Download - Imagining an Early Odin

8/11/2019 Imagining an Early Odin

1/14


2/14

bracteates as Odin. I refute the universal applicability of Hauck'siconographic analysis and show that the bracteates defy his imposedcultural model. In reevaluating the evidence, new questions about the

bracteates are raised that may offer insights into the function andsignificance of the artifacts and help to guide their further study.

I

Hauck's analysis of the bracteates dictates the organization of thecatalogue. 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 analyseson the bracteates. Hauck maintains the division, which corresponds tohis own examination of the images, and catalogues the bracteatesaccording to four basic groups: A,B,C, and D.(n4)

The A-bracteates are modeled most closely after medallions from theMediterranean that portray a profiled image of the emperor. These are

purported to be the original models of the Germanic bracteates. Theoldest bracteates found in the north are clear imitations of Romanmedallions. 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. Mostcommon is a single human figure in various positions--standing,sitting, kneeling--sometimes accompanied by additional figures oranimals.

The c-bracteates, the largest category, constitute the group on whichHauck has done most of his iconographic interpretation. The images onthe c-bracteates contain the head of a figure in profile accompanied

by a four-legged creature and frequently by a bird. I will return tothe c-bracteates below.

The D-bracteates form the second largest group and portray an animalor a fantasy creature in the center of the image.

As mentioned, Hauck has worked primarily on the c-bracteates, butdraws occasionally on the other groups to support his analysis. Giventhe organizing principle, it is difficult not to look at the

bracteates in terms of these four main groups. However, it isimportant to note that, despite the clear division implied in thedescriptions of these groups, the bracteates are not all so easilycatalogued. It would be interesting to reexamine the corpus ofartifacts 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 creatureidentified by Hauck as a horse. Figure 1 is a typical example: theimage depicts a profiled head wearing an elaborate headdress with a


3/14

long braid. The four-legged creature on this bracteate has horns and atail and a line protrudes from its mouth. A border of runes surroundsthe 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--canbe seen. Once again, an elaborate headdress adorns the profiled headand a curled line protrudes from the figure's mouth. The runicinscriptions on this bracteate are stamped on the circular imageitself and include the magic form alu. Two swastikas--Germanic symbolsassociated with peace--are also inserted in the image.(n5)Inscriptions found on weapons, fibulae and bracteates from themigration era frequently include magic runes and symbols such asthese.(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. Alsopresent in the image is a bird with an out-stretched claw. The hair isbraided and the pearl-like string around it is reminiscent of theheaddress on the earliest models. Here too runic inscriptions appearthat include the magic word alu.

Hauck interprets the central profiled figure on these, as on most ofthe bracteates, as Odin. Moreover, he reads a narrative into the images on the c-bracteates, maintaining that they depict Odin healinga horse ("Spannung;" "Arztfunktion," "Gott als Arzt"). Hauck'sidentification of the figure as Odin rests on the following three

points of investigation: the iconographic analysis of the humanprofile, the kinds of animals that appear in the images on the A- andc-bracteates, and the characterization of Odin as a healer. I willaddress these three issues separately below.

II

Hauck argues that the central figure portrayed on most of thebracteates, and particularly on the c-bracteates, is a representation

of Odin. The elaborate headdress, according to Hauck, symbolizes thefigure's power and significance. Some of the headdresses, such as thatin Figure 3, have what seems to be a beaded band which, according toHauck, is analogous to the diadem worn by the emperor on the earlierRoman medallions.(n7) Hauck argues that since the iconography of the

bracteates is based on medallions on which the most powerful figure ofthe society is portrayed, it follows that the Germanic peoples wouldalso choose to represent their most important icon on the artifacts ("Ikonographie, XV," 1997; "Brakteatenikonologie"). Odin is the chiefgod of Eddic mythology, Hauck asserts, and thus it would follow thathe would be the figure chosen to take the place of the Roman emperor.

This line of argumentation is based on the assumption that there wasan early Odin cult. As the evidence for such an early cult iscontradictory, however, it is speculative to presume from the outset


4/14


5/14

would also attest to a widespread, early Odin cult. Given the mixedevidence, however, the analogy that Hauck draws between the emperorand the god does not suffice to identify the human figure on the

bracteates as Odin. Perhaps the iconographic analysis is moreconclusive.

III

Hauck claims that the animals accompanying the central figure on thebracteates provide evidence of a representation of Odin. On thec-bracteates a four-legged creature appears below the head. Hauckidentifies this figure as a horse, which on the c-bracteates is oftenaccompanied by a bird or two (Figures 2-4). On the A-bracteates, thefigure--also identified as Odin--is frequently portrayed with acreature that Hauck identifies as a boar (Figure 5). He argues thatsince boar, birds, and horses are associated with Odin in Old Norse

mythology, their appearance on the bracteates indicates that thecentral 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 explainsthat the einherjer, the fallen warriors, are raised from the dead atValhalla each evening and are fed from a boar that is itselfregenerated 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 ofwounds. 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 whatthey are, appear in pairs in several of the images. At Valhalla, onlyone boar is served each evening. Moreover, given the relatively laterecording of the myth in Snorri's narrative, it cannot be assumed thatOdin 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. Hauckidentifies the birds that appear on the bracteates as these ravens and

uses them as evidence to support his iconographic analysis. Incontrast 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 ofanimal, birds are not exclusively associated with Odin. They are also associated with the goddess Freya, for example, who has a featheredfalcon suit for traveling.

Finally, Hauck calls the four-legged animal a horse, although theanimal 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 representationof a goat, which could point to a representation of Thor rather thanOdin.(n8) Hauck, however, disagrees and follows Egil Bakka, who argues


6/14

that the variations in beard and horns on the bracteates point todifferent workshops and iconographic traditions rather than to theidentity of the human figure (Hauck, "Brakteatenikonologie" 368; Bakka34). 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 froma single workshop. Axboe picks up on Wicker's examination of border

patterns and tool marks and proposes that a single workshop mightdevise 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 notsufficient evidence to ascribe bracteates to different or identicalworkshops.

Hauck cites the image of horses with horns stuck on their heads from

the contemporary rock picture of Haggeby-Uppland and horse fibulaefrom Gotland and suggests that the horns depicted on the bracteatesare an ornament worn by the horse, which fulfill a ritualisticfunction ("Brakteatenikonologie" 369). Moreover, Hauck argues that

bearded horses are common among the older races of horses, and assertsthat the Old Norse name "Grani" commonly given to horses attests tothese bearded horses (369). Hauck thus concludes that the four-leggedanimals on the c-bracteates are horses, but that these horses aresometimes ceremonially dressed in horns. Horses, he asserts, areanimals typically attributed to Odin.

Although horses are very important animals in early Germanic cultureand are associated with Odin, they are by no means exclusivelyassociated his. They may, for example, also be linked to Freyr. Beyondtheir relationship with specific gods, however, horses hold a specialsignificance for the early Germanic tribes. Their cultic relevancecontinues from the Bronze Age rock carvings to the Viking Age runestones and pictorial stones and carvings, where they appear with andwithout riders. Given such prominence, it would be a mistake tointerpret all images of horses together with human figures to berepresentations of Odin.

In short, the evidence for Odin's identity offered by therepresentations of the different animals is unconvincing. Whether thefour-legged creature represents a goat or a horse, these animals havetoo broad a range of connotations to serve as evidence for theidentity of the central figure. Animals that play a role in the mythology and religious beliefs of the Germanic peoples arerepresented 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 sufficeas evidence that the central figure is of Odin.

IV


7/14


8/14

maintains that in these images, the god is shown laying his healinghand on the sick horse. Concepts of healing that rely on a purifying

breath or laying of the hand on a sick animal, however, are notsubstantiated in Norse mythology.

Hauck imposes this model of a healing Odin on all the artifacts, interpreting the iconographic differences as variations in thenarrative. He discusses, for example, the bracteate in Figure 3 atsome length ("Brakteatenikonologie" 387). This bracteate portrays thefamiliar head, the four-legged animal, a bird, and a fantasy animal.Here, according to Hauck's analysis, Odin is situated above aceremonially decorated horse in need of medical attention for its poortwisted 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. Hewrites:

On the images on the c-amulet neither Valkyries nor goddesses in humanform appear next to the god, but rather healing helpers in animalform. 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 themas feathered servants and companions of the god than the divinemajesty himself with whose dignity the examination of the extremitiesof animals would be hard to reconcile. ("Brakteatenikonologie" 387)

The quotation is representative of Hauck's associative analysis. Inthe absence of other iconographic sources for comparison, Hauckconsistently reads a univocal narrative into the amulets relying on a

process of inference.

Based on evidence outside of the bracteates, Odin's designation as theprimary Germanic god of healing is unsatisfactory. Admittedly, in themuch later poem Havamal, Odin relates his powers in eighteen magicsongs or runes. The first two deal with healing. The first song iscalled hialp or "help" and is directed at the ailments socom[sickness], sorgom [sorrow, grief], and sutom [sorrow, grief]. Thesecond song is for those who want to be lacnar [doctors or healers].

Since the second song is incomplete, Havamal does not explain for whatpurpose this kind of healing was intended. The term, however, comes upin another Eddic poem, Sigrdrifumal, in which the valkyrie Sigrdrifateaches 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 ofhealing involved is the healing of battle wounds. The fact that songsare listed for both hialp and lacnar in Havamal implies that thehealing of illness and sorrow and the healing of wounds are twodifferent 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 containsreferences to Odin or healing. In fact, Freya lists Odin's positivecharacteristics in Hyndluljod (St. 2-3) but she mentions no healing or


9/14

helping with respect to sickness. In the two quite comprehensive listsof Odin names in Snorri's Edda (12, 36-7), the second of which is alsoin Grimnismal (St. 4-6-50), not one name mentions attributes ofhelping or healing. The kennings for Odin in "Skaldskaparmal" alsomake 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 playthe most prominent role. The second Merseberg charm, a parallel OldHigh German source, offers some insight into Odin's role as a healerand the question of gender associated with healing in Germanicmythology.

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 woodsthere Balder's foal twisted his legThen chanted Sinthgunt, and Sunna her sister,Then chanted Friia and Volla her sister,Then chanted Wodan, as well as he couldWrenched 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 ofgoddesses 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, thereis no reason to suppose that all five deities are not chanting together to heal the horse. In fact, the parallel structure whichimpresses Genzmer (57) is likely a poetic device indicating concurrent events. As in Fjolsvinnsmal and Sigrdrifumal, other texts show femaledeities 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 againsought out in Baldrs Draumar to determine how he can help his son.


10/14

Perhaps this is the gender dynamic reflected also in the secondMerseberg charm, namely that of a cooperation between male and female deities in which the goddesses assume a superior position. WhetherOdin is learning from the goddesses or whether the deities are workingtogether as a group, there is nothing in the charm to suggest that the

goddesses are Odin's servants as traditional scholarship would have usbelieve. The assertion that Odin is the primary god of healing withhelpers for the more mundane tasks, as Hauck proposes, is notsubstantiated in this charm. The identity of the healer or healers in Germanic mythology remains ambiguous.

Procedures for healing represented in mythology are also quitedifferent from those advanced by Hauck. There is, for example, nomention of touching or blowing breath in conjunction with healing. In"Havamal" Odin knows a liod [song] for leeches and for help. When Thorgets 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 Mersebergcharm, above, is itself representative of an oral approach to healing and helping. Even in the Merseburg charm, in which Odin assists inhealing a horse, the healing process is represented as a chant. Thevery existence of healing charms indicates that speech played a

primary role in healing. It might be fruitful to speculate whether thelines depicted on the bracteates protruding from the figure's mouthand the touching of the mouth to a part of the horse are an attempt ata visual recreation of speech.

Given, on the one hand, a widespread conception of female deities ashealers and, on the other, the infrequent appearance of Odin as ahealer in conjunction with the limited evidence for an early Odincult, 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 somedo not. One might speculate about the consciousness associated withthis visual difference. One possible explanation is that the presenceor absence of a beard is a clearly marked gender distinction that has

been inscribed on the bracteates. There is, after all, no reason toassume that all the images are male.

V

In conclusion, Hauck's iconographic analysis of the human figurecannot be substantiated. His claim that Odin is the main god ofGermanic mythology is not supported by other evidence such as placenames. The gender and identity of the human figure is ambiguous, as isthe identity of the animals depicted on the bracteates. Finally, Odinis not the primary healing god of Germanic mythology. I am not

proposing that the images on the bracteates are all representations ofsomeone other than Odin. Rather, I would suggest that the stylizeddesigns on these bracteates are less rigorously marked than Hauck


11/14

implies. While the Germanic peoples certainly shared the same gods,there is no reason to assume that all the images on the bracteates arerepresentations of the same figure. Nor is there any reason to supposethat all four-legged animals represented on the bracteates are thesame. 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 orceremonially dressed figure, not the specific identity of the head.

The bracteates may have been used for healing since the runicinscriptions indicate that they were valued for their magic

properties. Particularly the laukaR formula suggests that they mayhave been used for healing or protection, since leeks were consideredto have particularly effective magical and healing powers. Perhapsthey portray a healing ritual being performed by a healer--male orfemale--and were used to cure as well as ward off ills. However the

wide variety of designs and the different locations in which they havebeen found--hoards, graves, and isolated findings--suggest that theyserved no single specific purpose but instead were more broadly wornor used. As John Lindow comments with respect to representations ofsailing on the Gotland stones: "the pictorial scenes and theirinterrelationships are symbolic and multivalent, and it would be amistake to insist on a single interpretation" (50). Here, as on theGotland stones, the multivalent motif that combines human with horse,goat, boar, and bird, as well as various magic formulae and symbolssuggests multiple readings, the interpretations of which are notnecessarily mutually exclusive. Instead of asking who this figure is,it would be more productive to ask why the motif is so important tothe 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 bracteatesand are used with the kind permission of Fink Verlag, Munich. Thecatalogue numbers are his.

(n2) Bracteates from the migration period have been found in a varietyof locations. Of the 185 finds in the first volume of Hauck's

catalogue, for example, twenty-two were found in graves, sixty-one inhoards, sixty-six in isolated finds, and for thirty-six thecircumstances of the discovery are unknown. This breakdown in

provenance of the artifacts is representative for the wholecollection.

(n3) See also Hofler.

(n4) My brief descriptions of the categories are based on Hauck. Seefor 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.


12/14

(n6) For more detail, see Nielsen (355ff.).

(n7)Morten Axboe repeats the notion that the band on the headresscombine "Roman and Germanic symbols of lordship" (68).

(n8) See for example Malmer and Werner.

(n9) See Hauck ("Brakteatenikonologie' 369) for a discussion of thescholarship 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 dergermanischen Altertumskunde. Ed. Johannes Hoops. Vol. 3. Berlin: de

Gruyter, 1978. 337-61.

Axboe, Morton. "Gudme and the Gold Bractcates." The Archeology ofGudme and Lundborg. Eds. P.O. Nielsen, et al. Copenhagen: AkademiskForlag, 1994. 68-77.

Bakka, Egil. "Methodological Problems in the Study of GoldBracteates." 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.


13/14

Hauck, Karl. "Brakteatenikonologie." Reallexikon der germanischenAltertumskunde. 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 Zusammenwirkenszweier Kunste in Mittelalter und fruher Neuzeit. Ed. Christel Meierand Uwe Ruberg. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1980. 19-62.

-----. "Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, XII: Die Ikonographie derc-Brakteaten." Archaologisches Korrespondenzblatt 6 (1976): 235-42.

-----. "Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, XIV: Die Spannung zwischenZauber-und Erfahrungsmedizin, erhelltan Rezepten aus zwei

Jahrtausenden." Fruhmittelalterliche Studien II (1977): 4-14-510.

-----. "Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten, XV: Die Arztfunktion desseegermanischen Gotterkonigs, erhellt mit der Rolle der Vogel auf dengoldenen 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 unddeutsche Literatur 101 (1972): 161-86.

Jonsson, Finnur, ed. Edda Snorra Sturlusonar udgivet efterHandskrifterne. Copenhagen, 1931.

Lindow, John. "Sailing and Interpreting the Ships on the GotlandStones." The American Neptune 53.1 (Winter 1993): 39-50.

Malmer, M.P. Metodproblem inom jarnalderns Konsthistoria. ActaArchaeologica 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 derGermanischen Altertumskunde. Ed. Johannes Hoops. Vol. 3. Berlin: deGruyter, 1978.354-9.

Thomson, C.J. "Om Guldbracteaterne oc Bracteaternes tidligste Brug somMynt." 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


14/14

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 inKommission, 1966.

Wicker, Nancy. "On the Trail of the Elusive Goldsmith: TracingIndividual Style and Workshop Characteristics in Migration PeriodMetalwork." 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 oremailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright 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 viathe NEW YORK PUBLIC LIBRARY account. Neither EBSCO nor NEW YORK PUBLICLIBRARY are responsible for the content of this e-mail.