Fennoscandia archaeologica XXXIII (2016)
Timo Salminen IN SEARCH OF A NORDIC IDEA? THE FIRST FIVE NORDIC MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS 1916–27
Abstract International congresses of archaeology ceased abruptly after the outbreak of the First World War. The first Nordic Meeting of Archaeologists was held in 1916 in Kristiania (Norway). The first five meetings are analysed in this study. From the very beginning, these meetings were highly significant both for introducing new finds and for bringing interpretations under discussion. Also methodological questions, especially those relating to scientific methods, were included in the programmes. On the other hand, archaeological theory was not dealt with, nor was there any unanimity on theoretical questions. Diffusionist explanation models dominated the presentations, but a considerable plurality of views was allowed. Ideological connotations can be observed in several papers and excursions, but ethnic questions were relatively marginal. The various attempts to discover a common Nordic idea at the meetings did not lead to significant results. On a practical level, the meetings proved to be important from the beginning.
Keywords: Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists, international contacts in archaeology, Nordic coun- tries, history of archaeology
Timo Salminen, Lopentie 10 C 45, FI-11100 Riihimäki, Finland: [email protected].
Received: 2 Jun 2016; Accepted: 15 Sep 2016; Revised: 10 Oct 2016.
NORDIC MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS independence (Baudou 2004: 205–8; Salminen 2014a: 49–55). The first Nordic Meeting of Archaeologists was Was some kind of Nordic idea conceived in organized in Kristiania (Norway) in the summer the first five meetings from 1916 to 1927, and of 1916. Before the Second World War, five if so, how was its realization attempted? What other meetings were held: Copenhagen (Den- was presented at the meetings – new finds, new mark) in 1919, Stockholm (Sweden) in 1922, interpretations, or even new methods and ways Helsinki (Finland) in 1925, Bergen (Norway) in of doing archaeology? To what extent were dif- 1927, and Copenhagen with some other places ferent periods of time and different geographical in Denmark in 1937. This was also a period of areas represented and why? Did Nordic archae- institutionalization, but the creation of an ar- ologists have a shared message about the mis- chaeological profession was already completed. sion and goal of archaeology to convey to their With the deaths of Oscar Montelius in 1921 and audiences or were conflicting ideas presented? Sophus Müller in 1934, the founders’ genera- Human actions are communication with the tion had withdrawn from the stage. In the 1930s, external world. Founding an institution like the politics became more and more prominent also Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists and taking in archaeological circles, but in the 1920s, up any particular topic at these meetings con- political views were still more veiled. One obvi- veyed messages to the archaeological commu- ous change in the Nordic sphere was that Fin- nity and the general public. On a deeper level, land was accepted as a part of the Nordic ar- every conference presentation carried meanings chaeological institutions of cooperation after its and messages connected to the cultural back-
189 ground in which it was realized (Danow 1991: hagen in autumn 1915. Also the Director of the 13–6; also Lotman & Uspenskij 1984: 153, 160, Danish Museum of Industrial Art, Emil Han- 174). In this study, the Nordic meetings are read nover (1864–1923), has been mentioned in the as a narrative of communication, but the latter context of this meeting. The meeting resulted level of analysis is too wide-ranging to be car- in the founding of a Nordic Council of Muse- ried out here. ums for Prehistoric and Historical Archaeology. The sixth meeting is excluded from the com- Sources of information differ on whether the ini- parison because it is analysed separately in Stef- tiative was originally Müller’s or Hannover’s. In fen Stummann Hansen’s book (2004). He also any case, Müller wanted to strengthen the ties gives a brief overview of the earlier meetings between Nordic archaeologists in the difficult (Stummann Hansen 2004: 11–2). Several other times of the World War (Gjessing 1918: 187; C.F. studies also discuss them briefly (Stenberger Meinander 1991: 143; Stummann Hansen 2004: 1963; Stjernquist 1991; also C.F. Meinander 11).1 The last pre-war World Congress of Pre- 1991: 143–7; Baudou 2004: 207–8, 229–30; history had been held in Geneva (Switzerland) 2012: 350–1, 366–7; Edgren 2013: 113–5), but in 1912, and such extensive conferences could they have not been the focus of a special study. not be considered in wartime. Also the Baltic This study aims to provide a general overview (Sea Region) Congresses were not able to es- of the meetings of 1916–27 and to pose fur- tablish themselves because of the outbreak of ther questions for future analysis. Detailed the war (Kossinna 1912). Marc-Antoine Kaeser specifications of the contents of the presenta- (2010; also 2008: 383–8) has emphasized the tions cannot be provided here due to space con- international character of the research of prehis- straints. Also, some of the presentations were tory. Also in that context, it was to be expected never published and are thus no longer available that Nordic archaeologists attempted to compen- for analysis. sate for the severed wider international coopera- In addition to the published conference pa- tion at least by working together within smaller pers, personal correspondence between Nordic circles. archaeologists is used here to shed light on some There were also political reasons to organ- details. Contacts between Nordic archaeolo- ize meetings of Scandinavian archaeologists gists were lively from the very beginning, the in the early 20th century. After the Swedish- second half of the 19th century, and the meet- Norwegian union was dissolved in 1905, there ings can largely be seen as a result of this long were three independent states in Scandinavia and fruitful cooperation (see Salminen 2014a: instead of two, and more nationalistic senti- 16–9, 30–1, 36–40; also Baudou 2004: 207–8). ments were influencing archaeology in all of The correspondence reflects the personal level them. Danish and Swedish archaeologists had of contacts: scholarly questions are intertwined always simultaneously striven to cooperate and with other discussions. This paper cites letters presented conflicting interpretations (Müller to Aarne Michaël Tallgren and Carl Axel Nord- 1884; Baudou 2012: 219–49; also Baudou 2004: man in Finland and Sune Lindqvist in Sweden. A 207–8). The Danes were doubtless interested in general assessment of their correspondence can Nordic cooperation also in order to compensate be found elsewhere (Salminen 2014a: 14–5). A for their poor relations with the Germans, which more extensive look into archival material, such were also reflected in the field of research (Bau- as a study of the archives of the hosting institu- dou 2004: 208, 226). Evert Baudou has calcu- tions in different Nordic countries, has been left lated that around 1910, the whole Scandinavian for the future. community of archaeologists consisted of 25–30 persons, meaning that it was still relatively easy THE NORDIC MEETINGS: A SUBSTITUTE to arrange a meeting (Baudou 2004: 207–8). FOR EUROPEAN COOPERATION? Thus, in addition to replacing a more extensive forum of cooperation, Nordic meetings also an- Sophus Müller (1846–1934) from Denmark and swered an internal demand within the Scandina- Oscar Montelius (1843–1921) and Bernhard vian archaeological community, and not only in Salin (1861–1931) from Sweden met in Copen- a practical sense.
190 Nordic identity was being systematically built another two by Haakon Shetelig2 from Norway. in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The concept There were four Swedish, two Norwegian, and of ‘Nordic’, meaning Swedish, Norwegian, and seven Danish3 speakers. All presentations are Danish, comprehended a Germanic language, listed in the Appendix 1. Table 2 shows the dis- assumed shared roots, and certain shared histori- tribution of the presentation topics among differ- cal phenomena like Vikings and saga literature. ent countries or areas in percentages, and Table In the early 20th century, the same concept was 3 shows the distribution according to different also applied to archaeology and taken back to the main periods of time (according to the main in- Stone Age by means of interpreting both Mega- terest of each paper), also in percentages. Differ- lithic and Battle Axe cultures as Indo-European. ent periods were relatively evenly represented at In the 1930s, the Nordic idea and the northern the first meeting, but all Stone Age papers con- origins of culture were formulated as an ideol- centrated on the Neolithic period. ogy in Nazi Germany (B. Petersson 2003: 70–6, A visit was made to Norsk Folkemuseum and 129–33; H. Petersson 2005: 50, 62–7, 100, 155, excursions to Frognesæteren, the Borre graves, 176; Wallette 2008; Zernack 2008; Alkarp 2009: Oseberg, and the recently (1915) discovered 334–7; Tamminen 2015: 19–35). Stone Age rock drawings of Ekeberg (Gjessing 1918). The cemetery of Borre was considered ESTABLISHING A NORDIC INSTITUTION significant by Norwegians as a departure point of AND MANIFESTING NATIONALIST the mythical Ynglinga dynasty and Norwegian SENTIMENT IN KRISTIANIA IN 1916 sovereignty4, and after the Oseberg Viking ship was found, it was likewise incorporated into the Forty archaeologists and interested persons same national(ist) narrative. Scandinavian and gathered in Kristiania from 4 to 8 July 1916 (see especially Swedish audiences could experience Table 1). There were three female participants, both sites as a part of their shared Germanic past Maria Fanøe and Ingeborg Kindt from Denmark and, simultaneously, a competing Norwegian and Martha Steinsvik from Norway. attempt to explain early history. The Borre find There is no information available on why had recently been the subject of new research the first meeting was held in Kristiania, but the and publications by A.W. Brøgger, and the Ose conference report thanks Professor Anton Wil- berg ship find also had some novelty value left, helm Brøgger (1884–1951) from Kristiania for as it had been discovered in 1904 (Christensen et the practical arrangements related to the confer- al. 1992: 10–23; Nordenborg Myhre 1994: 89– ence (Gjessing 1918: 187). The reason to meet in 92; Baudou 2004: 216, 220–1; Østigård & Gan- Norway may be due to practical circumstances. sum 2009: 250–7). The Ekeberg rock carvings Stockholm was probably not available because belonged to a wholly different sphere of culture of the Baltic Conference of 1912, and Copenha- in this comparison and created a kind of balance gen may have been considered too close to the in the programme (Gjerde 2010: 394, 433). war-faring countries of Europe. Twice during the meeting, Sophus Müller Thirteen different scholars presented seven- pointed out the necessity of breaking the deso- teen papers – three by Oscar Almgren from Swe- lation around Nordic archaeology, not only be- den, two by A.W. Brøgger from Norway, and cause of the war but also in a scholarly sense. He
Denmark Estonia Finland Iceland Norway Sweden Kristiania (NO) 1916 15 16 10 Copenhagen (DK) 1919 39 8 9 22 Stockholm (SWE) 1922 11 5 1 10 80 Helsinki (FI) 1925 15 3 36 1 7 26 Bergen (NO) 1927 4 6 29 12
Table 1. Participant statistics of Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists 1916–27.
191 Year Nr. of Presentations Gen Nord Dk Fi Ice No Swe Eur Rus Bal Gre Class Mus 1916 17 17.5 11.8 17.5 23.5 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9 1919 22 9.1 13.6 22.7 13.6 27.3 4.5 4.5 4.5 1922 28 3.6 10.7 14.3 7.1 3.6 10.7 35.7 7.1 3.6 3.6 1925 16 12.5 12.5 12.5 18.8 25.0 6.3 6.3 6.3 1927 18 5.6 5.6 5.6 50.0 33.3
Table 2. Countries or other areas as topics of presentations, distribution in percentages. Abbrevia- tions, see p. 79. gave an overview of different themes in which daughters (Kjær 1920: 1–2, 61–2).5 Also Finland Nordic archaeologists had been compelled to had now gained independence from Russia and defend their views of prehistory. The newest of had been included as a participant in the Nordic them was the German interpretation of the ori- archaeological cooperation, although it was not gins of culture in the north instead of the south yet a member of the Scandinavian Association of (see Wiwjorra 1996: 166–75). Müller assumed Museums. A.W. Brøgger thought of proposing that it was impossible for Nordic archaeologists Finnish membership in 1919, but the board of to meet without expressing their views on these the association had recommended that he post- questions. Oscar Montelius replied quite frankly pone his proposal because it might be opposed. that the question of the possible Nordic origins The obvious reason was the Finnish-Swedish of culture ‘does not hold any interest for us’ and debate on the ownership of the Åland Islands, that ‘we have more important questions to deal resolved by the League of Nations in 1920 (NLF with’, as well as that he himself has never said Coll. 230: A.W. Brøgger to A.M. Tallgren, 22 that he would support the idea of the Nordic September 1919; T.J. Arne to Tallgren, 10 June roots of world culture (Gjessing 1918: 187–9). 1920). On the other hand, Oscar Montelius In his closing speech, Müller stated what a wrote to C.A. Nordman that they would be glad great impression the meeting had made on him. to have Finland as a member of the association. There are people who are willing to extend their He supposed that no Swedish archaeologist studies wide over different countries. -Com would set upon opposing it despite the issues on mon themes and a common language had been which the Finns and Swedes did not agree. With fruitful for the meeting, he stated, and hoped this, he obviously meant both the situation of the that they had started a new era in joint Nordic Swedish-speaking population in Finland and the archaeology. It is easy to notice that the person Åland case (NLF SLSA 652: Oscar Montelius with the most initiatives at the meeting was Sop to C.A. Nordman, 23 January 1919; Salminen hus Müller himself. Three years later, he was 2014a: 51). In his welcome speech, Sophus Mül- also the one with the main responsibility for the ler noted that Finland was ‘the extreme outpost arrangements. of the Nordic countries in the east’ (cf. Salminen 2014a: 261). Above all, he saw ‘blood ties’ and THE COPENHAGEN MEETING IN 1919: a common language uniting all participants. ARCHAEOLOGY AND NEW POLITICAL Shared scholarly interests took second place (on HEADACHES blood ties and archaeology, H. Petersson 2005: 25, 123, 128). When the Nordic archaeologists met for the sec- A special problem was posed by the participa- ond time from 30 June to 3 July 1919 in Copen- tion of ladies in the excursion organized by the hagen, the war was over, but inflation and pass- Konglige Danske Oldskrift-Selskab. No ladies port difficulties made travelling increasingly had ever been allowed to take part in the excur- problematic (Salminen 2014a: 49–50). In spite sions of the society, but now there were four of these problems, there were 78 participants, female participants who were actually archae- exactly half of whom were Danes. Nine per- ologists themselves: Ingeborg Lindqvist and sons took part only as archaeologists’ wives or Hanna Rydh from Sweden and Charlotta Brønd-
192 sted (later Friis Johansen) and Maria Mogensen clear, perhaps except as regards the megalithic from Denmark. C.A. Nordman corresponded grave. Megalithic graves were considered as with Sune Lindqvist concerning their participa- the remains of Indo-European populations and tion in the excursion, but could not get the long- thus the ancestors of the Germanic peoples of established practice of the organizing society to Scandinavia (Kjær 1920: 17, 60–1; Jensen 2013: change. In itself, the practice was not justified in 145–6; also H. Petersson 2005: 80, 115, 117, any way. The society also did not allow female 119). members (UUMG Lindqvist: Sophus Müller to Sune Lindqvist, 15 May 1919, Nordman to DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NEXT MEETING Lindqvist, 21 May 1919; Salminen 2014a: 51). PLACE There were 22 presentations by seventeen scholars. Seven Swedish, seven Danish, and It had already been decided before Copenha- three Norwegian participants spoke at the event. gen that the next meeting would take place in T.J. Arne presented three papers and Oscar Stockholm in 1922. In the spring of 1919, how- Montelius, Sophus Müller, and Jan Petersen ever, A.M. Tallgren enquired whether it would each presented two. Hanna Rydh was the first be possible to meet in Helsinki in 1921 on the woman to present a paper at a Nordic Meeting of occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Finnish Archaeologists. In her case, participation in the Antiquarian Society. The anniversary actually meeting was part of a broader process of mak- took place in 1920, but in order to allow more ing a place for herself as an active member of time for preparations, Tallgren had proposed the the archaeological community (Kjær 1920: 12–4 following year. A.W. Brøgger wrote to Tallgren [37]6; Arwill Nordbladh 2005). Compared with that the Norwegians supported the idea and sug- the Kristiania meeting, the balance between dif- gested that the Finns now apply for membership ferent periods of time had shifted, and the Iron in the Scandinavian Association of Museums, Age was the focus of most scholarly attention. which would then be the organization to meet The programme participants visited the Na- in Helsinki in 1921. T.J. Arne also wrote that the tional Museum of History at Frederiksborg, the Swedes had thought of an idea for some kind of Agricultural Museum, and the Lyngby Open extra meeting in Helsinki (NLF Coll. 230, Brøg- Air Museum. The only longer excursions were ger to Tallgren, 15 July, 26 August 1919; Arne to made to a 4th-millennium kitchen midden (Da. Tallgren, 15 April 1919). However, the idea of a kjøkkenmødding) settlement in Sølager and a meeting in Helsinki was not realized. megalith grave at Grønnæssegaard. Thus, also in this respect the Copenhagen meeting had quite NEW METHODS AND APPROACHES IN a different character compared to the Kristiania STOCKHOLM IN 1922 conference: there were fewer excursions, and most visits were made to museums. The tone The next meeting was held in Stockholm in of ideological colour here remains slightly un- 1922, as scheduled. Travelling was becoming
Several Stone Age Bronze Iron Age and Early Middle Ages Year periods (incl. geology) Age Historical and later 1916 23,5 23,5 17,6 35,3 1919 9,1 18,2 13,6 50,0 9,1 1922 10,7 14,3 7,1 42,9 25,0 1925 25,0 25,0 31,3 18,8 1927 16,7 22,2 5,6 38,9 16,7
Table 3. Different periods of time as topics of presentations at the meetings, distribution in percentages.
193 45 47 48 41 50 52 34 42 35 43 36 44 46 53 54 37 38 33 39 40
31 32 19 23 49 51 24 16 18 20 22 27 28 30 17 21 25 26 12 9 10 14 11 13 15 29 8 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
Fig. 1. The fourth Nordic Meeting of Archaeologists was held in Helsinki in June 1925. The participants on the stairs of the Finnish National Museum: 1 – Theodor Petersen; 2 – Haakon Shetelig; 3 – Sigurd Curman; 4 – Christian Blinkenberg; 5 – Hjalmar Appelgren-Kivalo; 6 – [J.R.?] Koskimies; 7– ? Roos; 8 – Mrs Rydbeck; 9 – Otto Rydbeck; 10 – Wilhelm Ramsay; 11 – Georg Sarauw; 12 – Rudolf Ceder- ström; 13 – Mouritz Mackeprang; 14 – Hanna Rydh; 15 – Anna Aspelin; 16 – Juhani Rinne; 17 – C.A. Nordman; 18 – Elin Nordman; 19 – Gerda Petersen; 20 – Jan Petersen; 21 – ? Lundqvist; 22 – Alfred Hackman; 23 – Folke Hansen; 24 – Julius Ailio; 25 – Gertrud Niggol; 26 – Arne Böök; 27 – Aarne Europaeus (Äyräpää); 28 – A.M. Tallgren; 29 – P.O. von Törne; 30 – Adolf Schück; 31 – Knud Friis- Johansen; 32 – Mrs Hansen; 33 – Sune Lindqvist; 34 – Johannes Brøndsted; 35 – Ms Blinkenberg; 36 – Charlotta Brøndsted; 37 – ? Sopanen; 38 – Anna-Lisa Brander; 39 – unidentified; 40 – Tyyni Vahter; 41 – H.C. Broholm; 42 – ? Wallen; 43 – Nils Åberg; 44 – Vilhelm Slomann; 45 – Birger Nerman; 46 – ? Jacobson; 47 – L.O.Th. Tudeer; 48 – ? Metzger; 49 – Bengt Thordeman; 50 – Kaarle Soikkeli; 51 – Marta Schmiedehelm; 52 – T.E. Karsten; 53 – Björn Cederhvarf; 54 – ? Nordberg. Photo: author’s collection. easier and more accessible again, and the number women with their own independent interest in of participants was also greater than it had been archaeology (Hallström 1923: 168–70).7 The at the previous meeting, but the increase came meeting was held from 26 to 30 June. mostly from Sweden (Hallström 1923: 171). There were 27 presentations by as many The number of foreigners, 27, was smaller by 12 scholars in the programme. Sixteen of them than in Copenhagen in 1919. Fourteen women were Swedes, five Danes, three Norwegians, took part as wives or other family members of and three Finns. C.A. Nordman from Finland male participants. This conference is, however, presented two papers, but one presentation was marked by the real entrance of women as inde- a joint venture by two Swedish scholars, Lennart pendent conference participants in the Nordic von Post and Emelie von Walterstorff. There Meetings of Archaeologists: there were eleven was also one participant from Iceland (Matthías
194 Þórðárson), but the only presentation on the ar- they were dealing with in their research (UUMG chaeology of Iceland was delivered by Professor Lindqvist: Nordman to Lindqvist, 12 January, 16 Finnur Jónsson from Copenhagen. Late prehis- May, 4 August 1922; Jan Petersen to Lindqvist, tory and even historical times dominated the 9 July 1922; Knud Friis Johansen to Lindqvist, programme, but the Stone Age was represented 22 July 1922; Salminen 2014a: 53). by excursions and a general overview, as well as through its firm link to the geological presenta- DECLINE OF THE NORDIC PERSPECTIVE tions. Geology was included in the programme IN HELSINKI IN 1925 for the first time by means of Gerard de Geer’s presentation and pollen analyses by means of The fourth meeting was held in Helsinki from Lennart von Post’s paper (Hallström 1923: 13–4 2 to 5 July 1925 (Fig. 1). Before this meet- [50], 18 [64]). Also bog finds [65–7] formed a ing, Finland had hosted a Nordic meeting of coherent subject group. ethnologists and a Swedish meeting of histori- There were two excursions, one to the Stone ans and philologists, as well as a Nordic meeting Age settlement of Ingarö in the Stockholm ar- of students, all in 1922. This shows that Finland chipelago and the other to Sigtuna. Sigtuna is the had truly been accepted as a Nordic country in oldest town and a former royal and ecclesiastical this respect. However, the location of Finland centre of Sweden (Tesch 1990: 25–6, 30), and it was considered distant and the Finnish currency therefore had an obviously ideological meaning was quite expensive at the time, which dimin- in the context of the meeting. In Ingarö, Profes- ished the number of participants at the archaeol- sor De Geer showed the Neolithic shorelines of ogy meeting (Salminen 2014a: 53). There were the site to the participants, and the day after the 88 persons present, 52 of whom were foreigners. conference he led a group of interested guests to Twelve female family members of male par- the Neolithic shores of Haga (Hallström 1923: ticipants and the widow of State Archaeologist 21–2, 35). Some Stone Age specialists took up Johan Reinhold Aspelin (1842–1915) took part the invitation of the Swedish Film Industry to in the meeting. The number of actual female see a film of Stone Age experiments that had participants was twelve, which means that the been carried out in Rockelstad three years earli- percentage of women out of all participants had er.8 Thus, there were new features in Stockholm also increased from the previous meeting. The compared with the meetings of 1916 and 1919, participation of three young Estonian archae- and the Stone Age had risen to higher promi- ologists, Harri Moora, Gertrud Niggol (Nigul), nence than at the previous meetings (Hallström and Marta Schmiedehelm, was an exception to 1923: 32–3). other Nordic meetings and emphasized Fin- The Stockholm meeting was especially im- land’s position between Nordic and Baltic, Scan- portant for a smaller group of archaeologists dinavian and Finnic (Nordman 1926: 135–7). whose mutual contacts achieved a new level, Estonian participation reflects the fact that the although they had known each other already for Finnish scholar A.M. Tallgren acted as Professor several years. They were Sune Lindqvist from of Archaeology in Tartu from 1920 to 1923, Sweden and three of his colleagues to whom he but it also shows the Baltoscandian interest had provided accommodation during the meet- in the newly-independent Estonia. Especially ing: Knud Friis Johansen from Denmark, C.A. for Moora, Scandinavian contacts were impor- Nordman from Finland, and Jan Petersen from tant also in themselves (Salminen 2012: 99– Norway. From now on, they called themselves 103). a sub-congress. Later, also Johannes Brøndsted There were fifteen papers by as many schol- from Denmark was close to the group. Their cor- ars presented at the meeting. A sixteenth paper, respondence and meetings lasted for the rest of Gunnar Ekholm’s, was only printed in the con- their lives, although the most active period was ference publication because he was not able in the 1920s, when all of them worked to estab- to attend the meeting itself. Six Swedes, four lish their positions in the archaeological com- Danes, three Finns, and three Norwegians gave munities of their countries. During that process, presentations. Geology was represented by Wil- they helped each other by discussing the topics helm Ramsay’s presentation on Neolithic shore-
195 lines [81]. Not a single theme was taken up from Museum, Mouritz Mackeprang, had travelled to a shared Nordic perspective. Bergen. The reason for this is unknown so far. There was only one excursion to the prov- The organizers were satisfied, or at least did not inces of Häme (Tavastia) and Upper Satakunta. complain (NLF SLSA 652: Johannes Bøe to The conference drove past several Iron Age sites Nordman, 6 October 1927). and one Stone Age settlement in Kangasala, At the Bergen meeting, there were eight- but the only sites mentioned as having actu- een presentations by seventeen scholars. Sune ally been visited are the Late Iron Age hillfort Lindqvist and Otto Rydbeck spoke twice. A.M. on Rapola ridge in Sääksmäki and the Kei- Tallgren could not attend personally, and his pa- sarinharju ridge with a view over the lakes of per, the nineteenth, was read by C.A. Nordman Roine and Längelmävesi in Kangasala. Thus, it (Bøe 1929). remains unclear what kind of significance the Two long excursions were made, one from 4 other sites had for the programme. Between the to 6 July and the other from 10 to 13 July. In World Wars, Rapola was considered significant addition, there was also a one-day trip to a Mes- as a monument of prehistoric Finnish independ- olithic rock shelter at Ruskenesset in Fana, the ence and military prowess, as well as a prehis- 17th-century manor of Stend, the Fana church, toric organized society (Fewster 2006: 320–1). the Lyse monastery ruins, the Iron Age cemetery By presenting several historical battlefields, the in Døsen, and the Os vicarage with surrounding newest of which were connected to the Swed- grave mounds.9 The pre-conference excursion ish voluntary brigade in the 1918 Civil War of was made to Stavanger and Jæren, and its par- Finland, the organizers included recent history ticipants visited Migration Period house grounds in the national-romantic image. at Bø in Nærbø, the Stavanger cathedral, the It was a long day. The departure had been bishop’s house, and the museum. The excur- scheduled with an extra train from Helsinki at sion from 10 to 13 July was directed at a cem- 7.35 a.m. In the late night, the participants still etery with bauta stones at Lunden in Flåm, the visited the Museum of Häme in Tampere. Sleep- churches of Aurland, Urnes, Gaupne, Borgund, ers were reserved for the participants so that and Torpe, grave mounds at Nes in Luster, and they could go to bed around 11 p.m. in Tampere the Heiberg Collections Museum in Amble (Bøe before the train left for Helsinki at 3.28 a.m. 1929: 6–7, 13, 116–8). Thus, none of the excur- and arrived there at 7.54. The conference pro- sion destinations had such strong ideological gramme continued the same afternoon (Nord- significance as in 1916, although the old wooden man 1926: 13–7). churches belong to the established illustrations of Norwegian culture. ON A SMALLER SCALE IN BERGEN IN 1927 In Bergen, the Danes invited the participants to the next meeting in Copenhagen in 1932 and Although the decision had been taken to arrange the Swedes to the following one in 1937. How- a Nordic meeting every third year, the fifth meet- ever, nothing came of either of them as planned. ing was held already two years after the fourth The World Prehistory Congress was held in Lon- one, from 6 to 9 July 1927, on the occasion of don in 1932, but nothing was known about it yet the opening of the new museum building in Ber- in 1927. The Danish National Museum was also gen on the west coast of Norway. There was also in the middle of renovations and its collections a meeting of the Scandinavian Association of were out of order. Therefore, the Danes suggested Museums, and certain parts of the programme that they change turns with the Swedes, but the were meant for both meetings. This had also Swedes were not willing to agree, because the been done in Helsinki. There were 51 persons meeting of the Scandinavian Association of Mu- attending. Nine of them, eight females and one seums was to be held in Lund in 1932 and the In- male, were present only as family members of ternational Congress of Art History in Stockholm the participants. There were 22 foreigners at the in 1933. Also the economic depression played conference. It is especially striking that almost a big role in causing problems (Bøe 1929: 116; all central figures in Danish archaeology had Stummann Hansen 2004: 13; Salminen 2014a: stayed home. Only the director of the National 227–8). Thus ten years went by before the Nor-
196 dic archaeologists met again. The 1937 meeting tance of the Nordic meetings was well realized was held in Denmark. The Second World War there. brought about another break of 11 years, but The past of every Nordic country was repre- since 1948 to this day, the meetings have been sented at least to some extent, although the main organized regularly. Especially the 1951 meet- emphasis lay again heavily on Sweden. In all, ing in Helsinki manifested the rise of a new gen- there were 53 presentations in which Swedish eration of archaeologists and the restoration of themes were dealt with, 34 for Denmark, 32 for normal circumstances after the devastating war. Norway, 12 for Finland, and one for both Iceland A new group comparable to the sub-congress of and Greenland. In this calculation, some pres- 1922, although larger and therefore looser, also entations are counted more than once, because came into being (Stenberger 1963; Edgren 2013: their scope was not restricted to one country. 113–8; Salminen 2014a: 304–5). If we look at the birth years given in pa- rentheses after each participant’s name in the SUMMING UP THE STATISTICS OF 1916–27 appendix list, it is easy to see that the meet- ings were quantitatively dominated by middle- To sum up the statistics, 252 different persons aged researchers. The youngest person to give took part in the first five Nordic Meetings of a presentation was the 29-year-old Johannes Archaeologists: 105 Swedes, 54 Danes, 47 Nor- Brøndsted in Copenhagen in 1919, and the old- wegians, 42 Finns, three Estonians, and one est were the 76-year-old Oscar Montelius at the Icelander. If we exclude those who were there same meeting and Emil Eckhoff of same age in only as family members, there were 218 actual Stockholm in 1922. Different generations were, conference participants: 86 Swedes, 51 Danes, however, represented to the extent that the meet- 43 Norwegians, 34 Finns, three Estonians, and ings served everyone except the very youngest one Icelander. Most of them were men, but there researchers as a forum for launching their ideas were also 31 women, making up c 14% of all to an international scholarly public. actual participants. The women consisted of 13 Danes were slightly more active than others Swedes, seven Norwegians, five Danes, four in presenting new finds. Of the more interpre- Finns, and two Estonians. Only four persons tative presentations, more than half were by took part in all five meetings from Kristiania to Swedes. Interpretative accounts clearly domi- Bergen: the brothers Jan and Theodor Petersen nated among both Swedish and Finnish presen- and Haakon Shetelig from Norway and C.A. tations, whereas for Danes they were a minority, Nordman from Finland. and among Norwegians there was quite a good If we count only the participants who deliv- balance between the two types. This obviously ered a presentation, it turns out that there were reflects different expectations set for the meet- 57 altogether: 27 Swedes, 15 Danes, eight Nor- ings in different countries. It can also be asked wegians, and seven Finns. The only scholar who whether the structure of the archaeological com- spoke at every meeting was Haakon Shetelig. munity and the relations between its members in The most striking feature of all these numbers each Nordic country made researchers focus on is the Swedish domination. Approximately 42% different concepts for the meetings. of all participants, 39% of actual scholarly par- The role of interpretative analyses was at its ticipants, and 47% of people who delivered pres- smallest in Bergen in 1927, but also in Stock- entations were Swedes. In addition to that, some holm in 1922, less than half of all presentations Swedes had more than one speech at one meet- can be counted among that group. At the other ing. The percentage of Swedish presentations three meetings, their percentages were between out of the total varied from 38% in Helsinki in 53 and 56. 1925 and Bergen in 1927 to 57% in Stockholm in 1922. The background can at least partly be PRESENTING NEW FINDS ON A GENERAL sought in Sweden’s central location in the mid- AND SPECIALIZED LEVEL dle of the participating countries and its active archaeological life (Baudou 2004: 214–9), but it How significant a forum were the Nordic Meet- also seems obvious that the idea of the impor- ings of Archaeologists for presenting new
197 finds? What type of finds were most- com tion of the find in 1929 (Thomsen 1929: esp. monly brought under discussion at them? Were 178–9 [67]). there differences between the meetings in this The Pre-Roman Iron Age was represented respect, or can trends of development be seen? only by one find, the Hjortspring boat from What did the scholars want to convey with their Denmark, a find from 1921 that had consider- choices? I exclude the medieval and later topics able significance for later research (Hallström here. 1923: 56–64 [65]; Rieck 2003; Jensen 2013: At the first meeting, three presentations out of 582–6). The Roman Iron Age and Migration a total of fifteen concentrated mainly on report- Period were represented by coin finds, burials, ing new finds [1, 6, 16] and a fourth one on the and one settlement (Kjær 1920: 17 [19], 48–9 distribution of Post-Roman gold finds in -Den [20]; Hallström 1923: 23–5 [63]; Bøe 1929: 72 mark (Neergaard 1915 [13]). In Copenhagen in [95]). The most noteworthy of these sites was 1919, there were six surveys of finds [19, 20, the Hoby chieftain grave from Denmark con- 22, 30, 33, 37], in Stockholm in 1922 there were taining two Roman silver cups (Friis Johansen seven [49, 53, 63–7], and in Helsinki there were 1923 [49]). practically none. However, the fifth meeting in Two Norwegian boat or ship finds from the Bergen was almost entirely devoted to present- Merovingian Period were presented, those of ing new finds. Twelve presentations out of eight- Holmedal and Kvalsund. Boat finds were dis- een [84, 85, 87–90, 92, 94–7, 100] concentrated cussed also on a general level (Shetelig 1923 mainly on finds. [66]; Bøe 1929: 62–5 [88]; Løset 2009; Fredrik- In all cases, it is not known exactly what sen 2015). finds were presented, but a general overview The finds from the Viking Age and the Early can be obtained. There were two presentations Historical Period consisted of burials, one an- of new finds in general (Hallström 1923: 33–5 cient fortification, a ship find, and a church -ex [53]; Bøe 1929: 15–32 [94]). The Stone Age cavation. Most of the objects presented were of was represented both on a general level (Kjær considerable fame: the Oseberg ship from Nor- 1920: 11–2 [33]; Bøe 1929: 45–9 [89]) and by way, as well as the Old Uppsala church and the means of finds from separate periods or cultural Adelsö complex of late prehistoric times and phases, Palaeolithic or Mesolithic (Bøe 1929: medieval antiquities from Sweden (Gjessing 14 [84]; Rydbeck 1929 [97]) and Neolithic (Bøe 1918: 215 [6]; Kjær 1920: 12–4 [37] 48 [22]; 1929: 14–5 [85], 43–4 [96], 49–50 [87]).10 Of Bøe 1929: 7–13 [86]; Rydh 1936). These objects the Stone Age finds presented at the meetings, could be, and, indeed, often were used for creat- the large 5th-millennium rock carving area in ing a nationalistically coloured image of the past Vingen, Norway, is worth mentioning separately (cf. Alkarp 2009: 372–7). because of its later significance in research. The The most obvious observation is the under- carvings had been found in 1910, and Johannes representation of settlement finds within this Bøe published them in 1932 (Bøe 1929: 14–5 category of presentations. Archaeology was in [85]; Lødøen & Mandt 2012: esp. 14, 18, 27–8, a phase of transition from the investigation of 45–7, 52). graves only to a broader view of prehistory. The Bronze Age finds represented both Early However, when a Nordic archaeologist wanted and Late Bronze Age, both settlements and buri- to relate what he or she had found, in most cases als (Kjær 1920: 14–6 [30]; Hallström 1923: 18 it concerned antiquities containing elements that [64]; Bøe 1929: 32–43 [90]; Thomsen 1929 could manifest in public the builder’s status in [67]). Among them is the iconic Egtved burial his own society, such as graves. find from Denmark, the young female who was considered as the representative of an ethni- INTERPRETATIVE PRESENTATIONS OF cally Danish Bronze Age, but who, according to CULTURE, SOCIETY, AND ART recent research, has turned out not to be of lo- cal origin at all (Frei et al. 2015; Price Persson What kinds of topics were covered in an inter- 2015). Thomsen did not mention her possible pretative survey, for what reasons, and what ethnic origin in his presentation or his publica- were the main elements of the interpretations?
198 The Stone Age was largely set aside. With Ethnic questions related to the Stone Age the methodology available to researchers at the were otherwise dealt with very infrequently. time, analysing the Stone Age was more difficult H.C. Broholm had written about them in pub- than studying later periods (Gräslund 1987: 34). lishing the same finds he presented in Helsinki In addition, it was often not easy to furnish finds (Broholm 1924: 139–40), but in his presentation from this period with unambiguous ideological he obviously left ethnic problems aside (Nord- meanings. In Kristiania in 1916, there was only man 1926: 11–2 [71]). one presentation with a mainly interpretative ap- It is unclear to what extent Oscar Almgren proach to a Stone Age topic, in Copenhagen and presented interpretations or only finds in Kris- Stockholm two, in Helsinki three, and in Bergen tiania when he spoke about the Stone Age re- none. Those topics varied from a specific artefact search of deceased Swedish archaeologists like type to certain forms of prehistoric sites (graves) Knut Stjerna (Gjessing 1918: 189–90 [1]). He and general overviews of the Stone Age in a re- highlighted especially the settlement finds of stricted area (Scania) (Gjessing 1918: 191–2 [5]; Orust and Tjörn in Bohuslän near the western Kjær 1915; Kjær 1920: 36–40 [26], 53–5 [23]; F. coast of Sweden, which he had interpreted as Hansen 1923 [52]). A.W. Brøgger’s presentation reflecting a break in settlement and new- mi on megalithic graves in Norway may have had gration. A competing continuity interpretation an ideological undercurrent because of their in- had just recently been formulated by Arvid En- terpretation as Germanic remains (H. Petersson qvist. In the discussion, Otto Rydbeck agreed 2005: 80, 115, 117, 119). with Almgren (Gjessing 1918: 189–90 [1]; also The presentation with the most general char- Almgren 1914; Enqvist 1922: esp. 111; H. Pe- acter was Gunnar Ekholm’s presentation in tersson 2005: 145–6, 188–9). Stockholm in 1922, which gave an overview In the case of the Bronze Age, the most domi- of Swedish Stone Age research and reassessed nant topic was rock art. In Kristiania, three of some of its results (Ekholm 1923 [48]). Ekholm the four interpretative Bronze Age surveys dealt was more inclined than many of his contem- with rock art (Ekholm 1916 [7]; Gjessing 1918: poraries to apply other models than the ethnic 192–4 [2], 194–205 [14]). The discussion on rock model in order to explain differences in material art continued in Copenhagen (Kjær 1920: 55 culture (H. Petersson 2005: 100, 146, 166). In [29]). In Stockholm, Oscar Almgren addressed spite of this, he did not altogether deny the pos- the subject again. This was a part of Almgren’s sibility that archaeological material could reflect process towards the synthesis he published in ethnic differences (Salminen 2014b: 277–8). 1927 (Almgren 1927). In Helsinki, Theodor Pe- At the Stockholm meeting, he could not avoid tersen continued the discussion (Th. Petersen questions concerning prehistoric Germanic set- 1926). The lively discussion on rock art reflects tlement in the Baltic Sea area. The presentation the crucial position it had in the research of the was part of an ongoing debate on whether the early 20th century in Scandinavia (Gjerde 2010: Finnish Battle Axe culture originated in Sweden 28–30). It was also considered significant as a or Central Europe, a dispute with strong politi- part of national antiquity in Gustaf Kossinna’s cal nuances both within Finland and between the footsteps (Goldhahn 2008: 13; Lødøen & Mandt two countries (Salminen 2014b: esp. 268–70). 2012: 52, 85 ff.). Another presentation of general scope was There was some debate between two con- Aarne Europaeus’s (later Äyräpää) 1925 over- flicting rock art interpretations at the Kristiania view of Stone Age ceramics in the coastal areas meeting. Oscar Almgren considered rock art as of Finland, in which he concentrated especially emerging from a solar cult to promote life and on the chronology of Comb Ceramics. Wilhelm fertility. He opposed both Gunnar Ekholm’s Ramsay provided the geological preconditions view of rock pictures as belonging to a mortuary for the development. Europaeus published an- cult (Ekholm 1916 [7]) and Just Bing’s attempts other version of his survey in German in 1930 to find Germanic deities in them (Gjessing (Nordman 1926: 9–10 [74], 11–2 [71]; Euro- 1918: 192–4 [2]; Almgren 1927). C.A. Nord- paeus 1926 [73]; Ramsay 1926 [81]; Europaeus- man mainly agreed with Almgren (Gjessing Äyräpää 1930; Siiriäinen 1989). 1918 [14]: 195–205). In the discussion after the
199 three presentations in Kristiania, Just Bing ex- on the invention of iron (Kjær 1920: 3–11 [27]) plained his view, T.J. Arne expressed his support continued a long tradition from the past decades: to Almgren, motivating it with the observation a wide-ranging view of prehistory over Europe. that only a few rock pictures were found near Such settings were about to disappear, though. graves, and Oscar Montelius took a mediating At the Bergen meeting, the viewpoints on the standpoint between Almgren and Ekholm, al- Iron Age and late prehistory were completely though with a heavier emphasis on Almgren’s different. The subject under discussion was the viewpoints (Gjessing 1918: 205–6). The debate history of settlement with some ethnic colouring did not continue in explicit form at later meet- (Bøe 1929: 65–71 [101]) and the pure history of ings, but Theodor Petersen underlined the sym- technology (Bøe 1929: 72–97 [99]). Other ques- bolic character of the rock pictures in 1919 with- tions were left aside. out taking a clear stand on their meaning (Kjær During the whole period from 1916 to 1927, 1920: 32–4 [35]). In Helsinki, he leaned in the there was no strong internal uniformity within direction of Ekholm’s and Bing’s views, at least the Iron Age–late prehistory group like there had as far as the northern pictures were concerned been especially in the Bronze Age group. The (Th. Petersen 1926: 34–5 [80]). presentations represented a much more versatile In the case of the Iron Age and late prehis- collection of different topics. tory, the inclination towards questions of politi- cal history appeared already at the first meeting NORDIC ARCHAEOLOGY BETWEEN in Kristiania (Gjessing 1918: 206–8 [4], 209–12 TRADITION AND INNOVATION [3]) and maintained its position in Copenhagen (Kjær 1920: 52 [32], 47–8 [39]) and Stockholm What was the relationship between tradition and (Hallström 1923: 29–32 [45]; Lindqvist 1923 innovation in the interpretative presentations? [57]; Nerman 1923 [59]; Åberg 1926 [72]). Although there was quite a pointed discussion However, it did not become dominant, but re- about the stagnation of Montelian archaeology mained one approach among others. On the going on in Scandinavia after Oscar Monte- level of content, Birger Nerman’s presentations lius’s death in 1921 (Nordman 1921; Lindqvist about the origins of the Swedish state [32, 59] 1922; Baudou 2004: 227–8), purely typological had a connection to Sune Lindqvist’s and Erik approaches were quite rare at the meetings. They Brate’s presentations on runes [45, 57] and some were represented mainly by Haakon Shetelig in of Gunnar Ekholm’s thoughts [72]. A general Kristiania [17], Oscar Montelius in Copenhagen history of society without an obvious political [28], Folke Hansen in Stockholm [52], and Jan colouring had some weight in the presentations Petersen in Copenhagen [34] and Stockholm (esp. Ekholm 1926 [72]). Especially in case of [62]. Some other presentations also bore fea- papers on coin finds, archaeologists analysed tures of the typological approach, such as C.A. their material in connection with general histori- Nordman’s in Kristiania [14], Alfred Hackman’s cal development known from other sources and in Stockholm [51], and Hjalmar Appelgren- brought even political factors into the analyses. Kivalo’s in Helsinki [69]. This shows that the Different analyses of art and ornaments, as risk of shifting to an exclusively typological ori- well as other typological comparisons in the entation was not actually realized at the meet- Montelian tradition, especially related to Viking ings. Age art, were prominent especially in Kristiania, Constructing both relative and absolute chro- Copenhagen, and Helsinki (Gjessing 1918: 214 nologies for prehistory had been the backbone of [17]; Kjær 1920: 40–3 [28], 43–6 [38], 50–2 all archaeology since the 19th century (Gräslund [34]; Shetelig 1926 [83]). Also Jan Petersen’s 1987: 1–4 etc.; Trigger 2006: 294–7). During the presentation on Viking Age grave goods can first five meetings, chronology was a question be considered in the same category (Hallström worth mentioning in 23 presentations of gener- 1923: 29–32 [62]). alizing type. It was sometimes connected with At Copenhagen, the above-mentioned pres- methodological approaches especially from the entations of coin finds by Almgren and Arne, scientific sphere, above all geology (Hallström and, of course, Oscar Montelius’s presentation 1923: 13–4 [50]; F. Hansen 1926; Ramsay 1926
200 [81]; also Bøe 1929: 45–9 [89]) and palynology, sel industry (Bøe 1929: 72–97 [99]). Economy, which was mostly a dating method at the time technology, and society were combined in Oscar (Hallström 1923: 18 [64]). At the Stockholm Montelius’s presentation on the invention of iron meeting, the geological approach was even more (Kjær 1920: 3–11 [27]). Broholm’s, Georg F. L. strongly present than at other meetings because Sarauw’s, and even Montelius’s points of view of the excursions to the Stone Age shorelines were characterized by a functionalist approach. around the city (Hallström 1923: 21–2, 35). The Archaeology in itself was largely a product of scientific approach had been a part of Nordic ar- industrialization and a growing middle class chaeology since the very beginning, although the in society, and technological progress seemed central viewpoints had always been humanistic. to be a fundamental feature in modern socie- Now science was occupying a more significant ties. It was the emergence of modernization and position than before (Gräslund 1987: 34–8; Trig- the consequent dichotomy between prehistory ger 2006: 315–6). This was one of the aspects in and the present that made questions of technol- which the meetings really created a new image ogy and economy fascinating for archaeologists of prehistory. (Baudou 2004: 268–70; Trigger 2006: 316–8; The history of settlement was mainly dealt Alkarp 2009: 355–7). with in connection with the Stone Age, more Erik Arenander and Knut Kjellmark (Kjell- precisely the Ertebølle and Pitted Ware cultures mark 1923 [56]) had a strong ethnological ap- in Sweden (Kjær 1920: 36–40 [26], the Arc- proach in their presentation at the Stockholm tic Stone Age in Norway (Kjær 1920: 18–36 meetings, but otherwise such an approach did [35]), and the Swedish and Finnish Stone Age not gain ground. in general (Ekholm 1923 [48]; Nordman 1923 Especially the Viking Age had a strong ideo- [61]; Europaeus 1926 [73]). Only one local sur- logical colouring (Nordenborg Myhre 1994: vey of the Bronze Age (J. Petersen 1926 [79]) 106–10; Baudou 2004: 206–8, 268–70; Fewster and one general overview of the Early Iron Age 2006: 320–30; Trigger 2006: 248–61; Alkarp (Bøe 1929: 65–71 [101]) were exceptions to this 2009: 369–72; Østigård & Gansum 2009), rule. Of course, questions of settlement were in which created a demand for presentations deal- some way present also in several other presenta- ing with it. That demand was fulfilled at the tions. meetings, and it also formed the predominant Why did the Stone Age dominate this cate- message to the public. One might therefore ex- gory? In the research of other periods, a much pect that also physical anthropology and racial larger variety of questions was within the scope interpretations would have drawn quite a re- of archaeology because of a more refined meth- markable amount of attention, but in fact they odology. Also the demands of society required remained quite marginal (Gjessing 1918: 190–1 other types of analyses where the Iron Age was [9]; S. Hansen 1919 [24]; see e.g. H. Petersson concerned. Thus, the Stone Age got to dominate 2005: 108, 139–54). within the history of settlement. When historical times were dealt with Questions of economy and technology were (Kjær 1920: 55–7 [21]; Ambrosiani 1923 [41]; combined in different ways in the case of differ- Hallström 1923: 28 [46], 32 [47], 32–3 [44]; ent themes. Presentations on economic history Karlin 1923 [54]; K.K. Meinander 1923 [58]; dealt only with the Early Iron Age in eastern Nordman 1926: 21 [77]; Rydbeck 1926 [82]; and northern Europe (Gjessing 1918: 209–12 Bøe 1929: 7 [91], 97–106 [98]; Kjellin 1928 [3], Bøe 1929: 65–71 [101]). In the case of the [76]; Nordman 1942 [1922] [60]), it was most- Viking Age, it was combined with the history ly from an art historical perspective. However, of society (Kjær 1920: 50–2 [34]). Questions in some cases the period was discussed from a of technology were dealt with in connection more purely archaeological point of view, such with quite different periods and topics: Stone as in Georg Karlin’s presentation on medieval Age technology for making tools and weapons ceramics in the Nordic countries [54] and Otto (Kjær 1920: 18–36 [35]; Broholm 1924 [71]; Rydbeck’s presentation on lead plumbs [98]. Nordman 1926: 11–2 [71]), Iron Age agricul- The question of why these types of presenta- ture (Arenander 1923 [42]), and Iron Age ves- tions were so much more common in Stockholm
201 and Helsinki than in the other three meetings re- Why were the themes divided like this? mains unanswered so far. The assumed ethnic connection in the sense of Kossinna between Scandinavia and the area in- HOW NORDIC WERE THE NORDIC MEET- terpreted as Germanic is an obvious explanation. INGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS? In the rest of the cases, almost all speakers had actually ended up with these themes in attempt- To what extent were topics from outside the ing either to explain cultural phenomena in their Nordic countries presented at the meetings? home countries or to analyse features of the oth- Which parts of the world figured in this context? er region considered parallel to their home coun- No in-depth analysis is devoted to this question try. Thus we can state that even in those cases here, but a brief overview is worthwhile. Papers where Scandinavia did not openly figure in the dealing with a basically Nordic topic and utiliz- presentations, it influenced the background of ing material from outside the region solely for the research. The Finn Tallgren had the longest comparison are excluded. tradition of eastern archaeology behind him, but Presentations dealing to a considerable extent also that tradition had come into being in order (although not exclusively) with regions outside to explain cultural phenomena in Finland (Sal the Nordic countries were delivered in all of the minen 2007). first five meetings, although in Bergen in 1927, there was only one such presentation. Only a few SOPHUS MÜLLER, POSITIVISM, AND scholars actually concentrated in this area, and HYPOTHETIC-SPECULATIVE APPROACHES most of them were Swedes: Oscar Almgren in IN ARCHAEOLOGY Kristiania and Stockholm (Gjessing 1918: 209– 12 [3]; Almgren 1927 [40]) T.J. Arne in Kris- Questions of archaeological theory were of mar- tiania, Copenhagen, and Stockholm (Gjessing ginal significance at the meetings. To be more 1918: 207–8 [4], Kjær 1920: 55 [18]; Arne 1925 precise, there was only one presentation of that [43]), Oscar Montelius and Haakon Shetelig in type: Sophus Müller’s speech in Kristiania in Copenhagen (Kjær 1920: 3–11 [27], 40–3 [28], 1916. He demanded that archaeologists keep 47–8 [39]), Erik Arenander and Rudolf Ceder their distance from the hypothetic or speculative ström in Stockholm (Arenander 1923 [42]; approaches that had become more common in Hallström 1923: 28 [46]), Nils Åberg, Helge studies of prehistory and build their interpreta- Kjellin, and Therkel Mathiassen in Helsinki tions on observations (Gjessing 1918: 188). (Nordman 1926: 19–21 [76, 78]; Åberg 1926 What was actually possible without turning to [68]), and A.M. Tallgren in Bergen (Tallgren hypotheses? Nothing, at least according to R.G. 1929 [100]). Almost half of these presentations Collingwood’s view, formulated in the early 20th [28, 39, 40, 42, 68, 76] analysed the region out- century (Trigger 2006: 303–5). Sophus Müller, side the Nordic countries in connection to Scan- as a representative of a positivistic era, was of dinavia. another opinion. He considered his view so self- Speakers took up themes from central Europe evident that he did not define it in any more de- [28, 39] Russia [4, 18, 46, 100], a widely de- tail. fined Germanic area of habitation [3, 42], and When we ask to what extent others shared the Baltic countries [76, 100], but also from the his opinion, we should first set some premises. Mediterranean area [27], the British Isles [68], Thus, relative chronology through typological and Greenland [78]. Oscar Almgren [40] took a or other comparative analysis can be assumed to glance at Egypt and the Near East, in addition to fulfil Müller’s criteria, as well as interpretations a general view of Europe. One presentation, T. J. of the spreading of settlement to different areas, Arne’s in Stockholm [43], presented the collec- based directly on chronology. Also the research tions of one museum on a worldwide scope. In of technologies, various questions related to the addition to these, there were some presentations subsistence economy and way of living, and the on classical archaeology (Gjessing 1918: 212–4 history of art on a typological level without ana- [8]; Hallström 1923: 20–1 [49]; Nordman 1926: lysing the meanings of the figures probably did 17–8 [70]). not exceed what he considered possible. In ad-
202 dition, more or less all presentations that did not general overview of the Bronze Age in Rogaland go further than the level of find reports belong (J. Petersen 1926 [79]), H.C. Broholm’s analysis to this category, but they are left aside here, be- of antler weapons (Nordman 1926: 11–2 [71]; cause Müller himself had discussed interpreta- also Broholm 1924), and Aarne Europaeus’s tions in his speech. systematization of Stone Age pottery from Finn- Nobody commented his challenge explicitly, ish coastal dwelling sites (Europaeus 1926 [73]) but opinions were expressed between the lines. accepted the positivistic main principle. In Ber- Although observations of concrete material re- gen in 1927, Georg Sarauw’s investigation of the mains were the basis on which all interpretations resin-tightening of prehistoric wooden vessels were more or less built, it was commonplace to was the only obvious representative of this type proceed to interpretations exceeding the level of among the interpretative accounts (Bøe 1929: immediate observations. It is self-evident that 72–97 [99]). any topic taking a stand on questions like politi- Thus, several participants did not share Mül- cal history, world view, religion, or other forms ler’s conviction but delivered another message of mental culture could not avoid hypothetical of what they thought archaeology should and interpretations. could do. And, further, if there was no unanimity At Kristiania in 1916, Müller’s positivistic concerning the basic approach of archaeology, approach was more or less followed in A.W. there could be less yet concerning specific ques- Brøgger’s classification of Norwegian -mega tions. The only really shared idea remaining was lithic graves and Oscar Almgren’s analysis of that of the Scandinavian concept of archaeology dinar treasures (Gjessing 1918: 191–2 [3], 209– as a comparative discipline (see Baudou 2004: 12 [5]). In Copenhagen in 1919, its main lines 140–1; cf. Kaeser 2002: 171–4; Trigger 2006: were followed by Oskar Lidén’s presentation 129–56, 166–89; Baudou 2012: 222–4). about the southern Swedish Stone Age, Theodor In general, the 1920s were an era of new Petersen’s analysis of the Stone Age in central views about the aim of archaeology in the Nor- Norway, Otto Frödin’s explanation of scalping, dic discussion. Especially A.W. Brøgger in Nor- Oscar Montelius’s typology of ring swords, Bror way emphasized a more functional interpreta- Schnittger’s analysis of Gotlandic ship-shaped tion and suggested paying more attention to the graves, Jan Petersen’s Viking Age studies, and environment of the remains instead of perform- Carl Neergaard’s survey on the distribution of ing a traditional pure comparative typological Bronze Age gold finds in Denmark. Undoubted- analysis of the antiquities themselves. Also an ly Oscar Montelius thought that his presentation evolutionist approach was evidently present on the invention of iron had so firm a ground in his view (Nordenborg Myhre 1994: 86–9; both in archaeological finds and written records Baudou 2004: 250–3). This line of interpreta- that it had also passed the level of hypotheses tion was seen at the Nordic meetings mostly (Kjær 1920: 3–11 [27], 18–46 [35, 26, 28, 38], in the case of connections between nature and 50–2 [34]). Actually, Montelius’s analysis, with culture, as well as in some interpretations of its dependence on written sources, reflected technology, but it did not have an especially cru- an older tradition of archaeological thought cial position. than the other presentations, going back even to early antiquarianism (Trigger 2006: 52–61, KOSSINNA’S GHOST: KULTURKREISE, 227–9). MIGRATION, AND DIFFUSION AT NORDIC In Stockholm in 1922, positivism had to re- MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS treat to some extent. Alfred Hackman’s search for Swedish and Norwegian cultural features The doctrine of Kulturkreise is usually connect- in the Ostrobothnian Migration Period, Folke ed with the German researcher Gustaf Kossinna Hansen’s dating of the Neolithic earth graves (1858–1931), although it had practically formed of Scania, and Jan Petersen’s Norwegian Viking a basis for J.R. Aspelin’s archaeological thinking Age grave goods could be classified as keep- in Finland already in the 1870s (Aspelin 1875). ing to empiria (Hallström 1923: 26–32 [51, 62], These ideas also had a strong influence on sev- 50–64 [52]). In Helsinki in 1925, Jan Petersen’s eral presentations at the Nordic meetings. It was
203 mostly Swedish (Åberg, Almgren, Arenander, navia and the west during the Middle Iron Age Arne, Ekholm, Hallström, and Lidén) and to (Åberg 1926 [68]). In other presentations, it had some extent Norwegian (Brøgger, J. and Th. Pe- practically no part. tersen) and Finnish (Appelgren-Kivalo, Hack- man, and Nordman) archaeologists who were A NORDIC IDEA ON THE PRACTICAL AND influenced by the Kossinna-type approach. Only PRINCIPAL LEVEL? one Danish presentation by H.C. Broholm in Helsinki in 1925 [71] showed traces of the Kul- Sophus Müller expressed his disappointment at turkreis methodology. The situation reflects both the first meeting because there was not a single the closer relationship many Swedish research- presentation with a theme comprehending the ers had with Germany – we must keep in mind whole Nordic (Scandinavian) area. Therefore, especially Nils Åberg’s studies as Kossinna’s he, A.W. Brøgger, and Bernhard Salin made a pupil in Berlin – and the tenser attitude of the joint initiative, which was also accepted, that Danes towards the German scholar. Especially the prehistoric state museums of Copenhagen, Sophus Müller had criticized him in spite of the Kristiania, and Stockholm would apply for six- fact that Müller himself had interpreted prehis- year funding to send one archaeologist every tory largely with cultural spheres as his depar- year to the neighbouring countries’ museums to ture point (Baudou 2004: 225–6). do research on themes common to all Scandina- Both diffusion and migration were at present vian countries (Gjessing 1918: 206). However, in the Kulturkreis archaeologists’ presentations, this plan could not be realized. Also in other although the diffusionist model dominated. Nils respects, Müller’s criticism of missing Nordic Åberg, Oscar Almgren, Gunnar Ekholm, Os- viewpoints did not bear much fruit: at the next car Montelius, C.A. Nordman, Jan Petersen, four meetings, the emphasis was continuously and Haakon Shetelig had a clearly diffusionist and increasingly on local or regional viewpoints. emphasis in their explanations, T.J. Arne sup- The ideological Nordic community was not em- ported the migrationist explanation to some ex- phasized in any way. tent, and Alfred Hackman, Montelius (partly), In Bergen in 1927, the organizers had obvi- and Theodor Petersen combined both. Aarne ously expressed a wish that scholars from dif- Europaeus and Haakon Shetelig connected dif- ferent countries give an overview of the latest fusionism with an evolutionist approach in their research in their home countries in order to con- presentations in Helsinki in 1925. It is worth vey a Nordic image on a practical level. Such noting that Bror Schnittger explicitly denied dif- presentations were given by Sune Lindqvist fusion in his presentation in Copenhagen (Kjær from Sweden and C.A. Nordman from Finland, 1920: 46 [38]). The Petersen brothers were actu- but nobody from Norway or Denmark.11 ally quite careful in expressing explicit thoughts Concerning which periods of time were the about how ideas and phenomena had spread in borders of countries crossed, and which coun- prehistory. tries were usually represented? International The most crucial point of divergence be- viewpoints appeared in connection with practi- tween the Nordic archaeologists’ presentations cally all main periods, but most commonly in and Kossinna is that ethnic questions and ex- the case of Stone Age periods and the Viking planations did not have an especially signifi- Age. As far as the Viking Age is concerned, the cant position at the meetings. Ethnic history reasons are obvious; the period itself was char- was dealt with in connection with the history acterized by international mobility. Some topics of agriculture (Arenander 1923 [42]), the new- also showed possibilities of extending the view est interpretations of the Stone Age settlement beyond the borders of the Nordic countries to a in Scandinavia and Finland (Ekholm 1923 [48]), European or even global perspective, but this the Migration Period contacts between Ostro- was seldom realized. The communication from bothnia and Uppland (Uppsverige) (Hallström the meetings to the external world emphasized 1923: 26–8 [51]), the search for ethnic indicators Scandinavian togetherness. in Late Iron Age clothing (Appelgren-Kivalo All Fennoscandian countries were represent- 1926 [69]), and the relations between Scandi- ed in only two presentations, Theodor Petersen’s
204 about the Arctic Stone Age in Norway [35] and When the series of meetings was founded, Hjalmar Appelgren-Kivalo’s on bronze spirals archaeology lived in a period of transition both as ethnic indicators [69]. Connections within theoretically and institutionally. If it is in any Scandinavia were sought in nine presentations way possible to see trends in the development of [2, 5, 9, 21, 23, 28, 34, 83]. The combination the first meetings, they point towards replacing of Finland, Sweden, and Norway appeared three general with local and wide with deep. In that re- times [51, 54, 74]. spect, the participants followed the development Of the individual countries, Sweden was most taking place more generally in archaeology and commonly linked to the others. There were 27 confirmed their commitment to it. In the begin- presentations dealing with Sweden in connec- ning, the 19th-century problems of a European- tion to others, 21 dealing with Denmark and wide chronology and preconditions of ethnic others, 17 with Norway and others, and nine definition from archaeological material, as well with Finland and others. These figures reflect as craniometrical questions, were still present. both Sweden’s location in the middle of the Little by little, questions of local or regional Nordic area and Swedish archaeologists’ active character became dominant and were analysed participation in the meetings. It seems, however, in depth, although some researchers, like Oscar that the presentations were too different and Almgren, Haakon Shetelig, and T.J. Arne, kept dealt with too varied a combination of regions to the more extensive topics under discussion as allow finding more generally applicable answers well. Evert Baudou (2012: 351) has correctly to the question of the manifestation of a Nordic stated that Oscar Montelius must have noticed at idea. the first meeting that he had already been pushed into the margins of research. On the other hand, NORDIC MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS also Sophus Müller, with his demand of empiri- AS AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MEDIUM IN cism and pure observation, did not represent the THE 1910S AND 1920S archaeology that was to come. Baudou (2004: 209–26) has seen the mapping of prehistoric re- The founding of the Nordic Meetings of mains, research into the Stone Age, and different Archaeologists was an answer to the changed types of national projects as the most important world situation. The aim was to confirm to both trends in Nordic archaeology at the time. These archaeologists themselves and others that in- themes were also present at the meetings, but ternational cooperation had an absolute value the image was more versatile. Human culture in itself and must be continued in one form or was analysed in its different aspects: history of another. Another aim was strengthening inner settlement, economy, society, political systems, Scandinavian cohesion in a period of national- technology, and art and ornamentation. There ist interests drawing the three states in different were also conscious attempts to understand pre- directions. Although archaeology’s results could historic people’s minds and thinking. Geology have a wide distribution in society and there and palynology were presented as archaeology’s were also laymen taking part, meetings of ar- new tools. What remained of the tradition was chaeologists were mostly aimed at the scholarly that questions of chronology maintained their community in order to strengthen cooperation importance and diffusion prevailed in the ways within it. of looking at prehistory. Ethnic questions had The meetings were used to a significant ex- not completely lost their significance. The obvi- tent both to spread information about new finds ous message was that pluralism was allowed in and to bring archaeological interpretations un- Nordic archaeology. der discussion. Methodological approaches had The Nordic Meetings of Archaeologists some importance, but theoretical ones were showed in practice that they were needed. Al- practically missing. If the participants expressed though they did not result in a joint Nordic ar- their thoughts about archaeology as a discipline, chaeology, as Sophus Müller had wished, they they did it through the practical choices they had did allow constructing a Nordic image of the made rather than by presenting explicit theoreti- past based on a variety of presentations on re- cal assessments. gional and local questions. In the future, it is cru-
205 cial to analyse more deeply what kind of inter- 11 Other joint Nordic projects in archaeology action was actually going on between different were active at the time. Especially the two-vol- topics of research at the meetings, how different ume prehistory of Europe, published in Swedish phenomena of past were signified in them, how and Danish in 1927, is worth mentioning (Salmi the values set varied according to the origins of nen 2014b: 164–5). each speaker, and what kind of ideas they want- ed to promote. REFERENCES
NOTES Archival sources
1 The 1915 meeting does not seem to have been National Library of Finland (NLF) documented in any published record. Coll. 230. A.M. Tallgren’s correspondence. 2 Until the end of the World War, he spelled his SLSA 652. C.A. Nordman’s correspondence. name in the form Schetelig. 3 Among them was also C.A. Nordman, who University of Uppsala, Museum Gustavianum, was actually from Finland, but was working at Research Department (UUMG) the Danish National Museum at the time. Sune Lindqvist’s correspondence. 4 Although according to the sagas, its origins were in Gamla Uppsala in Sweden. Literature 5 The name of architect Carl Frankenhaeuser from Finland is missing in the printed list of Åberg, N. 1926. Kent och Vendel. In C.A. Nord- participants. C.A. Nordman has added it in the man (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet i Helsing copy of Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og fors 1925: Berättelse över mötet och dess Historie 1920 that now belongs to the Helsinki förhandlingar: 102–5. Suomen Muinaismuis- University Library. toyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 36 (1). 6 The number in square brackets refers to the Alkarp, M. 2009. Det Gamla Uppsala: Berättel- list in the Appendix. ser och metamorfoser kring en alldeles sär- 7 I have counted Mrs Ida Arne among the wives skild plats. OPIA 49. of participants, although she had worked at her Almgren, O. 1914. De pågående undersöknin- husband’s excavations. She took part in both Co- garna om Sveriges första bebyggelse: Instal- penhagen and Stockholm. lationsföreläsning vid Upsala universitet den 8 Experimental archaeology had emerged in 15 januari 1914. Fornvännen 9:1–16. Denmark in the 1870s. The idea of the Rockel- Almgren, O. 1927. Hällristningar och kultbruk: stad experiment had been invented by the jour- Bidrag till belysning av de nordiska bron- nalist and later ethnologist Ernst Klein. The ex- såldersristningarnas innebörd. Kungliga Vit- periments carried out for several months in the terhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademiens summer of 1919 covered the Stone Age way of Handlingar 35. living in general, as well as different handicraft Ambrosiani, S. 1923. Senaste forskningar skills. At first one man and later two men lived rörande järnhanteringens historia. In G. Hall- permanently in a Stone Age setting. The experi- ström (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet i Stock- ment acquired ideological connotations via the holm 1922: Berättelse över mötet och dess owner of the Rockelstad manor, Eric von Rosen, förhandlingar: 162–7. Stockholm: Kung- whose sister was married to Hermann Göring. liga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Aka On the other hand, Klein himself was of Jewish demien. birth (B. Petersson 2003: 62–65, 80–93). Appelgren-Kivalo, Hj. 1926. Bronsspiralerna 9 There are both Bronze Age cairns and Middle på den yngre järnålderns dräkter och deras Iron Age mounds in Os (Shetelig 1932). betydelse för nationalitetsbestämmelser. In 10 In his presentation [16], Haakon Shetelig may C.A. Nordman (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet have discussed the Ruskenesset rock shelter that i Helsingfors 1925: Berättelse över mötet och was in use in both the Mesolithic and Neolithic dess förhandlingar: 117–25. Suomen Mui periods (Brinkmann & Shetelig 1920: esp. 41–2). naismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 36 (1).
206 Arenander, E.O. 1923. Germanernas jordbruk- Ekholm, G. 1923. Den svenska stenålders- skultur omkring Kristi födelse. In G. Hall- forskningens nuvarande ståndpunkt. In G. ström (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet i Stock- Hallström (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet i holm 1922: Berättelse över mötet och dess Stockholm 1922: Berättelse över mötet och förhandlingar: 85–111. Stockholm: Kungliga dess förhandlingar: 39–49. Stockholm: Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akade- Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets mien. Akademien. Arne, T.J. 1925. De komparativa fornsakssam- Ekholm, G. 1926. Gravfältet vid Gödåker och lingarna i Statens Historiska Museum. Forn- den romerska järnåldern i Uppsverige. In vännen 20: 18–34. C.A. Nordman (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet Arwill Nordbladh, E. 2005. Tankar om en pro- i Helsingfors 1925: Berättelse över mötet fessionalisering: Hanna Rydhs arkeologiskt och dess förhandlingar: 94–101. Suomen formativa tid. J. Goldhahn (ed.) Från Worm Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja 36 till Welinder: Åtta essäer om arkeologins dis- (1). ciplinhistoriska praxis: 109–42. Gotarc, Serie Enqvist, A. 1922. Stenåldersbebyggelsen på C, Arkeologiska Skrifter 60. Orust och Tjörn. Uppsala: s.n. Aspelin, J.R. 1875. Suomalais-ugrilaisen mui- Europaeus, A. 1926. Stenålderskeramik från naistutkinnon alkeita. Suomalaisen Kirjal- kustboplatser i Finland. In C.A. Nordman lisuuden Seuran toimituksia 51. (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet i Helsingfors Baudou, E. 2004. Den nordiska arkeologin: 1925: Berättelse över mötet och dess förhan- Historia och tolkningar. Stockholm: Kung- dlingar: 45–77. Suomen Muinaismuistoyh- liga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Aka- distyksen Aikakauskirja 36 (1). demien. Europaeus-Äyräpää, A. 1930. Die relative Baudou, E. 2012. Oscar Montelius: Om tidens Chronologie der steinzeitlichen Keramik in återkomst och kulturens vandringar. Stock- Finnland I–II. Acta archaeologica I: 165–90, holm: Atlantis. 205–20. Bøe, J. (ed.) 1929. Det femte nordiske arkeolog Fewster, D. 2006. Visions of Past Glory: Nation- møte, Bergen 6te–9de juli 1927. Bergens alism and the Construction of Early Finnish Museums Årbok 1928, Historisk-antikvarisk History. Studia Fennica/Historica 11. rekke 1: 1–119. Fredriksen, P.D. 2015. Utviklinga av det Brinkmann, A. & Shetelig, H. 1920. Ruskenes- havgåande seglskipet. Norgeshistorie.no set: En stenalders jagtplass. Norske oldfund
207 Goldhahn, J. 2008. Hällbildsstudier i norra Eu- Kjær, H. 1915. Nye Fund fra Mark og Mose fra ropa: Trender och tradition under det nya den yngre Bronzealder. Aarbøger for Nordisk millenniet. Gotarc, Serie C, Arkeologiska Oldkyndighed og Historie 1915: 131–49. Skrifter 64. Kjær, H. 1920. Nordisk Archæologmøde i Gräslund, B. 1987. The Birth of Prehistoric Kjøbenhavn 1919. Aarbøger for Nordisk Old- Chronology: Dating Methods and Dating kyndighed og Historie 1920: 1–62. Systems in Nineteenth-century Scandinavian Kjellin, H. 1928. Die Hallenkirchen Estlands Archaeology. Cambridge & New York: Cam- und Gotlands. Kungliga humanistiska veten bridge University Press. skapssamfundets årsberättelse 1928–1929 Hallström, G. (ed.) 1923. Nordiska arkeolog- (1). mötet i Stockholm 1922: Berättelse över Kjellmark, K. 1923. Tidsbestämning av mötet och dess förhandlingar. Stockholm: småländska älvkvarnar. In G. Hallström (ed.) Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Nordiska arkeologmötet i Stockholm 1922: Akademien. Berättelse över mötet och dess förhand- Hansen, F. 1923. En kronologi för yngre lingar: 65–73. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitter- stenålders jordgravar i Skåne. In G. Hallström hets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet i Stockholm Kossinna, G. 1912. Der erste Baltische Archäolo- 1922: Berättelse över mötet och dess förhand genkongress zu Stockholm 13. bis 17. August lingar: 50–5. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhets 1912. Mannus IV: 415–44. Historie och Antikvitets Akademien. Lindqvist, S. 1922. Oscar Montelius som forn- Hansen, F. 1926. Den äldre bronsålderns kro- forskare. Ymer 41 (1921): 211–22. nologi belyst genom fynd från två grafhö- Lindqvist, S. 1923. Jarlabankesläktens min- gar vid Kvarnby. In C.A. Nordman (ed.) nesmärken. In G. Hallström (ed.) Nordiska Nordiska arkeologmötet i Helsingfors 1925: arkeologmötet i Stockholm 1922: Berättelse Berättelse över mötet och dess förhandlingar: över mötet och dess förhandlingar: 123–41. 78–89. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Aikakauskirja 36 (1). Antikvitets Akademien. Hansen, S. 1919. On posthumous deformation Lødøen, T.K. & Mandt, G. 2012. Vingen: Et na- of fossil human skulls. Man 1919: 121–4. turens kolossalmuseum for helleristininger. Jensen, J. 2013. The Prehistory of Denmark: Instituttet for sammenlignende kulturforsk From the Stone Age to the Vikings. Køben- ning, Serie B: Skrifter CXLVI. havn: Gyldendal. Løset, J.O. 2009. Kvalsundskipet.
208 Neergaard, C. 1915 Guldfundene fra den efter- Petersson, H. 2005. Nationalstaten och arke- romerske Jernalder i Danmark. Aarbøger ologin: 100 år av neolitisk forskningshisto- for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1915: ria och dess relationer till samhällspolitiska 173–204. förändringar. Gotarc, Serie B, Archaeologi- Nerman, B. 1923. Det svenska rikets uppkomst. cal Theses 36. In G. Hallström (ed.) Nordiska arkeologmötet Price Persson, C. 2015. Sensationel afsløring: i Stockholm 1922: Berättelse över mötet och Egtvedpigen er ikke dansk. Videnskab.dk dess förhandlingar: 112–22. Stockholm:
209 Shetelig, H. 1926. Tidsbestemmelser i vikinge Tesch, S. 1990. Stad och stadsplan. Tesch, S. tidens stilhistorie. In C.A. Nordman (ed.) (ed.), Makt och människor i kungens Sigtu- Nordiska arkeologmötet i Helsingfors 1925: na. Sigtunautgrävningen 1988–1990: 23–37. Berättelse över mötet och dess förhandlingar: Sigtuna museer. 106–12. Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Thomsen, Th. 1929. Egekistefundet fra Egtved Aikakauskirja 36 (1). fra den ældre Bronzealder. Nordiske Fortids- Shetelig, H. 1932. Fornminne i Os. Bergen: s.n. minder, 2. Bind, 4. Hefte. Siiriäinen, A. 1989. Aarne Äyräpää ja kampa Trigger, B.G. 2006. A History of Archaeological keramiikka. In M. Huurre (ed.) Aarne Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Äyräpää: tutkija, opettaja, kansalainen: Press. 1980-luvun näkökulmia: 29–40. Helsinki: Wallette, A. 2008. Från göter till germaner: Erik Museovirasto. Gustaf Geijers och Viktor Rydbergs tankar Stenberger, M. 1963. Tio nordiska arkeolog- om svensk identitet. In A. Lassen (ed.) Det möten: En återblick inför 11:te Nordiska norrøne og det nationale: Studier i brugen arkeologmöte 17–21 augusti 1963 i Uppsala af Islands gamle litteratur i nationale sam- och Stockholm. Tor IX: 5–8. menhænge i Norge, Sverige, Island, Storbri- Stjernquist, B. 1991. The Nordic Archaeological tannien, Tyskland og Danmark: 221–40. S.l.: Meetings 1916–1989. In H. Thoen (ed.) Liber Stofnum Vigdísar Finnbogadóttur. amicorum Jacques A.E. Nenquin: 173–83. Wiwjorra, I. 1996. German archaeology and Gent: Studia archaeologica. its relation to nationalism and racism. In Stummann Hansen, S. 2004. Mødet i Danmark: M. Díaz-Andreu & T. Champion (eds.) Torden i Syd: Det Sjette Nordiske Arkæolog- Nationalism and Archaeology in Europe: møde i 1937. Publications from the National 164–88. London: UCL Press. Museum, Studies in Archaeology & History, Zernack, J. 2008. Das Norröne und das Natio Vol. 8. nale in der Germanischen Altertumskunde. In Tallgren, A.M. 1929. Synspunkter på nordöstra A. Lassen (ed.) Det norrøne og det nationale: Europas järnålderskolonisasjon. In J. Bøe Studier i brugen af Islands gamle litteratur i (ed.) Det femte nordiske arkeologmøte, Ber- nationale sammenhænge i Norge, Sverige, Is- gen 6te–9de juli 1927. Bergens Museums land, Storbritannien, Tyskland og Danmark: Årbok 1928, Historisk-antikvarisk rekke 1: 241–62. S.l. Stofnum Vigdísar Finnbogadót- 65–71. tur. Tamminen, T. 2015. Kansankodin pimeämpi puoli. Jyväskylä: Atena.
210 APPENDIX 1. PRESENTATIONS AT THE NORDIC MEETINGS OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS IN 1916–27.
The year of birth of each speaker is mentioned in parentheses after the name, and the region and period (main scope of interest) in italics after the title: BA – Bronze Age; Bal – Baltic countries; Class – clas- sical archaeology; Dk – Denmark; Eur – Europe; Fi – Finland; Gen – in general; Gre – Greenland; Hist – Middle Ages and later; IA – Iron Age and Early Historical Period; Ice – Iceland; Mult – multi-period; Mus – museums; No – Norway; Nord – Nordic countries; Rus – Russia; SA –Stone Age including geology; Swe – Sweden.
Kristiania 1916 17 Shetelig, H. (1877), Osebergfundets ornamentik 1 Almgren, O. (1869), Ett kort meddelande om No IA de pågående af framlidne docenten Knut Stjer- Copenhagen 1919 na igångsatta undersökningarna öfver Sveriges 18 Arne, T.J. (1879), Äldre fibulaformer från Ryss- stenåldersbebyggelse Swe SA land Rus IA 2 Almgren, O. (1869), Kulthandlingar och kultfö- 19 Arne, T.J. (1879), Solidusfynden paa Øland og remål framställda på bronsålderns hällristningar Gotland Swe IA Gen BA 20 Arne, T.J. (1879), Stendösar från järnåldern Swe 3 Almgren, O. (1869), Några anmärkningar om IA denarskatterna från germanskt område Eur IA 21 Beckett, F. (1868), Elfenbenskrucifikset i Her- 4 Arne, T.J. (1879), Tenetid och romersk järnålder lufsholm Kirke Dk Hist i Ryssland med särskild hänsyn till de romerska 22 Brøndsted, J. (1890), To Fund af Sølvbægre fra denarfynden Rus IA Vikingetid Dk IA 5 Brøgger, A.W. (1884), Om norske megalitgra- 23 Frödin, O. (1881), Har skalpering förekommit i ver No SA Norden under stenåldern? Nord SA 6 Brøgger, A.W. (1884), Osebergfundet No IA 24 Hansen, S. (1857), Om posthum Deformering 7 Ekholm, G. (1884), Tydning av helleristninger- af fossile Kranier Gen Mult ne Nord BA 25 Jensen, C.A. (1878), To sjællandske Bispeborge 8 Friis Johansen, K. (1887), Bemærkinger om fra Middelalderen Dk Hist græske geometriske Vaser i italiske Fund Class 26 Lidén, O. (1870), Sydsvenska stenåldersfrågor, IA belysta av nya fynd Swe SA 9 Hansen, S. (1857), Kortskaller og langskaller 27 Montelius, O. (1843), När och hvar upptäcktes Nord Mult järnet? Gen IA 10 Kjær, H. (1873), Nogle Iagttagelser vedrørende 28 Montelius, O. (1843), Ringsvärd Eur IA Votivfund fra Sten- og Bronsealderen Dk Mult 29 Müller, S. (1846), Bemærkinger vedrørende Be- 11 Montelius, O. (1843), Människo-offer vid graf- tydningen af den nordiske Bronzealders Billed- ven Gen Mult udhugninger paa StenfladerNord BA 12 Müller, S. (1846), Meddelelser vedrørende Be- 30 Müller, S. (1846), Meddelelse om nye Udgrav- gyndelsen af yngre Stenalder Gen SA ninger paa Bronzealders Bopladser Dk BA 13 Neergaard, C. (1869), Guldfundene fra den ef- 31 Neergaard, C. (1869), Bronzealders Guldfund i ter-romerske Jernalder i Danmark Dk IA Danmark Dk BA 14 Nordman, C.A. (1892), Ormar och hällristnin- 32 Nerman, B. (1888), Den svenska Ynglingaät- gar Dk BA tens gravar; en översikt Swe IA 15 Rosenberg, G. (1872), Oplysninger om nye Me- 33 Petersen, J. (1887), Nye stenaldershelleristnin- toder til Konservering av Jern og Bronse Mus ger i Syd-Norge No SA Mult 34 Petersen, J. (1887), Vikingetidsstudier Nord IA 16 Shetelig, H. (1877), En ny stenalders boplads 35 Petersen, Th. (1875), Meddelelser fra Stenalde- paa Vestlandet No SA ren i det nordenfjeldske Norge No SA
211 36 Rosenberg, G. (1872), Konservering af Oldtids 60 Nordman, C.A. (1892), Ett arkeologiskt bidrag Træ Mus IA till Erikslegenden Swe Hist 37 Rydh, H. (1891), Meddelande från de arkeolo- 61 Nordman, C.A. (1892), Östsvensk boplatskultur giska utgrävningarna på Adelsö Swe IA och finländsk stenålderNord SA 38 Schnittger, B. (1882), Gottländska skeppssät- 62 Petersen, J. (1887), Gravutstyr i norsk vikinge- tningar från bronsålderns slut och järnålderns tid No IA början Swe Mult 63 Petersen, Th. (1875), En gravplads under flat 39 Shetelig, H. (1877), Et norskt folkevandringsri- mark fra ældre folkevandringstid i det Norden- ke No IA fjeldske Norge No IA 64 Post, L. von (1884) & Walterstorff, E. von Stockholm 1922 (1871), Bronsåldersmanteln från Gerumsberget. 40 Almgren, O. (1869), Kultskepp och Ett exempel på pollenanalytisk åldersbestäm- hällristiningsskepp Gen Mult ning Swe BA 41 Ambrosiani, S. (1874), Senaste forskningar rö- 65 Rosenberg, G. (1872), Foreløbig Meddelelse rande järnhanteringens historia Swe Hist om den i Sommeren 1921 paabegyndte Under- 42 Arenander, E.O. (1862), Germanernas jord søgelse af Mosen ved Hjortspringkobbel paa brukskultur omkring Kristi födelse Eur IA Als Dk IA 43 Arne, T.J. (1879), De komparativa samlingarna 66 Shetelig, H. (1877), Myrfund av fartøier i Norge i Statens Historiska Museum Mus Mult No IA 44 Böttiger, J. (1853), Karakteristik av tapetstilens 67 Thomsen, Th. (1870), Egekistefundet fra Egt- utveckling Eur Hist ved Dk IA 45 Brate, E. (1857), Mälardalens runinskrifter Swe IA Helsinki 1925 46 Cederström, R. (1876), Modärna sydryska rem- 68 Åberg, N. (1888), Kent och Vendel Nord IA beslag från yngre järnåldern Rus Hist 69 Appelgren-Kivalo, Hj. (1853), Bronsspiralerna 47 Eckhoff, E. (1846), Visby stadsmur Swe Hist på den yngre järnålderns dräkter och deras bety- 48 Ekholm, G. (1884), Den svenska sten delse för nationalitetsbestämmelser Fi IA åldersforskningens nuvarande ståndpunkt Swe 70 Blinkenberg, C. (1863), Mykeniske Sværd- og SA Spydspidser Class BA 49 Friis Johansen, K. (1887), Romerske Sølv- og 71 Broholm, H.C. (1893), Spidsvaaben af Hjor- Bronzekar i Hobyfundet paa Lolland Dk IA tetak Dk IA 50 Geer, G. de (1858), Om de neolitiska kustlinjer- 72 Ekholm, G. (1884), Gravfältet vid Gödåker och nas närmare förlopp i Mellanbaltikum Nord SA den romerska järnåldern i Uppsverige Swe IA 51 Hackman, A. (1864), Uppsvenskt och norskt i 73 Europaeus, A. (1887), Stenålderskeramik från Österbottens folkvandringstid Fi IA kustboplatser i Finland Fi SA 52 Hansen, F. (1890), En kronologi för yngre 74 Hallström, G. (1880), En svensk grupp stenål- stenålderns jordgravar i Skåne Swe SA dersskulpturer Swe SA 53 Jónsson, F. (1858), Oversigt over Oldtidsfund 75 Hansen, F. (1890), Den äldre bronsålderns kro- og Undersøgelser paa Island Ice Mult nologi belyst genom fynd från två gravhögar 54 Karlin, G. (1859), Den medeltida keramiken i vid Kvarnby Swe BA Norden Nord Hist 76 Kjellin, H. (1885), Gotländska inslag i Estlands 55 Kjær, H. (1873), Symbolske Fremstillinger fra medeltidskonst Bal His Bronzealderen Dk BA 77 Mackeprang, M. (1869), Danske Døbefonte Dk 56 Kjellmark, K. (1866), Tidsbestämning av små- Hist ländska älvkvarnar Swe IA 78 Mathiassen, Th. (1892), Thule-kulturen, et 57 Lindqvist, S. (1887), Jarlabankesläktens min- gammelt centraleskimoisk Kulturlag Gre IA nesmärken Swe IA 79 Petersen, J. (1887), Rogaland i bronsealderen 58 Meinander, K.K. (1872), Profanskisser bland No BA medeltida kalkmålningar i Finland Fi Hist 80 Petersen, Th. (1875), Nye fund fra det 59 Nerman, B. (1888), Det svenska rikets upp- nordenfjellske Norges helleristningsområde No komst Swe IA BA
212 81 Ramsay, W. (1865), Eustatiska nivåförändringar 91 Lexow, E. (1887), Gamle bergenske bygninger och neolithicum Nord SA No Hist 82 Rydbeck, O. (1872), Uppgifter om ärkebiskop 92 Lindqvist, S. (1887), 1926-års grävningar i Andreas Sunessons sjukdom, sedda i belysning Gamla Uppsala kyrkas grund Swe IA av den senaste gravundersökningen Swe Hist 93 Nordman, C.A. (1892), Redegjørelse for vikti- 83 Shetelig, H. (1877), Tidsbestemmelser i vikin- gere funn i Finland Fi Mult getidens stilhistorie No IA 94 Petersen, J. (1887), Gårdsanlegg i Rogaland fra folkevandringstiden No IA Bergen 1927 95 Petersen, Th. (1875), Et nytt funn av bergmalin- 84 Bjørn, A. (1897), A[nders] Nummedals nye ger i det nordenfjelske Norge No IA stenalderfunn fra Finnmarken No SA 96 Rydbeck, O. (1872), Hornyxan från Höganäs 85 Bøe, J. (1891), Helleristninger i Vingen, Nord Swe SA fjord No Mult 97 Rydbeck, O. (1872), Medeltida blymärken Swe 86 Brøgger, A.W. (1884), Osebergskibets flytning SA til Bygdøy No IA 98 Sarauw, G.F.L. (1862), Forntida kärl av trä eller 87 Hansen, F. (1890), Gånggriften i Snöstorp - med läder, tätade med kitt (hartstätning) Swe Hist nischer från sittande lik Swe Mult 99 Shetelig, H. (1877), Holmedalsfunnet, En båt- 88 Johannessen, Fr. (1873), Båtene i Kvalsundfun- grav i Sunnfjord No IA net No IA 100 Tallgren, A.M. (1885), Synspunkter på 89 Kaldhol, H. (1872), Gjermundnesfunnene No nordöstra Europas järnålderskolonisasjon Gen SA IA 90 Kjær, H. (1873), Et jydsk Votivfund fra 101 Thordeman, B. (1893), Rustningarna från kors- Hallstatt-tid Dk BA betningsslaget 1361 Swe Hist
213