Bronze Age Settlement
and Land-Use in Thy,
Northwest Denmark
Vol. II
Bronze Age Settlement
and Land-Use in Thy,
Northwest Denmark
Vol. II
Edited by Jens-Henrik Bech, Berit Valentin Eriksen
& Kristian Kristiansen
Museum Thy
Jutland Archaeological Society
Bronze Age Settlement and Land-Use in Thy, Northwest Denmark, Vol. II
© The authors and Jutland Archaeological Society 2018
Layout and cover: Jens Nygaard and Ea Rasmussen
Translation, language revision and proofreading:
Anne Bloch and David Earle Robinson, HSLS, Ebeltoft
Graphics: Lars Foged Thomsen
Excavation photos: Museum Thy
Printed by Narayana Press, Gylling
Type: ITC New Baskerville
Paper: Hello Silk, 130 g
Binding: Buchwerk, Darmstadt
Jutland Archaeological Society Publications 102
ISBN: 978-87-93423-22-0
ISSN: 0107-2854
Jutland Archaeological Society
Moesgård
DK-8270 Højbjerg
Distribution:
Aarhus University Press
Finlandsgade 29
DK-8200 Århus N
Published with the support of:
Farumgaard-Fonden
Stiftelsen Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
Front cover: Trial trench 15 at Bjerre Enge, spring 1990. Photo: J.-H. Bech.
Contents
Chapter 11
Bjerre Enge – landscape, environment and settlement during the Bronze Age . . . . . . . . 11
Between land and sea
Bjerre Sø and Bjerre Enge
The timeframe for settlement at Bjerre Enge
Stratigraphy and sand drift
Peat formation and paludiication at Bjerre Enge around 800 BC
Bronze Age settlement at Bjerre Enge
Traces of cultivation at Bjerre Enge
Bronze Age settlement at Bjerre Enge: habitation area, territory and resource areas
Burial mounds and settlement at Bjerre Enge
Bjerre in a regional perspective
Conclusion
11
13
17
17
21
24
33
36
37
41
47
Chapter 12
Bjerre 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Houses and associated structures
Post structures and ditches at Bjerre 2
Ard marks and cattle hoof prints
Settlement structure
57
71
75
76
Chapter 13
Bjerre 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
History
Topography and stratigraphy
State of preservation.
Excavation strategy
Houses
Other culture layers at Bjerre 3
Other structures at Bjerre 3
Flint workshops at Bjerre 3
79
79
80
80
81
87
87
87
Chapter 14
Bjerre 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Introduction
Houses and other structures
Midden area
Features outside the houses
Settlement structure
89
93
106
107
107
Chapter 15
Bjerre 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Introduction
Ard marks at the top of the culture layer
Structures below upper ard marks
Ard marks beneath the settlement
Settlement structure
111
117
118
129
130
Chapter 16
Bjerre 4 – settlement, cemetery and ield system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Introduction
Bjerre 4A
Bjerre 4B
The ield system
Conclusion
133
134
138
138
148
Chapter 17
Results from trial excavations in Bjerre Enge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
Bjerre 1
Bjerre 5A, 5B and 5C
Bjerre 8 and 9
Bjerre 10A-B and 11
Bjerre 12
Bjerre 13
Bjerre 14
Bjerre 15
151
155
157
158
159
159
160
160
Chapter 18
Pottery from the Early and Late Bronze Age, Bjerre 1-13 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
The Early and Late Bronze Age pottery from Bjerre
Technical observations, Early Bronze Age and Late Bronze Age
Vessel forms
Vessel forms from the Early Bronze Age
Vessel forms in the Late Bronze Age
Distribution of Early and Late Bronze Age vessels
Use of vessels in the Early Bronze Age
167
171
176
178
205
221
235
Conclusion
Catalogue of pottery from Bjerre illustrated by drawings in chapter 18
Bjerre 1
Bjerre 2
Bjerre 3
Bjerre 4A
Bjerre 6
Bjerre 7
Bjerre 8
Bjerre miscellaneous
240
245
245
245
247
248
249
251
253
253
Chapter 19
On the provenance of the pottery from Bjerre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
Introduction
Sample preparation and measuring technique
Comparison with regional sites – Sundby, Legaard and Egshvile
255
256
262
Chapter 20
The use of pottery vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
Introduction
Sampling
Analytical techniques
Methods
Interpretation
Results
Discussion
265
266
267
267
269
269
270
Chapter 21
Bronze Age lint-working at Bjerre, Thy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
Introduction
Typological proile
Non-lint stone tool inventory
Technological proile – the Early Bronze Age inventories
Technological proile – Late Bronze Age Bjerre 7
Raw material economy
Find context and spatial patterning
Discussion
281
284
303
307
320
322
336
338
Chapter 22
Functional analysis of stone tools from Early Bronze Age Bjerre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349
Introduction
The archaeological assemblage
Methodology
Results of the analyses and discussion
Conclusions and applications
349
349
353
354
361
Chapter 23
Blade knives and strike-a-lights from Bjerre 7: A functional study of two
special implements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
Background
Retouched blade knives
Strike-a-lights
Concluding remarks
365
365
369
371
Chapter 24
Amber inds from the Bronze Age of Thy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Introduction
Bjerre 6, an Early Bronze Age house
Bjerre 7, a Late Bronze Age house
Other Bronze Age sites with amber inds
Amber collection and export during the Bronze Age of Thy
Conclusion
How much amber?
375
375
378
381
382
383
385
Chapter 25
Bronze Age agriculture, land use and vegetation at Bjerre Enge based on
the results of archaeobotanical analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
Introduction
Plant macrofossil analysis
A comparison of the Bjerre sites
Conclusion
Tables
387
388
403
408
412
Chapter 26
Were the Bronze Age ields at Bjerre 4 manured? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
Introduction
Fieldwork and analytical methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
459
459
462
462
467
Chapter 27
Bronze Age animal husbandry: The faunal remains from Bjerre Enge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
Introduction
The material
Cattle bones
Bones of other domesticated animals
Game mammals
Summary and discussion
469
469
470
471
472
472
Chapter 28
The Bronze Age Settlement at Aas, eastern Thy, Denmark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
Background
Topography
Archaeological history
The settlement structure at Aas
From Aas to eastern Thy – an attempt to test the models from Aas
477
477
477
478
495
Chapter 29
Legaard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 505
Introduction
History
Topography
Research strategy
The Bronze Age settlement
Discussion
Conclusion
Legaard house III
Sønderhå 5 – THY 2788
505
505
506
506
508
518
528
531
534
Chapter 30
Early Bronze Age pottery from Legaard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
Diagnostic sherds – Early Bronze Age
Vessel forms, sizes and type identiications
Dating with the aid of sherds
Vessel usage
Conclusion
539
541
544
545
546
Chapter 31
Archaeobotanical investigations based on charred material from Legaard . . . . . . . . . . 549
Introduction
Results
Conclusions
Summary
549
554
556
557
Chapter 32
Klostergård . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
Two-aisled houses
Three-aisled houses
Parallels to the houses at Klostergård
Animal pens and enclosures
Ditches and dykes
Stone pile N501
The settlement at Klostergård
560
563
568
570
574
575
575
Chapter 29
Legaard
Martin Mikkelsen & Kristian Kristiansen
With contributions by Bente Draiby and Timothy Earle
Introduction
At the site of Legaard, situated centrally in Thy
(ig. 29.1) c. 25 km southwest of Bjerre, parts of a
Bronze Age settlement area were investigated by Thy
Archaeological Project (TAP)1 over the course of
several successive excavation campaigns. Some other
features, including Late Iron Age pithouses, were also
excavated, but these are not relevant here.
Although the site’s three-aisled Bronze Age longhouses and some other features are similar to those
seen at Bjerre, there are also a number of differences.
Legaard is, like Klostergård (Olsen vol. II, chap. 32),
situated on high moraine ground as far inland as is
possible in Thy. All the longhouses were found within a
relatively limited area of c. 4000 m2 and the settlement
was inhabited until at least the inal part of the Bronze
Age. Most importantly, the site was found to include two
relatively large longhouses, houses III and IX. The best
preserved of these was house III, which immediately
attracted attention because it had a byre in its central
part, prompting discussions on house construction,
the organisation of interior activities, accommodation
of animals and the collection of manure and, inally,
social status. As a consequence of these discussions,
the main focus here will be on longhouse III, while the
other features will only be dealt with in brief.
History
N
Bjerre
LEGAARD
0
20
40
km
Figure 29.1. The location of Legaard in relation to Bjerre.
In 1990, TAP began research in selected parts of Thy
(Bech 2003; Earle et al. 1998; Kristiansen 1998). One
of the main study areas was Sønderhå parish, where a
number of research methods were employed. In 1994,
large areas in the northern and northeastern parts of
the parish were investigated by a number of detailed
surveys. In one of these, a number of inds from both the
Early and Late Bronze Age were located on the slopes
of a small hilltop at a site named Legaard2 (ig. 29.2).
These were not the only inds recorded from the
area. Historical maps show two barrows marked at
the edge of the hilltop at Lægaard, and in 1912 these
were recorded by the National Museum. At that time,
it was noted that several Late Bronze Age urns had
been found in the eastern barrow.3 Before TAP began
work there was no other information on inds from the
hilltop itself, but just to the east of it a settlement from
the Late Pre-Roman and the Early Roman Iron Age
was recorded. Until 1990, no other sites were recorded
in the Danish Agency for Culture’s register Sites and
Monuments (in Danish: Fund og Fortidsminder) within
a 400 m radius of the hill.
LEGAARD
505
N
Legaard
Sønderhå 5
0
500
m
Figure 29.2. Topography around Legaard.
Topography
Legaard is situated in the northeastern corner of
Sønderhå parish. To the north of the hill is a quite
large low-lying meadow, through which a stream runs
from east to west, ending in the lake Ove Sø, from
which a second stream runs into the North Sea. There
is another relatively low-lying area about 500 m south
of Legaard, and c. 1.4 km east of Legaard is the larger
hilly area Bjergene, which rises to 56 m a.m.s.l. (ig.
29.2). Looking at the immediate vicinity of Legaard,
the top of the small moraine hill is rather lat and has
an area of c. 100 x 100 m. Its maximum height is c. 24
m a.m.s.l. The subsoil mainly consists of clayey gravel
but on the northwestern part of the hill it becomes
sandier. Relatively steep slopes run down towards
meadows to the northeast.
Research strategy
With research ongoing between 1994 and 1997 and
with a number of different research aspects, it is relevant to clarify the various steps in the research and
506
describe the choices and priorities in more detail.
Figure 29.3 illustrates these various methodological
aspects and stages in the research.
Survey
The irst step in the research strategy at Legaard
was an intensive survey of a 5 ha area in 1994. This
was conducted by TAP and followed the normal
ield-walking procedure of an initial line-walking
followed by block-walking (Westphal 2000). The area
covered by the survey extended from the northern
part of the hill and a terrace on the slope, turning
northwards down towards the eastern end of the lake
Nørhå. Finds at the site included worked lint, and
some burnt lint and pottery were also recorded.
Only a small number of the inds could be dated
with certainty. A few blades are probably Mesolithic
or Early Neolithic in date and one or two lint axes
and a transverse arrowhead are Neolithic. A presumed asymmetrical sickle is from the Early Bronze
Age, while another sickle or dagger is from the Late
Neolithic or Early Bronze Age. A retouched blade
knife is from the Late Bronze Age (see Eriksen vol.
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
N
Line-walking
Block-walking
Ploughzone-testing
1995
1996
1997
Figure 29.3. Legaard. The study area.
II, chap. 21; Jensen vol. II, chap. 23), as are a few
potsherds. At least one ind – a whetstone – is from
the Late Iron Age. Most of the remaining worked
lints are lakes, but the inds also include 15-20
scrapers, 8-11 borers and three cores. These inds
were dated within the time frame of the Neolithic/
Bronze Age. In general, the inds recovered during the survey indicated activities on and around
the rather small hill in the Neolithic, Early and
Late Bronze Age and Late Iron Age. Based on the
Bronze Age inds at Legaard, the site was selected
for further research.
Plough-zone sampling
In 1995, the initial survey was followed up by ploughzone sampling carried out by TAP (Steinberg 1997).4
From an area of more than 4 ha, 34 samples (out
of a total of 63) were screened. In the course of the
sampling a culture layer was found below the modern
plough soil to the north and, especially, to the southwest of the hill (Steinberg 1997, 421, ig. H.6). The sampling showed that most worked lint could be found to
the northwest and north of the hill, with a maximum in
an area c. 100 m to the north (Steinberg 1997, 420, ig.
H.5). The area where longhouses and other features
LEGAARD
507
from both the Early and the Late Bronze Age were later
found did not show high levels of worked lint. In his
analysis J.M. Steinberg concluded that “there are no
concentrations of lakes associated with these houses”
but also that “Overall THY 3414 is a multi-component
site with a large lake bearing sub-plough-zone deposit
that makes the site unreliable for plough-zone testing”
(Steinberg 1997, 418).5
N
Trial excavation and feature excavations
1995-97
On basis of the survey results and the topography,
an exploratory trench was cut on top of the hill. This
revealed a number of features, some of which seemed
to be from houses. Modern ploughing had reached the
subsoil almost all over the hilltop and future ploughing
threatened the site. Due to this situation, funds for
further research were granted by the Rigsantikvar – the
Keeper of National Antiquities. This led to conirmation of the initial site interpretation when house I was
uncovered and excavated in 1995. Over the next two
years the excavated area was gradually extended and
further exploratory trenches were cut.
The excavation methods involved removal of the
plough soil by machine, after which all features were
mapped and sectioned. Unlike most other rescue excavations, the participation of TAP made it possible to
remove the ill from most features excavated in 1996-97.
The soil was therefore not only taken from postholes
associated with the longhouses and a number of pits,
but also from most of the other features that could
not immediately be interpreted during the excavation.
Subsequently, TAP processed all the soil samples by
lotation (see Stika vol. II, chap. 31). TAP also took a
number of subsoil samples in the excavated area for
phosphate analysis (Lienemann 1999)(ig. 29.11).
The Bronze Age settlement
A great number of features were found in the excavated area (ig. 29.4). Most can be dated to the Early
or Late Bronze Age, but some are from the Late Iron
Age and others may be from the Late Neolithic.6
The Early Bronze Age features (ig. 29.5) include at
least three to ive longhouses (I, III, IX, II? and IV?).
The Late Bronze Age features include six to nine
longhouses (II?, IV?, V, VI, VII, XII, XIII, XIV and
X?), a four-poster structure (XI), a ditch (N307), a
presumed storage pit (N768) and a number of other
pits. Another ditch (N618) and several ire features
(ire pits and cooking pits) and other pits can only be
dated broadly to the Bronze Age.
The primary focus of this article will be on the Early
Bronze Age, especially house III, with only a general
account being given of the Late Bronze Age features.
Longhouses from the Early Bronze Age
0
10
m
Figure 29.4. Legaard. Plan of the excavated area.
508
20
House III
This house was found in the western part of the rather
lat hilltop (ig. 29.5). The house site was generally
well preserved (ig. 29.6-7), although the postholes in
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
N
House I
Ditch N618
House III
Ditch N307
House IX
House II
House IV
House X
House V
House XIV
House VI
House XIII
House VII
Four-post feature XI
House XII
Storage pit N773
0
25
m
Figure 29.5. Legaard. Main features from the Early and Late Bronze Age.
the westernmost, and now most low-lying, part of the
house had been almost totally ploughed away. Most of
the features in the area are associated with house III,
but a few features are either earlier or later.
House III was 33.5 m long and 7.5-8 m wide and
thereby covered an area of about 260 m2. Looking at
its general layout, the postholes reveal that it had 12
sets of roof-bearing posts, two of which were found
beneath the base of a later pit (N202). The distance
between the postholes in each set varies between 3.3
and 3.7 m and their longitudinal span was, respectively,
2.6, 3.1, 2.1, 2.7, 2.4, 1.9, 1.8, 2.9, 2.4, 2.4 and 4.5 m.
Wall posts and entrances
Almost all the wall postholes were preserved. Only
where later pit N202 had disturbed part of the northern side, they were absent. A total of 42 wall postholes
LEGAARD
509
N
N213 N214 N215
N212
N216
N219
N222
N223
N224
N247
N297
N244
N356-357
N267
N266
N261
N279
N210
N248
N278
N257 N259
N277
Ditch N307
N250
N252
N347
N286
N317
N285
N348
N284
N258 N308 N260
N204
House III
N203 N243
N320
N227
N265
N322
N228
N319
N229
N282
N207
N226
N202
N251
N321
N230
N242
N239 N238
N232 N231
N236
N341
N340
House IX
N877
N855
N870
N868
N886
N866
N869 N853
N867
N858
0
5
N850 N880
N887
N859
N871
N879
N881 N882
N864
N887
N860
N862
N890
10
m
Figure 29.6. Legaard. Plan of houses III and IX showing features mentioned in the text. Legend for ire features: See vol. I,
appendix A.
were found, including one beneath the base of pit
N202. The house had straight walls and rounded
gables. The average distance between the wall postholes was c. 1.8 m.
Although this is not clearly visible, it is suggested
that the house had an entrance in each long side:
between N222 and N223 in the northern wall and
between N242 and N243 in the southern. The distance between the postholes at the entrances is c.
2.2-2.3 m and thereby greater than between the other
wall postholes. This interpretation appears to be
supported by the absence of traces of stall partitions
inside the house at the suggested positions of the
entrances (see below).
Room partitions
The house was divided into three rooms by two partition walls. The western partition was located between
the third and the fourth sets of roof posts from the
west and the eastern partition was between the third
and fourth sets of roof posts from the east. The west-
510
ern partition was marked by seven postholes and the
slightly greater distance between postholes N277 and
N278 in the middle of the house suggests an opening or a ‘door’ here. Although pit N202 and ditch
N307 have disturbed the picture, the eastern partition
seems to have been built in exactly the same way, with
the slightly greater distance between postholes N284
and N285 also representing an opening or a ‘door’
in the partition.
Posts and postpipes
In most of the postholes for the roof posts and wall
posts, and in some of those for the partition posts,
there were more or less clear traces of the post, i.e.
a postpipe. This makes it possible to shed light on
some constructional details that rarely are seen (see
also Draiby this chap. p. 531 f).
Many of these post traces probably relect the actual
size and form of the post.7 Whole tree trunks (e.g.
N248, N251 and N252) and cloven timbers (e.g. N244,
N247 and N250) appear to have been used for both
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
A
B
C
D
Figure 29.7. Legaard excavation. A: House III, part of the western end uncovered, seen from the south. The partition wall
is clearly seen with two roof posts N248 and N250, to the right and left of the ranging rod, respectively. In the foreground
two wall posts. B: House III, with a pair of stall dividers at the southern side of the byre with wall posts N239 (left) and
N238 (right). C: House III, seen from the east. Wall post and posts in partition walls are marked with paper plates. The
slightly darker area in the middle of the house is due to moist soil arising from the use of a garden sprinkler. D: House
III, seen from the west. Wall post and posts in partition walls are marked with paper plates.
roof and wall posts. Although it was often dificult to
determine the form with certainty, the cloven posts
appear to have been both crescent-shaped in crosssection (N210, N236, N244, N257 and N279), i.e.
taken from the outer part of trees, as well as more
rectangular (N219, N222, N224 and N259), i.e. cloven
from the central part. As for the size of the posts, one
of the most clearly visible postpipes from a roof post
was in the southwesternmost roof posthole, N244
(ig. 29.8): This was crescent shaped and had been
cloven from a tree with a diameter of at least 0.53 m.
A few other roof posts were also possibly from trees
of at least this diameter, while the diameter of the
trees producing the posts in the other roof postholes
was probably between 0.4 and 0.5 m. The crescentshaped posts in wall postholes N236 and N210 were
probably cloven from trees with a diameter of c. 0.5
m, while the other wall posts, such as N229, appear
LEGAARD
511
to have been rectangular with a width of c. 0.35 m. In
general, the wall postholes and the wall posts appear
to have been rather smaller than the roof postholes
and the roof posts.
The posts had mostly been placed in the central
part of the roof- and the wall postholes, but this was
not always the case. For instance, the post was placed
along the outside of wall postholes N226-N231 in the
east gable and the same seems to have been the case
in postholes N212-N216 in the northern wall at the
western end.
In the wall construction, the crescent-shaped posts
(N203-204, N210, N227, N236 and N242-243) all
appear to have had their lat side turned outwards,
suggesting that the wall planks were attached to their
outer surface. It is also noteworthy that posthole N216
contained traces of both a post for the wall and a post
for the inner wall section. The many clear traces of the
posts in the postholes may indicate that the posts were
not pulled up after the house was abandoned, although
this is dificult to say with certainty (see note 7).
Benches and ire features
Turning to the functional aspects of house III, some
presumed postholes indicated a ‘connection’ between
the wall and the two western sets of roof posts in the
western room. These postholes were 0.04-0.20 m deep
and shallower than the roof- and wall postholes. Most
of the ‘connecting’ postholes were rounded rectangular and contained no visible traces of postpipes
either in plan or in section. They can be interpreted
as being associated with possible ‘benches’, perhaps
supporting plank beds placed along the walls of the
house. Similar postholes were not found in the better
preserved eastern part of the house.
At the centre of the western room was pit N297, dug
in two or three phases. A black charcoal-coloured layer
containing small pieces of ire-cracked stones shows
that it had been used as a cooking pit. Cooking pit
N322 was found at the centre of the eastern room and
the base of cooking pit N319 was located between roof
postholes N263-264. While N297 was 0.2 m deep, N322
was only 0.14 m deep; both had a slightly rounded
bottom (ig. 29.9).
In the southeastern corner of the house was a latbottomed pit, N321, the ill of which mostly seemed
to be ash (ig. 29.9). In the southwestern corner were
one or two ‘pits’ (N356-357) that were very shallow
– a maximum of 0.06 m deep – with no traces of ash.
These were found to contain about 30 pieces of worked
lint and 12 potsherds. Whether or not the pits found
in the southwestern and southeastern corners should
be assigned to the house is uncertain, but it seems
remarkable that they occupied a similar position in
the western and eastern rooms. It seems unlikely that
the pits in the southwestern corner could have been in
use at the same time as postholes N266-267 supported
a possible ‘bench’.
The byre
In the central room were several more or less straight
‘ditches’ running out from the walls towards the
postholes for the roof-bearing posts (subsequently
referred to below as roof posts). These ditches have
N244
N257
N265
N210
N230
N238
0
1
m
Figure 29.8. Legaard. House III, section through selected postholes for roof posts (N244, N257 and N265) and wall posts
(N210, N230 and N238).
512
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
N322
N297
N328
N321
0
1
m
Figure 29.9. Legaard. House III, sections through cooking pits N297 and N322, pit N321 and stall partition N328.
been interpreted as remains of stall dividers or partitions. Along the northern side they appear to be
arranged in pairs, made up of one relatively dark and
one relatively light ditch. At the southern side every
second ditch was also slightly darker than the rest.
These differences in colour suggest that there were
two phases of stall dividers, with those in the earlier
phase having a slightly lighter ill than those in the
later. The number of stall dividers suggests there
were spaces for seven or perhaps eight animals at
the northern side, with probably the same number
along the southern side, giving accommodation for
a total for 14 to 16 animals in the byre in the central
part of house III.
When sectioning some of the stall dividers, it proved
possible to observe a number of stake holes below
the shallow ditches (ig. 29.9). The ill in these stake
holes was much lighter than that in the ditches and
due to this, and the clayey subsoil containing a lot of
small stones, the stake holes were dificult to see and
therefore to section. If we had not detected the stall
dividers through the presence of the upper ditches,
we would not have seen the stake holes in the subsoil.
Consequently, if modern ploughing had gone c. 10
cm deeper, we probably would not have discovered
that the house had stall partitions in its central room,
even though stake holes would still have been present.
It has been asked why there are so few examples of
byres, given the several hundred house plans available
from the Bronze Age (Rasmussen 1999, 283). Based
on observations at Legaard houses III and IX, traces of
stall dividers, in the form of stake holes, may well have
been present without being recognised. However, in
our opinion, this cannot explain the rarity of deinite
traces of byres in Early Bronze Age longhouses (see
also Bech & Rasmussen vol. I, chap. 2).
Other features
It is possible that other features inside house III date
from its lifetime, but there are several features that
cannot be contemporaneous with the house.
Fire pit N347 could be seen to be stratigraphically
earlier than stall dividers N340-341. If the central
room had stall dividers when house III was built,
then ire pit N347 demonstrates activity in the area
prior to its construction. But if stall dividers were
not established from the beginning, ire pit N347
could have been contemporaneous with an early
phase in the lifetime of house III. Pit N308 may also
be stratigraphically older than posthole N258 for a
roof post, but the overlap between them was minor
and therefore not certain.
A number of features are clearly stratigraphically
later than house III. Pit N348 cuts posthole N260, for
a roof post, and ditch N307 cuts both pit N348 and
three postholes from house III. The same deinitely
also applies to the large Iron Age pit N202.
Pottery
Some pottery was found in features belonging to house
III – in roof postholes (N257, N258?, N259, and N317),
wall postholes (N239 and N232-233) and partition
postholes (N283, N286 and N316). Unfortunately,
none of the pottery was found and recorded by sectioning of the postholes and in no cases is it certain
whether the pottery is from the beginning or the end
of the house’s lifetime.
The distribution of pottery in house III reveals,
remarkably, that it was all found in the eastern half
of the longhouse, both to the west and the east of,
and within, the eastern partition wall. It has been
considered whether the concentration of pottery in
LEGAARD
513
postholes in and on both sides of the eastern partition
wall may indicate that it entered these postholes at the
same time, probably when the posts were removed,
and that the use of earthenware jars, at least at the
end of the lifetime of house III, was restricted to its
eastern part.8 The pottery from house III is all of a
coarse ware and, although exact dating is dificult
(Rasmussen 1993), it is certainly of Early Bronze Age
character (for further discussion of the pottery from
house III, see Kristensen below).
Radiocarbon dating
In order to date house III, ive samples were submitted for 14C analysis (see vol. I, appendix A, house no.
38 and ig. 29.10).9 A sample of charcoal (Alnus sp.)
from roof posthole N250 was dated to 3195 ± 50 BP
(AAR-6565; vol. I, appendix B). This calibrates at 1 σ
to 1511-1416 BC, i.e. period II of the Early Bronze Age.
A charred grain of barley (Hordeum vulgare) from wall
posthole N236 was also analysed, giving a date to 3065
± 50 BP (AAR-6564; vol. I, appendix B). At 1 σ, this
gives a calibrated date of 1398-1268 BC, i.e. the second
half of period II and the very irst part of period III.
Finally, a grain of naked barley (Hordeum vulgare var.
nudum) from wall posthole N222 was dated to 3015 ±
50 BP (LuS-6109; vol. I, appendix B). Calibrated at 1
σ, this results in a date of 1381-1133 BC, i.e. at the end
of period II and/or in period III. In combination, the
two grain samples give a date of 3040 ± 35 BP, which
calibrates at 1 σ to 1384-1231 BC. The average date for
all three samples is 3092 ± 29, which calibrates at 1 σ
to 1411-1303 BC (ig. 29.10 and vol. I, appendix B).
The use of alder (Alnus sp.) for fuel may seem
unusual as it is a tree that grows well in damp and
wet conditions. It cannot compete with birch in terms
of heat output, but it burns slowly and is therefore
good to keep the ire going in the hearth. It has been
managed by coppicing and also been used for making
charcoal in historical times. At Legaard, it was most
probably cut near bogs where peat could also be cut
for fuel. If it had been coppiced, the age of the twigs
would be close to the radiocarbon date. We cannot
determine the stratigraphic age of the 14C samples
as they were all taken from postholes, but the time
interval between the dates suggests that the alder
date could refer to the early period of the house’s
use, while the charred grain, with its later dates, is
from a later period of use. As alder does not develop
into a large tree in Northern Europe – it matures
after about 30 years and can reach an age of 150
years – the fact that the date for the charcoal sample
falls in the 15th century BC indicates that the house
construction cannot be much later than 1400 BC.
Depending on the biological age of the sample (twigs
or tree trunk, ranging from 30 to 150 years of age),
514
the evidence suggests that house III was constructed
during the middle part of period II (with the beginning of period II placed at between 1500 and 1450
BC (see discussion in Randsborg 2006, chap. III-IV)).
The later dates for the charred grain may relate to the
end of house III’s lifetime. Based on the radiocarbon
dates, it seems reasonable to suggest that house III’s
lifespan lay during period II, perhaps ending shortly
before or in the early part of period III (beginning
around 1330 BC)(Olsen et al. 2011).
In contrast to the above, two samples from different
parts of cooking pit N297, in the western end of house
III, dated to the Mesolithic Late Ertebølle culture and
the Late Neolithic, respectively (K-6906-6907; vol. I,
appendix B). An analysis of the material recovered
from pit N297 shows a high content of sedges (Carex
sp.), indicating that the charcoal from this pit derives
from peat (Stika vol. II, chap. 31, ig. 31.1). Given
that the 14C analysis provides a true date for the charcoal, the unexpectedly early date may be the result
of peat of Mesolithic age being burnt in the Bronze
Age cooking pit (Bech 2003). It thereby constitutes
another example of the use of peat for fuel in the Early
Bronze Age, as previously demonstrated at a barrow
at Damsgård in Sønderhå parish, only 3 km south of
Legaard (Olsen & Bech 1996). These samples were
therefore not suitable for dating house III.
House IX
House IX was found parallel with and just 4 m south of
house III (ig. 29.6) and we believe that the two houses
were similar in layout and use, one probably replacing
the other over time. The western end of house IX was
badly preserved, probably due to modern ploughing,
while the eastern part had fared better but was dificult
to distinguish from one or two overlapping houses
and other features in that area.10
Due to the poor preservation of the western end of the
house its length is uncertain, but we suggest that it was
c. 33-34 m long. Its width in the eastern part was 7.6 m
and was probably the same through rest of the house.
House IX therefore had an area of about 255 m2.
It apparently had nine sets of roof posts, but it is
uncertain whether the westernmost and poorly preserved presumed posthole N855 was a posthole for
a roof- or a wall post. One roof posthole is missing
from the central part due to the later ‘pit’ N850, and
the absence of another from the southeastern part is
probably because we did not recognise it during the
excavation in 1996. The base of a roof posthole was
found beneath the presumed cooking pit N862. The
distance between the roof posts in each pair was 3.43.6 m and the longitudinal spans were 2.9, 4.4, 3.1,
3.9, 3.3, 3.2, 4 and 3.9 m.
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
OxCal v4.2.3 Bronk Ramsey (2013); r:5 IntCal13 atmospheric curve (Reimer et al. 2013)
LN II
EBA I EBA II EBA III LBA IV LBA V
Legaard House I
LuS-6112
Legaard House III
K-6906
K-6907
AAR-6565
AAR-6564
LuS-6109
Av. AAR 6564-65, LuS 6109
Legaard House IX
AAR-6553
AAR-6552
LuS-6111
LuS-6110
Av. AAR 6552, LuS 6110-11
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
Calibrated date (calBC)
Figure 29.10. Radiocarbon dates from Legaard.
Traces of the wall postholes were preserved in the
northern side and in the eastern end. The average
distance between the wall postholes in the northern
side was 2.4 m. They were generally between 0.35 and
0.45 m in diameter.
The building might have been divided up into
three rooms. In the western part, the two presumed
postholes (N886 and N887) could be interpreted
as postholes for partition posts at a door opening.
Similarly, there may have been partition postholes
between the roof postholes in the third set from the
east. Unfortunately, the gable of house II was placed
here, making interpretation dificult.
Traces of the post – the postpipe – could only be
seen in a few of the postholes. The clearest traces
could be seen in the third set of roof postholes from
the west (N858-859). The posts in this set were crescent shaped and the roof post had been cleaved
from a tree with a diameter of at least 0.5 m. Most
of the other roof postholes were smaller than those
LEGAARD
515
in the third set, so the size of the posts in this set
may not be representative of the general situation.
Only in the wall posthole N877 could traces of the
wall post be seen.
In the presumed central room were two ‘ditches’
(N879-N880), thought to be stall dividers along the
northern side; they were similar to those found in
house III. However, we were unable to ind stake holes
either under these ditches or along both sides of the
central room.
The central room also had some irregular shallow
features (N853, N864, N881, N882 and N887) with
a rather pale deposit interpreted as remains of the
loor level.
0
4
8
metres
Figure 29.11. Legaard. Phosphate concentrations in the area of houses III and IX. At Legaard, samples for phosphate
analysis were taken every 2 m within an area of c. 1100 m2 covering house III, the central and western parts of house IX
and their immediate surroundings. Samples were not taken around the eastern part of house IX, because several other houses
had been placed in the same area. The phosphate values lie within the range 178-698 ppm. Before looking at the results it
should be noted that the westernmost parts of houses III and IX were not as well preserved as the central and eastern parts.
Looking at the results, it must irst be noted that the byre with two construction phases in house III does not show high
levels of phosphate. According to J. Lienemann (1999), the p-concentrations inside the house are similar to those in houses
only used for living and storage, but with no cattle or other animals accommodated inside. This means that the stable could
only have been used temporarily (see also Bech & Rasmussen vol. I, chap. 2). Alternatively, the low values might indicate
that dung was continuously removed from the byre. In house IX, part of the byre shows relative high values, maybe because
slight remains of the loor level were preserved in this part of the house.
Relatively high values were also found just outside the entrance in the northern wall of house III and along its northeastern
and southeastern walls. This could indicate that dung was placed along the outside of the walls in the easternmost part
of house III. Slightly higher values are evident just outside the entrance in the southern wall of house III, while the same
appears not to be the case outside the entrances to house IX if they occupied the same positions as in house III
516
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
Although a number of other features were found
‘within’ house IX, none of them can with reasonable
certainty be related to the house. This is true of several
shallow cooking pits (N866-871) in the western part,
while in the eastern part it has been impossible to
separate features relating to house IX from features
relating to houses II and IV.
Potsherds were found in four, or probably ive, of
the roof postholes and in two of the shallow features
in the central part of the house. Nearly all of these
were of a coarse ware (Kristensen vol. II, chap. 30).
Radiocarbon dating
Four samples from house IX have been subjected to
14
C analysis (see vol. I, appendix A, house no. 39, and
ig. 29.10). A piece of unidentiied charcoal (from
roof posthole N859) has been dated to 3080 ± 55 BP
(AAR-6552; vol. I, appendix B) and a charred grain
of barley (Hordeum vulgare) from roof posthole N890
produced an almost identical date of 3055 ± 50 BP
(LuS-6111; vol. I, appendix B). A charred grain of
barley (Hordeum vulgare) from roof posthole N860
was dated to 2970 ± 50 BP (LuS-6110; vol. I, appendix
B). Combining these three dates results in a date of
3032 ± 30 BP (vol. I, appendix B). At 1 σ, this dates
the samples from the house to 1375-1228 BC. The
concurrence between the three 14C dates, including
the charcoal date, at the transition between periods II
and III, and thereby slightly later than the inal date
for house III, suggests that house IX was constructed
after house III had been abandoned. This conclusion
is also supported by the use of smaller-sized posts in
the construction of house IX, something that will
be discussed further in the conclusion. A weighted
statistical analysis of the 14C dates for charred grain
from houses III and IX indicates more than 60%
probability that the samples dated from house III
are older than those from house IX (J. Heinemeier
pers. comm.). If we include the date for the alder
charcoal from house III, this interpretation receives
further support.
It should be added that the question of an overlap
between the two houses is also related to their presumed
life span. If we assume the latter to be around 60 years,
a succession of houses is much more likely than if we
assume the lifespan to have been 100 or more years.
As there were repairs to the houses, our evaluation is
that a 60-year lifespan is the more likely.
An unidentiied charred grain from roof posthole
N490 has been dated to 3520 ± 45 BP (AAR-6553; vol.
I, appendix B). Calibrated at 1 σ, this gives a date of
1908-1772 BC, which is somewhat earlier than the dates
from the other three samples and also earlier than seems
reasonable on basis of the house type.11
House I
House I was found in the northern area on the lat
hilltop (ig. 29.5). It was relatively well preserved but
a number of other features in the area makes interpretation of some of the elements dificult.
In the proposed interpretation, house I was c. 17.5
m long and 5.3-5.5 m wide (ig. 29.12) and therefore
covered an area of about 95 m2.
It seems to have had ive pairs of roof posts in two
almost parallel rows, 1.6-1.9 m apart.12 The distance
between the roof posts in the easternmost pair seems
to have been slightly less than in the three sets to the
west. The longitudinal span between the sets was c.
3.8, 3.3, 3 and 2.9 m. The ‘room’ in the western part
of the house was thereby somewhat larger than the
other ‘rooms’. The walls were straight with rounded
corners to the gables and at the southern side the
wall posts were spaced at an average interval of 1 m.
It has not been possible to localise entrances, not
N
N97
N84
House I
0
5
m
Figure 29.12. Legaard. House I. Legend for ire features: See vol. I, appendix A.
LEGAARD
517
even in the southern wall where all wall postholes
appear to have been found. Only one small potsherd
was found, in wall posthole N97. This was of a coarse
ware and dated to the Early Bronze Age.
A large number of features were recorded within
the house, especially in the central and eastern parts,
but it is dificult to relate these to the house with reasonable certainty. Most could be from activities that
were not contemporaneous with the house. Finds
recovered from features inside and outside the house
document activities during both the Early and the
Late Bronze Age.
One sample has been 14C dated (see vol. I, appendix
A, house no. 37, and ig. 29.10): A charred grain of
barley (Hordeum vulgare) from the roof posthole N84
gave a date of 2990 ± 50 BP (LuS-6112; vol. I, appendix
B), calibrated at 1 σ to 1286-1126 BC. Although a single 14C date from an area with activities during several
periods does not provide a secure date for house I, on
the basis of the house type and the 14C date it seems
reasonable to suggest that house I is from the Bronze
Age period III.
Longhouses and other features from the
Late Bronze Age
Houses II and IV
Houses II and IV were found in the eastern part of
the excavated area (ig. 29.5), in the same area as the
eastern end of house IX (ig. 29.13). The overlapping
of these houses and some constructional elements raise
a number of questions with respect to interpretations
and dating.13
In our interpretation, four pairs of roof postholes
have been assigned to houses II and IV. The missing
roof posthole in the southeastern part of house IV
could be due to poor preservation conditions in this
area. The distance between the roof posts appears to
have been c. 3.2 m in both houses. The longitudinal
spans in house II may have been 4.6, 4.4 and 2.5 m,
while those in house IV may have been 5.6, 4.3 and
2.8 m, and the span at the western end of this house is
therefore remarkably long. The size of the two houses
is uncertain due to the poor preservation of their
eastern ends. If they had four sets of roof postholes,
they would have an area of c. 95 m2.
Based on their positions relative to the roof postholes, a number of cooking pits and other pits might
be connected with the western and central parts of
house II and the western part of house IV. But it is dificult to assign speciic pits to either of the two houses.
Pit N510 must be mentioned because it contained a
number of potsherds, some of which can probably be
dated to Bronze Age period IV.
518
Based on their uniformity in size, orientation, spacing of the roof postholes and the presumed concentrations of cooking pits, we suggest that house IV
followed house II or vice versa. The two houses are
dated primarily to the Late Bronze Age period IV, but
one of them could have begun in period III.
The remaining features from the Late Bronze Age
will only be presented in general.
Two groups of overlapping longhouses (ig. 29.14)
were found in the southern part of the excavated
area (ig. 29.5).
Houses V-XIV
Houses V, VI and VII appear to represent a series of
longhouses replacing each other through time. On
basis of pottery and their construction, they can be
dated to periods IV-(V). If the succession was V, VI and
VII, then a slight reduction in size took place through
time. One other Late Bronze Age longhouse may also
have been located here. The presumed western end
of house X was found just east of longhouses II and IV
and may represent a further longhouse in the sequence
comprising longhouses II-IV and V-VI-VII.
Furthermore, it is suggested that houses XII, XIII
and XIV comprise another series of longhouses replacing each other, which, based on house type and pottery, can be dated to periods V-VI. These longhouses
are smaller than longhouses V-VI-VII, demonstrating
a further reduction in size. If longhouse XII was the
inal building at the Legaard site, then there seems to
have been a general reduction in the size of longhouses
throughout the Late Bronze Age.
A number of other features found in the southern
part of the excavated area can be dated to the Late
Bronze Age on basis of the pottery they contained.
Unfortunately, it is impossible to relate these features
to speciic longhouses and they therefore reinforce the
impression of considerable activity having taken place
outside and nearby contemporaneous longhouses.
Discussion
Before discussing various aspects of the Legaard site,
a few problems should be pointed out. Firstly, we do
not know how much of the total settlement area was
actually excavated. Given the large number of features
along the eastern side of the excavation and some features found in the easternmost trial trench (ig. 29.4),
probably further features existed at the site, including
remains of several longhouses to the east and perhaps
also to the northeast of the excavated areas.
Secondly, the survey and ploughzone testing
revealed that, at least to the north of the excavated
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
N
859
N510
House II
House IX
House IV
0
5
m
Figure 29.13. Legaard. Houses II and IV. Legend for ire features: See vol. I, appendix A.
House X
N
House V
House VII
House XIV
House VI
House XIII
House XII
Four-poster feature XI
0
5
Storage pit N768
m
Figure 29.14. Legaard. Main features from the Late Bronze Age. Legend for ire features: See vol. I, appendix A.
area, there was quite a lot of worked lint in the plough
soil (Steinberg 1997, 420, ig. H.5). Although only a few
diagnostic lint tools were found, probably some of the
worked lint, and perhaps most of it, should be related
to activities in the Bronze Age; typical Mesolithic and
Neolithic lint tools are virtually absent. Whether or
not the area containing worked lint was also used
for settlement remains unknown and the majority of
lint tool production may have been located at some
distance from the contemporaneous settlement site at
Legaard, as indicated at Aas in eastern Thy (Mikkelsen
vol. II, chap. 28), but contrary to what was observed
at Bjerre 3 (Bech vol. II, chap. 13).
Thirdly, the presence of a Late Iron Age settlement may have disturbed the picture of Bronze Age
activities. Some of the many features that cannot be
dated with reasonable certainty may well belong to
the Late Iron Age.
LEGAARD
519
Settlement continuity at Legaard
The three-aisled longhouses III, IX and I can all be
dated to the Early Bronze Age periods II-III. These
three buildings were all located on the virtually lat
top of the hill, although the eastern part of house IX
was placed where the terrain begins to slope to the
southeast.
If we include the 14C dates for charcoal, then the
weighted dates from house III are earlier than those
for house IX. The dates for grain from house III probably relate to the inal phase of the lifespan of the
building, while that for charcoal relates rather to
its construction. Based on this, house III could have
been built during the early or middle part of period
II, and abandoned about 60 years later when house
IX was constructed as a replacement parallel to it.
House IX then lasted into period III. The two houses
had approximately the same size and orientation and
both appear to have had three separate rooms with a
stall in the central part. However, house III had larger
roof posts and wall posts than house IX. It also seems
unlikely that two houses would be sited so close to each
other at the same time. All in all, it seems reasonable
to suggest that house IX replaced house III.
Based on the 14C dating evidence, house I is probably from the Early Bronze Age period III, although it
would have been better to have had more dates. It also
had a completely different orientation to houses III
and IX, but was aligned roughly similarly to the other
longhouses at the site. A new longhouse orientation
might therefore have been introduced with the construction of house I at the Legaard site. We conclude
that house I is later than house III and, based on the
radiocarbon dates, house I could be contemporaneous with, or somewhat later than, house IX. The latter possibility is indicated by the building’s different
orientation. As an alternative, partial contemporaneity
between houses I and IX is discussed further below.
Based on the house type, with a large number of
cooking pits in the western part, and some pottery
evidence, it is possible that the two houses II and
IV overlap house IX and follow on from each other
and should be dated to periods III-IV. Furthermore,
based on similar evidence relating to the house types
and pottery, the presumed sequence comprising the
three-aisled longhouses V, VI, VII, and perhaps longhouse X, can be dated to periods IV-V, and another
sequence comprising longhouses XII, XIII and XIV
can be dated to periods V-VI. All the longhouses
thought to be of Late Bronze Age date were found
on the slopes to the south and southeast. This means
that the earlier houses were placed on top of the
hill, while those that came later were sited on the
south- and southwest-facing slopes. In this respect,
the Legaard site shows similarities to the Vilhøj site
(Mikkelsen vol. II, chap. 28).
520
The question is whether the longhouses excavated at Legaard represent an unbroken sequence
extending from period II to at least period VI, as is
presumed to be the case for the settlement at Vilhøj
near Aas (Mikkelsen vol. II, chap. 28). Continuous
settlement in the Legaard area from the Bronze Age
period II to the Early Pre-Roman Iron Age is possible
if the average lifetime of three-aisled longhouses
was c. 100 years and if there was only one farmstead
with one longhouse at the site throughout this time.
Although a lifetime of c. 60 years might apply to the
large longhouses III and IX, it is more doubtful in
the case of the smaller longhouses (Mikkelsen vol.
II, chap. 28; Bech vol. II, chap. 11). At Legaard, we
may be ‘lacking’ longhouses from periods III and V
and there may also be missing longhouses from late
period VI if the settlement was continuous. Taking
the unexcavated areas at Legaard into consideration,
it seems reasonable to suggest an unbroken sequence
of longhouses extending from period II until the end
of the Bronze Age.
The character of the settlement at Legaard
Let us now turn to the character of the settlement at
Legaard: Did it consist of a single farmstead with a
single longhouse or was there a single farm with one
or two contemporaneous and complementary buildings? As previously outlined, we are hampered by the
fact that the settlement area was only partially excavated and we will also consider below whether nearby
settlements can be related to the Legaard site. Firstly,
however, some possible scenarios can be proposed.
During period II and part of period III, two large
farmhouses of almost the same proportions and size
followed on from one another. They also had the
same orientation and both may have been divided
into three, with a stable in the central room. They
quite evidently represent the same household(s) that
wanted to maintain their standing. But the two houses
do differ slightly with respect to various elements: the
number and arrangement of the pairs of roof posts and
the distance between the wall posts and the positions
of the room partitions. Furthermore, the postholes,
and therefore probably also the posts, in house III
were larger than those in house IX. Consequently, the
timber in the earlier house was substantially sturdier
than in its successor. In conjunction with the 14C dates,
these various differences suggest that house III was
earlier than house IX, supporting the evidence from
the environmental data discussed below.
In period III, house IX could have been replaced
by house I or even house II, which both have a quite
different orientation. This marked a new phase in the
settlement layout. If there had been only one farmstead
with a single longhouse, the possible change from
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
a 260 m2 longhouse to one of only approximately
95 m2 appears to be a very dramatic reduction in
size. However, if houses I or II had no byre, then the
reduction in living space could be said to be from c.
155 m2 to 95 m2.
K. Kristiansen suggests an alternative interpretation whereby house IX was partly contemporaneous
with house I and that this additional or subsidiary
house marked a transition to a changed orientation at the site. This conclusion is supported by the
absence of ire features in house I. According to
this scenario, we would have to assume that, when
house IX was abandoned sometime in period III,
house II was added to house I as the new residential
quarters and the two buildings formed an economic
unit with a distance of c. 40 m between them. This
then constituted the third occupation phase. The
two longhouses had the same orientation, were of
about the same size and had their walls apparently
constructed in the same way, all of which speaks in
favour of them being at least partly contemporaneous. But while house II has a large number of ire-/
cooking pits in its western room, no such pits can be
related to house I. Furthermore, the cross span in
house II is somewhat greater than in house I. It can
be suggested that these differences relect functional
variations, with house II being used as residential
quarters and house I as a subsidiary building for
other activities, maybe even periodically as a byre.
This would give further support to the conclusion that
they belonged to the same household. If this were
the case, the reduction in indoor space following the
demise of house IX would be from c. 255 m2 to c. 190
m2, i.e. a minor reduction in farm size compared to
the irst proposed model. However, there is a slight
chronological problem. House I has been 14C dated to
period III. Houses II and IV can be dated on the basis
of pottery to an early part of period IV, although a
later part of period III cannot be excluded. Assuming
that the pottery had a short lifetime, thereby marking the inal phase of the building, it is reasonable
to suggest that the two houses overlapped in time,
but we need further 14C dates in order to establish
a more secure conclusion. In this scenario, only the
actual excavated houses at the site are considered.
According to the second scenario, we possibly lack
a subsidiary building from the earliest farmstead on
the site, house III. However, there were also several
other settlements in the neighbourhood; these are
briely described below and then discussed in relation to the Legaard site.
In conclusion, the excavated clusters of Late
Bronze Age longhouses appear to form a succession
in time, but due to the unexcavated areas to the east
of the site, it is impossible at the moment to extend
the analysis further.
The Legaard settlement in relation to
other settlements in the vicinity
Looking at the settlements in the near vicinity of
Legaard and employing the model of the relationship
between settlements and barrows from Aas (Mikkelsen
vol. II, chap. 28), it seems possible that there were least
seven, and perhaps as many as ten, contemporaneous
settlements from periods II-III in an area of c. 9 km2
and within a maximum radius of 2 km of Legaard
(ig. 29.15). The evidence supports this scenario if we
include barrow groups as indicators of settlements.
These groups comprise:
Pengshøje. A group of four barrows has been recorded
700-800 m to the west of Legaard. Although no inds
are known from these barrows, it seems a reasonable
possibility that they date from the Early Bronze Age.
We suggest that a settlement from this time can be
found nearby.
Damsgaard. About 1.5 km southwest of Legaard is a
larger group of barrows located south of the farm of
Bakkegården. One of these barrows (site no. 110112314) was found to contain a stone cist from a late part
of the Early Bronze Age or an early part of the Late
Bronze Age and an urn burial was found in the northernmost barrow (site no. 110112-308). We suggest that
there was a settlement to the north or northwest of
this group of barrows.
Sønderhå Vest. About 2 km southwest of Legaard
and south of the aforementioned group of barrows,
a number of lint lakes and lint tools, including an
asymmetrical sickle, were found during survey within
an area of at least 70 x 100 m (site no. 110112-277). It
is suggested that a settlement from the Late Neolithic
and the Early Bronze Age was located here.
Sønderhå Nord. About 1.2 km to the south of
Legaard, and just northeast of the village of Sønderhå,
stray inds, including at least three asymmetrical
sickles and some other lint tools (site no. 110112317) in a private collection, indicate the existence
of a settlement from the Early Bronze Age in or near
this area. There are also records of scattered barrows
with no known inds.
Hørsted NV. About 0.8-1.2 km to the southeast
of Legaard, three barrows (site nos. 110112-201,
110107-15-16) have been recorded on the edge of
a rather long hill. There are no known inds from
these barrows, but at least two asymmetrical sickles
have been found at the western end of the hill. A lint
scatter was excavated here and a very small dwelling
house from period II/III was uncovered (THY 2788,
Sønderhå 5 house I, site no. 110112-313)(see Earle
this chap., p. 534 f).
The evidence suggests that larger households,
such as those in houses III and IX at Legaard, could
have had smaller supporting settlements in their
LEGAARD
521
N
Settlement area
Undated barrow
Burial from BA
Aarup
Settlement from BA
Hoard
216
9
Bjergene Nord
Pengshøje
199
11
Legaard
13
Haagaard
207
Bjergene Vest
14/15
205
17
204
Hørsted NV
Damsgaard
313
Sønderhaa Nord
308
317
Kildegård
314
277
0
Sønderhaa Vest
500
m
Figure 29.15. Settlements and possible settlement areas around Legaard.
vicinity. Conversely, taking the distance between
Legaard and this site into consideration, the small
building can also be seen as part of an independent
settlement.
Bjergene Vest. Some 0.7-0.8 km to the east of Legaard,
ive barrows have been recorded on a hilltop. A relatively large barrow (site no. 110112-205) was found
to contain a grave from period II, and in a long
barrow (site no. 110112-204) was a burial from the
Early Bronze Age (Aner et al. 2001, Ke 5040-5041).
Furthermore, a number of asymmetrical sickles have
been recorded in a private collection from this area
(Olsen 1991). Consequently, a settlement may have
been located in the vicinity of these barrows.
Bjergene Nord. About 1.5 km northeast of Legaard
and just north of a larger group of barrows containing
a number of burials (site nos. 110107-17, 110110-9,
-11, -13 -14/15, and maybe 110112-207) from the
522
Early Bronze Age (see below) a survey located a few
lint tools from the Late Neolithic and/or the Early
Bronze Age and a considerable amount of pottery,
some of which is from the Late Bronze Age (site no.
110110-199). Further to the north, settlement traces
in the form of postholes and pits are presumed to
date from the Late Bronze Age (site no. 110110-216).
We suggest that this area was settled at least in the
Late Bronze Age.
Below the southernmost member of the aforementioned larger group of Bronze Age barrows (site no.
110107-17), a cooking pit was found that produced
a radiocarbon date of 3370 ± 155 BP (K-6461) which
proves earlier activity in the Bjergene area west of
Legaard at the end of the Late Neolithic or during
period I of the Early Bronze Age. However, the settlement below and around the barrow, site no. 11010717, dates irst and foremost from the LN I (Earle et
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
al. 1998; Prieto-Martinez 2008)(THY 2758, site no.
110112-259), and excavations did not provide clear
evidence of houses contemporaneous with the Legaard
site, perhaps due to the limited extent of the excavated
area. Based on current evidence, however, the area
between Bjergene Nord and Bjergene Vest, which
is the higher part of the Bjergene area, is mainly to
be perceived as a barrow landscape during the Early
Bronze Age (Kristiansen 1998 and below).
Aarup, Kildegaard and Haagard. Finally, we can point
out these three areas where the topography and nearby
barrows indicate that a settlement could have been
located here in the Early Bronze Age.
The scattered settlement evidence from the microregion around the Legaard site suggests that the model
from Aas (Mikkelsen vol. II, chap. 28), i.e. one settlement from Early Bronze Age periods II-III per km2
and ive barrows located nearby, also applies in the
vicinity of Legaard.
The Legaard settlement in relation to
barrows and graves
Looking now at the Legaard site, there are two
recorded barrows (site nos. 110112-211-212) at the
edge of the hilltop (ig. 29.15) and one presumed
barrow (site no. 110112-319) just north of the area.14
We have no information on inds from the barrow, site
no. 110112-212, but it was probably at least 15 m in
diameter and 1.5 m high. A number of urns are stated
to have been found in the barrow, site no. 110112-211.
This barrow, at least, was probably in use during the
Late Bronze Age, given the number of longhouses
found at Legaard. The barrow, site no. 110112-319
was located by TAP and there is no information on
its size and no known inds from it.
Although it is not possible to date these three
barrows securely, there are no indications of earlier
settlements in the vicinity, for example passage graves
or other activities dating from the Funnel Beaker
Culture, in the excavated part of the Legaard site.
Furthermore, the presumed size of site no. 110111212 appears larger than normal Single Grave barrows and maybe also be larger than average Late
Neolithic barrows. A date in the Early Bronze Age
therefore seems reasonable, in which case at least
two or three barrows were built in relation to the
Early Bronze Age settlement at Leegaard, conirming the close relationship between farmstead and
barrows seen elsewhere.
However, if three to ive barrows were the ‘norm’
for an ordinary settlement, then only two or perhaps
three barrows associated with a settlement such as at
Legaard, with large houses, seem to be rather few. We
suggest that some of the barrows in the nearby barrow
groups could have belonged to the Legaard farm, most
probably the group on the hilltop Bjergene, which
has barrows and rich burials enough for more than
one settlement. The evidence therefore suggests that,
within the micro-region of Legaard, a complex spatial
relationship existed between large and small farms
and barrows. Such relationships could have changed
over time, as may be indicated by the reduction in
house size seen during the Late Bronze Age at the
Legaard site (see also discussion in Bech & Olsen
vol. I, chap. 4).
Houses III and IX and their economic
foundation
Both the size and the unusual tripartite construction of
houses III and IX, with cattle stalls in their central byre
and two living compartments, deserve fuller discussion.
How should these large farmhouses be understood in
relation to other farms and to the economic resources
needed to support them, and what is the signiicance
of the two habitation sections?
Timber – a declining resource
The large Legaard farmhouses III and IX were built
in an area devoid of large forests (Andersen 1995a,
1995b; Stika vol. II, chap. 31). Despite this, nothing
was spared in terms of the stout timbers use in their
construction (see also Draiby’s reconstruction drawing and calculation of timber consumption this chap.,
p. 531 f). This included the use of bole walls and a
large roof span; the width of the house was c. 8 m,
compared with the width of the normal farmhouse
of 6-7 m. When we add to this the fact that peat was
apparently used for fuel in the cooking pits in house
III, then it becomes abundantly clear that timber was
a scarce resource. This tells us two things: Timber
resources were controlled and not available to all in
equal measure and the architecture of a grand farm
building must have been governed by strong social
and economic conventions. It therefore makes sense
that most farmhouses employed wattle-and-daub wall
constructions, which saved timber. Another indication of the scarcity of large forest trees/oak trees
is the use of stone cists for burials, rather than the
oak cofins that were common in southern Jutland
where primeval forest still survived (Aaby 1986; Bech
& Rasmussen vol. I, chap. 2).
If we compare the timber consumption in the large
Legaard farms, even though there was a decline in
timber dimensions from house III to house IX, as also
seen in the Bjerre houses from the same period, the
difference is remarkable. Some farms obviously had
access to and controlled supplies of good timber, and
LEGAARD
523
as timber was a scarce resource, this meant that others were not able to obtain good building timber, as
seen at Bjerre, which probably represents the normal
situation in Thy.
The origin of wealth: Grazing land and cattle
In all literary sources relating to the late prehistoric
societies of Celtic and Germanic peoples, cattle constitute the single most valued resource. The wealth of
high-ranking people was measured in the number of
cattle they owned or controlled, together with other
factors such as the number of clients, i.e. the people
who contributed in one way or another to their household. The most famous Irish saga, the Táin, is about
a battle over a prized and renowned bull (Kinsella
1969), and cattle raids igure prominently in the old
Indo-European literature, from Homer to the Irish
sagas (Lincoln 1981).
However, the need for grazing land for large herds
of cattle and sheep also led to a drastic reduction in
forests. Initially, during the earlier 3rd millennium,
woodland was deliberately burnt to create pastures,
but from the Early Bronze Age onwards the pollen
record reveals a new and inal decline of the remaining
forests, corresponding to the period of occupation of
the two large Legaard farms, although perhaps beginning in the previous period (period I) or even earlier,
in the Late Neolithic. The construction of many new
farms throughout Thy at this time, combined with the
importance of cattle and the need to accommodate the
most valuable animals in the larger farms, goes a long
way to explaining the decimation of Thy’s last forests.
Pollen data from 12 Bronze Age barrows (Andersen
1999) demonstrates that the areas around the barrows
were heavily grazed. In one case, where there were two
successive phases of barrow construction, the pollen
record demonstrates how overgrazing around the primary barrow resulted in greatly elevated levels of plantain
(Plantago lanceolata) pollen, reaching an astonishing
level of 40%. Consequently, grazing pressure was high
during the Early Bronze Age in Thy and this, in turn,
prevented forest regeneration. In addition, the construction of barrows using turves depleted the good grazing
land around these monuments, as each barrow required
on average turf from 2-3 ha of grazing land. This situation was unsustainable in the long term and by the end
of period III barrow construction had come to a halt,
farmhouses were downsized and only wattle-and-daub
was used for house wall construction. There is even some
suggestion of some emigration from Thy during period
III to Jæren in southwest Norway as possibly indicated
by the occurrence of ornaments of typical Thy type in
this area (Randsborg 1972, map 20). The Legaard settlement is a prime example of this development at one
of the largest farmsteads in the region.
524
The social and economic signiicance of
interior space
The single most important factor in creating interior
monumentality is the width of a house, rather than its
length, although some relation exists between them.
The addition of extra width to the Legaard farms III
and IX created an imposing inner space, as shown by B.
Draiby’s reconstruction drawing (this chap., p. 531 f).
Anyone who has experienced a house of this width can
testify to the feeling of huge interior space and monumentality it conveys. Width also made higher demands
on the roof construction and on the sturdiness of the
supporting posts. We are therefore inclined to believe
that limits existed as to who was able to build farmhouses of extra width and with bole walls, both of which
demanded access to high-quality timber. This seems to
have been a prerogative of families of high standing and
it certainly demanded the control of timber resources
and skilled labour. It is probably no coincidence that
these farms were built to house cattle. Consequently,
the introduction of the three-aisled farmhouses around
1500 BC was most probably a response to a social need
to house cattle, and farmhouses with a width of c. 7-8
m were evidently better suited to accommodating two
rows of stall dividers and also had more space for storage
of winter fodder above the byre. There were therefore
both social and economic considerations associated with
the construction of such large farmhouses.
However, there was also the possibility of subdividing the living sections, as is suggested at least for the
western section. There were, accordingly, functional
divisions within the residential sections of the farm,
suggesting that different activities were performed
within each household.
Single and/or double households
The plan of Legaard house III has been presented
previously (e.g. Mikkelsen & Kristiansen 1996, 168;
Kristiansen 1998, 286, 1999, 545; Earle et al. 1998, 20;
Rasmussen 1999, 282; Bech & Mikkelsen 1999, 75; Bech
2003, 54; Jensen 2002, 121; Earle 2004, 121; Mikkelsen
2012, 56, 2013, 62).15 Legaard houses III and IX were
soon classiied as chiely houses and chiely halls (Earle et
al. 1998, 19-20),16 based on their size. K. Kristiansen later
related Legaard house III to twin rulers, a ritual chief
and a warrior chief: “The typical chiely farm hall of
this period is 30-40 m long and 8 m wide, and appears
together with the new institution of warrior aristocracies and twin rulers. In these big, three-aisled halls, we
ind a bipartite architecture: there are two identical
living quarters, each with a hearth. In the house …
[Legaard house III] we ind the central hall occupied
by the most costly, prestige good – stables for the cattle.
The house has two entrances, one on each side of the
house, close to the living quarters. So this is a farm hall
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
for two families with their cattle. Even then, they had
nearly 100 m2 in the living quarters, which were further
subdivided, a truly chiely compartment.” (Kristiansen
1999, 545). Later, J.-H. Bech seemed to be less certain
when he characterised houses III and IX as buildings
that “... belong to a group of houses of seemingly “chieftain” status built at the same time over most of Jutland”
(Bech 2003, 53), but in the same article he also writes:
“The big Legaard halls no doubt had chieftain status …”
(Bech 2003, 57). Most recently, a new interpretation has
been presented in which it is suggested that house III
was the residence of a high/highest status family, with a
room for the owner’s family, a room used as a byre and
a room in the eastern end for a “… family of slaves or
non-free workers …” (Mikkelsen 2013, 62).
The fact that farmhouses of Legaard type, with two
habitation units and stalls for cattle in the central part,
have now been demonstrated elsewhere than in Thy,
for example at Kongehøj II near Askov (Poulsen &
Brønd 2008; Bech & Rasmussen vol. I, chap. 2, ig.
2.15), and that a number of other longhouses with
two habitation units but no trace of a central byre
are also known, indicates that we are dealing with an
institutionalised construction. The question then is
what was the nature of this social institution?
To answer this question, we must irst consider the
nature of the residents in the two habitation sections:
Obvious possibilities include two separate households,
a generational division or a functional division within
a single large household. The generational hypothesis
seems the least probable: An older generation would
not be likely to reside separately and maintain a household in a large living area of nearly 100 m2, on a par
with a younger generation. In most societies the older
generation is downsized and is taken care of by the
younger generation. They would therefore live rather
within the household of the younger generation or
be given a smaller separate house.
In K. Kristiansen’s interpretation:
The fact that we are dealing with two equally-sized
habitation sections, each large enough to accommodate a full household, and that each had a separate
entrance but on opposite sides of the house, suggests
that these were coequal households (ig. 29.16). The
opposing entrances suggest that they each owned a
row of cattle on the side with the entrance. These
observations make a functional division impossible
and we therefore conclude that the Legaard farm was
a production unit that, for some reason, required the
cooperation of two households. Why was this?
In periods of expansion there was a need for
labour, for the construction of both houses and barrows, and this need could not be entirely met by each
individual household. Moreover, a double household
would surely be in a better position to cope in periods of crisis or conlict, when supplementary labour
from other farms and kin was not available. We can
also think in terms of the preservation of wealth and
power: A double household can exchange women
for marriage, if they are not too closely related, and
thereby retain the wealth of the families within the
households. This raises the question of the relationship between the two households. Double leadership
is attested throughout the Bronze Age and Iron Age
societies of the Indo-European speaking world, from
Mycenaean and Spartan kingships to Germanic tribes
(Parpola 2005). Such dual power functions normally
resided in the social structure, where they tended to
balance power. The Indo-European kinship system
also practised relocation of young boys as foster sons,
typically in the household of the mother’s brother
(uncle). If we assume that double household farms
were based on the principle of foster brothers and
their families, we would have an explanation that
ensured good relations with other kin groups (the
mother’s group), and they could thereby play a cen-
Entrance
N
Door
Kristiansen:
Mikkelsen:
Religious chief
Owner, high status
Entrance
Door
Stable
Stable
Warrior chief
Unfree workers
0
5
m
Figure 29.16. Legaard. Interpretations of house III. Legend for ire features: See vol. I, appendix A.
LEGAARD
525
tral role in the alliances that formed the foundation
for the metal trade (Rowlands 1980; Kristiansen &
Larsson 2005, 226ff). Taken together, all the resources
required to construct and maintain large farmhouses
such as houses III and IX at Legaard over longer periods of time indicate that they belonged to a powerful
minority of leading families which controlled vital
resources of timber, cattle, labour and good grazing
land. This conclusion is further supported by the fact
that most other houses were smaller and narrower
and lack stalls to accommodate cattle. Small residential houses, such as house I at Sønderhå 5 (see below)
(Earle this chap., p. 534 f), could have provided
labour for the farm during periods II-III. However,
the fact that the Legaard farms were built for two
households also suggests that this was a form of selfsupport, creating a more stable basis for maintenance
of the farm, should support from other households
fail (for other examples of double or possible double
households see Bech & Olsen vol. II, chap. 4). Twin
or double households were an institution in Bronze
Age society the signiicance of which we still do not
completely understand. They also correspond to a
dominating twin symbolism in Bronze Age cosmology. Twin households would therefore appear to have
occupied an important social and ritual position in
Bronze Age society.
In M. Mikkelsen’s interpretation:
M. Mikkelsen has recently suggested alternative interpretation (Mikkelsen 2012, 2013). In his view, Legaard
houses III and IX constituted the residences of a family
with high or even the highest status in the Bronze Age
society during the lifetime of these two longhouses
in period II and part of period III. He suggests that
the owner’s family resided in the western end, where
wooden benches and/or other constructions marked
the owner’s status for those who were permitted access
to this part of the house (ig. 29.16). Although the
eastern room was of the same size as the western
room, it was used to accommodate a household of
unfree labourers, perhaps comprising one or more
families. In this room there were no wooden benches.
Furthermore, the difference in status implied in this
interpretation was also expressed in the location of
the entrances. The entrance for the owner and his
family was on the bright, sunny southern side of the
house, while that for the unfree labourers was on
the dark northern side of the house. If both ends of
the building were occupied by households of equal
status, it would be expected that they both at least
had entrances on the same side of the house. It is
therefore suggested that houses III and IX were not
inhabited by two equal households but by two very
unequal households.
526
In I.K. Kristensen’s interpretation:
Based on her analysis of the distribution of household pottery and, to some extent, hammerstones and
quernstone fragments in Bjerre 6 house IB, which
showed that these objects were most frequent in the
eastern part, I.K. Kristensen proposes that the latter
was used mainly for storage and initial preparation of
food (Kristensen vol. II, chap. 18). She also suggests
that a similar situation may have existed at Legaard,
although the western part here was more heavily
damaged by ploughing and the two parts of the house
are therefore not on equal footing in terms of preservation (Kristensen vol. II, chap. 30). Kristensen’s
observations can, however, be taken to support both
Mikkelsen and Kristiansen in their interpretations.
A division of some activities between the two habitation areas demonstrates their close daily interaction.
However, as these indings are based on a very limited
number of cases, we must await further contextual
information on the function of dual habitations units
in Bronze Age houses/farms.
Chiely lineages and chiely farms
– an ongoing debate
In the preceding section we have demonstrated that
many factors and a high degree of social and economic complexity is concealed behind the apparently straightforward term: ‘chief’, or ‘chiely farm’.
We propose instead to talk about chiely lineages as
constituting all free farmers. This deinition takes its
point of departure in the link demonstrated between
farms and barrows (Mikkelsen vol. II, chap. 28), and
the fact that it has been calculated that probably only
around 20 -25% of the living population could have
been buried in barrows on their death (Holst et al.
2013). Barrows constituted the ritual and ‘heroic’
legitimisation of the lineage and soon created an ancestor genealogy that living members of the lineage could
proit from (Kristiansen 2006). However, although
everyone belonged to the same social category of
free farmers, here termed chiely lineages, they were
neither equally powerful nor wealthy. Substantial differences existed in farm size as well as in burial wealth,
although smaller dwelling houses may have belonged
to the less privileged group of commoners. How this
variation arose and was eventually maintained, in the
case of Legaard for at least three to four generations,
is too complex a matter to deal with here. We will
instead focus on Legaard’s relative position within
the larger Early Bronze Age farms.
The question is how common were the large farms
of the Legaard type or even larger ones? What relative level of social and economic ranking were these
associated with?17
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
If we consider the greater area of northwest Jutland
(ig. 29.17), 12 sites have longhouses of about the
same size as Legaard, but at least ive houses at ive
different sites (Virksund, Rosgårde, Kås Hovedgård
and Lundbro) are substantially larger (ig. 29.18).18
The large house at Virksund has been shown by radiocarbon dating to be contemporaneous with Legaard
house III (Bech & Olsen 2013).
It should be mentioned that in two of the aforementioned very large houses (Rosgårde house VI and
Lundbro house I) items were found with relations to
bronze casting (Kristensen 2015) and they thereby
display two of the most central elements used to deine
high-status settlements.
At the site of Kongehøj II, near Askov, a radiocarbondated farm identical to and of the same age as Legaard
house III was found together with an even larger farm,
also of the same date (Poulsen 2008 and pers. comm.).
This raises the question of the role of the tripartite
farmhouse in relation to even larger farms.
Three out of the four known very large longhouses
were found within or close to an area around Skive in
Salling with an unusually large number of period III
burials (Randsborg 1974, 198). But if these very large
longhouses are more common in this relatively rich
area, then the same should also be expected in Thy
– the other area with an unusually large number of
period III burials (Randsborg 1974; Kristiansen 1978).
N
Bjerre 6
Vestermark
Øster Ørbæk
Fårtoft V
Legaard
Stenildvad
Ginnerup
Båndruplund
Virksund
Kås Hovedgård
Lundbro
Hostrup Strand
Glattrup V
Skivevej 3
Rosgaarde
Solbakken
0
Stensgaard
10
20
km
Figure 29.17. Sites with large (light green) and extraordinarily large (dark green) houses in northwest Jutland.
LEGAARD
527
Site no.
Museum no.
Site name
House no.
Size
Area in m2
110112-279
THY 3414
Legaard
House III
c. 33.5 x 7.5-8 m
c. 260 m2
------------------House IX
c. 33.5 x 7.6 m
c. 255 m2
Period
EBA
II-III
EBA
II-III
110211-32
THY 2728
Bjerre 6
House IB
c. 25.5 x 8.5-7 m (2nd phase)
c. 205 m2
EBA II
110310-74
THY 5074
Vestermark
House XII
c. 31 x 7 m (1st phase)
c. 220 m2
-----------------c. 36.5 x 7-6 m (2nd phase)
c. 250 m2
EBA II
110605-128
THY 5056
Ginnerup
House I
c. 27.5 x 7.5 m
c. 205 m2
EBA I
120703-22
VMÅ 2466
Øster Ørbæk
House 1
c. 35 x 8.5 m
c. 295 m2
EBA II
120814-339
VMÅ 2610
Stenildvad
House 2
c. 36.6 x 8 m
c. 290 m2
EBA II
130107-306
SMS 951A
Skivevej 3
House X
c. 36 x 7 m
c. 250 m2
EBA II?
130110-110
SMS 742A
Koustrupgårde
House II
c. 31 x 7-6.5 m
c. 210 m2
-----------------House IV
c. 30 x 7.4-6.6 m
c. 210 m2
130110-111
SMS 731A
Rosgårde
House VI-VII
c. 32 x 8 m (1st phase)
c. 255 m2
c. 46 x 8 m (2nd phase)
c. 360 m2
EBA
II-III
EBA
II-III?
EBA
II-III
130117-243
SMS 933A
Virksund I
House K I
c. 38 x 7.5 m (1st phase)
c. 285 m2
c. 53 x 7.5 m (2nd phase)
c. 400 m2
130201-94
SMS 960A
Glattrup VI
House K IV
c. 33.5 x 7.75 m
c. 260 m2
EBA II?
130410-150
SMS 785A
Lundbro II
House I
c. 36 x 9 m
c. 325 m2
EBA II?
130910-241
VSM G637
Båndruplund
House II
c. 30.6 x 7.5 m
c. 225 m2
EBA
II-III?
131004-119
SMS 974A
Hostrup Strand
House IV
c. 32.5 x 7.6 m
c. 245 m2
EBA II?
131005-162
SMS 788A
Kås Hovedgård II
House I
Bevaret 28.5 x 10.5 m
Over 300 m2
180511-155
HOL 20.434
Solbakken
House I
c. 6.7 x 33.5 m
c. 225 m2
EBA II?
180804-240
HOL 20.350
Stensgård
House N12
c. 46 x 8.75 m
c. 400 m2
EBA II?
EBA
II-III?
Figure 29.18. Reported sizes of large (200-300 m2) and
extraordinarily large (> 300 m2) houses from the Early Bronze
Age in northwest Jutland.
528
When analysing differences in burial wealth, we ind
a similar hierarchical organisation as seen in settlements
in Thy and on Mors during periods II-III. Out of a
total number of 143 analysed burials, K.M. Hornstrup
(1998) classiied six as belonging to an elite segment.
If we apply these igures to settlements, then we should
expect approximately one in 24 settlement sites to yield
exceptionally large houses.19 If this comparison has
relevance, we should not be surprised that very large
houses, bigger than those at Legaard, have not yet been
found in Thy. It is more surprising that so many very
large houses have been found in Salling.
Returning to the local area around Legaard (ig.
29.15), the number of burial inds from the Early
Bronze Age located at Bjergene, about 1 km east of
Legaard, attracts attention. Swords have been found
in at least three or four of these barrows (Aner &
Kersten 2001, Ke 4989, 5010, 5012 and 5013), and a
burial from Bronze Age period I may have contained a
sword, a dagger and a spear. This relatively rich burial
cannot be related to the settlement area at Legaard,
where no longhouses from this period have yet been
found, but it indicates that a high-status settlement was
located in the vicinity of Bjergene (and Legaard?) in
period I. More interesting is a burial from period II,
which contained both a sword and a gold ring. This
rich burial could be contemporaneous with Legaard
houses III and/or IX. It is therefore possible that at
least one of the males (the head of the household)
from Legaard was buried at Bjergene. We still lack the
very largest longhouses, like those seen in southern
Jutland, but for the time being the Legaard farm is the
largest farm unit both in the local area and in Thy as
a whole. It therefore seems reasonable to link some
of the rich weapon burials from Bjergene to this site.
Conclusion
The Legaard site provides the best evidence so far for
the existence in the Early Bronze Age periods II-III
of large farms accommodating two households, with
a byre for housing cattle in their central part. Recent
excavations have testiied to the existence of similar
farmhouses in southern Jutland (Poulsen 2008; Bech
& Rasmussen vol. I, chap. 2). Large farms such as these
required access to substantial quantities of high-quality
building timber. This was, however, a scarce resource
in Thy at the time, as demonstrated by smaller farms,
most notably at Bjerre, from the same period. This situation testiies to the existence of a hierarchy in farms
and households and a social organisation in which twin
households played a central role. The nature of these
two households is still debated, and we will have to await
new excavations, providing good contextual evidence,
before the matter can be resolved. However, the presen-
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
tation of the Legaard farms, with two households and
housing of cattle, has taken our understanding of the
social and economic organisation of the Bronze Age
a large step forward and will focus attention on the
remaining unresolved problems in future excavations.
Notes
1. Excavations at the Legaard site began in 1995 with
a team of students from University of Gothenburg
led by K. Kristiansen. J.-H. Bech from Museum Thy
also participated. House I was excavated and trial
trenches revealed the existence of several further
houses and some very large postholes that later
turned out to represent house III. As the site was
complex and also under threat from ploughing,
Museum Thy applied for and received funding for
further rescue excavation. M. Mikkelsen was called
upon to direct the excavations, in collaboration with
K. Kristiansen and TAP, because of his extensive
experience in excavating Bronze Age houses.
2. The Legaard site has site no. 110112-279 and
reports and inds are archived at Museum Thy
under the case no. THY 3414.
3. The two barrows have site nos. 110112-211 and
-212. The urns were found in no. 211.
4. The plough-zone sampling was undertaken in 1995
under the direction of J. Steinberg. It was carried
out in conjunction with the trial excavation and
excavation of house I.
5. Finds resulting from the ploughzone sampling
are at present archived in US. They have not been
reviewed in connection with this publication. As
with other sites in the TAP, it is possible to make
a comparison between results from the survey
and from the ploughzone sampling. This has not
been done systematically for the Legaard site but
a few comments can be made. Comparing inds
from the survey with those from the ploughzone
sampling, the actual numbers for scrapers are
15-20:6, borers are 8-11:3, cores are 3:8 and pottery is 3:34. Although a number of factors should
be taken into consideration, it is notable that lint
tools from the survey outnumber those from the
ploughzone sampling, while the opposite is the
case with lint cores and, especially, the pottery.
6. The features from the Late Iron Age include two
pithouses and two ditches in the southwestern part
of the excavated area, minor parts of one or two
presumed longhouses, a possible pithouse in the
northwestern trial trench and a relatively large
pit that has disturbed part of the large house III
(ig. 29.4). The presence of these features raises
questions about the dating of some of the other
features in the excavated area.
7. It is dificult to establish with absolute certainty
whether the posts were removed or not. House
IX has one set of postholes for roof-bearing posts
that are much sturdier than the rest and have the
same dimensions as those in house III. Assuming
that house IX is later, this post pair could derive
from house III.
8. It does not seem possible to explain this difference
in distribution as being due to the preservation of
the westernmost part of house III being relatively
poor. Most of the western half of the house was
as well preserved as the eastern half, and in the
eastern half pottery was found in the lower part
of postholes below pit N202.
9. When the house was excavated, it was presumed,
on the basis of the house type with relatively large
roof- and wall postholes, that house III belonged
to the earliest ‘generation’ of three-aisled longhouses in Thy and it was therefore suggested in
the excavation report that it should be dated to
Bronze Age period II.
10. The eastern part was uncovered in 1996, but although all features in the area were sectioned, we
unfortunately did not identify house IX before
the central and western parts of the house were
uncovered in 1997.
11. The result may indicate that there was activity in
the area in the Late Neolithic or early in Early
Bronze Age period I.
12. The spacing of the roof postholes in each set is
relatively narrow compared to the other threeaisled longhouses on the site and also relative
to most other Early Bronze Age longhouses.
However, Bjerre 2 house III from period II also
has a relatively narrow cross span and therefore
this feature cannot, in itself, be used in dating
longhouses as has been suggested by for example
Artursson (2005).
13. On basis of the shape of the wall postholes in
house II, it was discussed, both during and after
the excavation, whether house II should be dated
to the Late Iron Age. But given the massive concentration of cooking pits of typical Bronze Age
type, and the similarities between the arrangement
LEGAARD
529
of the presumed roof postholes in both house II
and house IV, it seems reasonable to suggest that
the two houses are from the Bronze Age.
14. Even though they were marked on the ordnance
map, Engelhardt did not record these barrows in
1875, when he toured Sønderhå parish. According
to information from 1912, there were still substantial
remains of site no. 110112-212, so this barrow at least
must have been easy to see in 1875. The suspicion
is that Engelhardt unfortunately did not visit the
Legaard area and he obviously did not obtain any
other information on the barrows at the site.
15. Of these, Bech, Earle and Kristiansen all participated in the excavation at the Legaard site and all
therefore have detailed knowledge of the results
from the excavation. The interpretation of house
III (and later house IX) as a chiely house has been
discussed several times in TAP.
16. The term ‘hall’ (in Danish: hal) was irst used by
Becker (1972), when he referred to a 27 x 8 m longhouse at Spjald and a 33 x 8m longhouse at Bjerg in
western Jutland. If it is only size that distinguishes a
530
hall from other smaller longhouses, then Legaard
houses III and IX might be called halls according
to Becker’s deinition. But if the term is not only
deined by the overall size of the building, but also
or instead by the size of an internal ‘room’, then
the Legaard houses, as such, or a room inside the
Legaard houses, cannot be termed as halls, given
the byre evident in the largest central part of these
buildings.
17. The most comprehensive analyses of three-aisled
longhouses from the Early and Middle Bronze
Age, prior to Bech & Olsen (vol. I, chap. 4), were
presented by Rasmussen (1999), Artursson (2005,
2009) and Bech & Olsen (2013).
18. Unpublished material relating to igure 29.18 has
been kindly placed at our disposal by I.K. Kristensen,
Skive Museum, B.H. Nielsen, Vesthimmerlands
Museum, N. Terkildsen, Holstebro Museum and
J.-H. Bech, Museum Thy.
19. Obviously a number of source-related problems are
relevant when material from graves is compared
with settlement sites.
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
Legaard house III
Reconstruction by Bente Draiby
This substantial, regular house site corresponds to
a typical large farm from the middle of the Early
Bronze Age. The 33.5 m long and 8 m wide building
with semicircular, rounded gables and a loor area
of 260 m2 was not one of the very biggest of Bronze
Age farms. Nevertheless, its construction, with large
timbers, broad wall posts and sturdy bole walls, is
impressive given that it was built in a time of timber
shortage (ig. 29.I.A1).
Just as striking is its architecture both in plan and
in section (ig. 29.I.A2). The long building is divided
up into three rooms: Two solid partition walls with
door posts in the middle separate the two gable rooms
W
E
A1
A2
Ground plan; Longitudinal section, W-E
N
S
Plan of roof construction;
Cross-section through byre, N-S
A3
0
5
10
m
Figure 29.I.A1-3. Reconstruction of Legaard house III by B. Draiby. As part of the reconstruction, a hearth has been
drawn in on the ground plan in both the western and eastern ends of the house. No evidence for the existence of these was
demonstrated in the excavation, but they are a suggested reconstruction based on how hearths are normally located relative
to cooking pits (see also Bech & Olsen vol. I, chap. 4).
LEGAARD
531
Figure 29.I.B. The interior of the room at the western end of
the house. The chieftain receives guests. Drawing: B. Draiby.
used for habitation etc. from the large central byre
which, with its area of 120 m2, occupies almost half of
the building's total area. The house’s two entrances
are located here; one in the southwest corner and
the other in the northeast. Immediately to the left
of each of these entrances, which have the character
of gates, was possibly also a narrower entrance. The
mirror symmetry of the entire structure is remarkable
and is emphasised by the long, straight rows of stalls
along the north and south walls being displaced by
the position of the entrances, such that the byre is
the irst one sees on entering the building. Together
with the timberwork, the byre has represented wealth
and status of this large farm. The building is situated
on a west-facing hillside and, as the wall posts in the
gables can be presumed to have been dug to the same
depth, the loor of the west end lay rather more than
0.6 m lower than that in the east. The result of this is
that the gable room to the west is the highest room in
the building (ig. 29.I.B). The fact that this position-
70-80 years
About
30 years
50-60 years
TS
a
b
a-a
a
b-b
SK
TS
VS
A
b
BB
HR
BP
About
20 years
1
BP
VS
A
TS
2
GR
TB
TS
B
VS
DS
BP
SP
BP
a
b
a-a
b-b
a
BP
3
b
4
Diam. at root: 70 cm
50 cm
30 cm
20 cm
Logs (trees):
12 8
25 50
50
4
Figure 29.I.C. Diagram showing timber use. Logs and postpipes: A: Upper ends. B: Root ends. Postpipes in plan and section
from: 1: Cloven upper end. 2: Complete upper end. 3: Root end with axe marks from felling. 4: Felled at root, possibly from
wind-thrown tree. Logs used: TS: Roof post. VS: Wall post. DS: Door post. SK: Partition wall post. HR: Head. GR: End- or
gable plate. TB: Cross beam. BB: Tie beam. SP: Rafters. BP: Bole planks.
532
BENTE DRAIBY
ing of the building was entirely intentional is shown
by the subsequent house IX, immediately south of
house III, being situated according to the exactly the
same pattern.
Apart from at the wider entrances, the wall posts
forming the 2.5 m wide side aisles are placed between
1.5 and 1.7 m apart. Into these wall posts, which were
about 0.4 m wide and made of cloven timber with the
silver grain (i.e. the radially-cloven surface) facing
outwards, were inserted bole planks. The wall posts
of the long sides stand in pairs, at right angles to the
longitudinal axis of the building, where wall posts
and rafters were directly connected in a locked joint.
The wall posts around the gables, which form
precise semicircles, are positioned according to a
completely ixed pattern, determined by the roof
construction (ig. 29.I.A3). The best solution is with
three rafters over the end- or gable plate with the middle one slightly displaced relative to the longitudinal
axis and the two others rebated into the end plate,
forming an even arc. This pattern can be found in
other Bronze Age houses with dispersed wall posts.
A thatched roof of reeds has been selected here,
but the roof could just as well have been of turf,
which the solid timber construction could easily
have borne. There are several plausible reasons for
this choice, for example prioritisation of grassland
areas for hay-making and loft room for winter fodder
under a higher roof. There were reeds in abundance
around the nearby lakes and bogs, but the same cannot be said of grassland, which should also be used
for the barrow construction.
All the posts in house III are made of whole or cloven logs. None of the cross-sections of the postpipes
reveal further cleavage into quarter-section timber, and
there are only a very few plank-shaped cross-sections
that probably represent half-section timber from which
the rounded side has been cut away.
The bole planks, as wall planks, would necessarily
have been cloven timber, while the other horizontal
timber, tie beams, sills and plates could have been
made of whole or half logs. Figure 29.I.C shows how
many trees of various ages had to be felled to supply
the timber for this large longhouse, in all about 150
oak trees. It is abundantly clear that the bole walls were
the most resource-demanding part of the construction,
both with respect to the number of trees, cubic metres
of timber and labour required.
LEGAARD
533
Sønderhå 5 – THY 2788
by Timothy Earle
Located about 750 m SSE of Legaard on a small hill
that rises to 26 m a.m.s.l., THY 2788 is apparently a
small Early Bronze Age house site (ig. 29.2). Because
the original inds assemblage from the site contained
asymmetrical lint sickles (ig. 29.II.A) and no Dagger
period diagnostics, the site was tentatively assigned
an Early Bronze Age date. Subsequently, a lithic concentration was deined and preserved postholes and
cooking pits were documented. In summer 1993, a
full excavation took place, the goal of which was to
document the preserved structural features at the
site and to investigate associated economic activities. Because the culture layer had been ploughed
out, virtually all the artefacts were recovered from
the plough soil.
Fieldwork at THY 2788 involved shovel testing,
ploughzone sampling and normal procedures for
feature identiication and excavation (Steinberg 1996).
Across the top of the hill, shovel tests roughly deined
the lithic concentration. Fifteen 2 x 2 m ploughzone
samples (three per 50 x 50 m unit) were laid out in
a standard off-set grid across ive blocks surrounding
the area of the knoll (Steinberg 1996, 378, ig. 7).
Four exploratory trenches were then cut by machine,
and groups of features were exposed, including post-
0
5
cm
Figure 29.II.A. One of three asymmetrical lint sickles found
on the surface of the site by amateur archaeologist P. Brandt.
534
TIMOTHY EARLE
holes deining the small house on the little knoll. An
intensive pattern of ploughzone samples was then
laid out around where the preserved features had
been identiied. In all, 37 units were excavated and
screened from the top of the knoll. The goal was to
recover a representative sample of artefacts from the
plough soil surrounding the house (ig. 29.II.B). An
area of roughly 30 x 25 m was then cleared of plough
soil and exposed features were mapped and excavated
(ig. 29.II.C) .
The preserved western gable end, two sets of
somewhat irregular placed roof-support posts and
a central cooking pit deine reasonably well a threeaisled Bronze Age house. The house was apparently
small, perhaps only 9.3 m long and 5.5 m wide. It was
oriented east-west with a markedly rounded western
end and less angled than is typical of many Bronze
Age houses in northwest Jutland (Bertelsen et al.
1996; Bech & Olsen vol. I, chap. 4). The irregularity
in the pattern of preserved structural features probably relects poor construction materials due to the
scarcity of local wood, the lower status of the occupants and/or speciic uses of the structure. Although
much more regular, its closest parallel is a small house
from Early Bronze Age period III excavated at Ørum
in southern Thy (Bech & Olsen 2013, vol. I, chap.
4, ig. 4.6B). This measured 9 x 6 m and had three
pairs of roof-support posts. Due to associated ire
features, this building is interpreted as a residential
house, as also appears to have been the case with the
small house at THY 2788. A radiocarbon sample of
cereal grain (Hordeum vulgare) from cooking pit N38
in the house at THY 2788 was dated to 3010 ± 50 BP
(LuS 6108, vol I, appendix B), calibrated at 1 σ to
1377-1132 BC, i.e. Early Bronze Age periods II-III.
The house could therefore have been contemporary
with the large Legaard farms and perhaps functioned
as an auxiliary settlement.
Outside the house were various scattered features,
mainly cooking pits. Charcoal from ire feature N25,
close to a cooking pit, gave a radiocarbon date in
the Early Neolithic: 4765 ± 60 BP (LuS 6106, vol. I,
appendix B), calibrated at 1 σ to between 3639 and
3386 BC. However, this feature is most likely from
the Bronze Age, with peat containing fossil wood
having been used for fuel in the same way as seen in
house III at Legaard. From a later period, cremation
pit N17 was dated to 2170 ± 50 BP (LuS 6107, vol. I,
appendix B), calibrated at 1 σ to 357-166 BC, i.e. Early
Iron Age. Perhaps this burial is related to a plougheddown barrow listed in the parish inventory of 1912
from the same knoll, but of which no trace remains
today. In a number of cases, cremation burials from
the Early Iron Age have been found located outside
burial mounds (Hornstrup et al. 2005).
Figure 29.II.B.
Distribution of lint
lakes at the site based on
37 ploughzone samples.
The area of lithic production lies close to the
house site, but since the
lakes were produced by
hard hammer percussion, a typical Late
Bronze Age technology,
the relationship with the
Early Bronze Age house is
open to discussion. Some
retouched frost lakes and
a few pressure-worked
fragments of sickles
were also found in the
plough soil. Diagram:
J. Steinberg.
300
300
200
200
100
100
63039300
63039200
4674600
4674500
63039100
Area of
lithic
production
4674400
63039000
4674300
Number of
flakes in a
plow zone
sample
10 m
Cooking pit
Posthole
Figure 29.II.C.
Distribution of features
at the site. Legend for
ire features: See vol. I,
appendix A.
0
4
8
m
N38
N17
N25
N
SØNDERHÅ
535
References
Aaby, B. 1986. Mennesket og naturen på Abkæregnen
gennem 6000 år – resultater af et forskningsprojekt.
Sønderjysk Månedsskrift 1986/9, pp. 277-290.
Andersen, S.T. 1995a. History of Vegetation and
Agriculture at Hassing Huse Mose, Thy, Northwest
Denmark, since the Ice Age. Journal of Danish
Archaeology 11 (1992-93), pp. 57-79.
Andersen, S.T. 1995b. Pollenanalyser fra Ove Sø.
Geobotaniske Undersøgelser af Kulturlandskabets Historie.
DGU Kunderapport nr. 12, pp. 36-55.
Becker, C.J. 1972. Hal og hus i yngre bronzealder.
Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 1972, pp. 5-16.
Bertelsen, J.B., M. Christensen, M. Mikkelsen,
P. Mikkelsen, J. Nielsen & J. Simonsen 1996.
Bronzealderens bopladser i Midt- og Nordvestjylland.
Skive: Skive Museum.
Earle, T. 2004. Culture Matters in the Neolithic
Transition and Emergence of Hierarchy in Thy,
Denmark: Distinguished Lecture. American
Anthropologists 106/1, pp. 111-125.
Andersen, S.T. 1999. Pollen Analyses from Early Bronze
Age Barrows in Thy. Journal of Danish Archaeology 13
(1996-97), pp. 7-17.
Earle, T., J.-H. Bech, K. Kristiansen, P. Aperlo, K.
Kelertas & J. Steinberg 1998. The Political Economy
of Late Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Society: The
Thy Archaeological Project. Norwegian Archaeological
Review 31/1, pp. 1-28.
Aner, E., K. Kersten, E. Koch & K.-H. Willroth 2001.
Die Funde der älteren Bronzezeit des nordischen Kreises in
Dänemark, Schleswig-Holstein und Niedersachsen. Band
11. Thisted Amt. Neumünster: Wachholtz.
Holst, M.K., M. Rasmussen, J.-H. Bech & K. Kristiansen
2013. Bronze Age ‘Herostrats’: Ritual, Political, and
Domestic Economies in Early Bronze Age Denmark.
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 79, pp. 265-296.
Artursson, M. 2005. Gårds- och bebyggelsesstruktur.
In: P. Lagerås & B. Strömberg (eds.), Bronsåldersbygd
2300-500 f. Kr., pp. 84-159. Skånska spår. Arkeologi
längs Västkustbanan 6. Lund: Riksantikvariämbetet.
Hornstrup, K.M. 1998. Overgangen fra ældre til yngre
Bronzealder. Et eksempel fra Nordvestjylland,
Danmark. In: T. Løken (ed.), Bronsealder i Norden
– Regioner og interaksjon, pp. 23-33. AmS-Varia 33.
Stavanger: Arkeologisk museum i Stavanger.
Artursson, M. 2009. Bebyggelse och samhällsstruktur.
Södra och mellersta Skandinavien under senneolitikum
och bronsålder 2300-500 f. Kr. Riksantikvarämbetet
& Göteborg Universitet. Gotarc Series B, No.
52. Göteborg: Göteborg University. Stockholm:
Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Hornstrup, K.M., K.G. Overgaard, S. Andersen, P.
Bennike, P.H. Mikkelsen & C. Malmros 2005.
Hellegård – en gravplads fra omkring 500 f.Kr.
Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie (2002),
pp. 83-162.
Jensen, J. 2002. Danmarks Oldtid. Bronzealder 2000-500
f.Kr. København: Gyldendal.
Bech, J.-H. 2003. The Thy Archaeological Project
– Results and Relections from a Multinational
Archaeological Project. In: H. Thrane (ed.),
Diachronic Settlement Studies in the Metal Ages, pp.
45-60. Jutland Archaeological Society publications
45. Højbjerg: Jutland Archaeological Society.
Kinsella, T. 1969. The Tain from the Irish Epic Tain Bó
Cuailnge. Translated by Thomas Kinsella. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Bech, J.-H. & M. Mikkelsen 1999. Landscapes, settlement and subsistence in Bronze Age Thy, NW
Denmark. In: C. Fabech & J. Ringtved (eds.),
Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference
in Århus, Denmark May 4-7 1998, pp. 69-77. Højbjerg:
Jutland Archaeological Society.
Kristensen, I.K. 2015. Spor efter bronzehåndværk i
Salling og Fjends. In: S. Boddum, M. Mikkelsen &
N. Terkildsen (eds.), Bronzestøbning i yngre bronzealders
lokale kulturlandskab, pp. 107-119. Yngre bronzealders kulturlandskab 5. Viborg: Viborg Museum.
Holstebro: Holstebro Museum.
Bech, J.-H. & A.-L.H. Olsen 2013. Early Bronze Age
houses from Thy, Northwest Denmark. In: K.-H.
Willroth (ed.), Siedlungen der älteren Bronzezeit, pp.
9-32. Studien zur nordeuropäischen Bronzezeit 1.
Neumünster: Wachholtz.
Kristiansen, K. 1978. The Consumption of Wealth
in Bronze Age Denmark. A Study in the Dynamics
of Economic Processes in Tribal Societies. In:
K. Kristiansen & C. Paludan-Müller (eds.), New
Directions in Scandinavian Archaeology, pp. 158-190.
536
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN
Studies in Scandinavian prehistory and early history 1. Copenhagen: The National Museum of
Denmark.
Olsen, A.-L.H. 1991. Recording of artefacts from private
collections in Sønderhå parish 1991. Museum Thy,
unpublished report.
Kristiansen, K. 1998. The Construction of a Bronze
Age Landscape, Cosmology, Economy and Social
Organisation in Thy, Northwestern Jutland. In: B.
Hänsel (ed.), Mensch und Umwelt in der Bronzezeit
Europas, pp. 281-291. Kiel: Oetker-Voges.
Olsen, A.-L.H. & J.-H. Bech 1996. Damsgård. En
overpløjet høj fra ældre bronzealder per. III med
stenkiste og ligbrændingsgrube. Kuml (1993-94),
pp. 155-198.
Kristiansen, K. 1999. Symbolic structures and social
institutions. The Twin rulers in Bronze Age Europe.
In: A. Gustafsson & H. Karlsson (eds.), Glyfer och
arkeologiska rum – en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh, pp.
537-552. GOTARC series A, 3. Göteborg: University
of Göteborg.
Kristiansen, K. 2006. Cosmology, economy and longterm change in the Bronze Age of Northern Europe.
In: K.-G. Sjögren (ed.), Ecology and Economy in
Stone Age and Bronze Age Scania, pp. 171-193. Lund:
National Heritage Board.
Kristiansen, K. & T.B. Larsson 2005. The Rise of Bronze
Age Society. Travels, transmissions and transformations.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lienemann, J. 1999. P-mapping in THY 3414. ABOLA,
Arbeitsgruppe für Bodenkunde Landschaftsökologie
und angewandte Botanik GmbH, Oldenburg,
Deutschland, unpublished report.
Lincoln, B. 1981. Priests, Warriors, and Cattle. A Study
in the Ecology of Religion. Hermeneutics, studies in
the history of religions 10. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Mikkelsen, M. 2012. “Dobbeltgårde” i yngre bronzealder.
In: S. Boddum, M. Mikkelsen & N. Terkildsen (eds.),
Bebyggelsen i yngre bronzealders lokale kulturlandskab, pp.
41-65. Yngre bronzealders kulturlandskab 2. Viborg:
Viborg Museum. Holstebro: Holstebro Museum.
Mikkelsen, M. 2013. The topographical placing of the
Late Neolithic and Bronze Age settlements and an
introduction to a new interpretation of the layout
of the individual farms in the Bronze Age. In: K.-H.
Willroth (ed.), Siedlungen der älteren Bronzezeit, pp.
33-66. Studien zur nordeuropäischen Bronzezeit 1.
Neumünster: Wachholtz.
Mikkelsen, M. & K. Kristiansen 1996. Legård. Arkæologiske udgravninger i Danmark 1996 (209). Det Arkæologiske Nævn. København.
Olsen, J., K.M. Hornstrup, J. Heinemeier, P. Bennike &
H. Thrane 2011. Chronology of the Danish Bronze
Age based on 14C dating of cremated bone remains.
Radiocarbon 53/2, pp. 261-275.
Poulsen, M.E. 2008. Bygherrerapport for HBV j.nr. 1275
Kongehøj Etape II. Arkæologiske undersøgelser af bebyggelse
fra bondestenalder og bronzealder. Sønderskov: Museet
på Sønderskov.
Poulsen, M.E. & J. Brønd 2008. Bondestenalder og
bronzealder på Kongehøj ved Askov. Fund af hustomter og gravanlæg fra 2500-500 f.Kr. Museet på
Sønderskov – Museumsavisen 28/47, pp. 17-27.
Parpola, A. 2005. The Nasatyas, the Chariot and ProtoAryan Religion. Journal of Indological Studies, Nos. 16
& 17 (2004-2005), pp. 1-63.
Prieto-Martinez, M.P. 2008. Bell Beaker Communities
in Thy: The First Bronze Age Society in Denmark.
Norwegian Archaeological Review 41/2, pp. 115-158.
Randsborg, K. 1972. From Period III to Period IV. Chronological studies of the Bronze Age in Southern Scandinavia
and Northern Germany. Nationalmuseets skrifter,
Arkæologisk-historisk række 15. Copenhagen: The
National Museum of Denmark.
Randsborg, K. 1974. Befolkning og social variation i
ældre bronzealders Danmark. Kuml (1973-1974),
pp. 197-208.
Randsborg, K. 2006. Opening the Oak-cofins. New
Dates – New Perspectives. In: K. Randsborg &
K. Christensen, Bronze Age Oak-cofin Graves.
Archaeology & Dendro-dating, pp. 3-162. Acta
Archaeologica Vol. 77, Supplementa Vol. VII.
Rasmussen, M. 1993. Bopladskeramik i Ældre Bronzealder.
Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter 29. Højbjerg: Jysk
Arkæologisk Selskab.
Rasmussen, M. 1999. Livestock without bones. The
long-house as contributor to the interpretation of
LEGAARD
537
livestock management in the Southern Scandinavian
Early Bronze Age. In: C. Fabech & J. Ringtved (eds.),
Settlement and Landscape. Proceedings of a conference in
Århus, Denmark May 4-7 1998, pp. 281-290. Højbjerg:
Jutland Archaeological Society.
Rowlands, M. 1980. Kinship, alliance and exchange
in the European Bronze Age. In: J. Barrett & R.
Bradley (eds.), Settlement and Society in the British
Later Bronze Age, pp. 15-55. BAR British Series 83.
Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
538
Steinberg, J. 1996. Ploughzone sampling in Denmark:
Isolating and interpreting site signatures from disturbed contexts. Antiquity 70, pp. 368-390.
Steinberg, J.M. 1997. The Economic Prehistory of Thy,
Denmark. A Study of the Changing Value of Flint Based on
a Methodology of the Plowzone. University of California,
Los Angeles, unpublished PhD thesis.
Westphal, J. 2000. Thy Archaeological Project. Report of Field
Survey 1992-1997. Museum Thy, unpublished report.
MARTIN MIKKELSEN & KRISTIAN KRISTIANSEN