scandinavia and the huns: an interdisciplinary approach to the migration era

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 09:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Norwegian Archaeological ReviewPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

Scandinavia and the Huns: AnInterdisciplinary Approach to theMigration EraLotte Hedeager aa Department of Archaeology , Conservation and HistoricalStudies , University of Oslo , Norway E-mail:Published online: 07 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Lotte Hedeager (2007) Scandinavia and the Huns: An InterdisciplinaryApproach to the Migration Era, Norwegian Archaeological Review, 40:1, 42-58, DOI:10.1080/00293650701303560

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650701303560

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms& Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sarc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00293650701303560

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00293650701303560

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Scandinavia and the Huns: AnInterdisciplinary Approach to theMigration Era

LOTTE HEDEAGER

The aim of this paper is to discuss the early Migration period as a particular

period of ‘short term history’ and its formative impact on the Scandinavian

longue duree in the first millenium. During this particular period of time, the

object world of Scandinavia demonstrates radical changes in symbolic

representation, followed by long term continuity and social/mental resistance

to change. It is argued that the Huns, as a historical fact, were present in

Scandinavia in the early fifth century. Their impact was to generate an

‘episodic transition’ that opened up a whole new set of social, religious and

political strategies, in Scandinavia in particular as well as in Barbarian Europe

in general, and gave rise to a new Germanic identity in the aftermath of the

Roman Empire.

INTRODUCTION

The classic Annales model of historical time,

developed by Fernand Braudel in 1949, deals

with different historical horizons, all of

which are relevant to the discipline of

archaeology: longue duree, conjunctures and

evenements (e.g. Hodder 1986, 1987, Bintliff

1991, 2004, Knapp 1992, Andren 1998,

Morris 2000, Moreland 2001, Hodder &

Hutson 2003, Harding 2005, Harding et al.

2006). However, it is the scale of long-lived/

slow changing structures, la longue duree,

and the medium term, conjunctures, which

embrace the concept of mentalites and

thereby serve as powerful theoretical models

for studying the development of past human

societies from the inside in a long-time

perspective. By definition, then, any change

in the collective representation of society has

to happen gradually over time and therefore,

ideally, should be visible in the materialculture record too. This, however, is not the

case. On the contrary, the object world

demonstrates radical changes in symbolic

structures at certain historical moments,

followed by long term continuity and

social/mental resistance to changes

(Kristiansen 2004: Fig. 5). The aim of this

paper is to discuss the early Migration periodas a particular period of ‘short term history’

and its formative impact on the

Scandinavian longue duree in the first millen-

nium. Hereby the shortest wavelength of

time, that of individuals and events, are

taken as the point of departure and explored

as leading to a throughout reordering of

society. The history of individual time is thusexplored as the foundation for changes in the

structural history of Northern Europe and as

such this paper touches the current time–

structure–agency debate within archaeology

Lotte Hedeager, Department of Archaeology, Conservation and Historical Studies, University of Oslo, Norway. E-mail:

[email protected]

ARTICLE Norwegian Archaeological Review, Vol. 40, No. 1, 2007

DOI: 10.1080/00293650701303560 # 2007 Taylor & Francis

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(i.e. Bintliff 2004, Harding 2005, Harding

et al. 2006).

HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK: THEIMPACT OF THE HUNS

The chief of the Huns, king Attila, born of his

father Mundiuch, lord of the bravest tribes, sole

possessor of the Scythian and German realms,

something unheard of before, captured cities and

terrified both empires of the Roman world, and,

appeased by their prayers, took an annual tribute

to save their remnants from plunder. And when he

had accomplished all this by favour of fortune, he

fell not by wound of the foe, nor by treachery of

friends, but in the midst of his nation at peace,

happy in his joy and without sense of pain. Who

can rate this as death, when none believes it calls

for vengeance? (Jordanes: Getica XLIX:257)

This was the song that was sung over the

death body of Attila when he died in AD 453

(Thompson 1996:164). This short curriculum

vitae is, so to speak, a compressed represen-

tation of his position as the paramount ruler

of Barbarian Europe and superior to the

Roman emperors, who paid him tribute. He

kept his power through a sophisticated

balance of terror and reward, well known

as the strategy for later steppe empires, too.

He never took, nor held, land; he controlled

space by moving and kept it by way of

mobility and speed (Pohl 2001). Throughout

the first millennium AD the nomadic system

developed and expanded continuously. Its

frontiers moved forward, neighbouring peo-

ples were conquered and the ‘ethnic’ map

and the geopolitical configurations of wes-

tern Eurasia were redrawn (Martynov

1991:chap. 5, Howard-Johnston in prep.:

chap. I). Thus, the meeting with the Huns

was a historically well attested intersection

between structurally different societies with

divergent perceptions of time and space, the

Roman Empire, the agrarian Germanic

warrior tribes, and the hyper mobile pastoral

steppe warrior society, inexplicable without

an effective central authority and relatively

well developed political institutions

(Howard-Johnston in prep.: chap.I).

These ‘edges of time and space’ might have

opened up new ways of thinking and

alternative perceptions of the world among

the Germanic tribes. Those episodic transi-

tions, as Anthony Giddens designates them,

are defined as uneasy relations of symbiosis

and conflict with, and partial domination

over, surrounding societies (Giddens

1986:245). The effect might be subversion

or undermining of the ideological ‘glue’ that

formerly held the society together (Giddens

1981:23). The new glue that kept the world of

Attila together was gold. It motivated the

barbarian allies to seek out Imperial gold in a

never-ending spiral of consumption and

violence. And it brought with it new social

and religious institutions. This was the

specific historical condition that character-

ized the pan-European ‘world-system’ during

the first generations of the fifth century. But

how far did this new ‘world-system’ of Attila

extend? And what was its impact?

Romulus [who had come from Italy to Attila as

ambassador], an ambassador experienced in many

affairs, took up the discourse and said that his

[Attila’s] very great fortune and the power derived

from good luck exalted him so that he could not

endure just proposals unless he thought they came

from himself. By no one who had ever yet ruled

over Scythia, or indeed any other land, had such

great things been achieved in such a short time,

since he ruled even the islands of the Ocean and,

in addition to Scythia, held the Romans also to

the payment of tribute. He is aiming, he said, at

greater achievements beyond his present ones and

desires to go against the Persians to expand his

territory to even greater size (Priscus fr.8, Gordon

1960:91).

From the conversation that followed

between Romulus and Priscus, a Byzantine

historian who travelled to the Hun court in

449 on a diplomatic mission and recorded his

impressions (Gordon 1960), we understand

that the former held a competent geographi-

cal knowledge of the Roman world and

Scandinavia and the Huns 43

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

beyond. When he explicitly mentions ‘the

islands of the Ocean’ to stress the power of

Attila, this indicates that he in fact knew

what he was talking about and may have

presupposed that Priscus did the same.

Clearly, north of continental Europe is an

ocean with islands, and scholars agree that it

is the islands of the Baltic Sea to which he

refers (Gibbon 2005:370, Thompson 1996:84

with references). This is an obvious conclu-

sion from the fact that the Huns gainedsupremacy over the Gothic tribes living in

the north along the Vistula basin. Thus, if

this is in accordance with truth, the Huns’

supremacy included part of Scandinavia.

From the military and political strategy we

know of elsewhere, it is most likely that the

Huns and their allied troops physically went

to the North for a brief expedition duringwhich they established local strongholds – by

force and by diplomacy, during the first half

of the fifth century. This might explain why

Romulus is so precise on this particular bit of

information. The historical truth of this

hypothesis can, of course, never be proved.

However, we must consider this a possibility

if we wish to understand the culturaltransformations of Scandinavian societies

during this particular historical period when

a new Germanic identity took shape. To

what extent did it build upon Old Norse

traditions, and to what extent were new

traditions incorporated? The final result

materialised among other things in the new

Nordic or Germanic animal style, whichrepresents a reformulation or reinventing of

traditions, but with a new animal world

added with no antecedents in the North

(Hedeager 2005a, b). This can only be

explained by foreign influence, and here the

Huns are for several reasons the obvious

candidates. This, of course, does not mean

that the Huns were the only source ofinfluence in the transformative period of

the fifth century when the Nordic animal

style took off. Classical elements, figural

compositions, carving technique, etc., from

Roman, Gallo-Roman and Byzantine art

have long been identified in the animal

ornamentation. However the whole concept

of animals as the main organizing principlein the new artistic expression and – as argued

– in the cosmology is hardly to be ascribed to

the Roman world. It requires a further

framework of explanation.

All societies are ‘influenced’ from the

‘outside’, traditionally labelled innovation

or diffusion, presupposing that it is part of

an ongoing process that gradually adds newelements to an existing pattern or material

traits transferred from one culture to another

(Kristiansen 2005:75, 151). However, the

specific historical conditions that character-

ized the post-Roman era are inextricably

linked with the impact of the Huns. Here, a

minority of people, the Huns and their allies,

achieve and maintain control over a majorityof peoples and ‘nations’ during a brief

historical period. Based on contemporary

Roman sources, the Huns have traditionally

been viewed as an archaic, predatory people

only held together by military activity and a

continuous inflow of booty. However, it is

hard to explain their military capability and

the diplomatic vision of the Huns withoutpresupposing a sophisticated and highly

effective central authority with extensive

outreach. In the words of James Howard-

Johnston they ‘plainly operated on an

imperial scale, both in terms of territory

and the diversity of subject peoples’

(Howard-Johnston in prep.: chap. I). Thus,

when a new hierarchy of power relations wasimposed, what impact did it have on

Germanic societies and their institutions?

The historical record and epic poetry of

central and northern Europe begin with the

dramatic historical events of the late fourth

and early fifth centuries when the Huns held

military and political power in Germanic

Europe. Attila and the Huns constitute thefixed point of social remembrance, so to

speak, an oral tradition of a longue duree

thus codified in written form (Hedeager

2000). I propose that these few decades of

European history became decisive for the

44 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

long-term cosmological history of Northern

Europe. It was a rapid episode of significant

individual experiences that were transformed

into social time and collective memory and

thus became the foundation for a change in

the medium-term of structural history, and

the long-term of geographical time of theAnnales model. Only archaeology can how-

ever provide the evidence to support or reject

this hypothesis. And only archaeology can

provide a first hand dating of Old Norse

mythology and its origin. We shall therefore

begin with an analysis of material aspects of

Hunnic influence and its acculturation.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK:TRANSFERABLE COSMOLOGIES

The appearance of the Huns and the inter-section between the Huns and the Germanic

tribes generated a transition in cultural

knowledge and social memory among the

Northern people. We should therefore expect

that the adoption of new set of values and

institutions, in a structured way, materialised

in iconography, ruling regalia, monuments,

buildings, etc. (Kristiansen & Larsson2005:10ff).

Like oral tradition, symbolic objects have

the capacity to cross generations because

they can convey quite specific information

about the past that was known to people.

Symbolic memory encapsulates in condensed

form mythological knowledge and master

narratives. Thus, imbued with those quali-ties, artefacts operate as agents, embedded

and contextualised in networks of social

action and social knowledge (Gell 1992,

Meskell 2004). They have their own curricu-

lum vitae and may be perceived as acting

independently. In Old Norse literature this is

well attested regarding famous swords, hel-

mets, necklaces, buckles and other personaladornments, named and thus personified

(Hedeager 2001, 2004). Those artefacts were

conceived of as actors similar to individual

persons, reminding us of the lack of a simple

subject–object dichotomy of the ancient

North, where objects were agents and where

people and animals did not form binary

oppositions. Thus, in opposition to theindivisible person we might rather operate

with an Old Norse dividual nature of

personhood where each individual is identi-

fied as a series of parts (Fowler 2004: 24ff).

Hugr, hamingja and fylgjur, which are central

Old Norse concepts, confirm this perception

of divided personhood in which shape

changing and metamorphosis in animaldisguise were regarded as natural things

and a special feature of gods and priests

(e.g. Davidson 1978, Price 2002, Hedeager

2004, 2005a) (Fig. 1).

Dividual persons contained within them

components from other persons, animals or

objects. In other words, objects are also

actually more than individual agents; theycould be part of various persons and thus,

like animals, encapsulate parts of human

personhood. In the dividual understanding

of personhood specific objects had the

capacity intimately to link two people

together. Thus, the qualities that are to be

found in persons are also to be found in

objects, as elsewhere in the world (Fowler2004:27). And these qualities could be

transferred and exchanged under specific

conditions.

The importance of ritual exchange among

Germanic and Nordic peoples is well

attested. Social and political supremacy was

formed through the circulation of specific

objects of supreme quality. They werebrought into being through a particular

process of manufacturing or initiation.

They acquired an ‘origin’ through a process

of transformation, what Mary Helms (1993)

calls ‘skilled crafting’ and Alfred Gell (1992)

‘a technology of enchantment’, and like

persons they had to go through a process

of socialization through time to gain aparticular cultural identity.

During the first four centuries AD, Roman

tablewares, weapons and jewellery, etc.,

served this function as the medium of

exchange, revealing social and ideological


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

supremacy (e.g. Hedeager 1992).

Manufactured within a foreign culture,

whether Roman or Provincial, they were

considered of mysterious or divine origin

because they came from the outside world

(Hedeager 2001). They reached the barbarian

peoples as war booty and through ceremo-

nial gift exchange in political alliances, and

in funerary rites they were buried with the

dead because they might have encapsulated

the specific qualities and powers of the

person while alive.

However, from the late fourth century

Roman goods stopped being consumed in

the transmission of social and cultural

knowledge, reflecting a disorder and loss of

knowledge within these institutions. This

fundamental change in the system of social

and ritual reproduction is accompanied by a

significant change in material culture, too.

The new animal ornamentation (Muller

1880, Salin 1904, Haseloff 1981) was an

abstract language of signs that summarised

in symbolic form divided personhood, ani-

mal disguise and metamorphosis as per-

ceived realities (Kristoffersen 1995, 2000,

Lindstrøm & Kristoffersen 2001, Hedeager

2004, 2005a) (Fig. 2). It conveys a different

language of power to the Roman. How are

we to understand this dramatic ideological

and cosmological change?

The importance of the animals and a

conceptual belief in shape changing are basic

concepts to any shamanistic system of belief

(e.g. Eliade 1964, Holmberg 1964) and

have no obvious anchoring in the Roman

World (Salin 1903, 1904). Hunnic religious

Fig. 1. Men in animal disguise from (a) the Torslunda stamps, Sweden; (b) a sword sheath from

Gutenstein, Germany. (Drawing (a) Bengt Handel in Arbman 1980; (b) I. Muller in Arent 1969:

Fig. 17.)

Fig. 2. Animals with human masks as thighs (from

an unknown mound, Denmark, after Salin 1904:

Fig. 546).

46 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

specialists, however, were seers and shamans;

among other things the Huns trusted harus-

pices at a time when the Romans and theImperial Germans were Christianised, and at a

time when Roman edicts threatened with

capital punishment those ‘insane’ enough to

consult them. The specific Hunnic method of

foreknowing, scapulimancy (divination from

the scorched shoulder-blade of a sheep), was

no doubt of Asiatic origin (Maenchen-Helfen

1973:270, Morgan 1986:40ff). To any societywith a shamanistic worldview, animals are

essential, and the Asiatic steppe peoples are

traditionally no exception (Rostovtzeff 1929,

Chang 1983, Martynov 1991).

The Huns introduced a traditional Asiatic

shamanistic belief system that resonated well

with what we know of the Old Norse system

of belief. But more importantly, in Germanicideology political and religious power went

hand in hand. Power, myth, and wealth

always sustain and develop each other.

Those who could provide all of these

elements were considered superior. Now the

Huns took over that role from the Romans.

In addition, among the North European

tribes in particular, this new system of beliefmight have represented a most attractive

alternative to the adoption of the Christian

faith. It gave rise to the development of a

new symbol system with animals as the

organizing principle, ideologically without

anchoring in the Christianized Roman/

Byzantine world.

Inseparable from the appearance of thissymbol system in the first half of the fifth

century is the immense number of gold

hoards in the North, reflecting a highly

competitive and aggressive social and poli-

tical system with gold as the potent vehicle of

cultural and cosmological values (Hedeager

1992, 1999). During the same decades of

European history as those in which animalornamentation came into being, gold con-

stituted the supreme institutional medium

for Attila’s policy (Thompson 1996:94).

Thus, the immense number of gold hoards

in the Nordic area can be ascribed to the

policy of the Huns and the political situation

in the Migration Period in general. The vast

amounts of wealth as reflected in thesehoards situate Scandinavia within the realm

of Hunnic policy and interaction.

As a steppe empire the Huns’ sovereignty

over vast territories was upheld through

speed, mobility, violence and reward. Like

other nomad peoples they never conquered

land in order to control it (Thompson

1996:60, Pohl 2001). As mounted warriorsthey were, theoretically at least, able to cross

from one end of Europe to the other in a few

weeks because of their outstanding capacity

as horsemen who carried everything with

them on horseback (Howarth 1994:19). Their

institutions were movable, too, and social

power was exercised in the hall or the yurt

(Kennedy 2002:45). Although Attila had aheadquarters with impressive timber build-

ings to deal with foreign diplomats, all social,

cultural, military, economic, and religious

institutions were transferable in space.

Priscus reports on these institutions (Priscus

fragm. Gordon 1960). No doubt, Hun

society incorporated a wide variety of

specialists who performed and codifiedinstitutionalised behaviour, whether the

young women in the welcome procession,

the performance of the banquet, the women

who embroidered the beautiful textiles, or

the artisan smiths who transformed the

Roman gold into elaborated diadems, earr-

ings, and buckles, some inlaid with precious

stone (Chardaev 1991:255–256), and elabo-rated horse gear, etc. Thus, the Huns, as the

Scythians and other steppe people, possessed

sophisticated institutions and a significant

material culture embedded in them. The

acquisition of gold and portable wealth

constituted the purpose of diplomatic mis-

sions and the goal of Hunnic ‘foreign policy’

and warfare (i.e. Gibbon 2005: chap.XXXIV–XXXV, Thompson 1996, Pohl

2001, Heather 2006).

Thus, the introduction of a new symbolic

system in the late fourth and early fifth

centuries might be ascribed to the imposed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hunnic institutions in which gold and

animals are the media for social, religious,

and political strategies. It represents an

‘episodic transition’ that opened up for a

new type of social complexity and the

adoption of a whole new set of social and

cosmological values in Barbarian Europe. Toevaluate the Hunnic impact I put forward a

hypothesis of Hunnic presence in

Scandinavia.

HYPOTHESIS: THE HUNS INSCANDINAVIA

One way or another, Southern Scandinavia

constituted part of Attila’s sphere of domin-

ion, even though we might not expect

unambiguous material evidence to support

this hypothesis. Without the written evidencewe should never have known of the Hunnic

direct presence in Europe. There is, however,

scattered material evidence that has been

identified as possessing diagnostic Hunnic

features (Werner 1956, Bona 1991) and some

of these are in fact present in the North.

Among the artefacts Joachim Werner

called attention to are the characteristicopen-ended earrings of solid gold or silver,

pot-bellied and with pointed ends (Fig. 3).

They are known from graves north and east

of the Black Sea and from the Danube plain

in Hungary (Werner 1956:24–26, Karte 10).

However, Werner was not aware of nine

similar earrings that have been found in

Denmark, and one in Southern Norway(Fig. 4). They have never been identified as

Hunnic, because nobody expected Hunnic

items to appear there; this despite of the fact

that Werner emphasised the type as one of

the most significant and unambiguous

Hunnic artefacts. Taking the huge body of

Scandinavian gold hoards into consideration

it is, however, striking that they are notfound in this context. They are all single

finds without clear context, and none of

them come from bogs or wetlands as do

many of the gold hoards. This indicates that

they held a different position to other gold

artefacts and the examples we know about

are, as a result of their absence from hoards,

probably only a small proportion of those

originally in the area.

Small bronze mirrors, frequently with

the sun symbol on one side, are also

Fig. 3. Radensk, Ukraine: grave (?) with two

open-ended earrings (Werner 1956: Kat. no. 3).

(After Bona 1991:Kat. no. 58:11–15.)

48 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

characteristic Hunnic artefacts (Werner

1956:19–24, Bona 1991) (Fig. 6). According

to Werner (1956: Fig. 4) they are present in

graves from the Hunnic core area between

the Danube and the Theiss, as well as north

and east of the Black Sea and far into central

Asia. They are traditionally linked to sha-

manistic practices. Laboratory analysis tes-

tifies to the existence of one such mirror

among the grave goods in the oldest – and

thereby the inaugural – of the three ‘royal

mounds’ of Old Uppsala: the East mound,

called ‘Odin’s Mound’ (Arrhenius & Freij

1992). It has been argued that the bronze

plate may rather be ascribed to a fibula

(Duczko 1996:78). However, the plate is

exactly the size of the nomadic mirrors. A

stone cairn covered the place for the funerary

fire, and in the middle a cremation urn was

dug into the ground. The cremated bones of

a 10–14-year-old boy were found along with

fragments of glass, gaming pieces, belt

fittings, a bone comb and a spoon, together

with fragments of gold filigree and cloisonne-

work, etc. (Lindqvist 1936, latest Duczko

1996). There were fragments of bronze plates

from a miniature leather helmet similar to

the helmet in the ‘prince grave’ in Cologne

Cathedral (Arrhenius & Freij 1992). Also

worth mentioning is a unique find of a solid

tuft of human hair close to the urn. The

burial is dated to the Migration period,

certainly the sixth century, although the

exact date is under discussion (Duczko

1996:81). However, the bronze mirror

together with a solid tuft of hair is rather

reminiscent of ceremonial burial practices

among the Huns (they cut off their hair when

Fig. 4. Distribution map of two of the most diagnostic artefacts related to the Huns: the pot-bellied, open-

ended earrings of gold and silver and the bronze mirror. (Werner 1956: Karte 10 with additions.)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

in mourning as in the case of Attila’s funeral)

although the burial took place after their

disappearance from Europe.

Thus, one or two diagnostic artefact types

ascribed to the Huns, pot-bellied, open-

ended earrings and bronze mirrors, are

attested in the North. The importance of

animals is reflected in the development of

Scandinavian and Germanic animal styles,

the moveable wealth, the skilled crafting, ‘the

technology of enchantment’, and the large

number of gold hoards belong to the same

cultural complex. However, the Hunnic

presence took also more direct forms.

In Scandinavia, the meeting with the

Huns, although they might have included a

mixture of ethnic groups, certainly caused

similar reactions, as we know from the Late

Fig. 5. Open-ended earrings of solid gold, pot-bellied and with pointed ends from Denmark (14/82:

Hammerslev, Randers county; C1419: Tjørnelunde Mølle, Holbæk county; 30/08: Glumsø, Præstø county;

11/38: Denmark, unknown; C3426: Vejlstrup, Ringkøbing county; C7403: Vils, Thisted county; 2/46:

Svendsmark, Præstø county; 6/28: Vindblæs, Alborg county; 10/27: Klipen, Abenra county. Registration

no: National Museum, Copenhagen). Drawing: Bjørn Skaarup. In addition a gold ring similar to 6/28 is

found in a weapon-grave from Vesterbø grave 16, Rogaland, Norway (S 1428).

50 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Antique sources. At least some of the Huns

clearly were of a distinct ethnic stock

(Gibbon 2005:367–368, Thompson 1996:56,

Maenchen-Helfen 1973:361ff, Heather

2006:148). They looked ‘foreign’, and their

being in the world encapsulated fury, greed,

and power, but also reward, admiration and

superiority. This may explain why faces with

distinct Asiatic attributes are incorporated in

central positions on the first generations of

excellent manufactured Danish and

Norwegian square-headed brooches with

elaborated and complex animal ornamenta-

tion (Haseloff 1981) (Figs. 7, 8).

Such traces in the material culture indicate

that the Huns were present, or at least well

known, to people of the North. Also the

ceremonial dress carefully reproduced on the

gold foil figures from the late Migration

period onwards, and on the figures from the

sixth and seventh century helmet plates

(Watt 1999, 2004), is similar to the

Caucasian kaftans known from seventh

century burials (Holmqvist 1977: 214

Abb.12, Vierck 1978:264–265, Abb.15,Watt 2004:203, Mannering 2006) (Fig. 9).

The belted tunic, the traditional garment for

Asiatic steppe nomads, was introduced in

Scandinavia in the fifth and early sixth

centuries and has been explained as a result

of the gotischen Kulturstrom (Vierck

1978:264–66, Jørgensen 2003, 2005).

However, the introduction of the caftan asthe distinct male warrior-dress in

Scandinavia from the late fifth century has

recently been ascribed to direct Asiatic

influence on Scandinavia (Mannering

2006:197f). The significant change in military

organisation to an emphasis on mounted

warriors is likewise explained as a result of

direct connection with the eastern steppecultures. Furthermore, it has been argued

that the type of saddle known from the

chiefly burials at Vendel and Hogom in

Sweden was brought to Europe by the Huns

and the Avars (Engstrom 1997:248f).

A significant group, termed Hunnish

funeral sacrifices (Hunnische Totenopfer),

contains mounts from highly ornamentedharnesses, garments with applied gold dec-

oration, saddle trappings, and occasional

lances or javelins with signs of intentional

destruction found in small groups on dry

land (Tomka 1987: 156 ff). They are known

from Eastern and Central Europe in the late

forth and early fifth centuries, and analogies

for such ritual customs are ascribed to themounted nomads of Central Asia in later

periods (Tomka 1987:159). There are

striking similarities between these funeral

sacrifices and a group of finds from Scania

in Sweden, from the sites of Sosdala,

Fulltofta and Vennebo, that can be dated

to the first half of the fifth century

(Fabech 1991:94ff). Thus, there is mountingarchaeological evidence for a distinct

Hunnic influence in selected areas of social,

military and religious life. This influence,

however, also included new myths and their

representation.

Fig. 6. Levice-Leva (Slovakia): grave with earring

and mirror (Werner 1956: Kat. no. 12). (After

Bona 1991: Kat. no. 33.)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

One of the most significant and character-

istic artefacts of the Migration period is the

gold bracteates. Traditionally, the concept is

ascribed to the Byzantine gold medallions

with their portrayal of the Roman emperor

(Bursche 2000) (Fig. 10). No doubt, the

similarity in form and composition is con-

vincing (Andren 1991, Axboe 1991).

However, a closer look at the figures of the

A-, B- and C-bracteates (Mackeprang 1952,

Axboe 2004) indicates that their iconography

is anchored in a substantially different world

of ideas to the Roman (e.g. Hauck 1985–

1989, 1991). The composition on some of the

B-bracteates certainly illustrates the central

myths of Balder’s death and Tyr losing his

hand in the mouth of the Fenris wolf (Hauck

1978:210, 1986, Roth 1986, Hedeager

2005a:236–238). Their clear and unambigu-

ous compositions suggest that these myths

were newly invented in the belief system of

the Old Norse.

The largest group of bracteates, the so-

called C-bracteates (Figs. 11a, b, c), illustrate

a shamanistic representation of the soul

journey: the head of a man in the disguise

of a bird, travelling on a creature which

looks like a horse but has a horn and beard

(Hedeager 1997, 2005a). Some of the figures

on the early bracteates are the most detailed

and show the head with pearls like the

Emperor or with what might be a diadem

and with the long hair in a plait (Figs. 11a, b)

and a variation on the same motif in which

the plait has turned into a bird (Fig. 11c).

The obviously shamanistic background to

these motifs is rather to be found within

steppe culture than in Roman iconography

and system of belief. Thus, it is argued that

this motif on the C-bracteates should not be

considered solely as a barbarian imitation of

Roman coins and medallions, but follows

eastern steppe culture models. From Antique

sources we hear of the Huns as exceptional

horsemen. They looked, as Ammianus

Marcellinus says, as if man and horse were

almost glued together as one creature, half

man and half horse (Thompson 1996:57),

Fig. 7. Human masks on the earliest Style I fibulae from Scandinavia: 1: Lunde, Norway; 2–3: Galsted,

Southern Jutland; 4: Høstentorp, Zealand; 5: Anda, Norway; 6–8: Tveitane: Norway. (After Haseloff

1981: Abb.53.)

52 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Fig. 8. Human masks as part of the ornamentation on brooches: (a) Galsted, Southern Jutland; (b)

Lunde, Lista, Norway. (After Haseloff 1981: Abb. 9 & 3.)

Fig. 9. Gold-foil figures from Sorte Muld, Bornholm. (After Watt 1991: Fig. 7. Drawing: Eva Koch.)


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

which in fact we see on some bracteates.

That the Huns had long hair is certain; they

might as well have worn it in a plait like

other Asiatic steppe peoples. The elaborated

diadems depicted on some of the bracteates

heads can be ascribed to the specific Hunnic

diadems of gold and inlaid stones (cf. Bona

1991:147–149, Pl. xiv, xv, Werner 1956:61–

68). And the horned ‘horse’ likewise

represents an Asiatic ceremonial horse with

artificial horns, as for example the Scythian

example known from a frozen tomb at

Pazyryk, although from the fifth century BC

(Altheim 1959–1962:440, Abb.8, Rudenko

1970). Clearly, the bearded and horned

creature on the C-bracteates is far from the

images of an imperial Roman horse.

Might it be that people in the North

deliberately took the strongest symbol of the

Roman emperor, his portrayal on the gold

medallion, and transformed it into a reverse

symbol of barbarian power and supremacy

by replacing its central motif? After all, the

iconography of the gold bracteates has no

obvious background in the material culture

of the Roman Period and their central

symbols belong in the Hunnic cultural realm.

I suggest that the iconography presents the

most significant of the new myths introduced

in the fifth century. Some of these were

turned into written form around 1200 and

are thus recognisable, while others were lost

and are incomprehensible to us.

CONCLUSION

During the fifth and early sixth centuries,

there are systematic and recurring traces in

the material culture of Scandinavia that

Fig. 11. C-bracteates. (After Hauck et al. 1985–1989: Kat. no. 75, 300, 50.)

Fig. 10. Scandinavian replica of a Roman gold

medallion (after Hauck et al. 1985–1989: Kat.

no. 107.)

54 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

indicate a structured transmission of symbols

with affiliation to the Huns. In the North

they became contextualized in a process of

cosmological and institutional invention.

This short historical period of the fifth

century and the establishment of new institu-tions for gaining political power might have

opened up new ways of thinking and new

perceptions of the world, as indicated by the

institutionalisation of a new symbolic sys-

tem. This ‘episodic transition’ represents a

decisive and conscious religious change that

sustained the rise of a new Germanic identity

in opposition to the declining Roman Westand its new Christian faith.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This paper was presented at a seminar on

Migration and the Roman Era, in Oxford,

May 2006. I am grateful to Helena Hamrow

and Peter Heather for organizing the seminar

and to James Howard-Johnston, who gave me

access to his unpublished manuscript about

the political situation in Western Eurasia 200–800 AD and who, as a historian, widened my

scope on the Huns. Two referees have

provided valuable and well-informed com-

ments. The results, however, are wholly my

own responsibility. English revision is made

by Nick Thorpe, illustrations by Per Persson.

REFERENCES

Altheim, F. 1959–1962. Geschichte der Hunnen.

Bd. 1–5. Walter de Gruyte, Berlin.

Andren, A. 1991. Guld og makt – en tolkning av

de skandinaviska guldbrakteaternas funktion.

In Fabech, C. & Ringtved, J. (eds.)

Samfundsorganisation og Regional Variation,

pp. 245–255. Jysk Arkeologisk Selskabs

Skrifter XXVII Arhus Universitetsforlag,

Arhus.

Andren, A. 1998. Between Artifacts and Texts:

Historical Archaeology in Global Perspective.

Plenum Press, New York.

Arbman, H. 1980. Batgravarna i Vendel, I:

Vendeltid. Statens Historiska Museum,

Stockholm.

Arent, M.A. 1969. The heroic pattern: Old

Germanic helmets, Beowulf, and Grettis saga.

In Polome, E.C. (ed.) Old Norse Literature and

Mythology, pp. 130–199. University of Texas

Press, Austin.

Arrhenius, B. & Freij, H. 1992. ‘‘Pressbleck’’

fragments from the East Mound in Old

Uppsala analyzed with a laser scanner.

Laborativ Arkeologi 6, Arkeologisk

Forskningslaborartoriet Stockholms Universitet,

pp. 75–109.

Axboe, M. 1991. Guld og guder i folkevandring-

stiden. In Fabech, C. & Ringtved, J. (eds.)

Samfundsorganisation og Regional Variation,

pp. 187–200. Jysk Arkeologisk Selskabs

Skrifter XXVII. Arhus Universitetsforlag,

Arhus.

Axboe, M. 2004. Die Goldbrakteaten er

Volkeanderungszeit. Herstellungsproblem und

Chronologie. Walter de Gruyte, Berlin.

Bintliff, J.L. (ed.) 1991. The Annales School and

Archaeology. University Press, New York.

Bintliff, J. 2004. Time, structure, and agency:

The Annales, emergent complexity, and

archaeology. In Bintliff, J. (ed.) A Companion

to Archaeology, pp. 174–194. Blackwell,

Oxford.

Bona, I. 1991. Das Hunnenreich. Konrad Theiss

Verlag, Stuttgart.

Braudel, F. 1949. La Mediterranee et le monde

mediterraneen a l’epoque de Philippe II. Libraire

A.Colin, Paris.

Bona, I. 1991. Das Hunnen-Reich. Konrad Theiss

Verlag, Stuttgart.

Bursche, A. 2000. Roman gold medaillons in

Barbaricum. Symbols of power and prestige of

Germanic elite in late Antiquity. In Kluge, B. &

Wseisser, B. (Herausgeg.) Akten – Proceedings

– Actes, pp. 758–771. XII. Internationaler

Numismatischer Kongress Berlin 1997.

Chang, K.C. 1983. Art, Myth, and Ritual. The

path to political authority in ancient China.

Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Chardaev, V.M. 1991. Gold und geschmeide bei

den Nomaden des 4.–14.Jahrhunderts n.Chr. In

Rolle, R., Muller-Wille, M. & Schietzel, K.

(Herausgeg.) Gold der Steppe. Archaologie der

Ukraine, pp. 255–258. Archaologisches

Landesmuseum, Schleswig. Christian-

Albrechts-Universitat.

Davidson, H.E. 1978. Shape-changing in the Old

Norse sagas. In Porter, J.R. & Russel, W.M.S.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

(eds.) Animals in Folklore, pp. 126–142. D. S.

Brewer, Cambridge.

Duczko, W. 1996. Uppsalahogarna som symbol

och arkeologiska kallor. In Duczko, W. (ed.)

Arkeologi och Miljoarkeologi i Gamla Uppsala,

pp. 59–96. Occasional papers in Archaeology

11: Uppsala Universitet, Uppsala.

Eliade, M. 1964. Shamanism. Archaic Techniques

of Ecstasy. Penguin Books, London.

Engstrom, J. 1997. The Vendel chieftains – a study

in military tactics. In Nørgard Jørgensen, A. &

Clausen, B.L. (eds.) Military Aspects of

Scandinavian Society in a European

Perspective, AD 1–1300, pp. 248–255. PNM

Studies in Archaeology & History vol 2. The

National Museum, Copenhagen.

Fabech, C. 1991. Booty sacrifices in Southern

Scandinavia: A reassessment. In Garwooet, P.,

Jennings, D., Skeates, R. & Toms J. (eds.)

Sacred and Profane, 88–99. Oxford University

Committee for Archaeology. Monograph

No. 32, Oxbow Books, Oxford.

Fowler, C. 2004. The Archaeology of Personhood.

Routledge, London.

Gell, A. 1992. The technology of enchantment

and enchantment of technology. In Cooter, J.

& Shelton, A. (eds.) Anthropology, Art and

Aesthetics, pp. 40–63. Clarendion Press,

Oxford.

Giddens, A. 1981. A Contemporary Critique of

Historical Materialism. Macmillan, London.

Giddens, A. 1986 [1984]. The Constitution of

Societies. Polity Press, Cambridge.

Gibbon, E. 1776–1788 [2005]. The History of the

Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

Abridged Edition. Edited and abridged by D.

Womersley. Penguin Books, London.

Gordon, C.D. 1960. The Age of Attila. The

University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Harding, J. 2005. Rethinking the great divide:

Long-term structural history and the tempor-

ality of event. Norwegian Archaeological Review

38, 88–101.

Harding, J., Thomas, J., Murray, T. & Olivier, L.

2006. Comments on Jan Harding (2005).

Norwegian Archaeological Review 39, 80–97.

Haseloff, G. 1981. Die germanische

Tierornamentik der Volkervanderungszeit Bd.I–

III. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, New York.

Hauck, K. 1978. Gotterglaube im Spiegel der

goldenen Brakteaten. In Ahrens, C.

(Herausgeg.) Sachsen und Angelsachsen,

pp. 185–218. Veroffentlichungen des Helms-

Museums 32, Hamburg.

Hauck, K. 1986. Methodfragen der

Brakteatendeutung. In Roth, H. (Herausgeg.)

Zum Problem der Deutung fruhmittelalterlicher

Bildindhalte, pp. 273–296. Akten des 1.

Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg a.d.

Lahn, 15. Bis 19. Februar 1983. Jan Thorbecke

Verlag, Sigmaringen.

Hauck, K. 1985–1989. Die Goldbrakteaten der

Volkerwanderungszeit. Mit Beitrage von

Axboe,M., Duwel, C., von Padberg, L.,

Smyra, U. & Wypior, C. Munster

Mittealterschriften 24. Bd. 1–5. Wilhelm Fink

Verlag, Munchen.

Hauck, K. 1991 (Herausgeg.). Der historische

Horisont der Gotterbildamiulette aus der uber-

gangsepoche von der Spatantike zum Mittelalter.

Bericht uber das Colloqium vom 28.–11.–

1.12.1988 in Bad Homburg. Abhandlungen

der Akademie der Wissenschaften in

Gottingen, Philol.-Hist. Klasse.

Heather, P. 2006. The Fall of the Roman Empire.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Hedeager, L. 1992. Iron-Age Societies. Blackwell,

Oxford.

Hedeager, L. 1997. Skygger af en Anden

Virkelighed. Samlerens Forlag, København.

Hedeager, L. 1999. Sacred topography.

Depositions of wealth in the cultural landscape.

In Gustafsson, A. & Karlsson, H. (eds.) Glyfer

och Arkeologiska Rum. In honorem Jarl

Nordbladh, pp. 229–252. Gotheburg

University, Gothenburg.

Hedeager, L. 2000. Migration Period Europe: the

formation of a political mentality. In

Theuws, F. & Nelseon, J.L. (eds.) Rituals of

Power. From Late Antiquity to the Early Middle

Ages, pp. 15–57. Brill, Leiden.

Hedeager, L. 2001. Asgard reconstructed? Gudme –

a ‘central place’ in the North. In de Jong, M. &

Theuws, F. (eds.) Topographies of Power in the

Early Middle Ages, pp. 467–507. Leiden, Brill.

Hedeager, L. 2004. Dyr og andre menenskere –

mennesker og andre dyr. Dyreornamentikkens

transcendentale realitet. In Andren, A.,

Jennbert, K. & Raudvere, C. (eds.) Ordning mot

Kaos, pp. 219–252. Vagar till Midgard vol. 4.

Nordic Academic Press, Lund.

Hedeager, L. 2005a. Animal representations and

animal iconography. Studien zur

Sachsenforschung. Bd. 15, 231–245.

56 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Hedeager, L. 2005b. Scandinavia. In Fouracre, P.

(ed.) The New Cambridge Medieval History.

vol. I, pp. 496–523. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Helms, M. 1993. Craft and the Kingly Ideal. Art,

Trade and Power. University of Texas Press,

Austin.

Hodder, I. 1986. Reading the Past. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, I. 1987. Archaeology as Long-Term

History. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Hodder, I. & Hutson, S. 2003. Reading the Past.

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Holmberg, U. 1964. The Mythology of All Races.

Volume IV. Finno-Urgric, Siberian. Cooper

Square Publishers, New York.

Holmqvist, W. 1977. Figurliche Darstellungen aus

fruhgeschichtlicher Zeit. Studien zur

Sachsenforschung. Bd. 1, 197–214.

Howard-Johnston, J. (in prep.). The Struggle for

Mastery in Western Eurasia, 200–800 A.D.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Howarth, P. 1994. Attila, King of the Huns.

Constable, London.

Jordanes: Getica The Gothic History of Jordanes.

Translated and commented by C. C.

Mierow. Princeton: Princeton University Press

1915].

Jørgsensen, L.B. 2003. Krigerdragten i

Folkevandringstiden. In Rolfsen, P. &

Stylegar, F.A. (eds.) Snartemofunnene i Nytt

Lys, pp. 53–79. Universitetets Kulturhistoriske

Museer, Skrifter nr.2, Oslo.

Jørgense, L.B. 2005. Draktskikk. In Østmo, E. &

Hedeager, L. (eds.) Norsk Arkeologisk

Leksikon. Pax, Oslo.

Kennedy, H. 2002. Mongols, Huns and Vikings.

Cassell, London.

Knapp, A.B. (ed.) 1992. Archaeology, Annales and

Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Kristiansen, K. 2004. Genes versus agents.

Archaeological Dialogues 11, 77–99.

Kristiansen, K. 2005. Theorising diffusion and

population movementt. In Renfrew, C. &

Bahn, P. (eds.) Archaeology. The Key

Concepts, pp. 75–79. Routledge, London.

Kristiansen, K. & Larsson, T. 2005. The Rise of

Bronze Age Society. Cambridge University

Press, Cambridge.

Kristoffersen, S. 1995. Transformation in

Migration Period animal art. Norwegian

Archaeological Review 28, 1–17.

Kristoffersen, S. 2000. Expressive objects. In

Olausson, D. & Vandkilde, H. (eds.) Form –

Function – Context, pp. 265–274. Acta

Archaeologica Lundensia. Almqvist &

Wiksell, Stockholm.

Lindstrøm, T.C. & Kristoffersen, S. 2001. Figure

it out! Psychological perspectives on perception

of Migration Period animal art. Norwegian

Archaeological Review 34, 65–84.

Lindqvist, S. 1936. Uppsala Hogar och

Ottarshogen. Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och

Antikvitets Akademien, Monografiserie 13,

Stockholm.

Mackeprang, M.B. 1952. De Nordiske

Guldbrakteater. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs

Skrifter, Bd. II, Arhus.

Maenchen-Helfen, O.J. 1973. The World of the

Huns. (Knight, M. (ed.)) Berkeley: University

of California Press.

Mannering, U. 2006. Billeder af Dragt. En analyse

af paklædte figurer fra yngre jernalder i

Skandinavien. PhD thesis. University of

Copenhagen (unpublished).

Martynov, A.I. 1991. The Ancient Art of Northern

Asia. Translated and edited by Shimkin, D. B.

& Shimkin, A. M. University of Illinoise Press,

Urbana & Chicago.

Meskell, L. 2004. Object Worlds in Ancient Egypt.

Material biographies past and present. Berg,

Oxford, New York.

Moreland, J. 2001. Archaeology as Text.

Duckworth, London.

Morgan, D. 1986. The Mongols. Oxford,

Blackwell.

Morris, I. 2000. Archaeology as Cultural History.

Blackwell, Oxford.

Muller, S. 1880. Dyreornamentikken i Norden,

dens Oprindelse, Udvikling og Forhold til

Samtidens Stilarter. En arkæologisk

Undersøgelse. Arbøger for Nordisk

Oldkyldighed og Historie 1880, 185–403.

Pohl, W. 2001. The regia and the hring –

barbarian places of power. In de Jong, M. &

Theuws, F. (eds.) Topographies of Power in the

Early Middle Ages, pp. 439–466. Brill, Leiden.

Price, N. 2002. The Viking Way. Religion and War

in the Late Iron Age Scandinavia. AUN 31.

Uppsala University, Uppsala.

Priscus: see Gordon 1960.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Rostovtzeff, M. 1929. The Animal Style in South

Russia and China. Princeton University Press,

Princeton.

Roth, H. 1986. Einfuhrung in die Problematik,

Ruckblick und Ausblick. In Roth, H.

(Herausgeg.) Zum Problem der Deutung fruh-

mittelalterlicher Bildinhalte, pp. 9–24. Akten

des 1.Internationalen Kolloquiums in Marburg

a.d. Lahn, 15.bis 19. Februar 1983. Jan

Thorbecke Verlag, Sigmaringen.

Rudenko, S.I. 1970. Kul’tura naseleniya

Tsentral’nogo Altaya v skifskoye vremya (The

Culture of the Population of the Central Altay

in Scythic Times). Izd AN SSSR, Leningrad.

Salin, B. 1903. Heimskringlas tradition om

asarnes invandring. Ett arkeologiskt-religion-

shistoriskt udkast. Studier tillagnade Oskar

Montelius 9/9 1903 af larjungar. Stockholm.

Salin, B. 1904. Die altgermanische Thieror-

namentik. Stockholm, Berlin.

Thompson, E.A. 1996. The Huns. Revised and with

an afterword by P. Heather. Blackwell, Oxford.

Tomka, P. 1987. Der hunnische Fundkomplex

von Pannonhlma. In Bott, G. (Herausgeg.)

Germanen, Hunnen und Awaren. Schatze

der Volkerwanderungszeit, pp. 156–161.

Verlag des Germanisches Nationalmuseum,

Nurnberg.

Vierck, H. 1978. Zur seegermanischen

Mannertracht. In Ahrens, C. (Herausgeg.)

Sachsen und Angelsachsen, pp. 263–270.

Ausstellung des Helms-Museums.

Hamburgisches Museum fur Vor- und

Fruhgeschichte.

Watt, M. 1991. Sorte Muld. Høvdingesæde og

kultcentrum fra Bornholms yngre jernalder. In

Mortensen, P. & Rasmussen, B. (eds.)

Høvdingesamfund og Kongemagt, pp. 89–107.

Jysk Arkæologisk selskabs Skrifter XXII:2.,

Arhus Universitetsforlag, Arhus.

Watt, M. 1999. Gubber. Reallexikon der germa-

nisschen Altertumskunde Band 13. Walter de

Gruyter, Berlin.

Watt, M. 2004. The gold-figure foils (‘‘guldgub-

bar’’) from Uppakra. In Larsson, L. (ed.)

Continuity for Centuries. A ceremonial building

and its context at Uppakra, Southern Sweden,

pp. 167–221. Uppakrastudier 10. Almqvist &

Wiksell Intern., Stochkolm.

Werner, J. 1956. Beitrage zur Archaologie des

Attila-Reiches. Verlag der bayerischen

Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munschen.

58 Lotte Hedeager

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

09:

12 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

scandinavia and the huns: an interdisciplinary approach to the migration era

Documents