Counterpoint:

Essays in Archaeology and

Heritage Studies in Honour of
Professor Kristian Kristiansen

Edited by

Sophie Bergerbrant
Serena Sabatini

BAR International Series 2508

2013
Published by

Archaeopress
Publishers of British Archaeological Reports
Gordon House
276 Banbury Road
Oxford OX2 7ED
England
bar@archaeopress.com
www.archaeopress.com

BAR S2508

Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies in Honour of Professor Kristian Kristiansen

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2013

ISBN 978 1 4073 1126 5

Cover illustration: Gilded hilt of sword from Hallegård, Bornholm, Denmark. Published with kind permission
from the National Museum of Denmark

Printed in England by Information Press, Oxford

All BAR titles are available from:

Hadrian Books Ltd

122 Banbury Road
Oxford
OX2 7BP
England
www.hadrianbooks.co.uk

The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free
from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
 Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age
Kristian Kristiansen

Preface

As a relatively new Ph.D. student (in 2000) I attended a two-day seminar in Tanum. At the dinner after the first day Kristian and I had
an interesting conversation about the female costume in the Bronze Age. Kristian confided that he had once worked on the topic, but
could not get it published, so he turned to swords instead - and never looked back. He promised to send me a copy of his unpublished
manuscript from 1975, which he claimed was his only unpublished manuscript. Our conversation stuck in my mind and was a comfort
to me when work on my Ph.D. was tough. It was also a comfort to know that there was at least one other person out there who found
the topic of clothing interesting. Our conversation ultimately led to Kristian taking over the supervision of my Ph.D. when my first
supervisor took early retirement due to poor health. Somewhat ironically, his story came back to haunt me later, when it was indicated
that my work was ‘too narrow in scope’ due to having a gender theoretical framework; I immediately decided to ‘do a Kristian’ and
sat down to write an article on swords! As plans for this Festschrift began to take shape my first thought was to see Kristian’s only
unpublished manuscript published. The idea was discussed with Lotte Hedeager, and we agreed that I should translate it so it could be
published alongside the other articles in the Festschrift as a surprise for Kristian. The resulting translation also benefitted from the help
of Marie Louise Stig Sørensen and Helle Vandkilde, who assisted with some of the language problems and references. However, it was
not possible to resolve all of the details without asking Kristian and spoiling the surprise, so naturally there are some irregularities in
the references, nor was it possible to trace all of the original illustrations. Translation is always an interpretation, so the following is
very much a product of my own understanding of Kristian’s original text, and any departure from the original is my fault alone. I very
much hope it is recognizable, though, and that it pleases Kristian to become reacquainted with this old friend. Kristian, I hope you will
not find that the text misrepresents your original ideas, and with this I would like to thank you for your enthusiastic encouragement with
my own Ph.D. research, which made all the difference. Congratulations and a very Happy Birthday to you!

Sophie Bergerbrant

Introduction of the jewellery tradition, as it is the most common jewellery form

This article deals with dress and jewellery in the Bronze Age. Its
main hypothesis is that these two elements make a whole, and
together can be defined as a costume. Ritual clothing and ritual
dress attire are not included in this study. To shed light on this the
article first examines the use of jewellery before considering how
the jewellery related to the dress. In order to do this a definition of
the female costume will first be formulated, and this is followed
by a reconstruction.
Use of Jewellery
Introduction
In both the Early Bronze Age (1700-1100 BC) and the Late Bronze
Age (1100-500 BC), in graves and hoards, there were certain
recurring combinations of female jewellery, which created special
jewellery sets. The richest among these contained a belt-plate in
addition to other jewellery. From Period II to Period V – a time-
span of c. 800 years - such belt sets, supplemented with neck-
collar-ring, arm-rings /arm-spirals and a fibula (Broholm 1940, fig.
14; Kristiansen 1974, fig. 13), were common in high status burials.
This type of jewellery set exists outside the Nordic region as well.
In the Early Bronze Age it was found in southern Scandinavia and
Schleswig-Holstein, and from Period III in Mecklenburg as well,
and in the Late Bronze Age it also occurs in the area around the
river Oder (Montelius 1885, distribution map). This combination
will therefore be chosen as a starting point for general descriptions
in the Bronze Age.1
The aim in the following section is to reconstruct how the
jewellery was worn. This is based in part on the find contexts and
also on the evidence of use-wear, which can be observed from
use over an extended period. The latter method observes how
the bronze surface has been worn down over time. The punched
ornamentation has vanished or been reduced, and the trim around
the edges appears rounded and worn. The wear can be registered
in two dimensions: horizontal (distribution of wear) and vertical
(intensity of wear). It can further be seen that there are certain
rules for the relationship between the distribution of wear and
the intensity of it. To a certain degree the extent of horizontal
wear correlates with the grade of wear. One can see that there is
a standard permanent way of wearing the jewellery in the Nordic
region, and this is seen in the fact that the individual jewellery
types bear characteristic wear-patterns that recur with some
regularity.
In the following the use-wear pattern for the different jewellery
types will be presented and illustrated. Only well-preserved bronze
artefacts are included in this study, as this analysis demands that
the original surface of an object is preserved.2
1
An analysis of regional and chronological developments of different
combinations of jewellery falls outside the framework of this article. The possibilities
provided by these kinds of analyses can be found in Kunder (1973) and Wels-
Weyrauch (1975).
2
Problems with registration regarding the preservation condition of the bronze
objects have been discussed with the conservation department at the National
Museum in Copenhagen.

755
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies

The individual jewellery shapes

Early Bronze Age (Periods II-III)

The most common jewellery forms and types3 are described and
depicted by Müller (1891) and Broholm (1952); for the Swedish
material see Montelius (1917) and for North Germany see Beltz
(1910) or Splieth (1900). The way that the jewellery has been
worn can be seen from the hundreds of mound burials, where the
deceased were buried dressed in their clothing and jewellery (Boye
1896; Broholm & Hald 1940). Fig. 1 depicts a female burial from
Ølby on Zealand, where the placement of the jewellery illustrates
the way it was worn. Almost all organic material has vanished,
but the corded skirts are indicated by two rows of thin bronze
tubes, which have been used as a decoration on the cords and
were placed at the front of the skirt (cf. Thomsen 1929, fig. 22). A
more detailed description of the different jewellery forms follows.

Belt-plate

The belt-plate is probably the most characteristic and distinctive

jewellery from the Early Bronze Age.4 In older publications they
were seen as shield bosses (Worsaae 1859 nr. 205) and later,
following more careful excavations and documentation 1878-81
by Sehested (1884: 50-52) and Müller (Fig.1), it became clear
that the objects were a form of belt jewellery. In 1876 Müller was
already able to separate the male burials from the female (Müller
1876: 282ff; Bahnson 1886); he was aided by the well-preserved
textiles that were found together with a female skeleton in Borum
Eshøj in 1871. This burial contained a belt-plate and many other
jewellery forms (Boye 1896, pls. 11-12).

During Period II the belt-plate had a round and slightly arched

form with a protruding point of varying length in the centre.
In order to reduce the wear and tear on the clothing the edges
were slightly bowed outwards. The front is decorated with spiral
ornamentation, which is spaced variously, from 5-6 cm to over
20 cm, in different zones depending on the diameter. Under the
protruding point on the unpolished backside there is a small and
thick, often moulded on, eye with a diameter of c. ½ cm through
which the belt had been pulled. When remains of it have been
found this has been a thin leather cord. The long woven belt with
tassels, which we know from Egtved and Borum Eshøj, only
functioned as a covering ornamental band and did not have a
practical function. Tied with casual elegance over the hip, the long
flaps with tassels at the ends hung down provocatively (Thomsen
1929, fig. 18), underlining that the belt-plate was a separate and
distinct part of the costume and had its own character and role
within the jewellery set. As Thomsen wrote, ‘Den store runde
Metalplade har da muligen på Egtvedpigen været et stykke af
Virkning som de indiske Danserinders runde Brystplader, på een
gang dækkende og æggende’ [‘The large round metal plate on the
Egtved girl may have been a piece like that used by Indian female
dancers around breast plates, both covering and scintillating’]
(Thomsen 1929: 182).

It is therefore the way in which belt-plates were worn that is

noteworthy. Neither in the Egtved burial nor in other female graves
is there any evidence that it had been sewn to the costume as was

3
The terms for jewellery forms are used collectively e.g. for all arm-rings, whereas
types refer to the different regional or chronological variations in their design. The
presentation aims to describe the way the general form of jewellery was worn
and use-wear patterns from Periods II to V, and the type descriptions only play an
identifying role.
4
For their origin see Sprockhoff 1940: 33ff Fig. 1 Female burials from Zealand. From Boye 1896.

756
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age
assumed by both Thomsen and Broholm.5 If it had been sewn
on, the stitches would have worn out in a fairly short time. That
belt-plates were placed in some burials without being attached in
any way does not mean that they were a special category of ritual
burial jewellery. A closer examination of the belt-plates reveals
that some of them have undeniable traces of wear from having
been used for a long time.
One of the most vulnerable places is of course the eye, and on
many pieces one can see that this has been worn thin, or even all
the way through. It is also not uncommon that the edge is worn
in places (so that the rounding is uneven). The worn part had
therefore been placed upwards, receiving wear during frequent
and repetitive activity such as bending forward or sitting down;
what is even more surprising is that the front or upper side of
the belt plate is often worn, too. The ornamentation can be both
moderate and heavily worn. This is also true concerning the
protruding point. Compared with an unused belt-plate, it can be
seen particularly clearly. One should consider, however, that the
ornamentation could have had different depths on each belt-plate.
With the wear comes an evening out and rounding of all corners
and contours, and with an holistic view of the eye, the edges,
the protruding point and the ornamentation a characteristic wear
pattern is evident. If the edges and the eye are worn, then the
ornamentation is also worn.
At the transition to Period III the spiral-decorated belt-plate with
eye went out of use and was replaced with a slightly different
type, developed from the Period II tutulus, with a step-shaped
base with a protruding point and a cross bar under the bottom for
fastening. In Period III it grows in size and the point ends with a
flat or umbrella-shaped circular plate. While in Period II there is
no problem distinguishing between tutuli and belt-plates, partly
due to the spiral ornamentation on the latter, it is more difficult
in Period III, because there is no formal or stylistic difference.
Neither is the size a useful criterion as there was a gradual
transition from the small to large ones. Generally, the diameter is
smaller than in Period II, and the most common size is the same as
in Müller 1891, nr. 16. The larger ones are uncommon, but when
they are found they normally occur in Zealand. A terminological
difference between the tutulus and a belt-plate may therefore be
a useful starting point.
When there is only one found in a burial it probably functioned as
a belt-plate judging from some of the well-documented inhumation
burials.6 This view is strengthened by the fact that in many burials
one finds the object in combination with belt jewellery/double
button and in some burials together with the belt. The double
button was used to close the belt on which the belt-plate was
placed. In one inhumation it looks like the belt jewellery had been
worn on the back as the eye was placed upwards.7
The wear on the Period III belt-plates is the same as in the previous
period, except for the fact that here it is mainly the upper plate
5
In Thomsen’s report it says ‘the belt plate has clearly hung from the belt on the
naked body parts’(translated from the Danish, author’s italic). There are not any
other observations concerning how it was attached other than the underside of the
hanger ran approximately parallel with the coffin’s length. Taking into account the
good observations of the excavation in the laboratory it could mean that it was not
fastened in the burial, unless poorly conserved leather has played a role here. The
direction of the eyelet does not bode well for the conservation of the leather, but the
question has to remain open.
6
In the following inhumation burials in Period III the tutulus was worn as a
belt-plate DB 1 Nr. 1272, 1862, 1999, 2339, probably 1950 as well as Tornhøj,
Copenhagens County (B14087-88).
7
DB I 1862
757
that has seen the most wear. In some examples they were already
broken in prehistory.
Belt-box
In Period III a new form of supplementary belt jewellery was
introduced: a circular, flat or slightly pointed base, cast belt-
box with low edges, on which two eyes, with small rectangular
openings, were placed facing each other. In some cases the box
could be closed with an associated bronze lid. The flat base was
also decorated with one or a number of cast circular decorative
bands, U-shaped depressions (star motifs), which have been filled
with resin. The sudden appearance of the belt-box can best be
explained by assuming that a decorated prototype in wood had
existed. The technology of making decoration by cast depressions
seems to mimic wood carving. Star motifs were already in use in
Period II, where they appear on wood and bronze bowls (Hundt
1958a).
Due to the introduction of cremation in Period III it has not been
possible to observe the placement of the boxes on the deceased.
It is therefore an open question as to how this jewellery was
worn. On the box in the burial from Magelhøj (Boye 1889) the
lid closed with a wooden pin and it contained for example two
horse teeth, some weasel bones, a part of claw of a lynx, vortices
of snake, some small stones, pyrite etc. Animal teeth, fragments
of animal bones and minerals were given a specific meaning in
the Early Bronze Age. A small collection of wild boar and dog
teeth was found in a Period II female burial from Bustrup,8 and
similar collections can be found in male burials in the so-called
sorceress bags (Lomborg 1956: 177-76, fig. 24).9 The belt-box can
therefore probably best be seen as some kind of amulet hideaway.
Does the special closing mechanism on the Maglehøj piece, a
wooden protector, as found on belt-boxes with wooden lids (Friis
1961, fig. 9), indicate that they were used solely as stationary
hideaways for amulets? Hardly, for this arrangement was instead
aimed at situations where the owner was unable to wear a belt-
box. That they were worn on the belt, based on the use-wear,
has already been determined by Neergård (1897:86-87), and
therefore they are rightly called belt-boxes. This is also suggested
by the belt-box placement in the Vile burial.10 In many pieces a
substantial expansion of the eye can be seen, which can hardly
have been caused by a wooden lid, as wear of this kind requires
some kind of suspension. This was probably created by a leather
strap, as has been documented in at least one burial.11 Both the eye
and the edge of the belt-box show an equivalent degree of wear,
and the eye on some of the pieces is worn all the way through.
Combined with a suspension of the box, only the placement
on the belt can explain this wear. This is corroborated by the
fact that the edges between the eyes are slightly bent by wear,
which is analogous with the wear of the belt-plates. Finally, the
ornamentation on the base shows a similar degree of wear to the
eye and the edges, i.e. creating a consistent pattern of wear. One
could argue that the wear on the base indicates that the belt-box
also functioned as a standing box. However, put together with the
wear pattern on the boxes, this does not seem probable. This is a
problem that will cast more light on in the discussion concerning
the hanging bowl.
8
DB I 741
9
Wrapped beaver teeth have been found in contemporary inhumation burials in
Europe (Hundt 1958b).
10
DB I 1915
11
DB I 1417
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
Tutuli
The label tutuli (singular tutulus) was designated early on to
distinguish some small circular bronze plates, which have an eye
or crossbar on the underside and a more or less protruding tip
on the upper side, frequently crowned with simple stamped or
punched decoration (Thomsen 1836:57).
‘The crossbar position underneath shows that these Tutuli had
been fastened with a strap and that they probably had functioned
as decoration’ (Rafn 1956: 361 nr. 8). This is confirmed by a
find of a tutulus in 1842 that still had a strap in place (Thomsen
1857: nr. 12) and a burial find from Steengård which was given
to the Crown Prince in 1842, where six tutuli surrounded a ‘shield
plate’, with one having a leather strap still attached. The remains
of the oak-log coffin were wrongly interpreted as the shield. It
was therefore concluded ‘that in this period it was common to
have a shield of oakwood, which was kept together in the middle
by shield buttons and in the periphery by these tutuli’ (Rafn
1856: 362). As already mentioned it was first with the careful
excavations in the 1880s that the use of the belt-plates and the
tutuli was properly documented.
In Period II two different kinds of tutuli were used. The most
common was a flat type with a short protruding tip and an eye on
the underside. The plate is decorated with simple rows of beads or
thin cross-hatched bands. A less common type has a vaulted, often
step-shaped tip, under which a cross-bar was placed.12 In Period
III the latter became the predominant type. It had a little circular
plate on the top of the tip, but was seldom used as a tutulus. After
this period, tutuli went out of use.
On the flat type the eye is rather small and was most likely sewn
onto the clothing or belt. The hemispherical type, however, as
mentioned above, was used with a leather strap. In female burials
the tutuli exist in various numbers,13 and frequently in connection
with a belt-plate. They appear most commonly in pairs but in
some burials there are up to a dozen. Often the tutuli were made
in matching pairs. In a number of well-documented burials,
especially from Period II, it is evident that they could be worn in
many different ways. For instance, they could be pulled or sewn
onto the belt, so that they were placed in a row on both sides of
the belt-plate.14 In a number of burials the tutuli were placed in a
circle around the belt-plate, e.g. Figure 1, and some of them must
have been sewn onto the clothing. A number of the hemispherical
tutuli in Fig. 1 could, however, have been placed on a string for the
dagger. In other burials a different mode of wearing them has been
found15 where the torso is covered with tutuli, and they could have
been sewn onto the blouse or something similar. Finally, there are
a few burials where two hemispherical tutuli with crossbars were
placed at the shoulders, one on each.16 This mode of wearing could
have been used in many of the burials with two tutuli and poor
information about find circumstances.
From Period III there are only a few observations regarding how
12
The type with a hemispherical rounding and crossbar are more commonly found
in male burials (Broholm 1944:107). Its presence in the Ølby burial is an exception.
13
Tutuli were also used by men, normally found in pairs and found in 54 burials
according to Broholm. In Mjuldbjerg, two were found on the torso with the eye turned
upwards, and according to Boye it seems to have been pulled on the leather straps
that kept the man’s wrap-around together. Broholm, however, thought that they were
used to fasten the clothing folds on the back, as sewn-on buttons. The latter seems
more likely, and their use-wear indicates that they were worn under the cloak.
14
DB I nr. 268, 441 (Sehested 1884: Pl.IV), 1046 and probably 728 and 1417.
15
DB I nr 695, Albrectsen 1952, fig. 2.
16
DB I nr. 294, 354
758
the tutulus was worn. In Bragergård17 there are 12 all grouped
onto a leather strap, probably a belt, and some pairs of finds are
also known.18
The use-wear pattern is the same as on the belt-plates. The eye
is often moderately or heavily worn, and in some cases worn
through. The ornamentation on the upper side is also worn to a
similar degree as the belt-plates.
Neck-collar and neck-rings
The neck-collar, together with the spiral decorated belt-plate, is
characteristic for Period II. In its classical shape the collar is cast
with horizontal grooves, where it is normally stamped in a vertical
and sharp-edged hourglass. At the ends there is an area which
normally is decorated with spirals. The crescent-shaped collar is
widest on the middle part and becomes smaller at the ends, which
are coiled into a tube.
In the early days of archaeology it was believed that this jewellery
was worn as a diadem (Worsaae 1859:47; Madsen 1872, pl. 31),
however, the placement in the Ølby burial (Fig. 1) and in a long
line of burials found later, has shown that it is a form of neck
jewellery.19 In some cases the opening is so wide that it would be
no problem to put it on, where in others it is so small that it had to
be everted. By attaching the coiled ends with a leather string one
could then tighten the piece together. This resulted in some pieces
snapping and these had to be repaired. The closing method is also
clear in some pieces by the use-wear on the coiled ends. As one
might expect, the edges of the neck collar are frequently worn,
and to spare the blouse it was often bent forward like the edges
on the belt-plate. It is, however, striking that on the pieces where
the edges and the coiling are worn, comparable wear is found on
the decoration. On heavily worn examples the hourglass stamps
are almost completely worn away, as is the spiral ornamentation
on the ends.
In Period III neck-rings dominate, especially on Jutland, where
Period III extends longer than in the Danish Isles.20 Neck-rings
were typically worn singly, or less often up to three could be
worn at the same time. They are generally twisted, but can also
be cast, and some are decorated with ornamentation. As with
other jewellery forms, the neck-ring displays different degrees of
use-wear, mainly on the underside, however, with heavily worn
pieces, use-wear can also be observed on the top of the neck-ring.
Arm and ankle jewellery
In the Early Bronze Age arm and ankle jewellery was generally
reserved for women. However, arm-rings do exist in rich male
burials, so there are then a few exceptions, and in these cases they
are made of gold and often have spiral-coiled ends.
Ankle-rings are unusual. In Period II they are documented from
two burials21 and in Period III from three, and are probable in
another two.22 The use of ankle-rings does seem random in
17
DB I 1417.
18
e.g. DB I 2136.
19
Concerning the origin of the neck collar see Sprockhoff 1939 and Petersson
1950.
20
Period III style developed on Jutland, and lasted longer here (Randsborg 1968
and 1972).
21
DB I nr. 984 (foreign type) and Skrydstrup (Becker 1946, mound 57, burial 1).
22
DB I nr. 1392, 1862, 2009 and probably 1915 and 2339.
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age
contrast to e.g. the Tumulus culture, where special ankle-rings
were never created.
However, arm-rings were used, particularly in Period III. A
number of different types existed (Kersten 1935:44ff) and in both
Period II and Period III they were either ribbon-shaped or solid in
form. To that may be added, of course, the spiral arm-ring, which
was used in both periods, albeit only infrequently. The ribbon-
shaped arm-ring is normally horizontally ribbed and the solid type
is ornamented with line bundles. Normally arm-rings were worn
in pairs, and they were often made in pairs. In special rich graves
one may find more than one pair, and in some of these examples
it looks like the individual wore one pair on the one wrist while
the others were placed on the arm, as the diameters vary on the
different pairs.23
Evidence of wear can be seen on most arm-rings on the decoration.
Fibula
The dinuclear Nordic fibula is a classic example of the change of
form and style from Period II to Period V (Oldeberg 1933), and it
was naturally one of the first artefact types that Montelius made
a typology of (Montelius 1874:219ff), which was the pre-study
for Om tidsbestämning inom bronsåldern med särskilt avseende
på Skandinavien (Montelius 1885) - the foundation for Nordic
Bronze Age chronologies.
The fibula is developed from the normal pin with a hole through
the head (Müller 1909:40), where the ’hanger’ only was a piece of
leather or textile string which was tied to the hole and bound at the
tip of the pin, so that the pin did not slide (Kersten 1936:32). When
the hanger was transformed the dinuclear fibula was created.
The fibula generally occurs as a single find in female burials in
both Periods II and III (Broholm 1944:123, footnote 4 and 166,
footnotes 2-3). However, one has to ask what function it may have
had, because in contrast to the male costume24 the female seems
to need one. The explanation might be found in the Borum Eshøj
burial ‘Considering the dress it is said that the slit in the blouse’s
neckline was kept together with the fibula’ (quote from Simonsen’s
report based on information from the finders). If that is the case,
then the width and placement of the fibula might have determined
how tightly fitted the blouse might be. Is that, perhaps, the risqué
explanation of its function? Or should we stick to the more prosaic
opinion that the score in the blouse was made in connection with
the burial, in order to dress the deceased more easily? In support
of this is the fact that e.g. it has no hem (Munksgård 1974:70).
We have to settle with concluding that when a fibula was worn
by a woman it was frequently placed across the torso, possibly to
fasten the blouse.25
A small number of burial finds show that there was also another
way to wear fibulae.26 In these cases the fibula was placed by the
23
E.g. DB I nr. 1393 and 2057.
24
In male burials a fibula was employed to hold the cloak together, probably at the
right shoulder, as suggested by Almgren (1960), and as was the custom in the
Tumulus culture (Trogmayer 1975).
25
DB I nr. 236, 620, 791, 1686, 1746, probably 1862, 1929 and 2042. Also Kaas,
Viborg amt (B 14199-201). A similar use can be seen in northern Germany, cf.
Wegewitz 1949: 178 and Beltz 1910:181. Illustrations in Körner 1959, pl. 3 & 4;
Schwantes and Kersten 1939, abb 445; Schubert 1958, abb 32; Bohnsack 1961, abb
4; Sprockhoff 1963, abb 13.
26
DB I nr. 441-41 (Sehested 1884, PL. IV & VI), Skrydstrup (Becker 1946, mound
31, grave a, mound 57, grave 1), Skovby, Odense amt (F.S. 9434-43), Mangehøj,
Holbæk amt (B14573 & 15197-211, Bue-Madsen and Bendizen 1968).
759
head, outside the skull, where it could have been holding a hairnet
or some other kind of headgear.27
Finally it should be noted that in some well-preserved fibulae one
can observe degrees of use-wear on the ornamentation.
With the exception of the jewellery described above, women
frequently had ear- and finger rings, the latter made of coiled
bronze or gold spirals. Gold spirals were also worn in the vicinity
of the ear, especially on Jutland (Thrane 1962, footnote 13).
Amber and glass jewellery are only found in the richer burials,
sewn on the clothing or were worn as an arm-ring or necklace
(Fig. 1; Becker 1946; Thrane 1962:92, footnote 29; Sprockhoff
1961, Abb 2).28
The most common forms and ways of wearing jewellery in the
Early Bronze Age based on find context and use-wear have now
been described. This is generally uniform and consistent through
both Periods II and III. It was also shown that the upper side of a
piece of jewellery was normally worn to the same degree as the
use-wear on parts that were more directly impacted by the way it
was worn. We will return to a more thorough explanation of this
later. First, a similar review of the Late Bronze Age jewellery
types will be presented. The focus here will also be on how the
artefacts were worn and their use-wear, as well as the extent to
which the Early Bronze Age costumes were transferred.
Late Bronze Age
The most frequently occurring jewellery is depicted in already
mentioned publications. It is commonly recognized that from a
purely typological perspective there was no break between the
Early and Late Bronze Age jewellery types; rather continuation
and tradition are evident. However, the picture changes on one
key point relevant to this examination, which is the consequence
of cremation which became the sole burial tradition. The shift to
urn burials means that there was no longer a place for the large
jewellery sets in the burial context. They were instead deposited
in fields and in bogs (Hundt 1955). The complete body of analysed
material therefore stems from hoard finds, which deprives us of
the possibility of finding out anything about how the objects were
worn based on the find context. From this point on we only have
use-wear as an indicator.
Hanging bowl (belt-bowl)
In Period IV the belt-box developed into a bowl consisting of three
parts: bottom, shoulders and neck. The neck is ended by a lightly
thickened edge orifice, from which two rectangular opposing eyes
were placed. The bottom is vaulted, in Period IV funnel-shaped
and in Period V rounded. In both periods it is generously covered
in ornamentation. In Period IV it is centred around star motifs
(both cast and punched) and in Period V with rows of closed bands
of waves (all punched). The hanging bowl is therefore a jewellery
type that only goes through smaller formal and stylistic changes
during the Late Bronze Age, therefore the following description
of its use-wear and how it was worn covers both Periods IV and
V. The hanging bowl was, like the belt-box, worn on the belt,
which can be seen in the heavy wear on its sides and eyes. The
27
In the Lüneburger area the women wore fibulae on the back side of the head,
which has been suggested to have held a hair knot (Laux 1973:55-56).
28
In a burial from Oudrup, Ålborg County (B 15328-31) a V-drilled amber bead
with added holes in the edge was placed at the head. There was a 2-ply thread in the
holes and over and under the bead were remains of hair. It was probably worn in
connection with a hairnet.
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
edge part between the eyes is worn in an even curved process, due
to contact with the body, as the eyes are extended and in some
cases worn all the way through due to the suspension in the belt
(cf. Figs. 4 & 5). Thus the hanging bowl is belt jewellery that has
never ‘hung’, and it should more accurately be called a belt-bowl,
a term that is suggested for use in the future. The term ‘hanging
bowl’ goes back to archaeology’s infancy, when for a long time
this type of jewellery was mistakenly seen as a metal urn that had
been hung through the small loops or eye-holes.
The question now is: did one wear the hanging bowl/belt bowl
on the front or on the back? A little bronze figurine from Itzehoe
provides a clue about this, as it has a bowl-shaped ornament on its
back which was worn in a belt over the corded skirt (Munksgård
1974, fig. 50a). This way of wearing it seems probable when one
considers how accurately the jewellery, costume and headgear are
portrayed on these figures. It would also have been fully logical
when it is seen in connection with the belt jewellery’s function
and mode of wearing.
It is, however, striking that the bottom is worn to the same extent
as its sides and eye. With a moderately worn piece the wear is
particularly noticeable in the centre, but with more heavily worn
pieces the worn parts cover the bottom completely.
Belt buckle
In the Late Bronze Age the belt-plate developed into a buckle,
with the plate having been exchanged for a dome. The protruding
tendency that characterized Period III was further developed, in
that the actual plate was raised, while the neck became shorter
and thicker. In Period IV the plate is normally tunnel-shaped and
in Period V domed-shaped (cf. the bottom of the belt-bowl). In
Period IV, to fasten it to the belt there was either a crossbar under
the centre of the plate, as in Period II, or a wheel-shaped disc to
fasten the belt with; NB: the latter is a trait taken from the double
button. In Period V this difference disappeared, with the majority
of the belt buckles having a rectangular eye on one of the sides
used to fasten the belt and on the other a button placed on a bar.
While in the Early Bronze Age the belt-plate was worn on the belt
without having a practical function, in the Late Bronze Age the
buckle actually functioned as a belt buckle. The explanations for
these changes can be found when looking at them in connection
with the belt-bowl, where the eyes show that the individual
was wearing a broad belt, which must have demanded a string
fastening if the bowl was to have been kept in place. As we soon
will see, the use-wear left clear evidence of this on many belt
buckles. On moderately worn pieces the mouth of the thickened
neck is more lightly worn, especially the part that faced the torso,
while on the more heavily worn pieces the wear is more even and
takes a curved course. This corresponds with the eye and button,
when the belt on the more heavily worn pieces has a worn furrow
on the bar over the button, which resulted from the pull from the
belt which was often slightly skewed. We can therefore easily
reconstruct its use, and one end of the belt has been fastened to
the eye while there was a hole for the button on the other end.
When the belt was fastened one would have gripped the buckle
with the right hand and the loose belt end with the left hand, and
the latter end was then buttoned on. When the belt was fastened,
though, it is natural that it was progressively pulled askew and the
belt has therefore worn a furrow in the bar. The primary reason
for this was, however, that it should hold the belt-bowl in place on
the back. The curved wear of the side of the mouth edge that was
turned toward the torso was created when the wearer sat down or
760
bent forward. Thus, in the Late Bronze Age, the belt and the belt
jewellery formed a particular and independent costume piece, just
as it had done in the Early Bronze Age.
The plate and the tip of the belt buckle were worn to the same
extent as the eye and its edge, precisely as in the case of the
belt-plates and the belt-bowl. Some of this wear can be explained
by the fact that one held the jewellery every time one put it on,
however, in that case it would be limited to the right side of the
plate. It is noticeable that the complete part of the surface of the
jewellery is worn. On moderately worn pieces the wear starts on
the top plate and expands from there downwards, extending over
all of the plate on the heavily worn pieces.
Neck jewellery
The jewellery form that experienced the most radical change in
the Late Bronze Age is neck jewellery. Period IV and Period V
types will therefore be described separately.
The typical Period IV neck-ring was hollow cast and the twists are
cross-hatched in groups, with three rings making up a set. In order
to be worn, one first had to detach the outermost part, which was
fastened with a pin, or there may have been a specific removable
intermediate piece. The diameter of the innermost ring is normally
not more than 11-13 cm, so that it would have been positioned
tight to the neck; the openings on many of the rings are so narrow
that only a very slim figure could get them on.
When the rings were placed layered over each other, it is only
natural that they became worn where one ring was resting on
another. It is noticeable, however, that on these the cross-hatches
on the other part of the rings are also somewhat worn. On heavily
worn pieces it can be completely worn down, which is also true
for related Swedish rings (Montelius 1917: 1274 & 1275).
In Period V a twisted or cast neck-ring was introduced with a
massive ring body and oval jewellery plates, which either ended
with a hook or spiral-coiled ends. The end-plates are often
decorated with hatched triangles or ship figures with the keels
facing each other, surrounded by a swirling band.
The way these were worn was explained by Sophus Müller as
early as in the 1890s. Previously, they were seen as hair-rings
(Worsaae 1859:47; Madsen 1872: 32), however, Müller could
show by studying, among other things, the wear of the rings, that
it had been worn as a neck-ring, with the end-plates resting on the
neck with the spirals pointing upwards. On heavily worn pieces
the twists are somewhat smoothed by wear on the part of the rings
where the lower side was resting on the torso. However, the part of
the ring that rested on the shoulders or the clavicle is completely
worn away. The lower edges of the end plates, which rested on the
neck-shoulder parts, are also worn down with the ornamentation,
and it is generally mostly worn in the lowermost area. Further, this
is also true of the spiral’s upper edge on the most heavily worn
pieces, which were worn down due to contact with the neck and
back of the skull.
Neck-rings of this type are rather large and have a diameter
between 18-23 cm (or more), as they were placed in position by
threading them over the head. The oldest types could be open a bit,
but this was not possible with later pieces. The diameters therefore
increase and the opening was made oval in order to be adjusted to
the shape of the head, so it was easier to put on.
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age
Arm and ankle jewellery
Arm and ankle jewellery are generally ribbed-shaped in the Late
Bronze Age. In Period IV the profile is roof-shaped and in Period
V it is wave-formed, and the rings are provided with rattle plates.
In addition, one might wear massive arm-rings with thickened
ends, especially in Period V, while the gold rings were common in
the whole Late Bronze Age. They were worn as arm-rings, which
can most frequently be observed by the wear of the end ferrules on
the outer side. This is due to repeated contact with the clothing.29
Arm spiral rings were still in use, and were worn on the forearm
as is shown in their slight tunnel-shaped profile.
In Period IV ribbed-shaped rings have been found in pairs in a
long series of finds. In the hoards there have been a larger number
of rings, and a closer examination of the wear often indicates that
they were worn as a pair, as they were also made in pairs. As a
rule one only wore one pair, however in northern Germany it was
common that to have more than one pair. In order to decide how
they were worn one has to take the following parameters into
consideration: the diameter, the expansion mechanism and the
wear. Both undecorated Danish and decorated North German rings
(type Oldesloe) have a diameter which corresponds with the most
common diameter in, for example, arm spiral rings. They exist in
everted condition only rarely. This indicates that they were worn
on the arm, as this only demands a slight expansion to get the
ring over the hand; therefore, they are seldom broken or repaired.
If they had been worn on the ankle it would have required much
more stretching due to the ankle’s smallest diameter, rarely under
4-6 cm. To this can be added heavy wear on the surface of the
ring, which is most clearly seen on the North German Oldesloe
type rings, and could be due to contact with the clothing. The
ribbed-shaped ring was, as in Period III, worn as an arm-ring.
The decorated cuff-shaped rings, which have their widest
distribution in north-western Jutland (Ørsnes 1958: fig. 26), differ
from the other arm-rings by frequently having a larger diameter.
One pair that is everted to the point of distortion also exists, and in
Brobjerg one of the rings is convoluted and has an 8 cm deformity.
Moreover, the surface of the rings appears not to have been worn.
The type is often found together with arm spiral rings, so they have
most likely been worn as ankle- or leg rings, probably the latter.
The diameter is normally somewhat larger at one end of the ring,
indicating that the smaller end was turned towards the ankle and
the wider upwards. The cuff-liked profile can best be explained
by assuming that it was worn as an ankle ring, enclosing the calf
muscle.
The profiled ribbed-shaped rings from Period V have been
interpreted as arm- and ankle-rings. Sophus Müller (1891: nr.
398-99) calls them arm-rings and adds ‘by the use-wear it can
be seen that the rings were usually worn at the edge, on which
the added plates were placed, and one was turned upwards’. H.C.
Broholm (1953: nr. 188) interpreted them differently, and calls
them arm- or ankle-rings. ‘At those edges that may have been
turned upwards, or in the middle there are often eves, in which
there hangs rings or rattle plates. The wear is always at the eyes at
one side, and never in the middle (when the eye turns vertical – my
addition), indicating that these rings were used as ankle rings,
29
In the Early Bronze Age the massive gold arm-rings are almost always found in
male graves. Therefore, I am inclined to see these as mainly a male-type of jewellery.
They are sometimes found in hoards with female jewellery (DB III M11, 158 & 164)
and in burials without sex-indicating artefacts (DB III nr. 1059), and in urn burials
with male objects (DB III nr. 1113 & 1117). For the most part, however, they are
found singly or in pairs in closed gold hoards (Kristiansen 1975, fig. 3).
761
in that it always must have had the same position’. Broholm’s
argumentation is rather convincing, especially if it is compared
with a number of other facts that point in the same direction. Many
of these rings are in non-everted condition and have diameters that
make them unusable as arm-jewellery, but would have been viable
if worn as leg jewellery. Many of the pieces have been broken
in prehistory due to forceful or too frequent opening, something
that would not have been necessary if they had been used as arm-
rings. Many of the very tall pieces are slightly funnel-shaped, but
they would also have been worn as ankle-rings. Furthermore, on
some rings with Knebel-shaped rattle plates a semicircular worn
groove can be seen brought forward by the tommy when it swung
back and forward. It shows that the rings were used vigorously
and consistently. This also stresses that it is most likely that they
were worn as ankle-rings. Furthermore, in some female equipment
hoards they are found with arm spirals and ribbed-shaped rings.
However, it cannot be excluded that some of them were used as
arm jewellery, especially the smaller pieces (Kristiansen 1974:17-
18).
Fibula
In the Late Bronze Age the fibula developed into straightforward
ornamental jewellery, which was only used by women. In the
Late Bronze Age the practical function that the fibula had had
was instead achieved by dress-pins. As a natural consequence
the practical functions of the fibula were increasingly ignored in
favour of the decorative effect of the design. In Period IV the
pin became shorter so that the plates could be made bigger, first
by flat hammering the spirals and later there was a special plate
and socket cast that were soldered together (spectacle fibulae) to
finally be cast as one at the end of the period (plate fibulae). In
Period V plates were decorated with new features and the size
continually increased.
The question that arises is: how did one wear the fibula?
Unfortunately, here we have to be satisfied with various hints,
which at least complement each other and point in the same
direction. One of the lost figures in the Grevenænge hoard, which
is only preserved as a sketch, is standing upright with a raised
arm, and across the torso is something that looks like a fibula
(Djupedal & Broholm 1952, fig. 7). Experimental testing and use-
wear analysis supports the horizontal placement. It shows that the
pin normally rested against the holder for the pin, and many pieces
show that this broke and had to be re-cast. The fibula was therefore
normally worn horizontally with the pin-side turned upward and
most likely on the torso. On many fibulae the plates are therefore
bent upwards a bit, which harmonizes with a placement on the
bosom’s groove30 (the tradition from the Early Bronze Age
therefore continued over time).
The use-wear on the pin and the plate’s surface can be seen
to varying degrees. On the most heavily worn pieces the
ornamentation is almost completely worn away. Furthermore,
there is wear on the plates, at least on the part that turns towards
the pin.
Costume
We have now seen that the jewellery custom continued without
a change throughout Early and Late Bronze Age. However, the
30
The use of torso jewellery is particularly clear in the fibula from Mandemark
(Thrane 1958) with large spiral coils, which arches, one on each side of the breast.
Some Period VI fibulae have downward-bent plates (Oldeberg 1933, fig. 159), and
those could not have been worn on the bust.
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
use-wear pattern that is characteristic for the different jewellery
types cannot alone explain how they were worn as they also have
a characteristic surface wear. Therefore, another factor must have
played a part in creating this wear. I would therefore put forward
that this recurring and uniform wear pattern that has been seen
on the female jewellery in the Nordic Early and Late Bronze
Age is not only a manifestation of the existing standardized ways
of wearing the jewellery, but also evidence for the occasional
use of a costume that was worn over the jewellery, covering it
and therefore wearing down the surface. On this evidence a new
definition of the women’s clothing in the Bronze Age should be
formulated, and an attempt is made to reconstruct the way the
clothing was worn.
When there is wear on jewellery from Bronze Age sets, the
single pieces are almost always equally worn.31 The most likely
explanation for this is that there was a common factor behind
the creation of the use-wear. This can hardly be accounted for
by anything other than a covering piece of clothing.32 Based on
the way the jewellery was worn one may conclude that it was
probably a larger coherent piece of textile, due to the fact that
it must have covered the back and the front of the wearer, from
the neck to under the waist. The wear pattern of the lower side of
the belt-bowl shows that the textile hung relatively loosely, as it
touched the top of the belt bowl as well and only when the wearer
bent forward could the in-turning sides be touched. Thus, there
is less wear there then on the top. Over the torso rested pieces of
clothing that wore down the fibula evenly. It appears to have had a
high neck, as it rubbed against the endplates of the neck rings and
the front of the neck collar. The surface use-wear on the arm-rings
can probably be attributed to rubbing against the blouse and the
fact that it was covered by the costume, so that the arms were
covered. The existence of a covering piece of clothing has been
suggested in the past based on the evidence from a couple of North
German graves, where the torsos, including the bust jewellery ,
were covered by small bronze studs, which suggest they had been
sewn onto something placed on the shoulders (Piesker 1958: taf
66; Schubert 1958 abb 32). It must be related to the phenomenon
met with in the Danish female burials, where the torso was covered
by tutuli. For the first time now it can be said that this covering
piece of clothing was frequently used in the whole of the Bronze
Age in the Nordic sphere. The length of this covering piece of
clothing cannot be determined, of course, however knee- or ankle
length seems most probable, when one considers that it functioned
as a covering on top of the usual costume, including the jewellery.
Its primary function must therefore have been to give warmth
and to protect when necessary. The female costume in the Nordic
Bronze Age must therefore have had three elements:
1. An Egtved costume, containing a corded skirt and a blouse
2. A set of jewellery, which probably varied according to social
status, and
3. A covering piece of clothing, similar in concept to the cloak
worn by men
These three elements together form the definition of the Nordic
female costume.
31
Naturally, there are examples which show that the women obtained new
supplementing jewellery or exchanged an old one. The uniform wear of the jewellery
sets is, however, a recurring trait, and on the basis of this it is possible to separate
individual jewellery sets in composite hoards in the Late Bronze Age (Kristiansen
1974). A definition of different use-wear categories has been used with success in
chronological studies (Kristiansen 1972: chapter 2, unpublished gold medal thesis).
32
In opposition to this is the fact that the punching of the ornamentation also played
a role. If this were the case all plates would be worn equally, and this is not so.
762
One question immediately arises following this redefinition of
the female costume: what possibilities do we have to gain a better
understanding of what the covering piece looked like and how
it was worn? To answer this we first have to look at the textiles
in the preserved oak-log coffins burials in order to see if there is
something that could have been worn in a way that corresponds
with the use-wear pattern; one therefore has to look at the large
cylindrical pieces that were sewn together and which are known
from Borum Eshøj and Skrydstrup (Broholm & Hald 1940, figs.
83 & 134). The interpretation of these two pieces of clothing have
been disputed. For many years the Borum Eshøj burial was the
only example of a female costume. In A.P. Madsen’s and Boye’s
publications of the find (Madsen 1876:9-10; Boye 1896, Pl. 11-12)
it was presented as a skirt, kept together by a belt. They mainly
relied on the observation that the belt-plate had left a layer of
green patina over the textile, which therefore had to be wrapped
around the deceased as a skirt. They therefore assumed that this
was the way it was worn on a daily basis. Müller followed this
interpretation in Nordische Altertumskunde (Müller 1897, abb
131) and he added‚ ‚An der Kleidung selbest waren Fransen
angebracht, umwunden mit zusammengerollten Bronzeblech‘
(Müller 1897: 276, abb 139). The real explanation to this came
first with the completely preserved corded skirt in the Egtved
burial (Thomsen 1929), which for the time was a somewhat
shocking find: a Bronze Age woman dressed in a short and partly
see-through skirt.33 Thomsen suggests that it was either an airy
summer dress or it was the clothing for a young girl (Thomsen
1929: 195), and argued that Borum Eshøj represented the winter
attire or the dress for the married woman.
The discovery of the Skrydstrup burial in 1935 complicated the
picture. It was a young woman buried during the summer, but
instead of a corded skirt she wore a large tube-shaped piece of
clothing that covered her from her hip to the feet, and it was held
together by a belt. Both the theory about the summer dress and the
young women’s dress fell apart. However, Broholm pointed out
that the piece of clothing could never have been worn the way it
was positioned on the dead girl, as the belt was placed below the
hip and the skirt would have had a long train (Broholm & Hald
1940: 155). Broholm therefore suggested that it had the function
as a skirt shroud34, maybe to hide the lack of a corded skirt (Hägg
1968: 85).
The existence of two contemporary and almost identical pieces
of clothing found far from each other lets us presume that we are
looking at a common type of clothing. It is therefore natural to
reconstruct the way it was worn. A copy of the Skrydstrup dress
was made by Margareth Hald. The result, which can here be seen
in Fig. 2, was strongly inspired by the arrangement in the coffin,
and neither Broholm nor Margarethe Hald saw this as particularly
convincing.
A new reconstruction attempt was made in 1949 by Inga Henning
Almgren (Almgren 1951), who suggested that it had been worn
in the style of Classical Greek people (Fig 3; an idea that had
previously been suggested by Nørlund 1941). A number of
practical reasons support this solution, including the better use
of the fabric. The argument was expanded further by Inga Hägg
in 1968 when she pointed to a number of similarities between
elements of costume from the Nordic region, Europe and Greece-
33
The reluctance to accept the use of the corded skirt is a good illustration of the
dependence of research on its time and environment (Harald-Handsen 1949, 1952;
Broholm 1950 and references).
34
In the same manner that the dead man’s cloak was placed covering the deceased,
or, as in the case of Muldbjerg, was folded and placed in the bottom of the coffin.
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age

Macedonia (Hägg 1968). It must, however, be noted that Inga

Almgren did not use exact copies of the Skrydstrup or Borum
Eshøj garments in her reconstruction, but a somewhat smaller
version.

To sum up, ‘Stand der Forsung’ concerning the female costume

in the Nordic Bronze Age leaves us with two different types,
exemplified in the Egtved burial and the Skrydstrup burial. For
the Late Bronze Age only the corded skirt can be documented,
as it can be seen clearly on a number of small bronze figurines
(Brohom & Hald 1940, figs. 192-195 and the presence of tubes
for the corded skirt (Broholm 1946; burial 1372, and M 52).
However, the tube-shaped piece of clothing from Huldremose
(Hald 1950, figs. 425 & 427), which probably dates to the Early
Iron Age, demonstrates that a related type was also continuously
used throughout the Late Bronze Age.

As has just been shown, there was only one type of costume in
the Nordic Bronze Age, and this contained the Egtved clothing,
jewellery and a covering piece of clothing. The different
components of clothing in the Egtved and the Skrydstrup burials
can therefore best be seen as parts of a common costume, where
the cylindrical clothing piece represents the covering garment.
Due to its use as a shroud at the funeral, we cannot see how it
was worn in life. Tacking it with a shoulder pin does seem the
most likely scenario. Support for this can be found in the Tumulus
culture, closely related to the Nordic Bronze Age. Here women
were buried with two long shoulder pins (Holste 1953: 103;
Ziegert 1963: 41-42), which could be worn both horizontally or
vertically, which is clear from Nau’s classical drawings (Fig. 4,
Naue 1894, Taf. V, VII & VIII; see also Trogmayer 1975). Some of
these pins kept long, full clothing from falling down and attached
to the blouse. In South Thüringen, the area for which we have
the best knowledge about costume, women however had long
sleeves, which makes it improbable that the pins would have been
attached to the blouse (Feustel 1958:50). It seems much more
likely that they were attached/closed a covering piece of clothing;
following Feustel, the Brillenadel attached a special headdress
and the wheel-headed pin closed the outer garment. In some
cases a head band held the headdress in place (Feustel, Farker &
Blumenstein 1970, taf. 34). The blouse and skirt were probably
two separate pieces of clothing, as the lower edge of some of
the blouses had sewn on Brillenspiral, for example in Wixhausen
Fig. 2 Reconstruction of the Skrydstrup costume made by
(Jorns 1950, taf. 18). The length of the skirt is more uncertain,
Margarethe Hald.
as in the Mültahl burial (Fig. 4) the thighs of the deceased were
covered with bronze ornaments, most likely attached to a short
skirt like the corded skirt from the Nordic region (Fig. 1).35 The The similarity in the composition of the costume in the Nordic
shoulder pins then attached/closed the covering clothing, which region and central Europe are for some burial finds so close that
covered the blouse, the skirt and the jewellery. In the Late Bronze one can talk about a common costume, despite any possible
Age the pairs of pins in the urn burials indicate that the tradition difference in the shape of the individual pieces of clothing and
continued. First from the Hallstatt period inhumations give us a despite the difference in jewellery traditions. The lack of pin in
clear foundation for this, as they seem to confirm this. In southern the Nordic burials makes it difficult to compare how the covering
Bavaria the women still used two shoulder pins, which have been piece of clothing was worn. Based on the typological community
interpreted by Kossack (1959:99) as attaching as in the case of a of costume it is, however, not unlikely that they were also used as
Greek chiton. Furthermore, in south-eastern Europe (Macedonia) a pair of pins in the Nordic Bronze Age, where the deceased was
the rich burial finds in Vergina from Ha B, C and D demonstrate not buried in their covering clothing like in the Tumulus culture,
that one still wore a costume corresponding to the one used in but rather the item was employed as a shroud. Furthermore, the
the Tumulus culture, i.e. a bronze decorated skirt and probably a pins were also sometimes made of wood or bone, as can be seen
piece of covering clothing that was attached at the shoulders with in the Late Neolithic.37 Different traditions and burial customs may
Brillenspiral pins (Hägg 1968 and references).36 be the reason that only the clothing was preserved in Scandinavia
and the pins in Europe. However, in the Late Bronze Age we
frequently find pins, but we lack information of their precise
35
The two groups of bronze tubes placed below the belt most likely decorated the
fringes of the belt. A close parallel has recently been excavated on Zealand. 37
In the graves mentioned above (footnote 16), the tutuli were placed at the
36
I will refrain from discussing the costume in Ha A, as it is known from e.g. shoulders; they could have functioned as an attachment for a covering piece of
Hohmichele (Riek & Hundt 1962) or the Situla art (Lenneis 1972). clothing, which the deceased was sometimes buried in.

763
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
Fig. 3 Inga H. Almgren’s costume reconstruction after E.
Munklsgård 1974, fig. 52.
function. The bronze pins that occur individually in urn burials
belonged to the male costume, as tweezers and razors are found
with them. They were probably used to close the cloak. From
Period IV, however, we encounter a pair of bone pins in northern
Jutland. They are the result of a new regional burial tradition,
where, in contrast to the earlier tradition, women’s pins are
found. From Period VI there are a number of hoards with female
jewellery that contain pairs of pins.38
There is therefore evidence that indicates the use of an attachment
at the shoulders, if one reconstructs how the Skrydstrup and
Borum Eshøj garments were worn. We quickly learnt from a
reconstruction based on this that the suggestion made by Henning
Almgren was not possible, as it creates a long trail at the sides due
to its large width (as earlier mentioned Henning Almgren did not
use an exact copy). However, the problem can be solved if one
lifts the fabric c. 40 cm over the shoulders before it is fastened.
38
i.e. DB III M216, 219 & 223.
764
Fig. 4 Female costume in southern Germany reconstructed by
Naue. After Naue 1894.
The remaining 40 cm make a hood (Fig. 5) that could be pulled
over the head as a cap (Fig. 6). When one pulled the hood up, the
wide and very folded fabric fell forward, which warmed the arms
and it also closed at the front with many layers of extra fabric
(Fig. 6). Furthermore, it should be noted that the remaining fabric
fell naturally along the side of the wearer in two broad, folded
flaps, which covered parts of the legs. If the piece of clothing was
worn as sketched here one would have achieved a comfortable and
versatile outer garment. With the shoulder layer down it enabled
both the freedom to move and some degree of airiness; however, if
one wrapped it around oneself and pulled the cap up, it was secure
and warm and could be used as a sleeping bag at night.
It should be pointed out that the garment was most likely worn
in other ways as well. Such a simple clothing type has been, and
still is, in use in a large number of cultures across the world, as
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age

is also true of the corded skirt.39 It is not unusual that there are
a number ways of wearing this type of clothing, and these are
essentially dictated by tradition. This again raises the question of
comparison between the Skrydstrup and Borum Eshøj clothing,
particularly regarding the issue of whether they were used as
shrouds or represent a common trait of the everyday costume. Its
somewhat casual character and the fact that the hems are turned
upwards in both Borum Eshøj and Skrydstrup supports the former.
In support of the latter, however, is the fine fitting of the width,
as well as the strains in the fabric, which seem to have occurred
while the fabric was sewn together.40

The suggested reconstruction presented here is found in rock art

scenes from Bohuslän (Glob 1969, fig. 198) as well, in scenes
which show a pregnant women with a long garment and a cap, and
across from her is a phallic figure wearing a cloak (and therefore
armless). In addition to this the often S-shaped figures on the Kivik
grave carvings can be interpreted as mourning women, disguised
in large outer garments with a hood (Hald 1962:28-29).

The last most surprising evidence in support of this reconstruction

is found among the textiles in the Egtved burial. The deceased
was covered by a rectangular piece of fabric, which measured c.
250/258 cm x 170/192 cm (Broholm & Hald 1935, fig. 64). If this
is regarded as originally having been sewn together as a cylindrical
piece of clothing that was separated during the funeral, the 160
cm tall girl was forced to bend c. 40 cm to wear this as a shoulder
layer. In this case we have an ankle length peplos with a shoulder
cap, which was short enough to avoid a train. A number of things
support this interpretation. On one of the sides, on the starting
border, one can see that it had holes and had been distorted. One
could see the remains of thread in the holes. Broholm finds this
noticeable as the fabric had otherwise been regularly woven and
he sees this as the remains of the fabric’s attachment to the loom.
I find it more probable that this is evidence of two pieces of fabric
that had been sewn together, as in the Borum Eshøj and Skrydsrtup
examples, as it is identical with those. Due to the redesigning of
the exhibition in the National Museum I had the opportunity to
examine the textiles more closely in the spring of 1974.41 The
following observations were made on this occasion. The depiction
in Broholm and Hald (1940, fig. 99) of the stitches as overcast
stitches can be seen along the complete starting border, even if
many threads are missing. The latter can be seen as the threads
have left clearly visible holes that correspond with the thickness
Fig. 5 Reconstruction of the covering clothing in the Bronze Age
of the preserved threads. The hem is fairly regular, with 2.5 cm with the hood down.
between every stitch, as can be seen on a longer part of the textile.
At one of the corners of the starting borders the stitches are ended
with what looks like a closed loop, where the remains of a piece of
fabric are observed42, possibly remains from the edge of the textile If this interpretation is accepted, the difference in the costumes that
to which it was sewn. On the other edge, the finishing border is has been noted between the Egtved example on the one hand, and
not preserved, and it is cut off irregularly, in many places skewed Skrydstrup and Borum Eshøj on the other, is eliminated. Instead,
in the direction of the thread. The cut is ‘fresh’, in the sense that these best-preserved Bronze Age female costumes appear almost
it had not started to slip.43 In my view this is evidence that the identical. They represent a common Nordic costume with some
fabric was cut shortly before the funeral, since the garment was margin for local variations in the size and make of the clothing.
to be used as part of the shroud. One had to cut an appropriately
sized piece for this purpose. We have now followed the clothing and jewellery traditions
through the thousand years of the Bronze Age and have seen how
39
I thank mag. art. Henny Harald-Hansen who has given me references showing
it remained essentially unchanged. There is reason to believe that
how such a piece of clothing was used in contemporary cultures. See also H. Harald- this mirrors a similar stability in the social structures, as clothing
Hansen Alverdens klædedragter i farver, en dragt geografi 1976. and jewellery traditions from all times have been important
40
In this case the piece of clothing can be compared with the northern African
Haik, which has almost the same dimensions (Marcais 1930).
symbols for this. We cannot be certain that the costume described
41
At this time the Early Bronze Age texiles were examined by Elisabeth Munksgård in this article was worn by all women in the Bronze Age, only the
with the help of conservator Dorthe Ørsnes and weaver Karen-Hanne Nielsen. I thank social group that is characterized by their manifestation of burying
E. Munksgård for permission to participate in this.
the women in richly furnished graves. It is also possible to point
42
National Museum photo archive nr. 10183.
43
National Museum photo archive nr. 3889 9737. to some rules for the acquisition of the costume.

765
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies

Fig. 6a-b reconstruction of the female covering garment from the Bronze Age, with different positions of the hood pulled up over the
head.

From a number of well-documented burials and hoards it is
evident that the jewellery was frequently made at one time as
a set, i.e. they were made on commission. But when and why?
We know that children were not buried with sets of jewellery44
even if their treatment at burial was the same as for the grown-
ups, sometime even accompanying them as sacrifices (Grantzau,
Marseen & Riismøller 1953). A number of burials of very young
women45 do, however, show that a female received the grown-up
jewellery set sometime between the ages of 15 and 20.46 This may
be seen in connection with the jewellery sets having been made as
commissions, and must mean that they were made for an important
44
Children’s graves exist, for example DB I nrs. 144, 253, 593, 731, 999 & 1192.
45
The number of graves for young people is noteworthy; an analysis from a large
Urnfield cemetery in Mecklenburg has shown a very low life expectancy (Keilig
1965).
46
DB I nr. 741:20-25 years old, 881 20 years old, Skrydsrup 20 years old, 758
young individual, 17456: 16-18 years old, Syvhøje: 15-20 years old (Nielsen 1952).
occasion, possibly the transition from childhood to adulthood, or
marriage - or both.
It will probably never be possible to determine the rules behind
the acquisition of the costume with the same certainty. It does,
however, point in that direction. It is therefore noticeable that
the Egtved girl had a hairnet in the burial as she did not have
the right prerequisites, i.e. long hair, for its use (Lomborg 1963).
It must therefore demonstrate her right to have that hairstyle, a
right that must have been fairly recent (and had not yet resulted
in long hair). The coiffure in the Skrydstrup burial with its
hairnet must therefore be interpreted as the married woman’s
hairstyle. Concerning the corded skirt, it has been pointed out
that it symbolized the dignity of the priestess, as it was worn on
the small bronze figurines, which were used in cultic activities;
this must, however, be seen as uncertain in the absence of other

766
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age
evidence. One can reasonably claim, though, that it is natural that
the priestesses wore the common female costume.
We have to note that although the archaeological evidence
indicates a number of rules for the acquisition of the costume, it
does not allow for a closer or more precise explanation of these.
The following picture of the Bronze Age woman’s appearance
can be sketched: The hairstyles were either short as in Egtved,
or long in an elaborate coiffure as in Skrydstrup, and in the Late
Bronze Age similar plaits are seen on one of the small figurines
from Fårdal (Munksgård 1974, fig. 50c, 88ff). Plaits are previously
known from bog finds (Brøndested 1962: 277) and from a Period V
hoard with female jewellery from northern Germany, from Holtum
Geest (Sprockhoff 1932: 21ff). The short-sleeved blouse left a
part of the stomach bare and this part was decorated to distinguish
the women’s sparkling belt jewellery, and in connection with the
short corded skirt this could have made a well-shaped women
more attractive. Make-up was also added to this (Thrane 1962:
98). Leather shoes protected the feet (Broholm & Hald 1935, fig.
82), cloth could have been wrapped around the legs (Broholm &
Hald 1940, figs. 141 & 142) and when it was cold the individual
wrapped herself into the folds of a rich outer garment. The Bronze
Age woman was therefore dressed for the varied Nordic climate.
Conclusions
It has been possible to reconstruct the Bronze Age clothing and
jewellery traditions due to the fact that it was subjected to rules
and regulations that were rooted in the social system. It was also
standard for the deceased to be buried in the everyday costume.
In this way religious and social practices united in a permanent
expression of the society’s organization, so it is possible for us
today to lift the veil from a part of it. What we see depends on
how much we are prepared to see, just as our results are never
better than our methodological tools. In this article the goal has
been to establish a cultural, historical snapshot of the Bronze Age
woman dressed in clothing and jewellery, and other questions had
to give way for this. The question about the origin of the costume
will, however, finally be touched upon, if briefly, as it has played
a role in older literature (Broholm & Hald 1940: 157ff). On this
topic it is however only possible to put forward hypotheses and
conjectures, as the positive evidence is lacking. A single well-
documented burial find does, however, indicate a local Neolithic
origin for the corded skirt (Brøndsted 1934, figs. 15 & 17), as one
has been able to trace the cut of the blouse to prototypes made of
skin (Hald 1950: 355ff).
The tradition of using an outer garment attached/closed with pins
is, however, rather an influence from western Asia transmitted
during the end of the Neolithic and expanded in connection
with the oldest European Bronze Age cultures (Milojcic 1955;
Schaeffer 1949: chapter II; Piggot 1965, footnote 62).47 Imitations
of these pins in bone occur in Scandinavia during the Late
Neolithic (Müller 1888, nr. 240-43).
The costume therefore seems to reflect the same blending of
Oriental and European traditions that characterizes the Bronze
Age as a whole.
47
Although Europe and Scandinavia were also reached by a number of influences
from Mycenae, this is not applicable to the tradition of attaching the costume with
pins (‘the history of Greek pins does not begin before the later twelfth century’,
Jacobsthal 1956:1).
767
Kristian Kristiansen: kristian.kristiansen@archaeology.
gu.se
References
ALBRECHTSEN, E., 1952. Jorden taler. Fynske Minder.
ALMGREN, B., 1960. Hällristningar och bronsåldersdräkt. TOR VI: 19-
50.
ALMGREN, I. H., 1951. Hängkärl och Bronsåldersdräkt. TOR II.
ANER, E. and K. KERSTEN, 1973. Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit
der nordischen Kreises in Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und
Niedersaschen: Fredriksborg und Copenhagens Amt, Vol I.
Neumünster: Wachholz Verlag.
BAHNSON, K., 1886. Broncealderens Mands- og Kvindegrave. Museets
Forøgelse 1868-85. Arbøger 1886:251-299.
BECKER, C.J., 1946. Bronzealderhøje ved Skrydstrup. Fra
Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark: 30-38.
BELTZ, R., 1910. Die Vorgeschichtlichen Altertümer des Großherzogtums
Mecklenburg. Schwerin.
BENDIXEN, E., 1953. En nordvestjællandsk storhøj fra Yngre
Bronzealder. Fra Holbæk Amt:50-80.
BERGMAN, J., 1962. Hügelgräber der älteren Bronzezeit bei Hölingen,
Gemeine Recken, Kreis Grafschaft Hoya. Die Kunde 13.
BOHNSACK, D., 1961. Der Grabhügel 5 von Lemsahl-Mellingstedt aus
der mittleren Bronzezeit. Hammaburg HFT XIII: 39-51.
BOYE, V., 1889. Magelhøi-Fundet. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed
og Historie.
BOYE, V., 1896. Fund af Egekister fra Bronzealderen i Danmark.
Copenhagen.
BROHOLM, H.C., 1940. Tre Kvindegraver fra den ældre Bronzealder
fra Gjedsted Sogn. Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie.
BROHOLM, H.C., 1944. Danmarks Bronzealder I & II. Copenhagen:
Nyt Nordiskt Forlag.
BROHOLM, H.C., 1946. Danmarks Bronzealder III. Copenhagen: Nyt
Nordiskt Forlag.
BROHOLM, H.C., 1949. Danmarks Bronzealder IV. Copenhagen: Nyt
Nordiskt Forlag.
BROHOLM, H.C., 1950 Egtveddragten. Aarbøger for nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie: 275-290.
BROHOLM, H.C., 1953. Danske Oldsager, Vol. III & IV. Copenhagen:
Nordisk Forlag.
BROHOLM, H.C. and M. HALD, 1935. Danske Bronzealders Dragter.
Nordiske Fortidsminder II(5–6): 215–347.
BROHOLM, H.C. and M. HALD, 1940. Costumes of the Bronze Age in
Denmark. Copenhagen: Arnold Busck.
BRØNDSTED, J., 1934. Inedita aus dem Dänischen Nationalmuseum.
Acta Archaeologica V.
BRØNDSTED, J., 1962. Nordische Vorzeit 2. Bronzezeit in Dänemark. .
Neumünster: Wachholz Verlag.
BUE-MADSEN, S. and E. BENDIXEN, 1968. Mangehøj. Ældre
Bronzealders Gravhøje ved Kårup. Museet for Holbæk og omegn.
DJUPENDAL, R. and H.C. BROHOLM, 1952. Marcus Schnabel
og Bronzealderfundet fra Grevensvænge. Aarbøger for nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie 1952: 5-59.
FEUSTEL, R., 1958. Bronzezeitliche Hügelgräber im Gebiet von Swarza
(Südthüringen). Weimar.
FEUSTEL, R., H. FARKE and G. BLUMENSTEIN, 1970. Rekonstruktion
eines kollier aud bronzezeitlichen Hügelgräberkultur. Aus. u. Funde
15: 247-251.
FRIIS, P. 1961. Vendsysselske bronzealderfund. KUML 1961: 34-46.
GLOB, P.V., 1969. Helleristninger i Danmark. Århus: Jysk arkæologiskt
selskab (Jysk arkæologiskt selskabs skrifter Vol. VII).
GRANTSAU S., O. MARSEEN and P. RIISMØLLER, 1953. Mellemholm:
En stenaldersboplads med bronzealdergrave. KULM 1953: 121-136.
HÄGG, I., 1968. Some notes on the Origin of the Peplos-Type Dress in
Scandinavia. TOR XII (1967-68):81-127.
HALD, M., 1950. Olddanske tekstiler: komparative tekstil- og
dragthistoriske studier paa grundlag af mosefund og gravfund fra
jernalderen. Copenhagen: Gyldendal (Nordiske Fortidsminder V).
HALD, M. 1962. Jernalderens dragt. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.
Counterpoint: Essays in Archaeology and Heritage Studies
HARALD-HANSEN, H., 1949. Egtvedpigens dragt. Aarbøger for Nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie 1949: 215-228.
HARALD HANSEN, H., 1952 Egtvedpigens dragt endnu engang.
Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1952: 235-241.
HARALD HANSEN, H., 1976. Alverdens klædedragter i farver, en dragt
geografi. Copenhagen: Politiken.
HOLSTE, F., 1953. Die Bronzezeit in Süd- und Westdeutschland.
Handbuch der Urgeschichte Deutschlands Vol 1. Berlin: Gruyter.
HUNDT, H.J., 1955. Versuch zur Deutung der Depotfunden der
nordischen jüngeren Bronzezeit. Jahrbuch der Römisch-Germanischen
Zentralmuseum Mainz 2:95-140.
HUNDT, H.J., 1958a. Eine gegoßene Bronzetasse der älteren bronzezeit
von Löptin, Kreis Plön. Offa 26-40.
HUNDT, H.J., 1958b. Spätbronzezeitliche Doppelgrab im Frankfurt-
Berkersheim. Germania 36: 344-361.
JACOBSTAL, P. 1956. Greek Pins and their Connections with Europe
and Asia. Oxford : Clarendon Press (Oxford monographs on classical
archaeology).
JORNS, W., 1950. Neue Beiträge zur Hügelgräberbronzezeit Starkenburgs.
Germania 28: 167-187.
JUST, F., 1968. Das Hügelgräber von Neu Grebs, Kreis Ludwigslust.
Bodendenkmalpflege Mecklenburg.
KEILIG,H., 1965. Der jungbronzezeitliche bestattungsplatz auf ”Dehms”
von Blievenstorf, Kr. Ludwigslust. Jahrbuch für Bodendenkmalpflege
Mecklenburg 1964: 39-151.
KERSTEN, K., 1936. Zur älteren nordischen Bronzezeit. Neumünster:
Karl Wacholtz Verlag.
KERSTEN, K., 1958. Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit in Pommern.
Hamburg: Hamburgisches Museum für Völkerkunde und Vorgeschichte
(Beiheft zur Atlas der Urgeschichte).
KRISTIANSEN, K. 1972. En kildekritisk- og kronologisk analyse, samt
en tolkning af den yngre bronzealders depotfund (periode IV-V).
Unpublished submitted for Gold medal Aarhus universitet.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1974 Glerupfundet. Et deoptfund med kvindesmykker
fra bronzealderns femte periode. Hikuin 1:7-38.
KRISTIANSEN, K., 1975. Bebyggelsens relation til den sociale og
økonomikse struktur i Danmarks yngre bronzealder – oplæg til en
analyse. Kontaktstencil 1.
KÖRNER, G., 1959. Ein bronzezeitlicher Mehrperiodenhügel bei Deutsch-
Evern im Landskris Lüneburg. Nachrichten aus Niedersaschens
Urgeschichte 28: 3-19.
KOSSACK, G., 1959. Südbayern während der Hallstattzeit. Berlin: de
Gruyter (Römische-Germanische Forsungen 24)
KUNDER, K., 1973. Zum Arm- und Beinschmuck der älteren Lüneburger
Bronzezeit. Offa 30: 5-39.
LAUX, F., 1971. Die Bronzezeit in der Lüneburger Heide. Hildesheim:
August Lax Verlagsbuchhandlung (Veröffentlichungen der
urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums zu Hannover 18).
LAUX, F., 1973. Der Fibeln in der Lüneburger Heide. Munich: C.H.
Beck-Verlag (Prähistorische Bronzefunde XIV:1)
LENNEIS, E., 1972. Die Frauentracht des Situlenstils – ein
Rekonstruktionsversuch. Archaeologia Austriaca 51: 16-55.
LOMBORG, E., 1956. En højgruppe ved Ballermosen, Jægerspris.
Gravfund, hustomt og højryggede agre fra ældre bronzealder. Aarbøger
for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1956: 144-203.
LOMBORG, E., 1963. Skrydstrupfrisure fra en brandgrav på Mors.
Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1952.
MADSEN, A.P., 1872. Afbildninger af danske Oldsager og Mindesmærker
fra Broncealdern, Suiter. Copenhagen: Rasmussen.
MADSEN, A.P., 1876. Afbildninger af danske Oldsager og Mindesmærker
fra Broncealdern II. Samlede Fund. Copenhagen: Rasmussen.
MARCAIS, G. 1930. Le Costumes Musulman d’Alger, 1830-1930. Paris:
Collection du Centernaire de l’Algerie, Archaeologie et Historie.
MILOJCIC,V., 1955. Zur Zeitstellung der Hammerk0pfnadeln. Germanina
33: 240-242.
MONTELIUS, O., 1974. Två bronsåldersfynd från Kareby socken
i Inlands södra härad. Bidrag till kännedom om Göteborgs och
Bohusläns fornminnen och historia: 271-320.
MONTELIUS, O., 1885. Dating in the Bronze Age with special reference
to Scandinavia. Stockholm: Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och
Antikvitets Akademien.
768
MONTELIUS, O., 1917. Minnen från vår formtid. Stockholm: P. A.
Norstedt & söner.
MÜLLER, S., 1876. Bronzealderens Perioder en undersøgelse i
forhistorisk Archæologi. Arbøger 1876:185-309.
MÜLLER, S., 1888. Ordning af Danmarks Oldsager. Stenaldern.
Copenhagen.
MÜLLER, S., 1890. Nogle Halsringe fra Slutningen af Broncealderen og
fra den ældste Jernalder, Nordiske Fortidsminder 1: 19-3
MÜLLER, S., 1891. Ordning af Danmarks Oldsager: Bronzealderen.
Copenhagen: Reitzel.
MÜLLER, S., 1897. Nordische Altertumskunde Steinzeit - Bronzezeit.
Strassburg: Trübner.
MÜLLER, S., 1909 Bronzealderns Begyndelse og ældre Udviling i
Danmark, efter de nyeste Fund. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed
og Historie 1909.
MUNKSGÅRD, E., 1974. Oldtidsdragter. Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.
MØLLERUP, O. 1962. Fra Rogalands ældre Bronzealder. Stavanger
Museum.
NAUE, J., 1894. Die Bronzezeit in Oberbayern. München.
NEERGÅRD, C., 1897. Nogle Depotfund fra Bronzealderen. Copenhagen:
Gyldendahl (Nordiske Fortidsminder I:3).
NIELSEN, V., 1952. Syvhøj. Oldtidsbegravelser i nogle overpløjede høje
på Syvhøjgård i Brøndbyvester. Glostrupbogen.
NØRLUND, P., 1941. Klædedragt i Oldtid og Middelalder. Nordisk Kultur
15(8): 1-88.
OLDEBERG, A., 1933. Det nordiska bronsåldersspännets historia: med
särskild hänsyn till dess gjuttekniska utformning i Sverige. Stockholm:
Kunglige Vitterhetsakademin (Kungl. Vitterhets-, historie-, och
antikvitetsakademins handlingar 38).
OLDEBERG, A., 1974. Die ältere Metallzeit in Schweden I. Stockholm:
Kunglige Vitterhetsakademin.
ØRSNES, M. 1958. Borgbjerg-fyndet. Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed
og Historie: 1-107.
PETERSSON, M., 1950. A Collar of Lüneburger Type found at
Ängelsbäck, Grevie Parish. Meddelande från Lunds Univeristets
Historiska Museum: 27-44.
PIGGOT, S., 1965. Ancient Europe from the beginnings of agriculture to
classical antiquity: a survey. Edinburg: University Press.
PIESKER, H., 1958. Untersuchungen zur älteren Lüneburgischen
Bronzezeit. Lüneburg: Landesmuseums Hannover (Veröffentlichung
des Nordwestdeutschen Verbandes für Altertumsforschung und der
Urgeschichtlichen Sammlungen des Landesmuseums Hannover).
RAFN, C.C., 1856. Om Våben fra Nordens Bronzealder. Annaler for
nordisk Oldkyndighed 1856.
RANDSBORG, K., 1968. Von Periode II zu III Chronologische Studien
über die ältere Bronzezeit Südskandinaviens und Norddeutschlands.
Acta Archaeologica 1968:1-142.
RANDSBORG, K., 1972. From Period III to Period IV. Chronological
studies of the Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia and
Northern Germany. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark
(Archaeological-Historical Series I Vol. XV).
RIEK, G. and H.J. HUNDT, 1962. Der Hohmichele, ein Fürstengrabhügel
der späten Hallstattzeit bei der Heuneburg. Berlin: De Gruyter
(Römische-Germanische Forschung 25).
SCHUBART, H., 1958. Nordische Bronzezeit in der DDR. Ausgrabungen
und Funde 3: 210-221.
SCHUBART, H., 1972. Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit in Mecklenburg.
Neumünster: Karl Wachholtz Verlag (Offa-Bücher 26).
SCHAEFFER, C.F-A., 1949. Mision de Ras Shamra. Tome V. Ugaritica
II. Paris.
SCHWANTES, G. and K. KERSTEN (eds.), 1939, 1951, 1954 &
1958. Die Vor-und Frühgeschichtlichen Denkmäler und Funde in
Schleswig-Holstein (Vol. I-VII]. Schleswig: Landesamtes für Vor- und
Frühgeschichte.
SEHESTED, N.F.B., 1884. Archæologiske Undersøgelser 1879-1881.
(udgiver efter hans død). Copenhagen: C.A. Reitzel.
SPLIETH, W., 1900. Inventar der Bronzealterfunde Schleswig-Holstein.
Kiel and Leipzig.
SPROCKHOFF, E., 1932. Niedersächsische Depotfunde der jüngeren
Bronzezeit. Hildersheim: Lax.
SPROCKHOFF, E., 1939. Zu Entstehung der altbronzezeitlichen
Halskragen. Germanina XXIII:1-7.
 Kristian Kristiansen: Female Clothing and Jewellery in the Nordic Bronze Age
SPROCKHOFF, E., 1940. Altbronzezeitliches aus Niedersachsen. In
Studien zur Vor- und Frügeschichte Carl Schuchhardt zum achtzigsten
Geburtstag dargebracht. Berlin: W. de Gruyter.
SPROCKHOFF, E., 1961. Eine mykenische Bronzetasse von Dohnsen,
Kreis Celle. Germania 39:11-22.
SPROCKHOFF, E., 1963. Das Hügelgräberfeld von Schnega.
Praehistorische Zeitschrift XLI: 1-50.
THOMSEN, C.J., 1836. Ledetråd for nordisk Oldkyndighed. Copenhagen:
Nordiske Oldskrift-selskab.
THOMSEN, C.J., 1857. Atlas for Nordisk Oldkyndighed fremstillende
Prøver fra Broncealderen og fra Jernaldern. Copenhagen: Nordiske
Oldskrift-selskab.
THOMSEN, T., 1929. Egekistefundet fra Egtved, fra den ældre
Bronzealder. Nordisk Fortidsminder II(4): 165–214.
THRANE, H., 1958. Ein Depotfund der jüngeren Bronzezeit von
Mandemark auf Møn. Acta Archaeologica XXIX: 111-130.
769
THRANE, H., 1962. Hjulgraven fra Storehøj ved Tobøl i Ribe Amt. Kuml
1962: 5-37.
TROGMAYER, W., 1975. Das Bronzezeitliche Gräberfeld bei Tápé.
Budapest: Fontes Archaeologeci Hungariae.
WEGEWITZ, W., 1949. Die Gräber der Stein- und Bronzezeit im Gebiet
der Niederelbe. Hannover: Museum Hannover.
WELS-WEYRAUCH, U., 1975. Schmuckausstattungen aus Frauengräber
der Jüngeren Hügelgräberzeit in Deutschland (14. Jarhundert v. Chr.)
Ausgrabungen in Deutschland. (
WORSAAE, J.J.A., 1859. Nordiske Oldsager i et Kongelige Museum i
Kjøbenhavn. Copenhagen: Kittendorf & Aagaard Forlag.
ZIEGERT, H. 1963. Zur Chronologie und Gruppengliederung der
westlichen Hügelgräberkultur. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter & Co
(Berliner Beiträge zur Vor- und Frühgeschichte Vol. 7).