Title: Imagining an Early Odin.
Subject(s): BRACTEATES (Ornaments); ODIN (Norse deity); HAUCK, Karl
Source: Scandinavian Studies, Winter99, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p373, 20p,
9bw
Author(s): Starkey, Kathryn
Abstract: Provides information on a study which refutes Karl Hauck's
semiotic reading of the figure on the bracteates as Odin, the primary
god in Norse mythology. Four basic groups of the bracteate artifacts
established during the nineteenth century; Ambiguity of the identity
of the figures and animals on the bracteates; Questions about the
different locations where the bracteates have been found.
AN: 2668334
ISSN: 0036-5637
Full Text Word Count: 5546
Database: Academic Search Premier
IMAGINING AN EARLY ODIN
Gold Bracteates as Visual Evidence?
THE ILLUSTRATION ABOVE shows a bracteate, a circular, golden amulet of
the Germanic migration period stamped on one side and designed to be
worn hanging around the neck. Over nine hundred such bracteates have
been found making them the largest collection of Germanic cultural
documents from the migration period. Their large number and the gold
on which they are stamped imply that they were culturally significant.
The fact that they have been found in graves and hoards as well as in
isolated finds across early Germanic territory suggests that they were
considered valuable personal property and that they were a
pan-Germanic cultural phenomenon.(n2) Although scholars have attempted
for over one hundred years to determine the meaning of the bracteates,
the remarkably little conclusive evidence about their function and
meaning has prevented a fun understanding of their significance.
The most extensive work on the bracteates was done by Karl Hauck and
his research team from the Sonderforschungsbereich 7 at the
Westfalische Wilhelms-Universitat, Munster and resulted in the
extensive catalogue entitled Goldbrakteaten der Volkerwanderungszeit.
This catalogue contains a photograph and detailed drawing of each
bracteate and provides, among other information, the locations of the
discoveries, descriptions of the condition of the artifacts, tool
marks, motif type, and inscriptions on the bracteates.
Based on both iconography and on analogy with contemporary religions
and cultures, Hauck also argues in several publications that most of
the bracteates show representations of Odin.(n3) If Hauck is correct
in assigning the identity of Odin to the images on these bracteates,
then he provides substantial evidence for an early Odin cult. In order
to derive his reading of the bracteates, however, he constructs a
cultural model that is unconvincing in many respects. This paper is a
response to Hauck's univocal semiotic reading of the figure on the
bracteates as Odin. I refute the universal applicability of Hauck's
iconographic analysis and show that the bracteates defy his imposed
cultural model. In reevaluating the evidence, new questions about the
bracteates are raised that may offer insights into the function and
significance of the artifacts and help to guide their further study.
I
Hauck's analysis of the bracteates dictates the organization of the
catalogue. The artifacts are divided into four basic groups first
established during the nineteenth century by scholars such as C.J.
Thomsen and O. Montelins, who published the first scholarly analyses
on the bracteates. Hauck maintains the division, which corresponds to
his own examination of the images, and catalogues the bracteates
according to four basic groups: A,B,C, and D.(n4)
The A-bracteates are modeled most closely after medallions from the
Mediterranean that portray a profiled image of the emperor. These are
purported to be the original models of the Germanic bracteates. The
oldest bracteates found in the north are clear imitations of Roman
medallions. The images on later a-bracteates contain a hand or a bird
in addition to the central profile.
The images on the B-bracteates contain several different motifs. Most
common is a single human figure in various positions--standing,
sitting, kneeling--sometimes accompanied by additional figures or
animals.
The c-bracteates, the largest category, constitute the group on which
Hauck has done most of his iconographic interpretation. The images on
the c-bracteates contain the head of a figure in profile accompanied
by a four-legged creature and frequently by a bird. I will return to
the c-bracteates below.
The D-bracteates form the second largest group and portray an animal
or a fantasy creature in the center of the image.
As mentioned, Hauck has worked primarily on the c-bracteates, but
draws occasionally on the other groups to support his analysis. Given
the organizing principle, it is difficult not to look at the
bracteates in terms of these four main groups. However, it is
important to note that, despite the clear division implied in the
descriptions of these groups, the bracteates are not all so easily
catalogued. It would be interesting to reexamine the corpus of
artifacts with an eye to other possible organizing principles. Here,
however, I focus on Hauck's analysis of the c-bracteates.
The bracteates in Figures I-3 are catalogued by Hauck as c-bracteates
based on the motif of the profiled head above a four-legged creature
identified by Hauck as a horse. Figure 1 is a typical example: the
image depicts a profiled head wearing an elaborate headdress with a
long braid. The four-legged creature on this bracteate has horns and a
tail and a line protrudes from its mouth. A border of runes surrounds
the central image.
The four-legged animal in Figure z also has horns. A stylized
bird--indicated by a long beak, a single claw and a pointed tail--can
be seen. Once again, an elaborate headdress adorns the profiled head
and a curled line protrudes from the figure's mouth. The runic
inscriptions on this bracteate are stamped on the circular image
itself and include the magic form alu. Two swastikas--Germanic symbols
associated with peace--are also inserted in the image.(n5)
Inscriptions found on weapons, fibulae and bracteates from the
migration era frequently include magic runes and symbols such as
these.(n6)
Figure 3 is similar, but interestingly shows some perspective--the
figure's foot extends beneath the horse as if the figure were standing
behind the animal, and his hand lies on the neck of the horse. Also
present in the image is a bird with an out-stretched claw. The hair is
braided and the pearl-like string around it is reminiscent of the
headdress on the earliest models. Here too runic inscriptions appear
that include the magic word alu.
Hauck interprets the central profiled figure on these, as on most of
the bracteates, as Odin. Moreover, he reads a narrative into the
images on the c-bracteates, maintaining that they depict Odin healing
a horse ("Spannung;" "Arztfunktion," "Gott als Arzt"). Hauck's
identification of the figure as Odin rests on the following three
points of investigation: the iconographic analysis of the human
profile, the kinds of animals that appear in the images on the A- and
c-bracteates, and the characterization of Odin as a healer. I will
address these three issues separately below.
II
Hauck argues that the central figure portrayed on most of the
bracteates, and particularly on the c-bracteates, is a representation
of Odin. The elaborate headdress, according to Hauck, symbolizes the
figure's power and significance. Some of the headdresses, such as that
in Figure 3, have what seems to be a beaded band which, according to
Hauck, is analogous to the diadem worn by the emperor on the earlier
Roman medallions.(n7) Hauck argues that since the iconography of the
bracteates is based on medallions on which the most powerful figure of
the society is portrayed, it follows that the Germanic peoples would
also choose to represent their most important icon on the artifacts
("Ikonographie, XV," 1997; "Brakteatenikonologie"). Odin is the chief
god of Eddic mythology, Hauck asserts, and thus it would follow that
he would be the figure chosen to take the place of the Roman emperor.
This line of argumentation is based on the assumption that there was
an early Odin cult. As the evidence for such an early cult is
contradictory, however, it is speculative to presume from the outset
that the figure on the bracteates is a representation of Odin.
In the mythological sources written down in the thirteenth
century--Snorri's Edda and the prose Edda--Odin is indeed described as
the most powerful of the gods. Snorri, for example, describes Odin in
the following manner in Gylfaginning: "Odinn er aeztr ok ellztr
asanna; hann raedr ollum lutum; ok sva sem aunur gudin em mattug, pa
piona honum oll sva sem baurn fodur" (Jonsson 27) [Odin is the highest
and oldest of the gods; he rules over all people and however mighty
the other gods may be, they all serve him like children serve their
father]. There is no guarantee, however, that the hierarchy of the
gods described in the written narratives of the thirteenth century,
had anything in common with the conception of the gods prevalent in
the fifth and sixth centuries.
Although Odin appears as the primary deity in the written sources of
Norse mythology, in comparison with the god Thor, relatively few
indications exist of cultic veneration of Odin during the 130 years
between the settlement and the spread of Christianity. There are
neither place-names nor personal names that point to a cult of Odin,
and thc existence of relatively few myths told about Odin would not
suggest that Odin was the chief god in the early period.
Even on mainland Scandinavia, cult place-names based on the name Odin
do not even amount to 10 percent of the theophorous place-names, and
none based on or containing the name Odin is found in Iceland at all.
They are rare in southern Norway, but are more frequent in southern
Sweden and in Denmark. This dispersal has been interpreted as an
indication that the veneration of Odin was comparatively young in
Scandinavia. Spreading from the southern Germanic regions during the
Viking Age, it was probably unable to extend north to Iceland before
it was overtaken by Christianity. Snorri's glorification of Odin, a
single all-powerful god, whom the other gods "serve like children" has
thus been interpreted as a Christian influence. As far as the
bracteates are concerned, the dirth of early references to Odin in
other sources--in contrast to other gods who are much more widely
attested--implies that he is unlikely to be represented on hundreds of
valuable artifacts of the migration era.
However, among the few place-names based on Odin, a number are clearly
ancient (those based on -vin and -akr). Their existence contradicts
the theory that devotion to Odin was a recent development. Other
evidence for an older Odin cult comes from the weekday names in old
Germanic. The standard translation across the Germanic territory of
the Latin weekday name dies Mercuri was Germanic *Wodanesdag (mod.
Eng. Wednesday). Since the translation of the weekday names was
concluded in the fourth century, veneration of Odin must have been
widespread in all of the western and probably northern Germanic
regions at this time suggesting that the images on the bracteates
could indeed be representations of Odin. If Hauck is correct in
identifying the figure on the bracteates as Odin, then these artifacts
would also attest to a widespread, early Odin cult. Given the mixed
evidence, however, the analogy that Hauck draws between the emperor
and the god does not suffice to identify the human figure on the
bracteates as Odin. Perhaps the iconographic analysis is more
conclusive.
III
Hauck claims that the animals accompanying the central figure on the
bracteates provide evidence of a representation of Odin. On the
c-bracteates a four-legged creature appears below the head. Hauck
identifies this figure as a horse, which on the c-bracteates is often
accompanied by a bird or two (Figures 2-4). On the A-bracteates, the
figure--also identified as Odin--is frequently portrayed with a
creature that Hauck identifies as a boar (Figure 5). He argues that
since boar, birds, and horses are associated with Odin in Old Norse
mythology, their appearance on the bracteates indicates that the
central figure is Odin.
All three of these animals are indeed associated with Odin. A boar,
for example, plays a role at Odin's hall, Valhalla. Snorri explains
that the einherjer, the fallen warriors, are raised from the dead at
Valhalla each evening and are fed from a boar that is itself
regenerated each day. The boar on several different A-bracteates,
Hauck argues, both recall this story and help to create a context in
which Odin is associated with regeneration, i.e. the healing of
wounds. The representation of the boar, if we follow Hauck, thus both
points toward the figure as Odin and characterizes him as a healer.
Hauck does not explain, however, why the boar, if that is indeed what
they are, appear in pairs in several of the images. At Valhalla, only
one boar is served each evening. Moreover, given the relatively late
recording of the myth in Snorri's narrative, it cannot be assumed that
Odin was associated with boar as early as the fifth or sixth century.
Finally, the designation of Odin as a healing god is problematic.
The two ravens, Huginn and Muninn, are also attributed to Odin. Hauck
identifies the birds that appear on the bracteates as these ravens and
uses them as evidence to support his iconographic analysis. In
contrast to the boar, however, Odin's ravens always appear as a pair.
On the bracteates a single bird is frequently represented, and
occasionally three appear. Moreover, as a more generic category of
animal, birds are not exclusively associated with Odin. They are also
associated with the goddess Freya, for example, who has a feathered
falcon suit for traveling.
Finally, Hauck calls the four-legged animal a horse, although the
animal is frequently represented with horns (see Figures 2 and 6) and
sometimes with a beard (see Figure 6). The horns have led other
scholars to propose that we might be dealing with the representation
of a goat, which could point to a representation of Thor rather than
Odin.(n8) Hauck, however, disagrees and follows Egil Bakka, who argues
that the variations in beard and horns on the bracteates point to
different workshops and iconographic traditions rather than to the
identity of the human figure (Hauck, "Brakteatenikonologie" 368; Bakka
34). A recent paper by Nancy Wicker on the border punches of the
bracteates, however, traces the tool marks and patterns on several
bracteates and shows that diverse iconographic designs often come from
a single workshop. Axboe picks up on Wicker's examination of border
patterns and tool marks and proposes that a single workshop might
devise various bracteate models of different size and skill, so that
both wealthy and less wealthy people could have access to a bracteate.
The wide variety of bracteates that come from one and the same
workshop shows that variation in the iconography alone is not
sufficient evidence to ascribe bracteates to different or identical
workshops.
Hauck cites the image of horses with horns stuck on their heads from
the contemporary rock picture of Haggeby-Uppland and horse fibulae
from Gotland and suggests that the horns depicted on the bracteates
are an ornament worn by the horse, which fulfill a ritualistic
function ("Brakteatenikonologie" 369). Moreover, Hauck argues that
bearded horses are common among the older races of horses, and asserts
that the Old Norse name "Grani" commonly given to horses attests to
these bearded horses (369). Hauck thus concludes that the four-legged
animals on the c-bracteates are horses, but that these horses are
sometimes ceremonially dressed in horns. Horses, he asserts, are
animals typically attributed to Odin.
Although horses are very important animals in early Germanic culture
and are associated with Odin, they are by no means exclusively
associated his. They may, for example, also be linked to Freyr. Beyond
their relationship with specific gods, however, horses hold a special
significance for the early Germanic tribes. Their cultic relevance
continues from the Bronze Age rock carvings to the Viking Age rune
stones and pictorial stones and carvings, where they appear with and
without riders. Given such prominence, it would be a mistake to
interpret all images of horses together with human figures to be
representations of Odin.
In short, the evidence for Odin's identity offered by the
representations of the different animals is unconvincing. Whether the
four-legged creature represents a goat or a horse, these animals have
too broad a range of connotations to serve as evidence for the
identity of the central figure. Animals that play a role in the
mythology and religious beliefs of the Germanic peoples are
represented on the bracteates, and it is thus not too far-fetched to
assume that the animals had some significance and symbolic meaning.
Given the uncertainty about the animals, however, they hardly suffice
as evidence that the central figure is of Odin.
IV
According to Hauck, the c-bracteates are amulets used for healing, and
since Odin was associated with healing, the figure on the bracteates
is most likely to be Odin. Moreover, he asserts that the
representation on the c-bracteates depicts Odin in the process of
healing a horse. In his comparative article on healing gods, Hauck
draws parallels between the representations of Christ as a healer,
Aesculapius as a healer, and Odin, whom he sees as the representative
healing God in the Germanic pagan tradition (1980). He argues that a
narrative is depicted on the bracteates, a narrative in which the god
Odin heals a horse. He bases his argument first on the line protruding
from the figure's mouth (see Figure 2), which he identifies as a
healing breath ("Arztfunktion" IIoff.; "Brakteatenikonologie" 380).
Second, he claims that the hand that occasionally appears on the
bracteates, such as in Figure 4, is the healing hand of the god.
Third, the twisted and distorted limbs of the animal supposedly show
that it is in need of medical attention. He thus develops a complex
concept of Germanic healing based on the images on the bracteates and
analogies he draws with contemporary cultures. This notion, however,
is not substantiated in the Germanic mythology that offers insight
both into the identity of the healing god or gods and into the forms
of healing that were associated with them.
Hauck disagrees with the dominant notion that the horse on the
bracteates is portrayed running. Rather, on the basis of the bent legs
of the creature, he maintains that it is "entweder krank, verletzt und
leidend oder sich wieder aufrichtend und springlebendig zu sehen"
("Brakteatenikonologie" 369) [to be seen either as sick, wounded, and
suffering or as getting up and frisky].(n9) The horse, Hauck notes, is
almost invariably depicted on its back or with twisted legs,
indicating sickness ("Arztfunktion' 112-3). It is important to
remember that these images are stamped on a round object roughly the
size of a quarter dollar in u.s. currency. Given the lack of space and
the stylized form of the images, it is not unreasonable to suppose
that the horse's legs were bent to fit on the disc and do not
represent the twisted limbs of a sick animal.
Hauck interprets the line protruding from the figure's mouth as a form
of healing. He sees it as a "heilbringenden und reinigenden Atem" [a
healing and purifying breath] for which, he claims, the pagan gods
were well known ("Ikonographie, XV" 1977, 103ff.). The presence of the
breath on the bracteates is key to Hauck's interpretation of the
medallions as representations of healing. The connection between the
pagan gods and breath is seen in Christian descriptions of exorcism
rites, in which breath is the manifestation of the pagan god that
needs to be removed from the body. This breath is represented in some
designs as a line, in others, Hauck argues, the god is depicted with
the horses ear inserted into his mouth (Figure 6), or alternately with
his mouth pressed to the horses neck (Figure 1) ("Ikonographie" 236;
"Arztfunktion" IIIff.; "Brakteatenikonologie" 383). The god's breath
is not the only form of healing that Hauck sees on the bracteates.
Occasionally, as in Figure 4, a hand appears in the image. Hauck
maintains that in these images, the god is shown laying his healing
hand on the sick horse. Concepts of healing that rely on a purifying
breath or laying of the hand on a sick animal, however, are not
substantiated in Norse mythology.
Hauck imposes this model of a healing Odin on all the artifacts,
interpreting the iconographic differences as variations in the
narrative. He discusses, for example, the bracteate in Figure 3 at
some length ("Brakteatenikonologie" 387). This bracteate portrays the
familiar head, the four-legged animal, a bird, and a fantasy animal.
Here, according to Hauck's analysis, Odin is situated above a
ceremonially decorated horse in need of medical attention for its poor
twisted limbs. Hauck claims that these two accompanying figures--the
bird and the fantasy figure--are healing helpers. Healing helpers,
that is, like valkyries or goddesses, but in the form of birds. He
writes:
On the images on the c-amulet neither Valkyries nor goddesses in human
form appear next to the god, but rather healing helpers in animal
form. Their actions are also directed to the ear and mane of the horse
and secondarily to the animal's legs which are more accessible to them
as feathered servants and companions of the god than the divine
majesty himself with whose dignity the examination of the extremities
of animals would be hard to reconcile. ("Brakteatenikonologie" 387)
The quotation is representative of Hauck's associative analysis. In
the absence of other iconographic sources for comparison, Hauck
consistently reads a univocal narrative into the amulets relying on a
process of inference.
Based on evidence outside of the bracteates, Odin's designation as the
primary Germanic god of healing is unsatisfactory. Admittedly, in the
much later poem Havamal, Odin relates his powers in eighteen magic
songs or runes. The first two deal with healing. The first song is
called hialp or "help" and is directed at the ailments socom
[sickness], sorgom [sorrow, grief], and sutom [sorrow, grief]. The
second song is for those who want to be lacnar [doctors or healers].
Since the second song is incomplete, Havamal does not explain for what
purpose this kind of healing was intended. The term, however, comes up
in another Eddic poem, Sigrdrifumal, in which the valkyrie Sigrdrifa
teaches the hero Sigurd limrunar, so that he can be a healer, a
lacnir. From the context of this poem, it is clear that the kind of
healing involved is the healing of battle wounds. The fact that songs
are listed for both hialp and lacnar in Havamal implies that the
healing of illness and sorrow and the healing of wounds are two
different skills and that Odin knows the secrets of both.
The rune songs have indeed been attributed to Odin, but apart from the
first two verses, neither Snorri's Edda nor the Poetic Edda contains
references to Odin or healing. In fact, Freya lists Odin's positive
characteristics in Hyndluljod (St. 2-3) but she mentions no healing or
helping with respect to sickness. In the two quite comprehensive lists
of Odin names in Snorri's Edda (12, 36-7), the second of which is also
in Grimnismal (St. 4-6-50), not one name mentions attributes of
helping or healing. The kennings for Odin in "Skaldskaparmal" also
make no reference to him as a healer.
Not only is consistent evidence identifying Odin with healing lacking,
but other evidence suggests that the goddesses rather than Odin play
the most prominent role. The second Merseberg charm, a parallel Old
High German source, offers some insight into Odin's role as a healer
and the question of gender associated with healing in Germanic
mythology.
Phol ende uuodan uuorun zi holza.
du uuart demo balderes uolon sin uuoz birenkit.
thu biguol en sinthgunt, sunna era suister;
thu biguol en friia, uolla era suister;
thu biguol en uuodan, so he uuola conda:
sose benrenki, sose bluotrenki,
sose lidirenki :
ben zi bena, bluot zi bluoda,
lid zi geliden, sose gelimida sin.(n10)
Phol and Wodan rode to the woods
there Balder's foal twisted his leg
Then chanted Sinthgunt, and Sunna her sister,
Then chanted Friia and Volla her sister,
Then chanted Wodan, as well as he could
Wrenched bones, wrenched veins,
wrenched limbs
bone to bone, blood to blood,
limb to limb, as if they were fastened(n11)
In the charm, Odin is depicted working together with a bevy of
goddesses to heal the leg of a horse.
Felix Niedner sees in this charm a depiction of the failed attempt at
healing on the part of the female deities followed by Odin's success
because he understands the process better than his companions (105).
Felix Genzmer claims that Odin's performance outweighs that of both
pairs of sisters (57). From the structure of the charm, however, there
is no reason to suppose that all five deities are not chanting
together to heal the horse. In fact, the parallel structure which
impresses Genzmer (57) is likely a poetic device indicating concurrent
events. As in Fjolsvinnsmal and Sigrdrifumal, other texts show female
deities healing independent of Odin.
In other situations, Odin learns from female deities rather than
teaching them. For example, he calls up the volva [seeress] to
describe the history of the cosmos in "Voluspa" and a seeress is again
sought out in Baldrs Draumar to determine how he can help his son.
Perhaps this is the gender dynamic reflected also in the second
Merseberg charm, namely that of a cooperation between male and female
deities in which the goddesses assume a superior position. Whether
Odin is learning from the goddesses or whether the deities are working
together as a group, there is nothing in the charm to suggest that the
goddesses are Odin's servants as traditional scholarship would have us
believe. The assertion that Odin is the primary god of healing with
helpers for the more mundane tasks, as Hauck proposes, is not
substantiated in this charm. The identity of the healer or healers in
Germanic mythology remains ambiguous.
Procedures for healing represented in mythology are also quite
different from those advanced by Hauck. There is, for example, no
mention of touching or blowing breath in conjunction with healing. In
"Havamal" Odin knows a liod [song] for leeches and for help. When Thor
gets a whetstone stuck in his forehead in a fight with Hrungnir,
Snorri relates that Groa chants a spell to remove it. In these textual
references and in the charms, some ritual involving an oral
performance was thought integral to the healing process. The Merseberg
charm, above, is itself representative of an oral approach to healing
and helping. Even in the Merseburg charm, in which Odin assists in
healing a horse, the healing process is represented as a chant. The
very existence of healing charms indicates that speech played a
primary role in healing. It might be fruitful to speculate whether the
lines depicted on the bracteates protruding from the figure's mouth
and the touching of the mouth to a part of the horse are an attempt at
a visual recreation of speech.
Given, on the one hand, a widespread conception of female deities as
healers and, on the other, the infrequent appearance of Odin as a
healer in conjunction with the limited evidence for an early Odin
cult, it seems unlikely that the some three hundred c-bracteates would
all portray Odin healing. Indeed, it is curious that some of the
bracteates depict the central figure with a beard (Figure 7), and some
do not. One might speculate about the consciousness associated with
this visual difference. One possible explanation is that the presence
or absence of a beard is a clearly marked gender distinction that has
been inscribed on the bracteates. There is, after all, no reason to
assume that all the images are male.
V
In conclusion, Hauck's iconographic analysis of the human figure
cannot be substantiated. His claim that Odin is the main god of
Germanic mythology is not supported by other evidence such as place
names. The gender and identity of the human figure is ambiguous, as is
the identity of the animals depicted on the bracteates. Finally, Odin
is not the primary healing god of Germanic mythology. I am not
proposing that the images on the bracteates are all representations of
someone other than Odin. Rather, I would suggest that the stylized
designs on these bracteates are less rigorously marked than Hauck
implies. While the Germanic peoples certainly shared the same gods,
there is no reason to assume that all the images on the bracteates are
representations of the same figure. Nor is there any reason to suppose
that all four-legged animals represented on the bracteates are the
same. Although the images appear quite clearly on the bracteates, the
identity of the individual figures cannot be unambiguously discerned.
What seems to be important is the motif of the elaborately or
ceremonially dressed figure, not the specific identity of the head.
The bracteates may have been used for healing since the runic
inscriptions indicate that they were valued for their magic
properties. Particularly the laukaR formula suggests that they may
have been used for healing or protection, since leeks were considered
to have particularly effective magical and healing powers. Perhaps
they portray a healing ritual being performed by a healer--male or
female--and were used to cure as well as ward off ills. However the
wide variety of designs and the different locations in which they have
been found--hoards, graves, and isolated findings--suggest that they
served no single specific purpose but instead were more broadly worn
or used. As John Lindow comments with respect to representations of
sailing on the Gotland stones: "the pictorial scenes and their
interrelationships are symbolic and multivalent, and it would be a
mistake to insist on a single interpretation" (50). Here, as on the
Gotland stones, the multivalent motif that combines human with horse,
goat, boar, and bird, as well as various magic formulae and symbols
suggests multiple readings, the interpretations of which are not
necessarily mutually exclusive. Instead of asking who this figure is,
it would be more productive to ask why the motif is so important to
the Germanic cultures of the Migration era, and why the bracteates
became such a widespread cultural phenomenon.
(n1)The reproductions are taken from Hauck's catalogue of bracteates
and are used with the kind permission of Fink Verlag, Munich. The
catalogue numbers are his.
(n2) Bracteates from the migration period have been found in a variety
of locations. Of the 185 finds in the first volume of Hauck's
catalogue, for example, twenty-two were found in graves, sixty-one in
hoards, sixty-six in isolated finds, and for thirty-six the
circumstances of the discovery are unknown. This breakdown in
provenance of the artifacts is representative for the whole
collection.
(n3) See also Hofler.
(n4) My brief descriptions of the categories are based on Hauck. See
for example Hauck, "Brakteatenikonologie": 364.
(n5) Among the runes, the magic words frequently occur, such as laukaR
(leek)--a plant associated with healing--and alu--probably meaning
"beer" but denoting ecstasy, or magic.
(n6) For more detail, see Nielsen (355ff.).
(n7)Morten Axboe repeats the notion that the band on the headress
combine "Roman and Germanic symbols of lordship" (68).
(n8) See for example Malmer and Werner.
(n9) See Hauck ("Brakteatenikonologie' 369) for a discussion of the
scholarship that identifies the figure as a running horse.
(n10)Cited in Wilhelm Braune (89).
(n11) Translation into English mine, based on Jan De Vries (169).
PHOTOS (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 1: IC(n1)
PHOTOS (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 2: 135C
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 3: 58C
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 3 (detail)
PHOTOS (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 4:58C
PHOTOS (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 5: 196A
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 6: 12C
PHOTO (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 6 (detail)
PHOTOS (BLACK & WHITE): Figure 7: 46C
WORKS CITED
Arrhenius, Birgit, Klaus Duwel et al. "Brakteaten." Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde. Ed. Johannes Hoops. Vol. 3. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1978. 337-61.
Axboe, Morton. "Gudme and the Gold Bractcates." The Archeology of
Gudme and Lundborg. Eds. P.O. Nielsen, et al. Copenhagen: Akademisk
Forlag, 1994. 68-77.
Bakka, Egil. "Methodological Problems in the Study of Gold
Bracteates." Norwegian Archaeological Review 1 (1968): 5-35, 4-5-56.
Braune, Wilhelm. Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. Tubingen: Niemeyer, 1979.
Genzmer, Felix. "Die Gotter des zweiten Merseburger Zauberspruchs."
Arkiv for nordisk filologi 63 (1948): 55-72.
Hauck, Karl. "Brakteatenikonologie." Reallexikon der germanischen
Altertumskunde. Ed. Johannes Hoops. Vol. 3. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1978.
367-401.
-----. Die Goldbrakteaten der Volkerwanderungszeit. 3 vols. Munich:
Fink, 1985-89.
-----. "Gott als Arzt" Text und Bild: Aspekte des Zusammenwirkens
zweier Kunste in Mittelalter und fruher Neuzeit. Ed. Christel Meier
and Uwe Ruberg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1980. 19-62.
-----. "Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, XII: Die Ikonographie der
c-Brakteaten." Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 6 (1976): 235-42.
-----. "Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, XIV: Die Spannung zwischen
Zauber-und Erfahrungsmedizin, erhelltan Rezepten aus zwei
Jahrtausenden." Fruhmittelalterliche Studien II (1977): 4-14-510.
-----. "Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, XV: Die Arztfunktion des
seegermanischen Gotterkonigs, erhellt mit der Rolle der Vogel auf den
goldenen Amulettbildern." Festschrift fur Helmut Beumann zum 65.
Geburtstag. Ed. Kurt-Ulrich Jaschke and Reinhard Wenskus. Sigmaringen:
Thorbecke, 1977. 98-116.
Hofler, Otto. "Brakteaten als Geschichtsquelle: Zu Karl Haucks
'Goldbrakteaten aus Sievern.'" Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und
deutsche Literatur 101 (1972): 161-86.
Jonsson, Finnur, ed. Edda Snorra Sturlusonar udgivet efter
Handskrifterne. Copenhagen, 1931.
Lindow, John. "Sailing and Interpreting the Ships on the Gotland
Stones." The American Neptune 53.1 (Winter 1993): 39-50.
Malmer, M.P. Metodproblem inom jarnalderns Konsthistoria. Acta
Archaeologica Lundensia Set. in 8[sup o] 3- Lund: Gleerup, 1963.
Niedner, Felix. "Der Mythos des zweiten Merseburger Spruchs."
Zeitschrift fur deutsches Altertum und deutsche Literatur 43 (1899):
101-12.
Nielsen, K.M. "Brakteaten: Runeninschriften." Reallexikon der
Germanischen Altertumskunde. Ed. Johannes Hoops. Vol. 3. Berlin: de
Gruyter, 1978.354-9.
Thomson, C.J. "Om Guldbracteaterne oc Bracteaternes tidligste Brug som
Mynt." Annaler for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie. Copenhagen:
Kongelige nordiske oldskrift selskab and J.D. Qvist, 1855. 265-34-7,
381-2.
Vries, Jan de. Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. 3rd ed. Grundriss
der germanischen Philologie 12: 1-2. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1970.
Werner, J. Das Aufkommen von Bild und Schrift in Nordeuropa. Munich:
Verlag der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Beck in
Kommission, 1966.
Wicker, Nancy. "On the Trail of the Elusive Goldsmith: Tracing
Individual Style and Workshop Characteristics in Migration Period
Metalwork." Gesta 33 (1994): 65-70.
~~~~~~~~
By Kathryn Starkey, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
_________________
Copyright of Scandinavian Studies is the property of Society for the
Advancement of Scandinavian Study and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may
print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Source: Scandinavian Studies, Winter99, Vol. 71 Issue 4, p373, 20p,
9bw.
Item Number: 2668334
This email was generated by a user of EBSCOhost who gained access via
the NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY account. Neither EBSCO nor NEW YORK PUBLIC
LIBRARY are responsible for the content of this e-mail.
