgnn"I4c"dwtkcn0"Antiquity 74, 271272.
Strabon. 1989. The Geography of Strabo0"J0"N0"Lqpgu"cpf"
L0"T0"U0"Uvgttgvv."L0"T0"U0"*gfu0+<"Nqpfqp."Jgkpgocpp0
Svestad, A. 1995. Oldsakenes orden. Om tilkomsten av
arkeologi. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget.
Tacitus, C. [98] 1963. Germania. Stockholm, Natur och
Kultur.
Tatum, J. 2003. The Mourners Song. War and
Remembrance from the Iliad to Vietnam. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press.
Vjgfgp."U0"42260"Grnser i livet grnser i landskapet.
Generationsrelationer och rituella praktiker i
sdermanlndska bronslderslandskap. Stockholm
Studies in Archaeology 33. Stockholm.
Thrane, H. 1984. Lusehj ved Voldtofte en sydvestfynsk
storhj fra yngre broncealder. Fynske Studier XIII.
Odense.
Thrane, H. 2009. Galgehj endnu en gang. Aarbger for
Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 2005, 8798.
Tilley, C. (ed) 2006. Handbook of Material Culture.
Nqpfqp."Ucig0
van Dyke, R. and S. E. Alcock (eds.) 2003. Archaeologies
of Memory. Malden, MA, Blackwell.
van Gennep, Arnold. 1960. The Rites of Passage. Chicago,
The Univeristy of Chicago Press.
Williams, H. (ed.) 2003. Archaeologies of Remembrance
Death and Memory in Past Societies. New York,
Kluwer Academic.
Williams, H. 2006. Death and Memory in Early Medieval
Britain. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Winter, J. M. and E. Sivan (eds.) 1999. War and
Remembrance in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press.
Yoffee, N. (ed.) 2007. Negotiating the Past in the Past.
Tucson, The University of Arizona Press.
Joakim Goldhahn
Nkppcgwu"Wpkxgtukv{."Uejqqn"qh"Ewnvwtcn"Uekgpegu"
S-391 82 Kalmar, Sweden
Joakim.goldhahn@lnu.se

250