with the establishment of a new research center, have encouraged an expansion in this field. In addition, the computerization of the large national register of monument, sites, and finds during the 1980s led to developments in the application of modern methodological tools such as geographic information systems (GIS) in settlement archaeology. The other area of expansion has resulted from the establishment of two national research centers for settlement studies during the 1990s, which have helped to analyze and publish the results of settlement excavations and projects, such as the Thy project, the Als project, or the Saltbæk Vig project, all based upon international cooperation.

Archaeology in Society

A general and well-known feature of the archaeology of many countries is that, throughout its development, it has been part of national moral rearmament, and Denmark is no exception. The “fateful years” of 1807, 1848, 1864, 1920, and 1940 to 1945 are all reflected in the archaeological activity of the time, and prehistory in these years of crisis was frequently used as a symbol of national identity. After all, it was not only through museums and archaeological books that knowledge of archaeology spread. Most of the population learned about it second- or thirdhand—primarily through the literary tradition but also in an attenuated form through school textbooks, children’s books, folk high schools, and so forth. In this way knowledge of prehistory and of the past in general reached a large section of society in a complex process of dissemination, during which it underwent several changes and was used in many disguises. The question is whether it is possible to discern behind these general tendencies any important changes in the social position of archaeology and its ideological affiliations. Was archaeology used? What was it used for and by whom? We can attempt to answer these questions in several ways. The records of the National Museum, for instance, show us the route from finder to museum and the fact that that route changed. The other route, from archaeologists out to different segments of society via literature, popular outlines, and the like, is also informative. Finally, the founding of museums and the active interest shown by people outside the circle of professional archaeologists provide us with more tangible information.

There seems to be no doubt that the Commission for Antiquities was set up as the indirect result of the Romantic movement and the national defeats of the time. There is also no doubt that during its first fifty years, archaeology in Denmark was a leisure pursuit of the educated upper class. So-called popular backing was found only on a small scale. The clergy and local government officials (magistrates and county prefects) played a crucial role by maintaining contact with the Museum of Antiquities during this early period. But it was the payment of rewards that counted among those people who actually made the finds, since their standard of living was miserably low throughout most of the nineteenth century. The educational ideas that were part of the archaeological effort were expressed by archaeologists and the educated upper class of government officials and landowners.

Those who were to become enlightened by the past were not themselves actively involved in this process. The initiatives came from the people at the top. Several attempts were made at the time to set up public archaeological collections in the provinces, often attached to a county library (i.e., as part of the educational effort). But they were only attempts. Both administratively and ideologically, archaeology remained an integral part of the period’s autocracy.

In the interwar years between 1850 and 1864, five provincial museums were established in rapid succession: Ribe, Odense, Århus, Viborg, and Alborg. They were founded by the educated upper middle class of the towns and not by the social group with which they were most concerned—the local peasants—at a time when the towns were experiencing rapid population increases and economic expansion. By this point archaeology had won general recognition as an important branch of national history, which was further emphasized by King Frederik VII’s active interest in the field. Moreover, investigations were begun during these years at a number of national monuments, such as Jelling and Danevirke, and in Denmark’s relationship