Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
In Denmark alone, the number of burial mounds
from the Bronze Age has been roughly estimated at
40-50,000 ( Jensen 2002). How many of these once
contained oak coffin burials is not known, but this
figure must run into several thousands. The great
majority of coffins have now disappeared due to
natural processes of decay. In many cases their former
presence can be recognised during excavation as thin
black stripes in the earth; in others only the form of
the surrounding stone packing suggests that this once
enclosed an oak coffin. Sometimes some small pieces
of the coffin wood are preserved. In only a few cases
are the oak coffins preserved more-or-less intact to
the present day.
But even when oak coffins do survive until the
present this does not necessarily mean that they are
secured for the future. Several well-preserved coffins
have been broken apart by their finders in the hunt
for the treasure they thought must lie within (UI 27.
Vellerup, 2. Borum Eshj). And when no treasure
was found, the coffin could then be used as a watering
trough (5. Guldhj) or split into planks for building
(UI 16. Stamplund). Some coffins ended up in private
ownership and were, after some years, subsequently
lost (UI 5. Foldingbro, UI 17. Stevnehj). Others went
to museums but have subsequently been destroyed,
for example during wartime (UI 2. Dybvadgrd), or
have simply disappeared (UI 22. Toppehj, UI 23.
Tvillingehj).
From Denmark, there are reports of finds of up to
about 60 oak coffins from the Bronze Age (cf. Catalogue), but there are today only 30 more-or-less well
preserved coffins in Danish and German museums.
Even these coffins are not always what they seem
Translation: David Earle Robinson & Anne Bloch Jrgensen.
The translation was financed by a grant from Dronning
Margrethe IIs Arkologiske Fond.
Two numbering systems are employed (cf. Catalogues
A & B below): Simple numbers for studied and often
dendrochronologically dated oak coffins, and UI numbers for
Un-Investigated coffins (ed. note).
virtually every conceivable form of mix-up, numbering error and mixing together of coffins seems to have
taken place. These mistakes can be quite elementary,
for example a coffin which has the wrong name and
museum number (UI 22. Toppehj) or has two different museum numbers, each of which refers to a
different burial mound (21. Trindhj/5. Guldhj). The
situation can also be more complex, such as when
one coffin in a museum has been restored using pieces of wood from another (10. Muldhj/17. Storehj at
Barde) or when pieces of sapwood lying in one coffin (5. Guldhj, 21. Trindhj) prove to originate from
another (17. Storehj at Barde) which stood alongside
the first in the museum store. Two coffins could have
been mixed up by mistake (8. Maasbll/UI 22. Toppehj), or doubts can arise as to which coffin individual fragments belong (9. Margarethenberg/8. Maasbll). The relevant archaeological literature may state
that a coffin is now kept at a particular museum even
though in reality it is stored at another (19. Snder
nlev sb. 20) or disappeared long ago (UI 22. Toppehj, UI 23. Tvillingehj). Coffins can have been
misplaced in museum stores and lost for a number of
years (15. Sortehj). Or the wood can be so degraded, due to lack of conservation, that it is no longer
possible to measure the tree rings (UI 15. Skjoldhj).
Mistakes and misunderstandings are also possible
during the actual dendrochronological investigations,
such as when a coffin from 5. Guldhj, loaned by
the Museum at Koldinghus to the Konge Museum
in Vamdrup, was presumed to be the coffin from 16.
Store Kongehj, which lies near Vamdrup or when
a coffin from 10. Muldhj, loaned by the National
Museum to Moesgaard Museum and exhibited there
together with finds from 2. Borum Eshj, was presumed to originate from the latter burial mound or
when fragments of two coffins from the same burial
mound became mixed together (19. Snder nlev sb.
20, graves 8 & 9). And the misunderstandings continue right up to publication of the results, such as when
the dating of 17. Storehj at Barde was presented as
165
secondly, to carry out as precise a dendrochronological dating of these as possible. By way of introduction,
an overview is given of the background for the investigation, its execution and the results obtained. In the
subsequent catalogue a detailed account is given of
the identity and investigation of each individual oak
coffin.