VÄGAR TILL MIDGÅRD 8

Old Norse religion

in long-term perspectives
Origins, changes, and interactions
An international conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3–7, 2004

Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert

& Catharina Raudvere (eds)

Nordic
Academic
Press

NORDIC ACADEMIC PRESS

 Published with the financial support
of The Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Foundation

Nordic Academic Press

Box 206, 22 05 Lund, Sweden
info@nordicacademicpress.com
www.nordicacademicpress.com

© Nordic Academic Press and the authors 2006

Technical Editor: Åsa Berggren
Typesetting: Lotta Hansson
Cover: Jacob Wiberg
Cover images: M. Winge: ”Tors strid med jättarna”
and C. Larsson: ”Midvinterblot” with permission
from the National Museum, Stockholm.
Photos by: Bengt Almgren, the Historical Museum, Lund,
Kristina Jennbert, Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Lund,
Mimmi Tegnér, Malmö Heritage and Åsa Berggren, Malmö Heritage.
Printed by: Preses Nams, Riga 2006
ISBN 0: 9-896-8-x
ISBN 3: 978-9-896-8-8
 OLD NORSE RELIGION IN LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVES
Ancient mounds for new graves
An aspect of Viking Age burial customs in southern Scandinavia
Anne Pedersen
Reuse or appropriation of an ancient monument for new
purposes is a well-known phenomenon in recent as well as
prehistoric times. A stone memorial may be moved to a new
site or be incorporated in the walls of a much later building,
and numerous graves have been inserted into existing struc-
tures. In southern Scandinavia the changing burial customs
of the Neolithic and Bronze Age – for instance, during the
Single Grave culture or the Late Bronze Age – resulted in a
succession of graves within individual monuments which,
in a much later era, was to provide archaeologists with one
of the cornerstones of relative chronology. Based on the
sequence of closed find combinations, i.e. individual graves
and their contents, it was possible to determine the relative
date of artefacts, burial customs and monument types.
Although first documented for the Neolithic and the
Bronze Age, reuse is not limited to these early periods but
was practised in later centuries, not least in the Viking Age.
In Denmark one of the most prominent examples is the
huge North Mound in Jelling, believed to be erected upon
the death of King Gorm by his son Harald Bluetooth. Here
re-excavation in the 940s revealed that the large wooden
chamber containing the scattered remains of a tenth-century
burial was in fact built in the centre of a Bronze Age mound
leaving only the periphery of the ancient monument intact
(Dyggve 948:94; Krogh 993:7). The new and far more
imposing mound not only covered the royal burial but also
a late Iron Age cremation at the edge of the original mound
and the end of a huge stone setting.
When the first instances of monument reuse from the
Viking Age, or with a term often used in the nineteenth
Figure 1. Viking Age burials or cemeteries recorded within an ancient mound or near an ancient mound in present-day Denmark.

century, the late pagan era, were recorded, no definite inter-
pretation was offered other than this seemed to be common
practice. How common is indicated in J. J. A. Worsaae’s
publication of a chamber burial uncovered beneath the
Bjerringhøj mound near Mammen in Jutland in 868. The
discovery was significant, not as an example of secondary use
of an ancient monument but rather the opposite, in that the
richly furnished grave clearly differed from other contempo-
rary graves known at the time, many of which appeared to
be located above ground level in the mound proper (Worsaae
869:206f). In spite of the inexpert excavation it could be
determined beyond doubt that the Bjerringhøj chamber had
been dug into the original ground surface, the bottom thus
lying about .5 metres below the mound, which contained no
further burials (Worsaae 869:206f). A re-excavation of the
site in 986 confirmed the position of the burial chamber,
remains of which provided a dendrochronological date for
the burial in 970/7 (Iversen 99).
Monument reuse is mentioned in many later surveys of
Viking Age burial customs in Denmark and is often noted
when a single grave or cemetery is published. However, the
phenomenon has as yet not been discussed in a broader
perspective nor on a longer time scale, and the possible sig-
nificance and meaning of the custom are debated. Was reuse
of an ancient mound a simple labour-saving act or did it have
a deeper symbolic meaning? And what were the underlying
motives, if any, for the choice of an ancient burial site for a
cemetery rather than any other point in the landscape? It is
becoming increasingly clear that focus on the past and orien-
tation towards ancient monuments was no random, isolated
 ANCIENT MOUNDS FOR NEW GRAVES

Figure 2. Distribution of Viking Age burial sites and possible graves reflecting reuse of ancient monuments in Denmark, Schleswig and Scania.

Figure 3. Hald graves 1 and 2, examined 1890 by V. Boye, the National Museum of Denmark. Numbers I–II and IV–VI in the northern mound are
urn cremations, whereas X and XII–XIV mark the position of Viking Age weapons lying approx. 0.64 m above the original ground surface within the
sub-rectangular grave. The southern mound covered a disturbed stone cist. II marks a Bronze Age urn, III and IV the position of Viking Age artefacts. The
National Museum of Denmark archives.


 OLD NORSE RELIGION IN LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVES
Figure 4. Male versus female burials in ancient mounds. The identification is based on artefact types commonly associated with men and women.
phenomenon but formed an integral part of the complex
burial customs of the Viking Age in Denmark as well as in the
neighbouring countries. The aim of this paper is to present a
survey of the Danish find material and suggest possible paths
of interpretation for future research.
Burial in a mound
Reuse of ancient monuments in a burial context can take
various forms, among them
• burial in an existing mound, i.e. the construction of a new
grave in a considerably older monument, the new grave in
many cases destroying the primary burial.
• use of an ancient mound as a focus for a much later
cemetery, the cemetery surrounding the monument or
gradually progressing away from it.
Both forms are known from southern Scandinavia, although
not in equal numbers. Within the past two centuries at least
340 sites with certain or possible graves and cemeteries from
the Viking Age have been uncovered and recorded in present-
day Denmark.1 Not all finds are equally well documented or
dated. Whereas 27 sites represent finds from secure burial
contexts, whether an isolated grave or a cemetery dated to
the Viking Age, 76 sites represent Viking Age artefacts from
destroyed but probable grave contexts and the remaining
47 sites secure burial contexts with an uncertain although
possible Viking Age date. Evidence of reuse or association
with an ancient burial mound is found in 59 (or about 27%)
of the 27 sites with dated burials in a secure context and 5
(20%) of the sites with dated artefacts from probable burial
sites (figure , cf. figure 2).
The earliest evidence of Viking Age burial in an ancient
mound was recorded in the early nineteenth century. Thus an
iron sword and riding equipment including a pair of typical
tenth-century stirrups were recovered in 833 from a stone
cist at Tastum Mark, Kobberup parish in Jutland, along with
a second sword of copper alloy and a stone axe. The find
complex can be interpreted as a secondary equestrian burial
in a Neolithic cist containing also a secondary Bronze Age
weapon burial.2 Another find is from Ramsing parish, also
in Jutland, where iron stirrups, a horse bit, fragments of a

copper-alloy vessel and a sword (now lost) were recovered
around 849 from the mound of Torshøj in which “pots of
ash” [askekrukker] had previously come to light. The Viking
Age artefacts represent an equestrian burial similar to that
from Tastum but from a Bronze Age mound with secondary
cremations (Brøndsted 936:89ff).
Single artefacts from mounds or the sites of destroyed
mounds may equally well be evidence of burial and reuse,
although their context and in some cases also date is less
certain. To give a few examples: In 842 a silver-encrusted
spur was found in the so-called St. Oluf’s mound in Svo-
gerslev parish in Sjælland, from which copper-alloy objects
indicating a Bronze Age burial had been sent to the Royal
Commission for the Preservation of Antiquities some years
earlier (Andersen 995:33). Unfortunately, the spur can no
longer be identified but a date in the Viking Age is possible.
A second find, recovered from Snoldelev also in 842, includes
a fragment of a silver pendant similar to the finds from the
late tenth-century Terslev hoard. Iron nails and fragments of
oak suggest a destroyed burial in a wooden coffin, possibly
even a wagon body, in a mound dated to the Bronze Age by
a primary grave at a deeper level (Brøndsted 936:202).
Improved techniques in the documentation and excavation
of burial mounds by non-experts as well as trained antiquar-
ians in the second half of the nineteenth century led to the
discovery of many secondary graves in Neolithic and Bronze
Age mounds, not least the well-equipped equestrian burials
of the tenth century characterized by weapons, iron stirrups
and further riding equipment, in some instances also a horse.
About one third of the recorded burials of this type in Den-
mark are known to have been placed in ancient mounds,
and although the apparent concentration of such secondary
burials in northern Jutland (figure 2) in part reflects a marked
antiquarian interest in the monuments of this area in the
late nineteenth century, the finds leave no doubt as to the
common practice of monument reuse. Two graves uncovered
in 890 at Hald about 20 km northwest of Viborg in Jutland
may serve as an example (figure 3). The first grave containing
an iron sword, an axe, a spearhead and a shield boss, but no
horse furnishings was excavated from a Bronze Age mound
with secondary cremations and evidence of a destroyed cen-
tral burial. The second mound revealed an iron sword with
a copper-alloy sword chape, a spearhead, a pair of stirrups, a
 ANCIENT MOUNDS FOR NEW GRAVES
Figure 5. Date of primary burial of ancient monuments reused in the Viking Age.
horse bit, harness fittings, and a whetstone, all found above
a Neolithic burial chamber (Brøndsted 936:9ff).
Evidence that women were buried in ancient monuments
is provided by, for instance, the mound of Hvilehøj north
of Randers in Jutland which was examined by the National
Museum in 880. The woman in Hvilehøj had been laid out
in a wagon body, at first identified as a wooden bier with
iron-bound corners, and among the preserved objects are
pieces of finely woven woollen cloth, fragments of silk, gold
thread and fur, a whetstone and two knives, tableware of
copper alloy and wood, a pair of scissors and a spindle whorl.
A silver coin minted at Cologne for King Otto I (936–962)
and probably forming part of a necklace dates the grave to
the tenth century. The excavator C. Engelhardt considered
a few cremations with iron knives to be contemporary with
the female grave but most likely they represent earlier burials
(Engelhardt 88:40ff, 77ff; Brøndsted 936:0f).
Several other secondary burials, some of them in wagon
bodies, have been identified among the well-furnished female
graves excavated in the decades around 900. One of them, Bjer-
rehøj, was uncovered in 874 close to the site of a long barrow, in
which a Viking Age male burial containing a sword and riding
equipment was discovered in 887 (Brøndsted 936:09f). The
two graves are roughly contemporary, and it is likely that they
belong to members of the same community, if not the same
family. The number of male burials recorded from ancient
mounds is slightly higher than that of female burials (figure 4).
However, this may in part reflect the difference in artefact types
accompanying men and women, the former (weapons, stirrups
and horse bits) being often easier to identify than the personal
ornaments and small utensils deposited with women.
Most instances of mound reuse were uncovered in the nine-
teenth century. Today such burials are less likely to be excavated.
Pursuant to the official act, “Naturfredningsloven”, passed in
937, in situ antiquities such as burial mounds, cemeteries and
megalithic tombs are protected. Removal or excavation of well-
preserved burial mounds is therefore no longer a decisive factor
behind the discovery of Viking Age burials. Many may also
have vanished considering their exposed location in the mound
body, often above the primary burial and near the surface. How-
ever, unscheduled monuments are still examined, and rescue
excavations are as a rule extended to include the periphery and
close surroundings, a practice that has led to an increase in the
number of cemeteries associated with ancient burial mounds.

Ancient mounds and cemeteries
Later graves placed not in but next to an existing monument
were noted in the nineteenth century, and although much
was lost and very few cemeteries from the Viking Age were re-
corded in this period, occasional finds indicate that flat graves
of probable Viking Age date were in fact uncovered in the im-
mediate vicinity of ancient burial mounds. According to the
Parish Records of Sites and Monuments of 875–76, workers
clearing a mound at Viemarken on the island of Langeland
discovered “the skeleton of a horse and one of a human being
as well as an iron sword and a large iron cauldron about 
alen [c. 60 cm] in height and diameter and with two lugs,
but which crumbled to pieces. Around the base of the mound
were several human skeletons and next to them a couple of
iron axes shaped like kitchen axes” (cf. Skaarup 976:85, no.
3). The artefacts are not preserved but the description suggests
a mound containing a furnished male burial from the Iron
Age, possibly the Viking Age, surrounded by flat graves some
of which contained single axes, a weapon common in Viking
Age burials.
The number of cemeteries identified in the periphery of
ancient mounds has increased considerably in recent decades
(figure ), among them the large cemetery of Stengade II
in Langeland excavated in 972–73 (Skaarup 976). At Sten-
gade a Roman Iron Age cemetery west and southwest of a
Neolithic megalithic tomb was overlaid by a more extensive
inhumation cemetery in the tenth century. Apart from a few
weapon burials, including a double male burial with a silver
and copper inlaid spearhead, most of the Viking Age graves
contained simple furnishings such as iron knives and beads.
At the similar cemetery of Over Hornbæk near Randers in
Jutland more than 00 inhumations and a few cremations
from the Viking Age were excavated in 984–86 (Nielsen et
al. 986; Nielsen 99). With a few exceptions the graves ex-
tended to the south, southeast and southwest of the remains
of a megalithic tomb dated by pottery to the Middle Neo-
lithic I. Like Stengade, the cemetery included simple weapon
burials, twelve in all, one containing an axe, a shield and a
pair of spurs, another a silver and copper inlaid axe, but none
equipped with a full set of weapons or horse furnishings.
A small-scale rescue excavation prior to the construction
of a gas pipeline in the 980s at Gødsvang in western Jutland
revealed inhumations dated to AD c. 200–550 and the Viking
 OLD NORSE RELIGION IN LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVES
Figure 6. The cemeteries of Højrup and Højgaard. After AUD 1990, 2000.
Age c. 800–950 next to the remains of a burial mound built
during the Single Grave culture but reused in the transition
period between the Neolithic and Bronze Age and apparently
again in the Viking Age (Fabech 989). Thus the flat grave
cemetery was not only associated with an ancient mound
but a secondary Viking Age mound burial. Unfortunately,
most of the secondary burials in mounds excavated in the
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries are isolated finds,
the graves of the rest of the community as yet unknown.
However, one may speculate as to whether an individual
buried in an ancient mound surrounded by contemporary
or later flat graves represents the local elite or the founding
family responsible for the cemetery.
Other Viking Age cemeteries next to ancient mounds have
been recorded in eastern Jutland, for instance at the sites of
Højrup excavated in 989–90, Kumlhøj excavated in 99–
997, and Enghøj  excavated in 998 (AUD 989ff; Jensen
999). The custom was also practised east of the Storebælt (cf.
figure 2). Thus, of the cemeteries recently identified at Kirke
Hyllinge and Tollemosegård in northern Sjælland, the former
was situated near an ancient barrow, the latter south-east of a
megalithic tomb (AUD 997ff). The mound at Kirke Hyllinge
lies immediately outside the churchyard belonging to the vil-
lage church dating back to the twelfth century, a situation
which parallels the site of Haldum in eastern Jutland, where
parts of a Viking Age cemetery have been excavated next to
a mound in the churchyard boundary line.3
Megalithic tombs as well as Single Grave and Bronze Age
mounds have been recorded but often it is no longer possible
to date the primary burial and thus the original monument.
Among the dated monuments that were reused for burial in
the Viking Age or which form the focal point of a cemetery,
Bronze Age mounds appear to predominate (figure 5) sug-
gesting that size or location in the landscape were significant
criteria for the choice of site.
The orientation of a cemetery was probably to some extent
determined by topographical features, although the areas
south, east or southwest of a mound seem to have been pre-
ferred. Within cemeteries the distribution of the individual
graves may appear random, but it is likely that the layout was
determined by certain rules or preferences. Thus it is pos-

sible to identify subdivisions or groups at Stengade II which
may reflect individual families or farms burying their dead
within designated areas (Skaarup 976:83). At other sites the
mound itself appears to have been important. Whereas an
approximate east-west orientation of the graves dominates at
many sites, variations occur, and at Højgaard, a site excavated
in eastern Jutland in 2000, the graves indicate a radial ar-
rangement as well as an orientation parallel to the circular
outline of the mound (figure 6). This layout may reflect a
chronological or social differentiation in which the closest
possible position next to the mound was preferred to the
otherwise common east–west orientation.
Apart from Viking Age burials, graves dated to the Roman
Iron Age have been located around ancient monuments, and
at least 20 Viking Age burial sites appear to have been in
use already in the early Iron Age. However, there is limited
evidence of a direct continuity from the Roman Iron Age
through to the Viking Age, a situation not unlike the burial
sequence of some sites in Västergötland in Sweden where
cemeteries used in the late Pre-Roman and early Roman Iron
Ages were returned to in the Viking Age (Artelius 2004).
The burial overlap may be a coincidence determined by the
accidental choice of a similar topographical location, but
could also be evidence of a transferred or consciously revived
tradition. Nor can it be ruled out that graves belonging to the
intermediate Late Iron Age have been overlooked or wrongly
dated due to their construction or lack of datable artefacts.
Why an ancient monument?
The archaeological data recovered in Denmark by the late
nineteenth century permitted a broader, although still in-
complete view of Viking Age burial customs compared to
that of earlier decades. Surveys recorded regional variation
as well as deposition of the dead in flat grave cemeteries, not
only in mounds as previously thought. Although primary
mounds, usually rather small and often grouped in cemeter-
ies, were uncovered, many earthen monuments appeared to
belong to considerably older periods. In a survey from 892
Carl Neergaard seemed to be influenced by purely pragmatic,
economic considerations when noting that even people, who
 ANCIENT MOUNDS FOR NEW GRAVES
to judge from the nature of the grave goods had been wealthy,
were buried in old mounds (Neergaard 892:325). The prac-
tice was therefore hardly warranted by a lack of economic
resources. Beyond this observation Neergaard offered no
other interpretation. The same may be said of Sophus Müller.
In Vor Oldtid from 897 he described an apparent contrast
between Sjælland and Jutland, the graves in Jutland south
of the Lim Fjord being nearly always covered by a mound
although rarely a new one. Most common was the use of an
existing, older monument, often one dating from the Bronze
Age. This took place even when the deceased appeared to be
of high social standing (Müller 897:655).
Like his predecessors, Ejnar Dyggve in the 940s also
considered the matter from a fairly practical point of view in
stressing the advantages associated with the choice of location
for the North Mound in Jelling. In 86 the chamber had
been described as lying high above the level of its immediate
surroundings. The 942 excavation proved this to be true,
although the chamber was in fact built on solid ground. The
ground surface under the mound rose towards the centre, and
its summit was the site of a Bronze Age mound. The choice
of the old monument as a foundation for the new burial
chamber had two advantages, first that the compact soil of
the old mound provided firm support for the walls of the
chamber, and secondly – possibly the more important factor
– that the royal burial acquired a commanding position in
the surrounding landscape (Dyggve 948:94).
It is significant that few other aspects of the custom of
burying the dead near ancient monuments were touched
upon in the early publications and surveys despite the fact
that this was such a common and apparently characteristic
feature of Viking Age burial in Denmark. Numerous exam-
ples of similar reuse, albeit from the centuries prior to the
Viking Age, have been recorded in Anglo-Saxon England and
in western Europe, and the subject has been approached in
several recent studies (see for instance Van De Noort 993;
Thäte 996; Williams 997, 998; Sopp 999). In England
not only prehistoric round barrows were reused for burial
sites between the fifth and the early eighth centuries, also
prehistoric linear earthworks, enclosures, natural features
and the later Romano-British structures attracted cemeteries.
Indeed, the archaeological material appears far too diverse to
allow us to postulate a single, basic idea behind all examples
of monument reuse, although there are a number of common
features (Thäte 996:4).
Visual communication
The choice of site for monumental burial may have been
determined by the visual effect achieved by its location on
high-lying ground, as seen for Bronze Age mounds, or next
to an often used, ancient road stretch. Boundary markers
and borders may also have been significant, although it is dif-
ficult to determine whether the monuments were placed near
boundary lines, or the boundaries were defined by ancient
monuments. In a basically oral society, ceremony and visual
expression were essential means of communication and in a
sense documentation, memory of an event or site also creat-
ing a form of record which could be recalled and transferred
orally. Thus placing the dead in a prominent position in the
landscape and further enhancing the effect by choosing an

ancient monument may have served to communicate the
status of an individual and family, possibly legitimizing their
control and claims over land, resources and people in relation
to, for instance, inheritance or even take-over of land (cf.
Williams 997:26; Skre 998:203ff).
A case in point is the North Mound of Jelling, situated
at the highest point in the landscape and fronted by gentle
slopes towards the south, where excavations between 985 and
996 have revealed evidence of occupation going back to the
Pre-Roman Iron Age (Christiansen 999). The choice of this
location, already the site of a huge stone ship-setting most
likely built by King Gorm immediately next to a Bronze Age
mound, continued the tradition and prestige of the site. As
yet, there are no traces of extensive wealth, loss of artefacts
or settlements above average to suggest any importance the
site may have had prior to the building of the stone-setting
followed by the two mounds and, after the conversion of
King Harald, a wooden church. The royal monuments are
the first real evidence of political/religious power in Jelling
and they may well represent the beginning rather than the
culmination of an ongoing process, serving as a visual mani-
festation of power in an area not previously frequented by
king and elite.
Pagan beliefs
In his publication of Bjerringhøj, J. J. A. Worsaae considered
whether the construction of the burial chamber beneath
the ground surface rather than in the mound body might
be influenced by Christian beliefs, the common Christian
custom being to bury the dead in the ground, not above it
(Worsaae 869:25). That the mound, and the burial as such,
were essentially pagan was not questioned. Although pagan
practice does not a priori explain the focus on ancient monu-
ments, burial of the dead is an obvious occasion for religious
expression and the burial site a ceremonial scene.
It has been suggested that people buried their dead in or
near existing mounds so as to include them within the sacred
sphere of the ancient monument, and in a time of conversion
sacred sites of the past may have gained added importance
as symbols of tradition, possibly evoking a sense of security
in the old ways. Early medieval reuse of ancient monuments
and the construction of new mounds in western Europe have
been seen as a possible response to Christianity, the mounds
forming monumental parallels to the church burials restricted
to a small elite but possibly also expressing an act of op-
position (Van de Noort 993). In an analysis of Anglo-Saxon
cemeteries H. Williams has shown that monument reuse,
although widespread and frequent already in the late fifth and
sixth centuries, increased in the seventh century, coinciding
with the establishment and conversion of the Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms. Thus although not a custom established by the
elite, monument reuse was increasingly practised by this
group, serving purposes within their social and political
strategies in a changing world (Williams 998:95).
Several written sources confirm that Christian authority
might view mound burial as a potentially dangerous pagan
tradition. In Capitulatio de partibus Saxoniae from the late
eighth century, Charlemagne prohibited burial near or under
mounds, and a later tenth-century source, Decreta Synodo-
rum Bavaricarum states that those who bury their dead “ad
 OLD NORSE RELIGION IN LONG-TERM PERSPECTIVES
tumulos, quod dicimus more gentilium hougir” shall be
punished (cf. Thäte 996: with references). Although the
implications of these sources may be discussed, they indicate
that mound burial was associated with paganism. Whether
a clear distinction was made by Viking Age communities in
Denmark is uncertain. Mound burial continued into the late
tenth century, and as in Jelling early medieval churches were
in some instances built in the immediate vicinity of ancient
monuments (cf. Olsen 966:267ff).
A link between past and present
The monuments of the Neolithic and Bronze Ages are cen-
turies, even millennia older than the burials of the Viking
Age. Thus a true genealogical relationship between the dead
men and woman of the past and those of the Viking Age
hardly seems possible, although it may have been perceived
or constructed as such. Knowledge of the past was doubtless
present, and written sources testify to the importance of the
dead and their resting place in the world of the living, the
burials of heroic and powerful individuals often giving rise to
myths and legends (cf. Rindal 2004; Artelius 2004:00f). The
Danish historian Saxo Grammaticus (c. 200) writes of burial
customs in the mythical ages of the early Danish kings when
a free man would be buried in an earthen mound together
with all his finery, weapons and his horse, and although a
certain risk was involved, digging in ancient mounds was
known to lead to gold and other precious objects. In Saxo’s
day men seeking treasure attempted to break into a mound
where legend had it that Balder had been laid to rest (Saxo
93:III Book, III.8). A stream of water broke out of the top of
the mound, drowning everything on its way, after which no
one dared to approach the place. Saxo rejected the water as a
delusion but it is more likely that the story in fact recalls what
might have happened in the Viking Age when a grave was
built in a Bronze Age mound. Centuries later, the same phe-
nomenon was seen, for instance at Storhøj near Egtved when
an oak coffin was excavated in 92 (Thomsen 929:72ff).
Such strange events probably reinforced the traditions and
legends connected with these monuments and the ancient
beings who originally built them. By association the families
or groups who controlled the use and interpretation of such
a monument could define their own identity and legitimize
their status and rights, the site and memory created through
the ritual acts carried out there serving as future testimony
(cf. Williams 998:04).
Strong pagan beliefs or an increased need of visual manifes-
tation and focus on the past may all apply in an interpretation
of the Danish burial finds. Although monument reuse may
in part have been determined by purely practical motives,
i.e. the existing monument lessening the amount of labour
involved in a burial or serving as an easily recognizable point
of reference in the landscape, the monuments may well have
served other purposes less easy to define. With the acceptance
of Christianity in the ninth and tenth centuries religious be-
liefs were changing, possibly generating a sense of insecurity
and need for continuity. At the same time existing values
were challenged by the emergence of new power structures
as well as by an intense contact with the material culture and
norms of western Europe. In such a setting ancestors and
past practices as symbols of identity and cultural cohesion

may have acquired a special significance, which was physically
expressed in the choice of burial and not least the location of
the grave. Reuse formed a central element of the burial ritual
and was probably even more common than indicated by the
present survey. It reflects a focus on the past and an active
use of that past in the present. The ancient monument, its
location in the landscape and the link it held to the past may
have been equally or even more important than the artefacts
or the construction of the grave set into it.
Anne Pedersen
National Museum of Denmark
anne.pedersen@natmus.dk
Notes
 The survey is based on material recorded for the author’s Ph.D.
thesis (996) with recent additions (up to 2004), among them
also old finds identified as probable Viking Age grave finds in
the National Museum of Denmark archives.
2 The find is unpublished, cf. National Museum of Denmark
inventory nos. 3080-84.
3 Forhistorisk Museum Moesgård 4620; personal communication
curator Jens Jeppesen.
References
Andersen, S. W. 995. Lejre – skibssætninger, vikingegrave, Gryde-
høj. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 993:7–42.
Artelius, T. 2004. Minnesmakarnas verkstad. Om vikingatida
bruk av äldre gravar och begravningsplatser. In Å. Berggren
et al. (eds) Minne och myt. Konsten att skapa det förflutna. Vä-
gar till Midgård 5:99–20. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.
AUD = Arkæologiske Udgravninger i Danmark 984ff. Copen-
hagen: Det Arkæologiske Nævn/Kulturarvsstyrelsen.
Brøndsted, J. 936. Danish inhumation graves of the Viking
Age. Acta Archaeologica VII:8–228, plates I–XI.
Christiansen, F. 999. Jelling. Bebyggelse fra jernalder og
vikingetid. Kuml 999:8–226.
Dyggve, E. 948. The royal barrows at Jelling. Excavations
made in 94, 942 and 947, and finds and findings result-
ing therefrom. Antiquity XXII:90–97.
Engelhardt, C. 88. Jernalderens Gravskikke i Jylland. Aarbø-
ger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 88:79–84.
Fabech, C. 989. Gødsvang – et samfund med jernproduk-
tion. Mark og Montre 989:6–2.
Iversen, M. 99. Genudgravningen af Bjerringhøj 986. In
M. Iversen (ed.) Mammen. Grav, kunst og samfund i vikin-
getid, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter XXVIII:27–42.
Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab.
Jensen, C. J. 999. Tordengudens tegn. Skalk 999/2:–4.
Krogh, K. J. 993. Gåden om Kong Gorms Grav. Historien om
Jordhøjen i Jelling. Vikingekongernes Monumenter i Jel-
ling . Herning: Poul Kristensens Forlag.
Müller, S. 897. Vor Oldtid. Danmarks Forhistoriske Archæo-
logi. Copenhagen: Det nordiske Forlag.
Neergaard, C. 892. Meddelelser fra Nationalmuseets danske
Samling: Jernalderen. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed
og Historie 892:207–34.
Nielsen, B. H. 99. Langbladsøksen. Skalk 99/2:9–3.
Nielsen, B. H. et al. 986. Vikingetidsgravpladsen Kjølvejen.
 ANCIENT MOUNDS FOR NEW GRAVES
Undersøgelser i 985. Historisk Aarbog fra Randers Amt
986:5–6.
Olsen, O. 966. Hørg, Hov og Kirke. Historiske og arkæologiske
vikingetidsstudier. Copenhagen: G.E.C. Gad.
Pedersen, A. 996. Vikingetidens grave med våben og hesteud-
styr i det gammeldanske område. Inventar og datering – idé
og hensigt [Viking Age burials with weapons and horse gear
in the old Danish area – contents and date, ideology and
purpose]. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Aarhus University.
Rindal, M. 2004. Haugen som gravplass, kultstad og makt-
symbol i norrøne skriftlege kjelder. In J. H. Larsen and P.
Rolfsen (eds) Halvdanshaugen – arkeologi, historie og natur-
vitenskap. Universitetets kulturhistoriske museer Skrifter
3:93–202. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
Saxo = Saxonis Gesta Danorum I, 93. J. Olrik and H. Ræder.
Hauniæ/Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Skaarup, J. 976. Stengade II. En langelandsk gravplads med
grave fra romersk jernalder og vikingetid. Meddelelser fra
Langelands museum. Rudkøbing: Langelands museum.
Skre, D. 998. Herredømmet. Bosetning og besittelse på Romerike
200–1350 e.Kr. Acta Humaniora 32. Oslo: Universitetet i Oslo.
Sopp, M. 999. Die Wiederaufnahme älterer Bestattungsplätze
in den nachfolgenden vor- und frügeschichtlichen Perioden

in Norddeutschland. Antiquitas Reihe 3 (Serie in 4to), Ab-
handlungen zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte, zur klassischen
und provinzialrömischen Archäologie und zur Geschichte
des Altertums 39. Bonn: Habelt.
Thäte, E. 996. Alte Denkmäler und frühgeschichtliche Be-
stattungen: Ein sächsisch-angelsächsischer Totenbrauch
und seine Kontinuität. Eine Vergleichende Studie.
Archäologische Informationen 9/&2:05–6.
Thomsen, T. 929. Egekistefundet fra Egtved fra den ældre
Bronzealder. Nordiske Fortidsminder II:4. Copenhagen:
Det kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab.
Van de Noort, R. 993. The context of early medieval barrows
in western Europe. Antiquity 67:66–73.
Williams, H. 997. Ancient landscapes and the dead. The
reuse of prehistoric and Roman monuments as early An-
glo-Saxon burial sites. Medieval Archaeology XLI:–32.
– 998. Monuments and the past in early Anglo-Saxon Eng-
land. World Archaeology 30():90–08.
Worsaae, J. J. A. 869. Om Mammen-Fundet fra Hedenska-
bets Slutningstid foredraget i Oldskriftselskabets Møde
den 3die November 968. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndig-
hed og Historie 869:203–28, Pl. –9.