Author Query Sheet Manuscript information Journal: sARC Manuscript number: 230258
Queries1. Morris 2000 not in refs. Should this be 1999? 2. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 3. Howard-Johnston (in prep): supply update? (Where indicated in text by
AQ3 and in ref list.) Also supply publisher in ref list? 4. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 5. i.e. in ref citations replaced with e.g., as i.e. (that is) doesnt make
sense in the context. Is this OK? 6. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 7. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 8. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 9. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 10. Vierch 1978 not in refs. Should this be Vierck 1978? 11. Hedeager 2006a not in refs. 12. Thompson 1996 not in refs. Should this be 1997? 13. plate here changed to plait. OK? 14. Check meaning of : 248 in fig caption? 15. Brehm, B. 1926 not cited in text. Please cite or delete ref. 16. Please check the following refs are cited correctly in text: Morris 1999,
Thompson 1997 17. Mller 1880 not cited in text. Please cite or delete ref. 18. Rostovtzeff 1929 not cited in text. Please cite or delete ref. 19. Rudenko 1970 not cited in text. Please cite or delete ref. 20. Supply location of publication for Eliade 1964. 21. Supply all eds for Fabech 1991. 22. Supply location of publication for Gibbon 1776--1788 [2005]. 23. Supply all authors for Harding et al. 2006. 24. Please cite figure 5 in appropriate location. Figs may need renumbering if
cited out of order.
Scandinavia and the Huns: AnInterdisciplinary Approach to theMigration Era
LOTTE HEDEAGER
The aim of this paper is to discuss the early Migration period as a particular
period of short term history and its formative impact on the Scandinavian
longue duree in the first millenium. During this particular period of time, the
object world of Scandinavia demonstrates radical changes in symbolic
representation, followed by long term continuity and social/mental resistance
to change. It is argued that the Huns, as a historical fact, were present in
Scandinavia in the early fifth century. Their impact was to generate an
episodic transition that opened up a whole new set of social, religious and
political strategies, in Scandinavia in particular as well as in Barbarian Europe
in general, and gave rise to a new Germanic identity in the aftermath of the
Roman Empire.
INTRODUCTION
The classic Annales model of historical time,
developed by Fernand Braudel in 1949, deals
with different historical horizons, all of
which are relevant to the discipline of
archaeology: longue duree, conjunctures and
evenements (e.g. Hodder 1986, 1987, Bintliff
1991, 2004, Knapp 1992, Andren 1998,
Morris 2000; , Moreland 2001, Hodder &Hutson 2003, Harding 2005, Harding et al.
2006). However, it is the scale of long-lived/
slow changing structures, la longue duree,
and the medium term, conjunctures, which
embrace the concept of mentalites and
thereby serve as powerful theoretical models
for studying the development of past human
societies from the inside in a long-time
perspective. By definition, then, any change
in the collective representation of society has
to happen gradually over time and therefore,
ideally, should be visible in the material
culture record too. This, however, is not the
case. On the contrary, the object world
demonstrates radical changes in symbolic
structures at certain historical moments,
followed by long term continuity and
social/mental resistance to changes
(Kristiansen 2004: Fig. 5). The aim of this
paper is to discuss the early Migration period
as a particular period of short term history
and its formative impact on the
Scandinavian longue duree in the first millen-
nium. Hereby the shortest wavelength of
time, that of individuals and events, are
taken as the point of departure and explored
as leading to a throughout reordering of
society. The history of individual time is thus
explored as the foundation for changes in the
structural history of Northern Europe and as
such this paper touches the current time
structureagency debate within archaeology
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:09The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Lotte Hedeager, Department of Archaeology, Conservation and Historical Studies, University of Oslo, Norway. E-mail:
ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 000, No. 000, 20070
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
DOI: 10.1080/00293650701303560 # 2007 Taylor & Francis
(i.e. Bintliff 2004, Harding 2005, Harding
et al. 2006).
HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK: THEIMPACT OF THE HUNS
The chief of the Huns, king Attila, born of his
father Mundiuch, lord of the bravest tribes, sole
possessor of the Scythian and German realms,
something unheard of before, captured cities and
terrified both empires of the Roman world, and,
appeased by their prayers, took an annual tribute
to save their remnants from plunder. And when he
had accomplished all this by favour of fortune, he
fell not by wound of the foe, nor by treachery of
friends, but in the midst of his nation at peace,
happy in his joy and without sense of pain. Who
can rate this as death, when none believes it calls
for vengeance? (Jordanes: Getica XLIX:257)
This was the song that was sung over the
death body of Attila when he died in AD 453
(Thompson 1996:164< ). This short curriculumvitae is, so to speak, a compressed represen-
tation of his position as the paramount ruler
of Barbarian Europe and superior to the
Roman emperors, who paid him tribute. He
kept his power through a sophisticated
balance of terror and reward, well known
as the strategy for later steppe empires, too.
He never took, nor held, land; he controlled
space by moving and kept it by way of
mobility and speed (Pohl 2001). Throughout
the first millennium AD the nomadic system
developed and expanded continuously. Its
frontiers moved forward, neighbouring peo-
ples were conquered and the ethnic map
and the geopolitical configurations of wes-
tern Eurasia were redrawn (Martynov
1991:chap. 5, Howard-Johnston in prep.:
chap. I= ). Thus, the meeting with the Hunswas a historically well attested intersection
between structurally different societies with
divergent perceptions of time and space, the
Roman Empire, the agrarian Germanic
warrior tribes, and the hyper mobile pastoral
steppe warrior society, inexplicable without
an effective central authority and relatively
well developed political institutions
(Howard-Johnston in prep.: chap.I =).These edges of time and space might have
opened up new ways of thinking and
alternative perceptions of the world among
the Germanic tribes. Those episodic transi-
tions, as Anthony Giddens designates them,
are defined as uneasy relations of symbiosis
and conflict with, and partial domination
over, surrounding societies (Giddens
1986:245). The effect might be subversion
or undermining of the ideological glue that
formerly held the society together (Giddens
1981:23). The new glue that kept the world of
Attila together was gold. It motivated the
barbarian allies to seek out Imperial gold in a
never-ending spiral of consumption and
violence. And it brought with it new social
and religious institutions. This was the
specific historical condition that character-
ized the pan-European world-system during
the first generations of the fifth century. But
how far did this new world-system of Attila
extend? And what was its impact?
Romulus [who had come from Italy to Attila as
ambassador], an ambassador experienced in many
affairs, took up the discourse and said that his
[Attilas] very great fortune and the power derived
from good luck exalted him so that he could not
endure just proposals unless he thought they came
from himself. By no one who had ever yet ruled
over Scythia, or indeed any other land, had such
great things been achieved in such a short time,
since he ruled even the islands of the Ocean and,
in addition to Scythia, held the Romans also to
the payment of tribute. He is aiming, he said, at
greater achievements beyond his present ones and
desires to go against the Persians to expand his
territory to even greater size (Priscus fr.8, Gordon
1960:91).
From the conversation that followed
between Romulus and Priscus, a Byzantine
historian who travelled to the Hun court in
449 on a diplomatic mission and recorded his
impressions (Gordon 1960), we understand
that the former held a competent geographi-
cal knowledge of the Roman world and
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:11The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
2 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
beyond. When he explicitly mentions the
islands of the Ocean to stress the power of
Attila, this indicates that he in fact knew
what he was talking about and may have
presupposed that Priscus did the same.
Clearly, north of continental Europe is an
ocean with islands, and scholars agree that it
is the islands of the Baltic Sea to which he
refers (Gibbon 2005:370, Thompson 1996:84
with references> ). This is an obvious conclu-sion from the fact that the Huns gained
supremacy over the Gothic tribes living in
the north along the Vistula basin. Thus, if
this is in accordance with truth, the Huns
supremacy included part of Scandinavia.
From the military and political strategy we
know of elsewhere, it is most likely that the
Huns and their allied troops physically went
to the North for a brief expedition during
which they established local strongholds by
force and by diplomacy, during the first half
of the fifth century. This might explain why
Romulus is so precise on this particular bit of
information. The historical truth of this
hypothesis can, of course, never be proved.
However, we must consider this a possibility
if we wish to understand the cultural
transformations of Scandinavian societies
during this particular historical period when
a new Germanic identity took shape. To
what extent did it build upon Old Norse
traditions, and to what extent were new
traditions incorporated? The final result
materialised among other things in the new
Nordic or Germanic animal style, which
represents a reformulation or reinventing of
traditions, but with a new animal world
added with no antecedents in the North
(Hedeager 2005a, b). This can only be
explained by foreign influence, and here the
Huns are for several reasons the obvious
candidates. This, of course, does not mean
that the Huns were the only source of
influence in the transformative period of
the fifth century when the Nordic animal
style took off. Classical elements, figural
compositions, carving technique, etc., from
Roman, Gallo-Roman and Byzantine art
have long been identified in the animal
ornamentation. However the whole concept
of animals as the main organizing principle
in the new artistic expression and as argued
in the cosmology is hardly to be ascribed to
the Roman world. It requires a further
framework of explanation.
All societies are influenced from the
outside, traditionally labelled innovation
or diffusion, presupposing that it is part of
an ongoing process that gradually adds new
elements to an existing pattern or material
traits transferred from one culture to another
(Kristiansen 2005:75, 151). However, the
specific historical conditions that character-
ized the post-Roman era are inextricably
linked with the impact of the Huns. Here, a
minority of people, the Huns and their allies,
achieve and maintain control over a majority
of peoples and nations during a brief
historical period. Based on contemporary
Roman sources, the Huns have traditionally
been viewed as an archaic, predatory people
only held together by military activity and a
continuous inflow of booty. However, it is
hard to explain their military capability and
the diplomatic vision of the Huns without
presupposing a sophisticated and highly
effective central authority with extensive
outreach. In the words of James Howard-
Johnston they plainly operated on an
imperial scale, both in terms of territory
and the diversity of subject peoples
(Howard-Johnston in prep.: chap. I =). Thus,when a new hierarchy of power relations was
imposed, what impact did it have on
Germanic societies and their institutions?
The historical record and epic poetry of
central and northern Europe begin with the
dramatic historical events of the late fourth
and early fifth centuries when the Huns held
military and political power in Germanic
Europe. Attila and the Huns constitute the
fixed point of social remembrance, so to
speak, an oral tradition of a longue duree
thus codified in written form (Hedeager
2000). I propose that these few decades of
European history became decisive for the
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:11The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Scandinavia and the Huns 3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
long-term cosmological history of Northern
Europe. It was a rapid episode of significant
individual experiences that were transformed
into social time and collective memory and
thus became the foundation for a change in
the medium-term of structural history, and
the long-term of geographical time of the
Annales model. Only archaeology can how-
ever provide the evidence to support or reject
this hypothesis. And only archaeology can
provide a first hand dating of Old Norse
mythology and its origin. We shall therefore
begin with an analysis of material aspects of
Hunnic influence and its acculturation.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:TRANSFERABLE COSMOLOGIES
The appearance of the Huns and the inter-
section between the Huns and the Germanic
tribes generated a transition in cultural
knowledge and social memory among the
Northern people. We should therefore expect
that the adoption of new set of values and
institutions, in a structured way, materialised
in iconography, ruling regalia, monuments,
buildings, etc. (Kristiansen & Larsson
2005:10ff).
Like oral tradition, symbolic objects have
the capacity to cross generations because
they can convey quite specific information
about the past that was known to people.
Symbolic memory encapsulates in condensed
form mythological knowledge and master
narratives. Thus, imbued with those quali-
ties, artefacts operate as agents, embedded
and contextualised in networks of social
action and social knowledge (Gell 1992,
Meskell 2004). They have their own curricu-
lum vitae and may be perceived as acting
independently. In Old Norse literature this is
well attested regarding famous swords, hel-
mets, necklaces, buckles and other personal
adornments, named and thus personified
(Hedeager 2001, 2004). Those artefacts were
conceived of as actors similar to individual
persons, reminding us of the lack of a simple
subjectobject dichotomy of the ancient
North, where objects were agents and where
people and animals did not form binary
oppositions. Thus, in opposition to the
indivisible person we might rather operate
with an Old Norse dividual nature of
personhood where each individual is identi-
fied as a series of parts (Fowler 2004: 24ff).
Hugr, hamingja and fylgjur, which are central
Old Norse concepts, confirm this perception
of divided personhood in which shape
changing and metamorphosis in animal
disguise were regarded as natural things
and a special feature of gods and priests
(e.g. ?Davidson 1978, Price 2002, Hedeager2004, 2005a) (Fig. 1).
Dividual persons contained within them
components from other persons, animals or
objects. In other words, objects are also
actually more than individual agents; they
could be part of various persons and thus,
like animals, encapsulate parts of human
personhood. In the dividual understanding
of personhood specific objects had the
capacity intimately to link two people
together. Thus, the qualities that are to be
found in persons are also to be found in
objects, as elsewhere in the world (Fowler
2004:27). And these qualities could be
transferred and exchanged under specific
conditions.
The importance of ritual exchange among
Germanic and Nordic peoples is well
attested. Social and political supremacy was
formed through the circulation of specific
objects of supreme quality. They were
brought into being through a particular
process of manufacturing or initiation.
They acquired an origin through a process
of transformation, what Mary Helms (1993)
calls skilled crafting and Alfred Gell (1992)
a technology of enchantment, and like
persons they had to go through a process
of socialization through time to gain a
particular cultural identity.
During the first four centuries AD, Roman
tablewares, weapons and jewellery, etc.,
served this function as the medium of
exchange, revealing social and ideological
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:12The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
4 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
supremacy (e.g. Hedeager 1992).
Manufactured within a foreign culture,
whether Roman or Provincial, they were
considered of mysterious or divine origin
because they came from the outside world
(Hedeager 2001). They reached the barbarian
peoples as war booty and through ceremo-
nial gift exchange in political alliances, and
in funerary rites they were buried with the
dead because they might have encapsulated
the specific qualities and powers of the
person while alive.
However, from the late fourth century
Roman goods stopped being consumed in
the transmission of social and cultural
knowledge, reflecting a disorder and loss of
knowledge within these institutions. This
fundamental change in the system of social
and ritual reproduction is accompanied by a
significant change in material culture, too.
The new animal ornamentation (Salin 1904,
Haseloff 1981) was an abstract language of
signs that summarised in symbolic form
divided personhood, animal disguise and
metamorphosis as perceived realities
(Kristoffersen 1995, 2000, Lindstrm &
Kristoffersen 2001, Hedeager 2004, 2005a)
(Fig. 2). It conveys a different language of
power to the Roman. How are we to
understand this dramatic ideological and
cosmological change?
The importance of the animals and a
conceptual belief in shape changing are basic
concepts to any shamanistic system of belief
(e.g. Eliade 1964, Holmberg 1964) and
have no obvious anchoring in the Roman
World (Salin 1903, 1904). Hunnic religious
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:12The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 1. Men in animal disguise from (a) the Torslunda stamps, Sweden; (b) a sword sheath from
Gutenstein, Germany. (Drawing (a) Bengt Handel in Arbman 1980; (b) I. Muller in Arent 1969:
Fig. 17.)
Fig. 2. Animals with human masks as thighs (from
an unknown mound, Denmark, after Salin 1904:
Fig. 546: 248) ER.
Scandinavia and the Huns 5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
specialists, however, were seers and shamans;
among other things the Huns trusted har-
uspices at a time when the Romans and the
Imperial Germans were Christianised, and at
a time when Roman edicts threatened with
capital punishment those insane enough to
consult them. The specific Hunnic method of
foreknowing, scapulimancy (divination from
the scorched shoulder-blade of a sheep), was
no doubt of Asiatic origin (Maenchen-
Helfen 1973:270, Morgan 1986:40ff). To
any society with a shamanistic worldview,
animals are essential, and the Asiatic steppe
peoples are traditionally no exception
(Chang 1983, Martynov 1991).
The Huns introduced a traditional Asiatic
shamanistic belief system that resonated well
with what we know of the Old Norse system
of belief. But more importantly, in Germanic
ideology political and religious power went
hand in hand. Power, myth, and wealth
always sustain and develop each other.
Those who could provide all of these
elements were considered superior. Now the
Huns took over that role from the Romans.
In addition, among the North European
tribes in particular, this new system of belief
might have represented a most attractive
alternative to the adoption of the Christian
faith. It gave rise to the development of a
new symbol system with animals as the
organizing principle, ideologically without
anchoring in the Christianized Roman/
Byzantine world.
Inseparable from the appearance of this
symbol system in the first half of the fifth
century is the immense number of gold
hoards in the North, reflecting a highly
competitive and aggressive social and poli-
tical system with gold as the potent vehicle of
cultural and cosmological values (Hedeager
1992, 1999). During the same decades of
European history as those in which animal
ornamentation came into being, gold con-
stituted the supreme institutional medium
for Attilas policy (Thompson 1996:94@ ).Thus, the immense number of gold hoards
in the Nordic area can be ascribed to the
policy of the Huns and the political situation
in the Migration Period in general. The vast
amounts of wealth as reflected in these
hoards situate Scandinavia within the realm
of Hunnic policy and interaction.
As a steppe empire the Huns sovereignty
over vast territories was upheld through
speed, mobility, violence and reward. Like
other nomad peoples they never conquered
land in order to control it (Thompson
1996:60 A, Pohl 2001). As mounted warriorsthey were, theoretically at least, able to cross
from one end of Europe to the other in a few
weeks because of their outstanding capacity
as horsemen who carried everything with
them on horseback (Howarth 1994:19). Their
institutions were movable, too, and social
power was exercised in the hall or the yurt
(Kennedy 2002:45). Although Attila had a
headquarters with impressive timber build-
ings to deal with foreign diplomats, all social,
cultural, military, economic, and religious
institutions were transferable in space.
Priscus reports on these institutions (Priscus
fragm. Gordon 1960). No doubt, Hun
society incorporated a wide variety of
specialists who performed and codified
institutionalised behaviour, whether the
young women in the welcome procession,
the performance of the banquet, the women
who embroidered the beautiful textiles, or
the artisan smiths who transformed the
Roman gold into elaborated diadems, earr-
ings, and buckles, some inlaid with precious
stone (Chardaev 1991:255256), and elabo-
rated horse gear, etc. Thus, the Huns, as the
Scythians and other steppe people, possessed
sophisticated institutions and a significant
material culture embedded in them. The
acquisition of gold and portable wealth
constituted the purpose of diplomatic mis-
sions and the goal of Hunnic foreign policy
and warfare (i.e. Gibbon 2005: chap.
XXXIVXXXV, Thompson 1996 B, Pohl2001, Heather 2006).
Thus, the introduction of a new symbolic
system in the late fourth and early fifth
centuries might be ascribed to the imposed
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:16The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
6 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Hunnic institutions in which gold and
animals are the media for social, religious,
and political strategies. It represents an
episodic transition that opened up for a
new type of social complexity and the
adoption of a whole new set of social and
cosmological values in Barbarian Europe. To
evaluate the Hunnic impact I put forward a
hypothesis of Hunnic presence in
Scandinavia.
HYPOTHESIS: THE HUNS INSCANDINAVIA
One way or another, Southern Scandinavia
constituted part of Attilas sphere of domin-
ion, even though we might not expect
unambiguous material evidence to support
this hypothesis. Without the written evidence
we should never have known of the Hunnic
direct presence in Europe. There is, however,
scattered material evidence that has been
identified as possessing diagnostic Hunnic
features (Werner 1956, Bona 1991) and some
of these are in fact present in the North.
Among the artefacts Joachim Werner
called attention to are the characteristic
open-ended earrings of solid gold or silver,
pot-bellied and with pointed ends (Fig. 3).
They are known from graves north and east
of the Black Sea and from the Danube plain
in Hungary (Werner 1956:2426, Karte 10).
However, Werner was not aware of nine
similar earrings that have been found in
Denmark, and one in Southern Norway
(Fig. 4). They have never been identified as
Hunnic, because nobody expected Hunnic
items to appear there; this despite of the fact
that Werner emphasised the type as one of
the most significant and unambiguous
Hunnic artefacts. Taking the huge body of
Scandinavian gold hoards into consideration
it is, however, striking that they are not
found in this context. They are all single
finds without clear context, and none of
them come from bogs or wetlands as do
many of the gold hoards. This indicates that
they held a different position to other gold
artefacts and the examples we know about
are, as a result of their absence from hoards,
probably only a small proportion of those
originally in the area.
Small bronze mirrors, frequently with
the sun symbol on one side, are also
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:16The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 3. Radensk, Ukraine: grave with two open-
ended earrings (Werner 1956: Kat. no. 3). (After
Bona 1991:Kat. no. 58:1115.)
Scandinavia and the Huns 7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
characteristic Hunnic artefacts (Werner
1956:1924, Bona 1991) (Fig. 6). According
to Werner (1956: Fig. 4) they are present in
graves from the Hunnic core area between
the Danube and the Theiss, as well as north
and east of the Black Sea and far into central
Asia. They are traditionally linked to sha-
manistic practices. Laboratory analysis tes-
tifies to the existence of one such mirror
among the grave goods in the oldest and
thereby the inaugural of the three royal
mounds of Old Uppsala: the East mound,
called Odins Mound (Arrhenius & Freij
1992). It has been argued that the bronze
plate may rather be ascribed to a fibula
(Duczko 1996:78). However, the plate is
exactly the size of the nomadic mirrors. A
stone cairn covered the place for the funerary
fire, and in the middle a cremation urn was
dug into the ground. The cremated bones of
a 1014-year-old boy were found along with
fragments of glass, gaming pieces, belt
fittings, a bone comb and a spoon, together
with fragments of gold filigree and cloisonne-
work, etc. (Lindqvist 1936, latest Duczko
1996). There were fragments of bronze plates
from a miniature leather helmet similar to
the helmet in the prince grave in Cologne
Cathedral (Arrhenius & Freij 1992). Also
worth mentioning is a unique find of a solid
tuft of human hair close to the urn. The
burial is dated to the Migration period,
certainly the sixth century, although the
exact date is under discussion (Duczko
1996:81). However, the bronze mirror
together with a solid tuft of hair is rather
reminiscent of ceremonial burial practices
among the Huns (they cut off their hair when
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:18The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 4. Distribution map of two of the most diagnostic artefacts related to the Huns: the pot-bellied, open-
ended earrings of gold and silver and the bronze mirror. (Werner 1956: Karte 10 with additions.)
8 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
in mourning as in the case of Attilas funeral)
although the burial took place after their
disappearance from Europe.
Thus, one or two diagnostic artefact types
ascribed to the Huns, pot-bellied, open-
ended earrings and bronze mirrors, are
attested in the North. The importance of
animals is reflected in the development of
Scandinavian and Germanic animal styles,
the moveable wealth, the skilled crafting, the
technology of enchantment, and the large
number of gold hoards belong to the same
cultural complex. However, the Hunnic
presence took also more direct forms.
In Scandinavia, the meeting with the
Huns, although they might have included a
mixture of ethnic groups, certainly caused
similar reactions, as we know from the Late
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:28The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 5. Open-ended earrings of solid gold, pot-bellied and with pointed ends from Denmark (14/82:
Hammerslev, Randers county; C1419: Tjrnelunde Mlle, Holbk county; 30/08: Glums, Prst county;
11/38: Denmark, unknown; C3426: Vejlstrup, Ringkbing county; C7403: Vils, Thisted county; 2/46:
Svendsmark, Prst county; 6/28: Vindbls, Alborg county; 10/27: Klipen, Abenra county. Registration
no: National Museum, Copenhagen). Drawing: Bjrn Skaarup. In addition a gold ring similar to 6/28 is
found in a weapon-grave from Vesterb grave 16, Rogaland, Norway (S 1428). FR
Scandinavia and the Huns 9
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Antique sources. At least some of the Huns
clearly were of a distinct ethnic stock
(Gibbon 2005:367368, Thompson 1996:56C ,Maenchen-Helfen 1973:361ff, Heather
2006:148). They looked foreign, and their
being in the world encapsulated fury, greed,
and power, but also reward, admiration and
superiority. This may explain why faces with
distinct Asiatic attributes are incorporated in
central positions on the first generations of
excellent manufactured Danish and
Norwegian square-headed brooches with
elaborated and complex animal ornamenta-
tion (Haseloff 1981) (Figs. 7, 8).
Such traces in the material culture indicate
that the Huns were present, or at least well
known, to people of the North. Also the
ceremonial dress carefully reproduced on the
gold foil figures from the late Migration
period onwards, and on the figures from the
sixth and seventh century helmet plates
(Watt 1999, 2004), is similar to the
Caucasian kaftans known from seventh
century burials (Holmqvist 1977: 214
Abb.12, Vierck 1978:264265, Abb.15,
Watt 2004:203, Mannering 2006) (Fig. 9).
The belted tunic, the traditional garment for
Asiatic steppe nomads, was introduced in
Scandinavia in the fifth and early sixth
centuries and has been explained as a result
of the gotischen Kulturstrom (Vierch
1978:26466 EX, Jrgensen 2003, 2005).However, the introduction of the caftan as
the distinct male warrior-dress in
Scandinavia from the late fifth century has
recently been ascribed to direct Asiatic
influence on Scandinavia (Mannering
2006:197f). The significant change in military
organisation to an emphasis on mounted
warriors is likewise explained as a result of
direct connection with the eastern steppe
cultures. Furthermore, it has been argued
that the type of saddle known from the
chiefly burials at Vendel and Hogom in
Sweden was brought to Europe by the Huns
and the Avars (Engstrom 1997:248f).
A significant group, termed Hunnish
funeral sacrifices (Hunnische Totenopfer),
contains mounts from highly ornamented
harnesses, garments with applied gold dec-
oration, saddle trappings, and occasional
lances or javelins with signs of intentional
destruction found in small groups on dry
land (Tomka 1987: 156 ff). They are known
from Eastern and Central Europe in the late
forth and early fifth centuries, and analogies
for such ritual customs are ascribed to the
mounted nomads of Central Asia in later
periods (Tomka 1987:159). There are
striking similarities between these funeral
sacrifices and a group of finds from Scania
in Sweden, from the sites of Sosdala,
Fulltofta and Vennebo, that can be dated
to the first half of the fifth century
(Fabech 1991:94ff). Thus, there is mounting
archaeological evidence for a distinct
Hunnic influence in selected areas of social,
military and religious life. This influence,
however, also included new myths and their
representation.
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:34The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 6. Levice-Leva (Slovakia): grave with earring
and mirror (Werner 1956: Kat. no. 12). (After
Bona 1991: Kat. no. 33.)
10 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
One of the most significant and character-
istic artefacts of the Migration period is the
gold bracteates. Traditionally, the concept is
ascribed to the Byzantine gold medallions
with their portrayal of the Roman emperor
(Bursche 2000) (Fig. 10). No doubt, the
similarity in form and composition is con-
vincing (Andren 1991, Axboe 1991).
However, a closer look at the figures of the
A-, B- and C-bracteates (Mackeprang 1952,
Axboe 2004) indicates that their iconography
is anchored in a substantially different world
of ideas to the Roman (e.g. Hauck 1985
1989, 1991). The composition on some of the
B-bracteates certainly illustrates the central
myths of Balders death and Tyr losing his
hand in the mouth of the Fenris wolf (Hauck
1978:210, 1986, Roth 1986, Hedeager
2005a:236238). Their clear and unambigu-
ous compositions suggest that these myths
were newly invented in the belief system of
the Old Norse.
The largest group of bracteates, the so-
called C-bracteates (Figs. 11a, b, c), illustrate
a shamanistic representation of the soul
journey: the head of a man in the disguise
of a bird, travelling on a creature which
looks like a horse but has a horn and beard
(Hedeager 1997, 2006a EO). Some of the figureson the early bracteates are the most detailed
and show the head with pearls like the
Emperor or with what might be a diadem
and with the long hair in a plait (Figs. 11a, b)
and a variation on the same motif in which
the plait has turned into a bird (Fig. 11c).
The obviously shamanistic background to
these motifs is rather to be found within
steppe culture than in Roman iconography
and system of belief. Thus, it is argued that
this motif on the C-bracteates should not be
considered solely as a barbarian imitation of
Roman coins and medallions, but follows
eastern steppe culture models. From Antique
sources we hear of the Huns as exceptional
horsemen. They looked, as Ammianus
Marcellinus says, as if man and horse were
almost glued together as one creature, half
man and half horse (Thompson 1996:57 EP),
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:36The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 7. Human masks on the earliest Style I fibulae from Scandinavia: 1: Lunde, Norway; 23: Galsted,
Southern Jutland; 4: Hstentorp, Zealand; 5: Anda, Norway; 68: Tveitane: Norway. (After Haseloff
1981: Abb.53.)
Scandinavia and the Huns 11
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:40The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 8. Human masks as part of the ornamentation on brooches: (a) Galsted, Southern Jutland; (b)
Lunde, Lista, Norway. (After Haseloff 1981: Abb. 9 & 3.)
Fig. 9. Gold-foil figures from Sorte Muld, Bornholm. (After Watt 1991: Fig. 7. Drawing: Eva Koch.)
12 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
which in fact we see on some bracteates.
That the Huns had long hair is certain; they
might as well have worn it in a plaitEQ likeother Asiatic steppe peoples. The elaborated
diadems depicted on some of the bracteates
heads can be ascribed to the specific Hunnic
diadems of gold and inlaid stones (cf. Bona
1991:147149, Pl. xiv, xv, Werner 1956:61
68). And the horned horse likewise
represents an Asiatic ceremonial horse with
artificial horns, as for example the Scythian
example known from a frozen tomb at
Pazyryk, although from the fifth century
BC (Altheim 19591962:440, Abb.8).
Clearly, the bearded and horned creature
on the C-bracteates is far from the images of
an imperial Roman horse.
Might it be that people in the North
deliberately took the strongest symbol of the
Roman emperor, his portrayal on the gold
medallion, and transformed it into a reverse
symbol of barbarian power and supremacy
by replacing its central motif? After all, the
iconography of the gold bracteates has no
obvious background in the material culture
of the Roman Period and their central
symbols belong in the Hunnic cultural realm.
I suggest that the iconography presents the
most significant of the new myths introduced
in the fifth century. Some of these were
turned into written form around 1200 and
are thus recognisable, while others were lost
and are incomprehensible to us.
CONCLUSION
During the fifth and early sixth centuries,
there are systematic and recurring traces in
the material culture of Scandinavia that
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:51The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Fig. 11. C-bracteates. (After Hauck et al. 19851989: Kat. no. 75, 300, 50.)
Fig. 10. Scandinavian replica of a Roman gold
medallion (after Hauck et al. 19851989: Kat.
no. 107.)
Scandinavia and the Huns 13
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
indicate a structured transmission of
symbols with affiliation to the Huns. In the
North they became contextualized in a
process of cosmological and institutional
invention. This short historical period of
the fifth century and the establishment of
new institutions for gaining political power
might have opened up new ways of thinking
and new perceptions of the world, as
indicated by the institutionalisation of a
new symbolic system. This episodic transi-
tion represents a decisive and conscious
religious change that sustained the rise of a
new Germanic identity in opposition to the
declining Roman West and its new Christian
faith.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This paper was presented at a seminar on
Migration and the Roman Era, in Oxford,
May 2006. I am grateful to Helena Hamrow
and Peter Heather for organizing the seminar
and to James Howard-Johnston, who gave
me access to his unpublished manuscript
about the political situation in Western
Eurasia 200800 AD and who, as a historian,
widened my scope on the Huns. Two referees
have provided valuable and well-informed
comments. The results, however, are wholly
my own responsibility. English revision is
made by Nick Thorpe, illustrations by Per
Persson.
REFERENCES
Altheim, F. 19591962. Geschichte der Hunnen.
Bd. 15. Walter de Gruyte, Berlin.
Andren, A. 1991. Guld og makt en tolkning av
de skandinaviska guldbrakteaternas funktion.
In Fabech, C. & Ringtved, J. (eds.)
Samfundsorganisation og Regional Variation,
pp. 245255. Jysk Arkeologisk Selskabs
Skrifter XXVII Arhus Universitetsforlag,
Arhus.
Andren, A. 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts:
Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective.
Plenum Press, New York.
Arbman, H. 1980. Batgravarna i Vendel, I:
Vendeltid. Statens Historiska Museum,
Stockholm.
Arent, M.A. 1969. The heroic pattern: Old
Germanic helmets, Beowulf, and Grettis saga.
In Polome, E.C. (ed.) Old Norse Literature and
Mythology, pp. 130199. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Arrhenius, B. & Freij, H. 1992. Pressbleck
fragments from the East Mound in Old
Uppsala analyzed with a laser scanner.
Laborativ Arkeologi 6, Arkeologisk
Forskningslaborartoriet Stockholms Universitet,
pp. 75109.
Axboe, M. 1991. Guld og guder i folkevandring-
stiden. In Fabech, C. & Ringtved, J. (eds.)
Samfundsorganisation og Regional Variation,
pp. 187200. Jysk Arkeologisk Selskabs
Skrifter XXVII. Arhus Universitetsforlag,
Arhus.
Axboe, M. 2004. Die Goldbrakteaten er
Volkeanderungszeit. Herstellungsproblem und
Chronologie. Walter de Gruyte, Berlin.
Bintliff, J.L. (ed.) 1991. The Annales School and
Archaeology. University Press, New York.
Bintliff, J. 2004. Time, structure, and agency:
The Annales, emergent complexity, and
archaeology. In Bintliff, J. (ed.) A Companion
to Archaeology, pp. 174194. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Bona, I. 1991. Das Hunnenreich. Konrad Theiss
Verlag, Stuttgart.
Braudel, F. 1949. La Mediterranee et le monde
mediterraneen a` lepoque de Philippe II. Libraire
A.Colin, Paris.
Brehm, B. ES1926. Der Ursprung der germanischenTierornamentik. In Strzygowski, J.
(Herausgeg.) Heidnisches und Christliches um
das Jahr 1000. Der Norden in der bildenden
Kunst Westeuropas, pp. 3795. Krystall-Verla,
Wien.
Bona, I. 1991. Das Hunnen-Reich. Konrad Theiss
Verlag, Stuttgart.
Bursche, A. 2000. Roman gold medaillons in
Barbaricum. Symbols of power and prestige of
Germanic elite in late Antiquity. In Kluge, B. &
Wseisser, B. (Herausgeg.) Akten Proceedings
Actes, pp. 758771. XII. Internationaler
Numismatischer Kongress Berlin 1997.
Chang, K.C. 1983. Art, Myth, and Ritual. The
path to political authority in ancient China.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:57The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
14 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Chardaev, V.M. 1991. Gold und geschmeide bei
den Nomaden des 4.14.Jahrhunderts n.Chr. In
Rolle, R., Muller-Wille, M. & Schietzel, K.
(Herausgeg.) Gold der Steppe. Archaologie der
Ukraine, pp. 255258. Archaologisches
Landesmuseum, Schleswig. Christian-
Albrechts-Universitat.
Davidson, H.E. 1978. Shape-changing in the Old
Norse sagas. In Porter, J.R. & Russel, W.M.S.
(eds.) Animals in Folklore, pp. 126142. D. S.
Brewer, Cambridge.
Duczko, W. 1996. Uppsalahogarna som symbol
och arkeologiska kallor. In Duczko, W. (ed.)
Arkeologi och Miljoarkeologi i Gamla Uppsala,
pp. 5996. Occasional papers in Archaeology
11: Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.
Eliade, M. 1964. Shamanism. Archaic Techniques
of Ecstasy. Penguin BooksFX .Engstrom, J. 1997. The Vendel chieftains a study
in military tactics. In Nrgard Jrgensen, A. &
Clausen, B.L. (eds.) Military Aspects of
Scandinavian Society in a European
Perspective, AD 11300, pp. 248255. PNM
Studies in Archaeology & History vol 2. The
National Museum, Copenhagen.
Fabech, C.FO 1991. Booty sacrifices in SouthernScandinavia: A reassessment. In Garwooet, P.
et al. (eds.) Sacred and Profane, 8899. Oxford
University Committee for Archaeology.
Monograph No. 32, Oxbow Books, Oxford.
Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood.
Routledge, London.
Gell, A. 1992. The technology of enchantment
and enchantment of technology. In Cooter, J.
& Shelton, A. (eds.) Anthropology, Art and
Aesthetics, pp. 4063. Clarendion Press,
Oxford.
Giddens, A. 1981. A Contemporary Critique of
Historical Materialism. Macmillan, London.
Giddens, A. 1986 [1984]. The Constitution of
Societies. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Gibbon, E. 17761788 [2005]. The History of the
Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Abridged Edition. Edited and abridged by D.
Womersley. Penguin BooksFP .Gordon, C.D. 1960. The Age of Attila. The
University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.
Harding, J. 2005. Rethinking the great divide:
Long-term structural history and the tempor-
ality of event. Norwegian Archaeological Review
38, 88101.
Harding, J. FQ, et al. 2006. Comments on JanHarding (2005). Norwegian Archaeological
Review 39, 8097.
Haseloff, G. 1981. Die germanische
Tierornamentik der Volkervanderungszeit Bd.I
III. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.
Hauck, K. 1978. Gotterglaube im Spiegel der
goldenen Brakteaten. In Ahrens, C.
(Herausgeg.) Sachsen und Angelsachsen,
pp. 185218. Veroffentlichungen des Helms-
Museums 32, Hamburg.
Hauck, K. 1986. Methodfragen der
Brakteatendeutung. In Roth, H. (Herausgeg.)
Zum Problem der Deutung fruhmittelalterlicher
Bildindhalte, pp. 273296. Akten des 1.
Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d.
Lahn, 15. Bis 19. Februar 1983. Jan Thorbecke
Verlag, Sigmaringen.
Hauck, K. 19851989. Die Goldbrakteaten der
Volkerwanderungszeit. Mit Beitrage von
Axboe,M., Duwel, C., von Padberg, L.,
Smyra, U. & Wypior, C. Munster
Mittealterschriften 24. Bd. 15. Wilhelm Fink
Verlag, Munchen.
Hauck, K. 1991 (Herausgeg.). Der historische
Horisont der Gotterbildamiulette aus der uber-
gangsepoche von der Spatantike zum Mittelalter.
Bericht uber das Colloqium vom 28.11.
1.12.1988 in Bad Homburg. Abhandlungen
der Akademie der Wissenschaften in
Gottingen, Philol.-Hist. Klasse.
Heather, P. 2006. The Fall of the Roman Empire.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hedeager, L. 1992. Iron-Age Societies. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Hedeager, L. 1997. Skygger af en Anden
Virkelighed. Samlerens Forlag, Kbenhavn.
Hedeager, L. 1999. Sacred topography.
Depositions of wealth in the cultural landscape.
In Gustafsson, A. & Karlsson, H. (eds.) Glyfer
och Arkeologiska Rum. In honorem Jarl
Nordbladh, pp. 229252. Gotheburg
University, Gothenburg.
Hedeager, L. 2000. Migration Period Europe: the
formation of a political mentality. In
Theuws, F. & Nelseon, J.L. (eds.) Rituals of
Power. From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle
Ages, pp. 1557. Brill, Leiden.
Hedeager, L. 2001. Asgard reconstructed? Gudme
a central place in the North. In de Jong, M.
& Theuws, F. (eds.) Topographies of Power in
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:57The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Scandinavia and the Huns 15
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
the Early Middle Ages, pp. 467507. Leiden,
Brill.
Hedeager, L. 2004. Dyr og andre menenskere
mennesker og andre dyr. Dyreornamentikkens
transcendentale realitet. In Andren, A.,
Jennbert, K. & Raudvere, C. (eds.)
Ordning mot Kaos, pp. 219252. Vagar
till Midgard vol. 4. Nordic Academic Press,
Lund.
Hedeager, L. 2005a. Animal representations and
animal iconography. Studien zur
Sachsenforschung. Bd. 15, 231245.
Hedeager, L. 2005b. Scandinavia. In Fouracre, P.
(ed.) The New Cambridge Medieval History.
vol. I, pp. 496523. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Helms, M. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Art,
Trade and Power. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Hodder, I. 1987. Archaeology as Long-Term
History. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Hodder, I. & Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holmberg, U. 1964. The Mythology of All Races.
Volume IV. Finno-Urgric, Siberian. Cooper
Square Publishers, New York.
Holmqvist, W. 1977. Figurliche Darstellungen aus
fruhgeschichtlicher Zeit. Studien zur
Sachsenforschung. Bd. 1, 197214.
Howard-Johnston, J.= (in prep.). The Struggle forMastery in Western Eurasia, 200800 A.D.
Oxford.
Howarth, P. 1994. Attila, King of the Huns.
Constable, London.
Jordanes: Getica The Gothic History of Jordanes.
Translated and commented by C. C.
Mierow. Princeton: Princeton University Press
1915].
Jrgsensen, L.B. 2003. Krigerdragten i
Folkevandringstiden. In Rolfsen, P. &
Stylegar, F.A. (eds.) Snartemofunnene i Nytt
Lys, pp. 5379. Universitetets Kulturhistoriske
Museer, Skrifter nr.2, Oslo.
Jrgense, L.B. 2005. Draktskikk. In stmo, E. &
Hedeager, L. (eds.) Norsk Arkeologisk
Leksikon. Pax, Oslo.
Kennedy, H. 2002. Mongols, Huns and Vikings.
Cassell, London.
Knapp, A.B. (ed.) 1992. Archaeology, Annales and
Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Kristiansen, K. 2004. Genes versus agents.
Archaeological Dialogues 11, 7799.
Kristiansen, K. 2005. Theorising diffusion and
population movementt. In Renfrew, C. &
Bahn, P. (eds.) Archaeology. The Key
Concepts, pp. 7579. Routledge, London.
Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T. 2005. The Rise of
Bronze Age Society. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Kristoffersen, S. 1995. Transformation in
Migration Period animal art. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 28, 117.
Kristoffersen, S. 2000. Expressive objects. In
Olausson, D. & Vandkilde, H. (eds.) Form
Function Context, pp. 265274. Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia. Almqvist &
Wiksell, Stockholm.
Lindstrm, T.C. & Kristoffersen, S. 2001. Figure
it out! Psychological perspectives on perception
of Migration Period animal art. Norwegian
Archaeological Review 34, 6584.
Lindqvist, S. 1936. Uppsala Hogar och
Ottarshogen. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och
Antikvitets Akademien, Monografiserie 13,
Stockholm.
Mackeprang, M.B. 1952. De Nordiske
Guldbrakteater. Jysk Arkologisk Selskabs
Skrifter, Bd. II, Arhus.
Maenchen-Helfen, O.J. 1973. The World of the
Huns. (Knight, M. (ed.)) Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Mannering, U. 2006. Billeder af Dragt. En analyse
af pakldte figurer fra yngre jernalder i
Skandinavien. PhD thesis. University of
Copenhagen (unpublished).
Martynov, A.I. 1991. The Ancient Art of Northern
Asia. Translated and edited by Shimkin, D. B.
& Shimkin, A. M. University of Illinoise Press,
Urbana & Chicago.
Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt.
Material biographies past and present. Berg,
Oxford, New York.
Moreland, J. 2001. Archaeology as Text.
Duckworth, London.
Morgan, D. 1986. The Mongols. Oxford,
Blackwell.
Morris, I. ET1999. Archaeology as Cultural History.Blackwell, Oxford.
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:58The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
16 Lotte Hedeager
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
Muller, S.EU 1880. Dyreornamentikken i Norden,dens Oprindelse, Udvikling og Forhold til
Samtidens Stilarter. En arkologisk
Undersgelse. Arbger for Nordisk
Oldkyldighed og Historie 1880, 185403.
Pohl, W. 2001. The regia and the hring
barbarian places of power. In de Jong, M. &
Theuws, F. (eds.) Topographies of Power in the
Early Middle Ages, pp. 439466. Brill, Leiden.
Price, N. 2002. The Viking Way. Religion and War
in the Late Iron Age Scandinavia. AUN 31.
Uppsala University, Uppsala.
Priscus: see Gordon 1960.
Rostovtzeff, M.EV 1929. The Animal Style in SouthRussia and China. Princeton University Press,
Princeton.
Roth, H. 1986. Einfuhrung in die Problematik,
Ruckblick und Ausblick. In Roth, H.
(Herausgeg.) Zum Problem der Deutung fruh-
mittelalterlicher Bildinhalte, pp. 924. Akten
des 1.Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg
a.d. Lahn, 15.bis 19. Februar 1983. Jan
Thorbecke Verlag, Sigmaringen.
Rudenko, S.I.EW 1970. Kultura naseleniyaTsentralnogo Altaya v skifskoye vremya (The
Culture of the Population of the Central Altay
in Scythic Times). Izd AN SSSR, Leningrad.
Salin, B. 1903. Heimskringlas tradition om
asarnes invandring. Ett arkeologiskt-religion-
shistoriskt udkast. Studier tillagnade Oskar
Montelius 9/9 1903 af larjungar. Stockholm.
Salin, B. 1904. Die altgermanische Thieror-
namentik. Stockholm, Berlin.
Thompson, E.A. ET1997. The Huns. Revised andwith an afterword by P. Heather. Blackwell,
Oxford.
Tomka, P. 1987. Der hunnische Fundkomplex
von Pannonhlma. In Bott, G. (Herausgeg.)
Germanen, Hunnen und Awaren. Schatze
der Volkerwanderungszeit, pp. 156161.
Verlag des Germanisches Nationalmuseum,
Nurnberg.
Vierck, H. 1978. Zur seegermanischen
Mannertracht. In Ahrens, C. (Herausgeg.)
Sachsen und Angelsachsen, pp. 263270.
Ausstellung des Helms-Museums.
Hamburgisches Museum fur Vor- und
Fruhgeschichte.
Watt, M. 1991. Sorte Muld. Hvdingesde og
kultcentrum fra Bornholms yngre jernalder. In
Mortensen, P. & Rasmussen, B. (eds.)
Hvdingesamfund og Kongemagt, pp. 89107.
Jysk Arkologisk selskabs Skrifter XXII:2.,
Arhus Universitetsforlag, Arhus.
Watt, M. 1999. Gubber. Reallexikon der germa-
nisschen Altertumskunde Band 13. Walter de
Gruyter, Berlin.
Watt, M. 2004. The gold-figure foils (guldgub-
bar) from Uppakra. In Larsson, L. (ed.)
Continuity for Centuries. A ceremonial building
and its context at Uppakra, Southern Sweden,
pp. 167221. Uppakrastudier 10. Almqvist &
Wiksell Intern., Stochkolm.
Werner, J. 1956. Beitrage zur Archaologie des
Attila-Reiches. Verlag der bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munschen.
Norwegian Archaeological Review nar114525.3d 21/3/07 17:35:58The Charlesworth Group, Wakefield +44(0)1924 369598 - Rev 7.51n/W (Jan 20 2003) 230258
Scandinavia and the Huns 17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95