Download The Swine in Old Nordic Religion and Worldview

The Swine in Old Nordic Religion and Worldview
Lenka Kovárová
Lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í norrænni trú
Félagsvísindasvið
The Swine in Old Nordic Religion and Worldview
Lenka Kovárová
Lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í norrænni trú
Leiðbeinandi: Terry Gunnell
Félags- og mannvísindadeild
Félagsvísindasvið Háskóla Íslands
Október 2011
Ritgerð þessi er lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í norrænni trú og er óheimilt að afrita
ritgerðina á nokkurn hátt nema með leyfi rétthafa.
© Lenka Kovárová 2011
Reykjavík, Ísland 2011
Ágrip
Þessari lokaritgerð er ætlað að sýna fram á mikilvægi svína (bæði villisvína og alisvína) í lífi
og trúarbrögðum norrænna manna með aðaláherslu á Vendel-tímann og seinni skeið.
Gölturinn er eðlilega í fyrirrúmi, enda öflugt tákn sem yfirleitt hefur verið tengt Frey og
Freyju, en ég færi rök fyrir að hafi sjálfstæða þýðingu. Til grundvallar túlkunar á þýðingu
svína, fjallar ritgerðin um helstu hugmyndir um dýr í norrænni heiðni og heimsmynd, þar á
meðal trú á hamskipti og fylgjur. Lögð er áhersla á, að á járnöld hafi nánd manna og dýra
verið meiri en nú á dögum og að jafnvel hafi verið litið svo á, að gildi dýra hafi verið svipað
og manna. Heimildir leiða glögglega í ljós, að ímynd svínsins hafi ekki einskorðast við aðeins
einn eiginleika: Hún var augljóslega fjölbreytileg. Ásamt myndinni af máttugu, göfugu dýri,
birtist myndin af hættulegum villigelti, sem kynntur er sem andskoti hetjunnar, og svín eru
stundum sett í samhengi við móðganir. Tamin svín koma sjaldan fyrir í mannanöfnum en sjást
þó stöku sinnum sett í samband við hamskipti og þá í fremur neikvæðu samhengi. Þessi
þversagnakennda staða svínsins gæti hafa skapast fyrir áhrif hægfara innleiðingar kristni (þar
sem ímynd svínsins er fremur neikvæð). Samt sem áður virðist uppruna mismunandi skilnings
á tömdum og villtum svínum mega rekja til forkristniskeiðs. Eftirtektarvert er það, að villt dýr
sjást í listum og í enn ríkara mæli í mannanöfnum, meðan tamin svín koma sjaldan fyrir í
þessu samhengi. Samt sem áður koma áðurnefndar þversagnir að haldi þegar dregnar eru
ályktanir um hvort geltir tengdir Frey og Freyju voru villtir eða tamdir, en um þetta hafa
fræðimenn ekki alltaf verið á eitt sáttir. Allt bendir til, að geltir þeir, sem koma fyrir í
goðafræðinni, líkt og í mannanöfnum og listum (jafnvel þótt þeir hafi hringaða rófu), hljóti að
hafa verið villigeltir (þótt slíkar skepnur væru óþekktar á Íslandi), og þeir hafi aðallega haft á
sér yfirbragð líkamsstyrks og hugrekkis. Undirrót slíkrar fullyrðingar er sú, að þessar
birtingarmyndir galta tengjast yfirleitt táknmyndum bardaga, enda benda nöfn galta Freys og
Freyju til hernaðarlistareðlis þeirra. Þetta atriði rennir ennfremur stoðum undir aðalröksemd
þessarar ritgerðar, sem vefengir þá útbreiddu skoðun, að litið hafi verið á gelti í norrænni
goðafræði sem frjósemistákn, enda sýna gögn fram á, að enga beina sönnun sé að finna í
norrænum heimildum um að geltir standi fyrir frjósemi. Sú hugmynd var líklega byggð á
samanburði við grískar goðsagnir og/eða á þeirri túlkun á hlutverki Freys og Freyju, að þau
hafi í meginatriðum verið frjósemisgoð. Engu að síður, sé litið á göltinn án tillits til Freys og
Freyju (eins og hér er gert), opnast möguleiki á að skoða málið í málefnalegu ljósi, án
4
fordóma og ágiskana, til að freista þess að gera sér ljósan skilning þeirra tíma manna. Þannig
verður ekki aðeins ljóst, að gölturinn sem slíkur var á engan hátt tengdur táknmynd frjósemi,
heldur undirstrikar það einnig, að „galtardýrkunin“ eða vinsældir galtarins geti verið mun
eldri en germönsk járnöld, og óháð seinni tíma tengingum við Frey og Freyju. Á svipaðan hátt,
séu tengingar við goðin lögð til hliðar, má endurmeta dýrafórnir þannig að litið sé á þær í
grundvallaratriðum frá sjónarhóli tilgangs fórnar og dýrsins sjálfs. Slíkt sjónarmið bendir til
að galtarfórnir hafi verið tengdar einhvers konar seið, meðan nautsfórnir hafi yfirleitt átt sér
lagalegan tilgang. Þótt ritgerðin sýni fram á hvernig táknmynd galtarins er óháð Frey og
Freyju, útilokar hún auðvitað ekki þá staðreynd að þau voru öll tengd hvert öðru á einn eða
annan hátt. Bæði þessi goð og gölturinn nutu mikilla vinsælda í Svíþjóð og þá sérstaklega á
Vendel-tímanum. Heimildir leiða ennfremur í ljós, að gölturinn geti hafa verið eins konar
blætisdýr meðal Svía og hafi meira að segja náð stöðu táknmyndar sænskra konunga, sem
virðist sannað af rituðum heimildum, fornleifafundum og jafnvel mannanöfnum.1
1
Translated from English by Óttar Ottósson.
5
Abstract
This thesis tries to explore how swine (both wild and domestic) were of social and religious
importance for the Nordic people, its main emphasis being placed on the Vendel period
onwards. Naturally, a major focus is the boar, a powerful symbol which has usually been
associated with Freyr and Freyja, but which I argue had an independent significance. As a
background for the interpretation of the swine, the thesis discusses the main ideas about
animals in Old Nordic religion and worldview, among them beliefs in shape-changing or
fylgjur in animal shape. It underlines that in the Iron Age humans and animals were closer to
each other than they are today, and that animals might have been seen as having a similar
value to humans. The evidence also makes it clear that the image of swine was not limited to
one characteristic: it clearly varied. Alongside the image of a mighty, noble animal, we
encounter the image of a dangerous wild boar being presented as the enemy of a hero, pigs
also sometimes appearing in connection with an insult. Domestic pigs rarely appear in
personal names but occasionally appear in connection with shape-changing, and then in a
somewhat negative context. This dialectic of the swine might have been influenced by the
gradual arrival of Christianity (in which the image of the swine is rather negative).
Nonetheless, it appears that the difference of understanding with regard to the domestic and
the wild swine might have been of pre-Christian origin. It is noteworthy that wild animals are
present in art and extensively in personal names, while the domestic pigs rarely appear in such
contexts. Nonetheless, the dialectic noted above helps us to draw some conclusions about
whether the boars associated with Freyr and Freyja were wild or domestic, something about
which there has not always been agreement among scholars. Everything points to the idea that
the mythological boars, like those in personal names and art (even when they have curly tails),
must have been wild boars (even if such beasts were not known in Iceland) and that they were
mainly seen from the viewpoint of their physical power and bravery. The reason for making
such a statement is that these images of boars are commonly related to battle symbols, the
names of Freyr‟s and Freyja‟s boars also pointing to their martial character. This point also
gives rise to the main argument of the thesis, which questions the widespread opinion that the
boar in Old Nordic religion should be seen as a symbol of fertility. As the evidence also
shows, Nordic sources contain no direct evidence of the boar representing fertility. This idea
was probably based on comparison with Greek myths and/ or on the interpretations of Freyr
and Freyja as being essentially fertility deities. Nonetheless, when we look at the boar
6
independently of Freyr and Freyja (as is done here) it becomes possible to view it without
prejudice and presumptions in an objective fashion, in an attempt to understand how it was
understood by the people of the time. This makes it not only clear that the boar itself in its
symbolic function was in no way connected to fertility but also underlines that the “boar cult”
or boar popularity might be much older than the Germanic Iron Age, and independent of the
later associations with Freyr and Freyja. In a similar way, if we put the associations with the
gods to one side, we can reconsider animal sacrifice, considering it essentially from the
viewpoint of the purpose of sacrifice and the animal itself. Such a view suggests that the
sacrifice of the boar seems to have been connected with some kind of magic while the
sacrifice of the bull usually had legal purposes. Although the thesis shows how the boar as a
symbol is independent from Freyr and Freyja, it naturally does not rule out the fact that they
were all associated with each other in some way or other. Both they and the boar were very
popular in Sweden, and especially during the Vendel Period. The sources also show that the
boar might have been some kind of totemic animal for the Swedes, most especially attaining
the role of a symbol of the Swedish kings, something which appears to be proven by literary
evidence, archaeological finds and even personal names.
7
Table of Contents
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
Foreword ............................................................................................................................................................. 12
1.0. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 14
1.1. Aims ......................................................................................................................................................... 15
1.2. Key Terms and Concepts ....................................................................................................................... 17
1.2.1. The Swine/ Boar/ Pig .................................................................................................................... 17
1.2.2. Religion ............................................................................................................................................ 17
1.2.3. Shamanism ...................................................................................................................................... 21
1.2.4. Totemism ......................................................................................................................................... 24
2.0. The Sources and the Problems Associated with them ........................................................................... 26
2.1. Archaeological Material......................................................................................................................... 26
2.1.1. Bones ................................................................................................................................................ 27
2.1.2. Rock Carvings ................................................................................................................................. 28
2.1.3. Picture Stones .................................................................................................................................. 29
2.1.4. The Warrior’s Equipment .............................................................................................................. 30
2.1.5. Other Objects ................................................................................................................................... 30
2.2. Literary Sources ...................................................................................................................................... 32
2.2.1. Old Norse Literature ...................................................................................................................... 33
2.2.2. Other Germanic Literature ............................................................................................................ 38
2.2.3. Greek and Latin Sources ................................................................................................................ 39
2.3. Language and Place names ................................................................................................................... 39
2.4. Folklore .................................................................................................................................................... 40
3.0. The Swine in the Light of the Previous Research.................................................................................... 41
3.1. The First Scholars: The Collectors ........................................................................................................ 41
3.2. The End of the 19th Century, and the Beginning of the 20th Century .............................................. 45
3.2.1. The Daemon of Vegetation ............................................................................................................ 46
3.2.2. The Boar as a Sun Symbol ............................................................................................................. 48
3.3. The Thirties to the Fifties (The New Comparative Mythology, and Structuralism) ..................... 51
3.4. From the Sixties until the End of the Century .................................................................................... 56
3.5. Recent Scholarship ................................................................................................................................. 60
4.0. The Biological and Historical Background .............................................................................................. 68
4.1. Wild Swine: Biological Information ..................................................................................................... 68
4.2. The Wild Swine in Europe and Wild Swine Hunting ....................................................................... 69
4.3. The Domestication and Rearing of Pigs .............................................................................................. 72
4.4. The Swine in Bronze-Age Rock Carvings ........................................................................................... 73
4.4.1. Interpretations of the Animals on the Rock Carvings ............................................................... 78
4.5. Pigs in the Germanic Iron Age .............................................................................................................. 79
4.5.1. Animal Remains .............................................................................................................................. 81
4.5.2. The Keeping of Pigs ........................................................................................................................ 86
5.0. Different Aspects of the Swine in the Sagas ............................................................................................ 89
5.1. Fighting the Boar .................................................................................................................................... 89
5.2. Pigs in Aetiological Stories .................................................................................................................... 94
5.3. Pigs as a Symbol of Wealth ................................................................................................................... 95
5.4. The Swineherd: A Slave or a Prince? ................................................................................................... 96
5.5. The Eating of Pork and its Value ........................................................................................................ 100
5.5.1. The Otherworld Feast .................................................................................................................. 100
5.5.2. Pork: A Food for Feasts and Noble People ............................................................................... 102
6.0. Humans Reflecting the Swine in Names ................................................................................................ 105
6.1. The Boar in Personal Names ............................................................................................................... 111
6.1.1. Jǫfurr: Name and Heiti ................................................................................................................. 118
6.2. The Domestic Swine in Names and Bynames .................................................................................. 119
6.3. Named Boars ......................................................................................................................................... 124
8
6.4. Swine in Place Names .......................................................................................................................... 125
7.0. Becoming a Boar ........................................................................................................................................ 129
7.1. The Concept of the Soul in Pre-Christian Times .............................................................................. 129
7.1.1. Fylgja .............................................................................................................................................. 132
7.1.2. Fylgjur in the Shape of Swine ..................................................................................................... 135
7.2. Shape-Changing ................................................................................................................................... 138
7.2.2. Transformation of the Body ........................................................................................................ 142
7.2.3. The Using of Animal Skins and Masking .................................................................................. 147
7.3. Animal Warriors ................................................................................................................................... 151
7.3.1. Berserkir and Úlfheðnar .............................................................................................................. 152
7.3.2. Identification with a Boar: The Boar Warrior ........................................................................... 153
7.4. Svínfylking ............................................................................................................................................ 158
7.5. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 161
8.0 The Boar and the Battlefield...................................................................................................................... 163
8.1. The Oldest Evidence of Boar Artefacts .............................................................................................. 163
8.2. A General Survey of Non-Martial Boar Objects ............................................................................... 167
8.3. Helmets and Martial Objects............................................................................................................... 173
8.3.1. The Literary Tradition of Boar Helmets .................................................................................... 179
9.0. The Swine in Nordic Mythology ............................................................................................................. 185
10.0. The Boar in Religious Practice ............................................................................................................... 190
10.1. Bull Sacrifice ........................................................................................................................................ 191
10.2. The Boar and the Magic ..................................................................................................................... 194
10.3. The Animal as an Object of Veneration ........................................................................................... 200
11.0. The Boar and Sweden ............................................................................................................................. 203
12.0. Conclusions and Discussion .................................................................................................................. 209
12.1. The Dialectics of the Swine Symbol ................................................................................................. 209
12.2. Wild or Domestic? For Whom is it Important? .............................................................................. 210
12.3. The Boar is not a Symbol of Fertility ................................................................................................ 211
12.4. The Totemic Features of the Boar Symbol....................................................................................... 212
Bibliography...................................................................................................................................................... 213
Sources (Including Translations) ............................................................................................................... 213
Literature ...................................................................................................................................................... 218
Internet Sources ........................................................................................................................................... 242
9
List of Figures
Figure 1a. Rock carving from Ryckeby F, Uppland, Sweden (Photo: Radka Kovářová).
Figure 1b. Rock carving from Boglösa, Uppland, Sweden (Svenskt Hällristnings Forsknings
Arkiv).
Fig. 2. Rock carving from Himmelstadlund in Norrköping, Östergötland, Sweden (Photo:
Harri Blomberg, Wikipedia).
Figure 3. Rock carving from Himmelstadlund in Norrköping, Östergötland, Sweden (Janson,
Lundberg, Bertilsson 1989, pl. 13).
Figure 4. Rock carving from Fossum Tanum, Böhuslan area, Sweden (Svenskt Hällristnings
Forsknings Arkiv).
Figure 5. Ólafr helgi killing a boar in Flateyjarbók (from a poster made by Stofnun Árna
Magnússonar).
Figure 6a. Detail from Ardre VIII stone, Gotland, Sweden (Photo: Mats Halldin: Wikipedia,
Historiska museet in Stockholm).
Figure 6b. Tängelgårda stone, Gotland, Sweden (Historiska Museet, Stockholm :
http://www.historiska.se/template/RelatedImagePopup.aspx?parent=18887&image=18890,
last checked 3.6. 2011).
Figure 7. Vendel XIV helmet plate, Uppland, Sweden (Jennbert 2004, p. 229, fig. 16; after
Arbman 1980, p. 27).
Figure 8a. Detail of warrior from Gundestrup cauldron, Denmark (Photo: “Bloodofox”
Wikipedia: National Museum of Denmark).
Figure 8b. Coin from Esztergom, Hungary (Green 1992a, p. 158, drawing made by Paul
Jenkins).
Figure 9a. Pot from Greussen, Lower Saxony, Germany (Hoops 1999, vol. 14, plate 11;
photo: Museum Jena).
Figure 9b. Saxon cremation urn from Issendorf, Lower Saxony, Germany (Gelling, Ellis
Davidson 1969, p.164; image originally made by Müller-Brauel in 1774).
Figure 9c. Pot from Liebenau (Hoops 1999, vol. 14, plate 12; Archiv Sachsenforsch.
Niedersächsischen Landesmuseum Hannover, Photo: J. Mellin).
Figure 10a. Copy of 3rd century boar fibula from Zauschwitz, Lower Saxony, Germany
(Krüger 1983, plate 9).
Figure 10b. Boar fibula from Bad Pyrmont, Lower Saxony, Germany (Schlette 1977, p. 231).
10
Figure 11. Smiss stone, Gotland, Sweden (Fornsalen museum, Visby. Photo: “Berig”,
Wikipedia).
Figure 12a. Buckle from Sjælland, Denmark (Speake, 1980, fig. 5g).
Figure 12b. Buckle from Skärholmen, Södermanland, Sweden (Speake 1980, fig. 5i).
Figure 12c. Buckle from Gammertingen, Saxony, Germany (Speake 1980, fig. 12g).
Figure 13. Buckle from Åker, Norway (Magnús Magnússon 1977, p. 17; photo Werner
Forman).
Figure 14. Benty Grange boar, Derbyshire, England (Image copyright : Sheffield Galleries &
Museums Trust ).
Figure 15. The “Pioneer” helmet from Wallaston, Northamptonshire, England (Underwood
1999, plate 21. after Northamptonshire Archaeology).
Figure 16. Guilden Morden boar, Cambridgeshire, England (Foster 1977a, p. 167).
Figure 17a. Fragment of Vendel I helmet, Uppland, Sweden (Arent 1969, plate 23).
Figure 17b. Warriors with boar-helmets: Valsgärde 7 helmet plate, Uppland, Sweden
(Gräslund 2006, p. 127, fig. 5b, after Arwidsson 1977).
Figure 18. Torslunda plate from Öland, Sweden (Photo: Schristian Bickel, Wikipedia).
Figure 19. Sutton Hoo helmet, Suffolk, England (Glosecki 1989, p. 56, fig. 7).
11
Foreword
It is hard to say when and how my interest in swine started. These animals, often
misunderstood by people, have always been close to me for many reasons, but especially for
their intelligence and independence. As I have been collecting various figures of pigs and
information about them ever since I was a child, I naturally wanted to collect further material
about them when I came to Iceland as an exchange student in 2005/ 2006. I decided to write a
student paper on pigs for the “Norræn trú” course on Old Nordic religion, not least because I
had earlier been involved in history of religion, and found that much of the material on pigs in
this context was new to me. This paper was successful, and thanks to Professor Terry Gunnell,
when I came back to Iceland a year later, I was given an opportunity to extend this project
into an MA thesis. There was clearly not only enough material on the role of the swine in Old
Nordic society and religion, but also a lot of room for possible discussion and development.
There was even more source material than I could imagine, At the beginning, the idea
had been to collect all the Germanic “boar” material, but as my research continued, I realised
that this would be a job that would take the next twenty years. Therefore my thesis has come
to concentrate especially on such concepts as the human-animal relationship reflected in Old
Nordic religion, a rethinking and (to some degree) a rejection of some of the older ideas that
have been expressed about the boar, not least the idea of the boar as symbol of fertility.
Although the writing of a thesis is largely lonely work, there are many people I want
to thank for their help as the project has gone along. Firstly, I want to thank all of the staff and
guests in Stofnun Árna Magnússonar where I was given a desk in a good place. I want to
thank especially the nice ladies from “drottningardyngjan” for listening to and answering my
questions. I would also like to express my gratitude to our Old Nordic religion discussion
group (Triin Laidoner, Ingunn Ásdísardóttir, Kolfinna Jónatansdóttir, Luke John Murphy,
Ólöf Bjarnadóttir, Gerður Halldóra Sigurðardóttir) for their comments on the topic. Particular
thanks are due to Ólöf and Gerður for reading over and correcting one of my chapters. I also
want to thank Andrea Ævars and Radka Kovářová for ordering my bibliography; to Vít
Engelthaler and Eva Vybíralová for translations from German; and to Óttar Ottósson for
translations from the Scandinavian languages, for the Icelandic translation of the Summary,
and for inspiration for this thesis. Thanks are due furthermore to Christopher Alan Smith and
Katelin Parsons for correcting some passages of the thesis; to Dr Carolyne Larrington and Dr
Torun Zachrisson sending me very useful material, and everyone else who has at some point
12
given me suggestions, sent me material or spent time with me in discussion on the topic.
There are, however, two people who deserve most thanks: first of all, Dr Alaric Hall, for his
suggestions, corrections and motivating advice, and finally Prof. Terry Gunnell for his neverending corrections and suggestions how to improve the thesis, and mainly for his patience
with the supervision.
Before moving on to the thesis itself, a couple of notes need to be made about my
referencing with regard to sources in the following chapters. While in the main text I refer to
the primary sources themselves, in the footnotes, I refer only to the editors or translators of
the editions I have used (rather than the name of the work in question or the series in which it
is contained). There are, however, a few exceptions to this rule, especially in the case of old
editions, and the various editions of Íslenzk fornrit, in which case (rather than referring to the
editor) I refer to Íslenzk fornrit and the relevant volume number.
June 2011
Lenka Kovářová
13
1.0. Introduction
Animals have always played an important role in human life, and even today, when most
people in the Western society live in towns, animals still remain important in popular culture.
People still commonly use animals as a reflection of reality in proverbs and sayings (such as
“clever as a fox” and “dirty as a pig”), and in movies and literature, animals are often used to
represent human characters and thus serve as a parody of society or a form of critique. 2
Finally, there are many children‟s books and comic books in which animals act like people
and in which characters are seen as corresponding to animals. 3 In spite of this, people in
modern society do not have daily contact with real animals as people had in past centuries
when the society was not concentrated in towns and people had their own animals which they
used for their livelihood. Today, people know animals only mainly as products (meat, milk
products, and leather products) or have a few privileged kinds of animals as pets (mainly dogs
and cats). In the rural society of the past, on the other hand, people were aware of the fact that
their lives depended on the good health of animals, and animals thus had much more place in
their lives than they do today. In pre-Christian times, however, animals had an even greater
role, because they also played a central role in both myths and rituals. There are probably
many reasons for this. Unlike in Christianity, in which man is seen as having been created as
the ruler of animals,4 in natural religions it seems clear that animals are/ were seen as being
equal to human beings.5 In many non-Christian societies, they were also seen as possessing
certain qualities that people do not have.6 People thus sometimes tried to possess these powers
by the use of magic, sometimes even trying to become animals by means of masks, dressing
in skins and/ or making imitations of animal behaviour (see further Chapter 7.2.3). The
relationship to animals expressed in the myths and rituals of these peoples shows a great deal
about their thoughts and beliefs, and not only about the way they saw animals but also the
way in which they saw themselves as humans.
2
For example, in George Orwell‟s Animal Farm.
For example, in works like A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh; Rudyard Kipling, The Jungle Book, and the books
of Beatrix Potter.
4
Genesis 1, 28. This can be actually applied also to Judaism and Islam which rise from the same tradition. See
further Waldau & Patton (eds.), 2006, p. xix and pp. 65-178.
5
Tylor 1903, vol. I, p. 469.
6
We can think of strength and speed but also about some supernatural qualities. See Frazer 1993, p. 31.
3
14
1.1. Aims
In the following thesis, I will be examining the position of animals within Old Nordic religion
(particularly of the Later Iron Age). While I expect to find some common general patterns that
will be valid for people‟s approaches to animals as a whole, I will be concentrating on one
animal in particular. The animal I have chosen for this study is the swine, both wild and
domestic. Why the swine? First of all, the available material for the study is quite rich, and yet
comparatively unresearched. 7 Secondly, the swine is a good example of an animal that is
viewed in a very controversial way even today and thus, there is plenty of room for discussion
about the reasons for such views: 8 while it seems the swine had an important role in the
religion of many parts of pre-Christian Europe, 9 in monotheistic religions like Judaism,
Christianity and Islam, it is seen as an unholy and unclean animal. 10 Among other things, we
have to ask whether the views of the swine changed in the north with the conversion to
Christianity or not and whether this change was caused by the change of religion or with the
changes in lifestyle. Some Christian influence (at least on later written sources) is nonetheless
probable because such a diversity of views exists in the Norse literary sources which were
recorded after the Conversion. The difficulty is in finding out what features of these texts are
actually old (in other words pre-Christian), and what is a product of later beliefs and attitudes.
Nonetheless, the relationship between animals and humans in Old Nordic religion and society
will be the main thread of this thesis. In addition to reviewing the way in which animals (and
in particular the swine) have been dealt with in previous research (both archaeological and
literary materials), I mean to look at role and image of the swine in the wider context of the
culture, climate and landscape. All of this is important if we are to gain a real understanding
of the religious system and the worldview that accompanies it.
7
Only one monograph exists on the boar in Germanic religion: see Beck 1965. See further Chapter 3.4.
On the one hand, the wild boar was used as a respectable coat of arms throughout the Middle Ages, and this
remains the case today (as when the wild boar is used as a sign for sport clubs, or pubs). The image of the
domestic pig is nonetheless more controversial. A little pig often appears as a positive or funny character in
movies (e.g. Piglet in Winnie the Pooh, and the pig in Charlotte’s Web, Babe, Gordy, etc.). On the other hand,
grown-up pigs are often seen as the symbols of greed and lust (as in Orwell‟s Animal Farm, and songs by Black
Sabbath (“War Pigs”) and Pink Floyd (“Pigs” on Animals), and various political satires in which politicians are
pictured with faces of swine.)
9
Besides the Germanic religion, the other religious system which placed emphasis on the figures of swine was
that which belonged to the Celtic people: see Ross 1967, pp. 308-321.
10
See the restrictions given in Leviticus 11, 7-8. Although in Christianity, pork is allowed (Acts 11, 6-10), pigs
are not seen as being of good status, as when Jesus sends evil spirits into a herd of pigs (Matthew 8, 28-32). In
Medieval Christianity, the pig was associated with greed and lust: see Phillips 2007, pp. 374-379.
8
15
In this thesis, I will begin with an explanation of important terms and concepts. After this, in
the second chapter, I will discuss the main sources on Old Nordic religion and problems
involved in their use. The key sources relating to the role of swine will also be listed. The
third chapter will then deal with previous research. Although the main emphasis will be
placed on research into the role of swine in Old Nordic religion, the key works on the role of
animals in general in Old Nordic religion will be also discussed, mainly for their importance
in the development of approaches. The second part of the thesis will start with the fourth
chapter, which surveys the available information about the nature of the swine, its distribution
in Europe in the Iron Age, its role in hunting and domestication, and then the way in which
this reality is reflected in the archaeological sources, including rock carvings and graves. The
fifth chapter concentrates on swine in the sagas and the way their image varies between the
different sources. The sixth chapter begins with an analysis of the linguistic background of
Norse words for swine, and then continues with an examination of the personal names related
to Germanic words for the boar. The chapter contains with the discussion of possible beliefs
involved in the power of the name; and whether it was believed that people who were given
these names were seen as gaining (or having) the characteristics of animals. This idea
continues in the seventh chapter with a discussion on the concept of the “soul” in the Old
Norse world, and its connections to animal form (or the idea fylgjur in animal form). It is
followed up with examples of beliefs that people “became” animals (in both a literary or real
sense). In the eighth chapter, this idea of warriors “becoming” the boar is discussed in relation
to the appearance of the swine in artistic objects, mainly helmets and weaponry but also as
part of objects designed for daily use. In the ninth chapter, the role of boars in recorded
Nordic myth is presented, and the relationship between swine and Freyr and Freyja is
discussed, along with some analysis of how it can be interpreted. The tenth chapter then deals
with rituals involving swine, and the purpose of the swine sacrifice is discussed in the new
light. In the eleventh chapter, Ι discuss possible “totemic” role of the boar in Sweden based on
the material presented earlier. The third part of the thesis then contains conclusions and
discussion of possible Christian influence on the extant sources. The main discussion in the
thesis, however, is on the meaning of the swine in Old Nordic religion.
16
1.2. Key Terms and Concepts
1.2.1. The Swine/ Boar/ Pig
Before going any further, it is necessary to explain the terms applied to the animal under
discussion, in other words, swine / boar/ pig. In a biological work, more proper terms and
Latin names would be needed, but for a work on the role of the swine in religion, it is enough
to concentrate on two or three terms.11 “Swine” in this thesis will be used as a neutral term for
both wild and domestic swine. Most used in the thesis is the term “boar”, which is normally
used for wild swine of both sexes although it was originally a term for a male swine.
Admittedly, Colin Groves has noted that the use of the term “wild boar” for any wild pig is an
example of sexist terminology. 12 Nonetheless, in the following work, “boar” remains an
appropriate term to use because it is mainly the male swine that seems to have had most
importance for Old Nordic religion and Old Norse culture.13 I will thus use the term “boar”
only for male swine. In the case of discussion of the wild species of swine in general, I will
rather use “wild boar” or “wild pig”.
1.2.2. Religion
As the role of the swine in Old Nordic religion will be discussed here, I also have to explain
what I mean by the word “religion” because it is not always used in the same way. It seems
that finding a proper definition for “religion” has been a challenge for historians of religion
for many years. Unfortunately, there is no universal definition for the wide ranging and
complex concept of religion, and those that are used tend to be very problematic because they
commonly apply essentially to Western religions, and thus stress sharp distinctions between
the sacred and the profane (which do not always exist in other religions) and concentrate on
11
Bennett lists the various words used by agricultural specialists: “Swine” is a general term used for pigs, and
“hog” is used for adult or near-adult pigs. “Boar” tends to be used for a tame male pig; “stag” for a pig that has
been castrated at a late stage; “barrow” for an early–castrated male pig; and “sow” and “gilt” for female pigs.
“Shoat”, “weanling” and “suckling” are used for piglets (Bennett 1970, p. 223). A quite detailed terminology
also appears among hunters who often use different words for wild swine of both sexes in accordance with their
age: see Meynhardt 1983, p. 7.
12
Groves 2007, p. 22.
13
See further Chapters 6, 7 and 8.
17
belief.14 According to Winston King, using such definitions is thus very problematic for the
Asian or so called “primitive religions”.15 I will not attempt to find a perfect definition of
religion, because there is none, but it is possible to find out where the borders of Old Nordic
religion are approximately in relation to “universal” definitions of religion.
The first term important for definitions of religions is certainly the concept of the
“sacred”. Here, however, we immediately encounter a contradiction between the usual
concepts used in the history of religion and modern research into Old Nordic religion.
Scholarship on the history of religion (including Old Nordic religion) was for many years
influenced by the concepts of the “sacred” and the “profane” first mentioned by Durkheim 16
and later developed by Eliade.17 In such concepts, there is a strict division between the objects
of ritual or belief (the sacred) and those which occur in secular life (the profane). Nonetheless,
some scholars have argued against such a division because it is not universal. For example,
King argues that in so-called “primitive” religions, the religious is scarcely distinguishable
from the socio-cultural sphere.18 For him, religion cannot be understood outside the context of
culture as a whole.19 Similarly, within the field of Old Nordic religion, Olof Sundqvist has
pointed out that “Sources indicate that warfare, law, politics, mercantile activities and
agriculture were reflected and intermingled with the religious ideology.”20 Anders Hultgård
has also stated that religion in the Old Nordic world was strongly integrated with social life
and that religious elements can thus occur anywhere within the total range of the culture and
14
See, for example, Friedrich Max Müller‟s definition from 1882, which states: “If we say that it is religion
which distinguishes man from anima, we do not mean the Christian or Jewish religion; we do not mean any
special religion; but we mean a mental faculty or disposition which, independent of, nay in spite of sense and
reason, enables man to apprehend the Infinite under different names, and under varying disguises. Without that
faculty, no religion, not even the lowest worship of idols and fetishes, would be possible; and if we will but listen
attentively, we can hear in all religions a groaning of the spirit, a struggle to conceive the inconceivable, the utter
the unutterable, a longing after the finite, a love of God” (Müller 1882, pp. 13-14). Durkheim‟s definition runs:
“A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and
forbidden-beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who
adhere to them” (Durkheim 1964, p. 47). Another definition is given by Luckert. According to him, religion is
“man‟s response to so-conceived greater-than-human configurations of reality” (Luckert 1984, p. 4).
15
King 1987, pp. 282-283.
16
Durkheim 1964, p. 37.
17
The idea develops mainly with Eliade‟s work Das Heilige und das Profane. Vom Wesen des Religiösen (1957),
(The Sacred and the Profane) which is, however, strongly influenced by work Das Heilige (1917) by Rudolf
Otto. This idea continues throughout Eliade‟s other works. See further Chapter 3.3.
18
King 1987, p. 283.
19
King 1987, p. 284.
20
Sundqvist 2000, p. 14.
18
society.21 From this point of view, we may say that there was no sharp distinction between the
sacred and the profane in Old Nordic religion.22
Thinking of religion and society in the Old Nordic world as being closely intertwined,
we have to ask how the religion could differ with changes in society and environment and
over time. As many contemporary researchers have argued, Old Nordic religion was no single
united system with a fixed ideology, fixed hierarchy and fixed pantheon. 23 Nowadays, the
idea of a common Germanic religion (or even a once common Indo-European religion) is no
longer automatically accepted as it was in an earlier period.24 Beliefs clearly differed across
the Germanic area.25 Stefan Brink, for example, has indicated differences in cults within the
Germanic speaking countries based on place-names. 26 Another scholar who has stressed
differences within the Germanic area is John McKinnell. For him, Germanic heathenism had
“no canonical scriptures and no organization to enforce orthodoxy”. 27 As he writes, the
evidence of sources shows that “it was constantly shifting and might contain differing
traditions even within the same culture and period.”28 Anders Andrén similarly defines Old
Nordic religion as “multifaceted hybrid”,29 while Neil Price describes it as “nuanced, multiscalar and far from static, with a degree of regional variation and change over time.”30
Nonetheless, although there were probably many local versions of myths and although
religious practice may have differed by area and society, there appear to have been certain
common patterns and shared concepts, which allow us to talk about Old Nordic or even
Germanic religion as opposed to Slavic, Finno-Ugric or Celtic religions for example. The
field of research covered in this thesis thus has some borders, even if they are not as sharp as
21
Hultgård 2008, p. 212.
Sundqvist 2000, p. 13. Similarly, it has been pointed out that the idea of the supernatural in Old Nordic
religion is misleading. Neil Price says that “the fundamental presence of these beings in the landscape was
entirely „natural‟ and should not be separated from the human and animal populations” (Price 2002, p. 244).
23
For example Brink 2007; DuBois 1999; Price 2002 and Andrén 2005. See references below.
24
The idea of an Indo-European religion originated largely with Grimm, who makes a number of comparisons
with “Indo-European” mythology. Nonetheless, with works of Dumézil (see Dumézil 1973, for example), this
idea gained proper shape and general acceptance. The theory grew up around the similarities that could be found
in the Indo-European languages and assumes that the religions of the Indo-European people, like their languages,
go back to a shared origin. The structure presented by Dumézil suggests that among the Indo-Europeans there
were three classes: cultic leaders/rulers, warriors and farmers. According to Dumézil, these structures appear in
all Indo-European religions. In Old Norse scholarship, this approach appears in the works of Jan de Vries,
Turville-Petre, and in a way of Lotte Motz, although she uses this structure differently. On these scholars, see
further Chapter 3.
25
As regards this area, I mean the area of Germanic-speaking peoples, although I am aware that it does not
correspond exactly to the earlier distribution of Germanic tribes.
26
Brink 2007.
27
McKinnell 2005, p. 13.
28
McKinnell 2005, p. 13.
29
Andrén 2005, p. 120.
30
Price 2002, p. 63.
22
19
in other fields of study. Essentially, languages make the borders in question. Nonetheless, we
always have to bear in mind that some interaction and even influences must have existed
between neighbouring cultures.31 Considering linguistic divisions, there are obvious problems
with using such geographical borderlines for religion, as has been noted by Steinsland.32 For
convenience, I will be using the term “Old Nordic religion” for the Iron Age religions of
Nordic Europe, but in this thesis will also be making reference to Anglo-Saxon religion and
those of continental Germanic Europe, as well as occasionally drawing on material from
earlier periods in Nordic Europe where relevant.
However, as noted above, there were key differences between such a religion like Old
Nordic religion, and a religion like Christianity. Gro Steinsland underlines the key differences
between what she calls “folk” and “universal” religions, a “folk” religion being non-dogmatic,
ethnic and based on tradition, while a “universal” religion is transnational, dogmatic and
based on learning. Thus, the Old Nordic religion had all the features of a “folk” religion and
was the total opposite of universal religions like Christianity.33 Defining Old Nordic religion
by stressing its differences from Christianity is thus actually quite helpful. As Hultgård has
written, it is essentially a “non-doctrinal community religion” in contrast to doctrinal
transnational religions like Christianity, Buddhism and Islam.34
However, there are not only problems with deciding the borderlines and nature of Old
Nordic religion. As noted above, for some scholars the use of the term “religion” for the
phenomenon in question is also problematic. For example, Price explains that “religion” is
usually applied to something orthodox with rules. With regard to Iron Age Scandinavia, he
and others35 prefer to use the expression “belief system”, referring to a way of looking at the
world that varied by time and space.36 Elsewhere, Price argues that when it comes down to it,
terms like “religion”, “ritual”, “worship” and “shamanism” are only what we decide them to
be.37 Certainly, while the word “religion” continues to be used by Old Norse scholars, we
have to be aware that it is perhaps not totally appropriate because in Old Norse sources there
was no word comparable to the modern term “religion” (Icelandic: trúarbrögð). The closest
expression are the terms “forn siðr” (lit.: “old custom/ way”), and “heiðinn siðr” (heathen
31
For example DuBois 1999, Price 2002, and Bertell 2006.
Steinsland 2005, p. 12 and p. 23.
33
For more examples and differences see Steinsland 2005, pp. 31-34.
34
Hultgård 2008, p. 212.
35
DuBois 1999, p. 30, Biering 2006, p. 175.
36
Price 2002, p. 26.
37
Price 2002, p. 288.
32
20
custom/ way).38 Nonetheless, these expressions only appear in the later period and used on the
basis of comparison made to the “new” custom of Christianity which is referred to as “nýi siðr”
or “kristinn siðr”. 39 In the following thesis, I will nonetheless use the word “religion” as
others have done, but essentially in the sense of siðr, which goes further than limiting itself to
belief, rituals and the idea of the “sacred” noted above, and moves into the field of daily life.
1.2.3. Shamanism
Another term related to religious activity connected with relationships between humans and
animals, is “shamanism”. Various scholars including Price have referred to the flexible nature
of animal-human identities in some societies. Such concepts are crucial for any understanding
of shamanism and “shamanistic” practices.40 The term “shamanism” originated from the word
“shaman” used by the Evenki, a nation which stretched across Siberia, Mongolia and China. It
was used only for individuals and refers to “one, who is excited, moved or raised”. 41 Partly
because of this origin, there has been some discussion among scholars about whether the term
shamanism can ever be used for religious practices outside Siberia. According to Price,
however, it can be used anywhere because “shamanism” in a limited sense does not even exist
among the Evenki, since they do not have any word for the acts carried out by a shaman.42
How can we then use the words “shaman”, “shamanism” or “shamanistic”? Firstly, the
modern opinion is that shamanism cannot be described as a kind of religion, rather a kind of
worldview. 43 It was not limited to religious activities but permeated daily life. Price, for
example, understands Norse shamanism as a view of nature and reality itself.44
Admittedly, there is little direct evidence from shamanistic societies suggesting
shamanistic activities concerning the figure of the swine, but the key feature here is the view
of animals as a whole that exists in societies that practice forms of shamanism.45 “Shamans”
38
Andrén, Jennbert and Raudvere 2006, p. 12.
Change of religion is called siðaskipti. For examples of use of the word siðr, see Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p.
526.
40
Price 2002, p. 287.
41
Price 2002, pp. 281-282.
42
Price 2002, p. 288.
43
Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 10. See also Jordan 2001, pp. 87-88. Such activities are typical within contemporary
societies of hunter-gatherers, and it is believed that the ancient hunter-gathering societies had a similar system.
Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 29.
44
Price 2002, p. 393.
45
Shamanistic societies occur mostly in areas where wild boar does not live. Nonetheless, one note was made by
Leem 1767, p. 501 about the Sámi who do not eat pork because they see it as the riding animal of a noaidi (Sámi
39
21
(in the commonly understood general sense of the word) regularly take on the role of animals,
using special headdresses or animal skins as they set off on the trance journeys.46 In short, it
might be said that part of the shamanistic experience was that of becoming an animal or
communicating with guardian spirits in animal form. 47 Among Native Americans, for
example, shamans would imitate bears and to do this, they often used the skins of animal to
“become” the beast.48 Various early archaeological finds and cave art provide evidence that
such “animal-men”, so called “therianthropes” existed in northern Europe already in the
Palaeolithic period.49
How were such worldviews related to Old Nordic religion? According to Price, the
shamanism of the circumpolar cultures bears a remarkable similarity to Scandinavian seiðr
and related rituals.50 Similarly, Else Mundal has pointed out that the belief in sending souls
out of bodies in the shape of an animal was just as known among Nordic people as it was
among the Sámi people.51 Nonetheless, it must be admitted that Old Nordic society in many
areas during the last centuries before the conversion was at a different socio-economic level to
that known in the societies in which “traditional” shamanistic practices take place. 52 In such
societies, the shaman is both a leader and a healer and has contact with the Otherworld. Here
he has contact with those animals on which his society depends as prey.53
On the other hand, for most Scandinavians in the Iron Age, livelihoods were based on
trade and farming rather than hunting which was becoming a form of entertainment for the
nobility.54 Scholars are usually aware of this difference in lifestyle of various societies and its
effect on religious approaches in different times. Glosecki therefore calls the “shamanistic”
patterns found in Anglo-Saxon literature “reflexes of shamanism”, while Tine J. Biering
shaman) (my thanks to Triin Laidoner for this note). Also noteworthy is Frazer‟s mention that every shaman of
the Samoyeds in the Turukhinsk region has a familiar spirit which takes the shape of a wild boar which is led
about by a magic belt. When the boar dies, the shaman also dies. Frazer also states that the most of the Yakuts in
Siberia took the shape of stallions, elks, black bears, eagles and boars (Frazer 1936, p. 196).
46
Aldhouse-Green 2005, pp. 16-17.
47
Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 13.
48
Glosecki 1989, p. 26. Similarly, Eliade mentions the importance of bear costume for shamans (Eliade 1964, p.
156).
49
Aldhouse-Green mention lion/human figures from Höhlestein Stadel and Höhle Fels in Southern Germany,
which are about 30 000 years old (Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 60).
50
Price 2008, p. 248. For details, see Price 2002 where he shows examples of both cultures.
51
Mundal 2006, p. 719. She mentions for example Kormáks saga 18. See Íslenzk fornrit VIII, pp. 265-266.
52
Biering sees these shamanistic elements in Old Nordic religion as the result of a fusion. Over time, they were
mostly eliminated and thus people connected with such elements ended up at periphery of society. Biering 2006,
p.171.
53
Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 13.
54
See Chapter 4.2.1.
22
points out that the shamanistic features which appear in Old Nordic religion should not be
confused with “classic shamanism”. 55
It is noteworthy that the remaining shamanistic features of Old Nordic religion have
mostly been connected to the figure of Óðinn.56 Outside the features of Óðinn‟s “initiation”57
and his connection to the Otherworld, the main “shamanistic” elements appear in terms of the
“shape-changing” and then the feature of “animal warriors”, a term used for warriors who are
associated with animals in one way or another. Although Eliade pointed out that such animal
warriors, most commonly referred as berserkir and úlfheðnar, 58 have little to do with
shamanism in the real sense of word,59 this concept nonetheless fits the shamanic worldview,
as I will show below. Furthermore, Eliade himself mentions that changing into beasts formed
part of the hunting rituals of Paleo-Siberian peoples, and implies that the mystic imitation of
animal behaviour could involve some ecstatic techniques.60 According to Arent, shamanistic
beliefs were present among Germanic tribes, something seen in the animal names used both
for individuals and tribes; the animal masks; and the elements of theriomorphic
transformation.61
Another parallel that Old Nordic religion has with shamanistic societies is the concept
of the independent travelling “soul”, reflected in the idea of the hugr, hamingja and the fylgja
in Nordic tradition.62 In a similar way, the Sámi were said to have one or more “body souls”
which could travel outside their bodies, as well as other related spirits, which accompanied
them throughout their lives.63 Furthermore, there seems to have been some element of shared
identity between the Sámi shamans and their animal spirit helpers.64 As I will show in Chapter
6, such elements of shared identity between men and animals appears in both archaeological
and literary sources from Nordic world. It seems that they have been deep rooted. This
naturally leads to the related concept of “totemism”, which is also closely connected with
55
Glosecki 1989, p.1; Biering 2006, p. 175.
For Eliade, the features in question involve Óðinn‟s initiation on the tree, his regular connections with the
Otherworld, and his horse Sleipnir which has eight legs: see further Eliade 1964, p. 380, On Óðinn‟s character,
see further Simek 1993, 240-245, and Steinsland 2005, pp. 165-194.
57
See further Schjødt 2008, pp. 352-355.
58
See Chapter 7.3.1.
59
Both names refer to animals. The berserkir and úlfheðnar will be discussed further in Chapter 7.3.1.
60
Eliade 1964, p. 385. On the bear in Sámi culture, see Kulonen, Seurujärvi-Kari, Pulkkinen 2005, pp. 33-35.
61
Arent refers to the berserkir and úlfheðnar (warrior groups), and also to helmets and other objects which bear
animal images. See Arent 1969, p. 136.
62
On the Old Nordic concept of „soul‟ see Chapter 7.1.
63
On the description of the Sámi soul, see Tolley 2006, pp. 957-958.
64
Tolley 2006, p. 957.
56
23
animals. There is good reason to ask in which sense totemism or totemistic features were
present in Old Nordic religion?
1.2.4. Totemism
As suggested above, the concept of totemism also has direct relation to the present discussion
of the relationship between humans and animals expressed in the Old Nordic worldview. It is
important to note that, like “shamanism”, it was originally used as a religious concept, the
Native American Ojibway word totem having been adopted by scholars to refer to an animal
or plant ancestor of a certain community. As Durkheim says, “The species of things which
serves to designate the clan collectively is called its totem.”65 According to Durkheim, the
totem is the most sacred symbol for the clan because it determines the identity of the group in
connection to that plant or animal. Among the Native Americans, for example, people
belonging to the same totem have particular responsibilities to each other, as well as a number
restrictions related to that particular totemic animal or plant.66
While the Nordic world may not have directly paralleled that of the Native Americans
or the Native Australians, the awareness that such religious ideas exist among people helps us
to understand the possibility that the people of the Old Nordic world once might have had
something very similar to the concept of totem animals, both for groups and individuals. 67
Noteworthy about such a totem is that it can also take the form of an emblem, something
comparable to a coat of arms. As noted above, the original meaning of totemism goes back to
such ideas.68 This is also the main reason for why we speak about possible “totemic features”
in Old Nordic religion when referring to the appearance of an animal as a possible emblem
when found on a helmet or on a shield, for example. As with shamanism (see Chapter 1.2.3),
it is highly questionable whether we can find all the phenomena typical for totemic religions
in the extant sources on Old Nordic religion, being practised by largely agricultural people.
Nonetheless, one can approach totemism in the same way as I have mentioned above in
connection with shamanistic features. However, according to Price, totemism is basically
65
Durkheim 1964, p. 102.
Durkheim mentions that totems are not limited to animals or plants. They can also be rain, hail, or other
natural features, although this is quite rare. Totems can also take the form of parts of animal bodies (Durkheim
1964, pp. 103-104).
67
See Sundqvist 2000, p. 154.
68
Durkheim 1964, p. 113.
66
24
another anthropological construct. 69 It is essentially a concept rather than a concrete
phenomenon. Taking this point of view, there is no need to fear using the word “totemic” in
the context of Old Nordic religion.
The features I intend to discuss as being possibly totemic in Old Nordic society are
first of all the use of personal names referring to animals. 70 Roy Wagner calls this
phenomenon “totemic individuation” and compares it with modern sports teams that take the
names of animals, using them as an emblem. 71 Another feature is mentioned by Price in
connection to the apparently totemic identification between man and animals on the
battlefield. 72 According to Jensen, yet another symptom of totemism can be seen in the
relationships between gods and animals in mythology.73 It is certainly clear that in Old Nordic
religion, particular animals seem to be connected to particular gods. Thus, the boar is often
seen as a symbol or even a representation of the gods Freyr and Freyja.74
Bearing the above concepts in mind, I will be looking in this thesis at the figure of the
boar in Old Nordic religion and society, analysing whether its importance (which seems
apparent) was limited to a particular area, or even just particular individuals, becoming part of
that individual‟s (or even a group‟s) identity. The connections between people and these
animals may have taken several different forms over time. However, before going on to such
questions, we need to start by considering the relevant material concerning the role of animals,
and particularly boars, in the Old Nordic world and religion, and how earlier scholars have
approached these questions in previous research.
69
Price 2002, p. 287.
See Chapter 6.
71
Wagner 1987, p. 575.
72
Price 2002, p. 390.
73
Jensen 1963, p. 157.
74
See Chapters 3 and 9.
70
25
2.0. The Sources and the Problems Associated with them
In this chapter, I will discuss the different nature of sources and the problems with using them
as a source of religion. I will introduce the main sources on the boar which will be referred to
later (more detailed discussion of individual sources will be given in the following chapters).
It is possible to divide the sources on Old Nordic religion into several groups: archaeological
material, runic inscriptions, place-names, literature and folklore, as for example Gro
Steinsland has done.75 I use a similar division with minor differences. Each of these groups
has its own strengths and weaknesses and their own fields of study. The main problem of
these sources is that they often come from different periods and areas and their contexts differ.
For example, literary sources are mostly from Iceland but the main archaeological finds
regarding the boar are from Sweden or England; the result is like putting together a puzzle
using pieces that come from different sets. Nonetheless, these sources sometimes fit together
and it is possible to reconstruct an image of the pre-Christian understanding of the boar out of
them. However, because the subject of the research is an animal, we must look at different
aspects of these sources than we would do if we were dealing with a deity, like Þórr or Freyr,
for example.
2.1. Archaeological Material
The positive side of material sources is that they are from the period that we are interested in,
unlike the literature which was written down mostly in later periods than the events described
took place. On the other hand, this later literature usually offers an interpretation of events and
objects and their meaning for people. Nonetheless, we must do our best to ensure that the
interpretations are right, or at least make sense. When considering material sources,
interpretations are often needed for understanding. For example, we have to ask why people
used images of the boar, something which would be hard to answer if we only had
archaeological finds. As John McKinnell has pointed out, “iconographic and archaeological
evidence can only be trusted when they relate to a period no earlier than the earliest texts”.76
Therefore, it might be argued that the question of interpretation might be easier in the case of
75
76
Steinsland 2005, p. 37.
McKinnell 2005, p. 48.
26
boar helmets (for example) because they are also known from literature (see Chapter 8.3.1).
Nonetheless, we also find such boar images on brooches, buckles, bowls, and some other
objects which are not mentioned in the same literature (see Chapter 8.2). Another problem
with interpretation is that the presence of a boar artefact in certain area does not necessarily
mean that the boar had special importance in that place: we have to remember that these were
people who were moving, trading, and even stealing. The artefacts could thus have been
originally made somewhere else.77 Therefore, we have to bear in mind that the context and
meaning of the same kind of artefact might have varied by area. We also need to consider the
background and influences of neighbouring cultures. Archaeological finds are, however, not
only objects but also skeletal remains, which in the case of the swine are an important part of
the research.
2.1.1. Bones
Animal bones are important source not only with regard to the daily life of people but also for
the interpretation of death rituals (depending on where they are found). The field of
zooarchaeology undertakes detailed research into animal bones. With regard to our work, it is
necessary to identify the kind of animal and sometimes the sex, since the animal under
discussion tends to be male swine. Also, information is needed as to whether the swine bones
belonged to the wild or domestic pig,78 something which is possible to determine by teeth.79
Nonetheless, if we are considering the ritual function of the boar, we also have to
consider other features, such as the placing of bones, their number, and whether some body
parts appear more often than the others do. We also have to consider whether the bones were
placed in a human grave or buried on their own, noting whether the bones were burnt or not.
It is often concluded that non-burnt bones found in cremation graves were added later and
thus possibly the remains of the burial feast. 80 Animal bones can thus simply mean the
presence of food. It is more noteworthy if only a part of body is buried, because this suggests
77
For example, the Sutton-Hoo helmet is probably of Swedish origin (Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 198), and the
Gundestrup bowl of Thracian or Gaulish origin (Enright 2007, pp. 105-106). See further Chapter 8.1.
78
There is a suggestion that wild animals had a different ideological meaning to domestic animals. For example,
it is noteworthy that a god like Óðinn is connected exclusively with wild animals (see Steinsland 2005, p. 179).
In relation to gods connected to the boar, information about whether the animal in question is wild or domestic
might change our understanding of the god. See further Chapters 3 and 12.2.
79
See Payne and Bull 1988, whose study concerns the difference between the wild and domestic pig, relating to
teeth. On bones, see Rackham 1994.
80
Wilson 1992, p. 99.
27
that something unusual was going on. In the case of the swine, if this happens, the part of
body found is usually a mandible (see further Chapter 4.5.1.). The presence of boar tusks in
the form of pendants is also noteworthy and this usually leads to suggestions that they had
religious importance (see further Chapter 4.5.1.). In addition to graves and settlements, animal
bones were sometimes found at places identified as cultic sites: some Nordic sites believed to
be sacrificial places contained large amount of pig bones.81
In order to interpret the data drawn from swine bones, it is also useful to look at the
distribution of the swine in Northern Europe in the Iron Age. However, to understand the
relationship between people and swine in a broader context, it is also necessary to look at
what was happening in earlier periods. For example, information about the changes of climate
in Northern Europe, beginning with the end of the Ice Age and the distribution of animal
species (wild swine included) in north is quite useful for knowing when and how people
started to interact with swine. Furthermore, the domestication of animal species like the swine
as society changed from being one of hunter-gatherers to one of farmers based around in
about 3000 BC is also important.82 All of the above caused changes in society, and one can
expect they also had effects on religious life.
2.1.2. Rock Carvings
Although this work deals mostly with the Iron Age religion, as noted above, it is also
necessary to look at older periods, because traces and influences might be left in later periods.
For the oldest traces of the relationship between humans and animals in the Nordic countries,
we have to look at rock carvings,83 which have existed since the Stone Age. The oldest of
these come from the Arctic Stone Age in Scandinavia and often depict hunting scenes. The
subjects depicted here are mostly animals, mainly the reindeer, and the elk. Occasionally we
see the bear, the whale and fish.84 I am not going to discuss such old materials here, for there
are no swine on these Stone Age carvings, to the best of my knowledge. More important for
the Old Nordic religion are the Bronze Age rock carvings. 85 Different to the Stone Age
81
Gräslund 2008, p. 251.
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 3.
83
Actually this field must also include rock paintings but as has been pointed out by Åke Hultkrantz, the
techniques used for depictions are not so important here (Hultkrantz 1986, pp. 42-43).
84
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 3. See also Ellis Davidson 1967, pp. 17-23.
85
Simek 1993, p. 266.
82
28
carvings, these show more similarities with images which we know from the Iron Age. 86 They
are usually dated to 1500-500 B.C,87 but it is possible to see in them continuity to Iron Age
beliefs.88 Interpreting Bronze Age rock carvings is nonetheless not easy. There are, however,
two main kinds: the carvings of the Scandinavian North which are related to hunting and thus
a type of religion related to hunting; and then the carvings of the Scandinavian South related
to a world of agriculture (and another form of religion).89 It is noteworthy that the swine is not
present in the carvings from the North, since wild swine have not lived so far north, and
therefore, the discussion of rock carvings in this thesis will be concerned with carvings from
the Scandinavian South.90
2.1.3. Picture Stones
While rock carvings are very schematic and hard to interpret in a mythological context, it is
noteworthy that the later “picture stones” (mainly from Gotland) contain the images which in
some cases correspond to the later-recorded myths very well. Some symbols also correspond
to descriptions in literature.91 These images are, of course, also much younger than the Bronze
Age carvings. The oldest stones are dated to about 500 AD and they were made up until the
11th century.92 As noted above, most of the picture stones were found in Gotland but some
have been found in other places.93 All the same, the swine does not often appear often the
picture stones (if it appears at all): There are few examples of images which possibly
represent a swine but once again, it is always a question of interpretation. Therefore, the
picture stones will only be briefly mentioned in later chapters.
86
We have to bear in mind that society of the Stone Age was a society of hunters-gatherers whereas Bronze Age
society was settled and agricultural (Shetelig and Falk 1937, p. 158).
87
For example, Gunnell 1995, p.37, Coles 1994, p. 8.
88
See the foreword written by Christopher Hawkes in Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, pp. v-vi.
89
Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, pp. 24-25.
90
On rock carvings, see further Coles 1990, 1994, 1995; Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969; Janson, Lundberg, and
Bertilsson 1989; Bing 1920-1925; Steinsland (ed.) 1986; and Hygen, Bengtsson 2000.
91
Nylén, Lamm 1988, pp. 51-52.
92
Ellis Davidson 1967, pp. 100-101.
93
McKinnell 2005, p. 49. See further Lindqvist 1941-1942.
29
2.1.4. The Warrior’s Equipment
Of all the archaeological material discussed in the thesis, the most emphasis will be placed on
the equipment of warriors (helmets in particular)94 (see especially Chapter 8.3.), mainly for its
relevance to literary sources which suggest that this material plays a key role for
understanding the role of the boar in Nordic culture. The specific connection between the boar
and the helmet certainly seems to be crucial with regard to the religious interpretation of the
boar. Noteworthy is that in Sweden and England, there have been several finds of helmets
with boar crests, or images of boars on helmet plates. All of these finds are dated to the
Vendel period (about 600-800 AD).95 Nonetheless, the idea of placing images of the boar on
helmets must be much older, since the warriors with boar helmets are portrayed on
Gundestrup bowl (2nd century BC) which seems to be Celtic work.96 On the other hand, no
boar helmets come from later than from the 7th century.
2.1.5. Other Objects
The popularity of boar images for the Nordic peoples nonetheless also existed outside the
sphere of battle. Images of boars can be found on various objects, as brooches, buckles, bowls,
and once again it is necessary to be careful when interpreting these images because the same
animal might be used for different purposes on different objects. The objects in question are
mostly of Anglo-Saxon origin 97 or Scandinavian (from the Vendel period), 98 but some
examples have also been found in Germany, coming from an earlier period, something which
might be important for attempts to trace the origin or temporal distribution of the boar symbol.
In several cases, there is a repetition of motifs, as in case of pots made in the shape of the pig
from Saxony (from 3rd – 5th century), but there are also some unique images, such as that
depicted on the Oseberg Tapestry, from Oseberg ship burial in Norway (c. 834), 99 which
appears to show a woman dressed in the boar disguise.
94
There is also evidence of other warrior equipment with boar images, but compared to helmets, the evidence is
rare.
95
Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 49.
96
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 76.
97
See Speake 1980 pp. 78-81.
98
See for example, Gräslund 2006 and Hedeager 2004.
99
Christensen 2000, pp. 88-89.
30
Boar images are also found on bracteates, which are golden pendants in the shape of a
coin. They are only stamped on one side, and come from the Germanic migration period (the
5th and the 6th centuries AD) and were found mainly in Denmark and Scandinavian Peninsula.
According to Starkey, there are over 900 of them.100 There are four types: Type A presents a
male head in profile, 101 type B presents a human figure in various positions, sometimes
accompanied by animals, 102 and type C is the most numerous group (almost half of the
bracteates belong to this group), and shows a head in profile above a four-legged beast,
sometimes accompanied by a bird.103 Type D presents an animal, fantastic creature or other
animal decoration. This group is the second largest; it includes about a quarter of the
bracteates.104 Animals identified as swine appear on type A bracteates,105 which belong to the
oldest group (5th century).106
Other sources which include images of swine are the guldgubber, tiny gold foils.
According to Ellis Davidson, these were made between the Migration Period and the Viking
Age.107 They commonly bear a depiction of a couple but some of them have an animal shape
(including that of a swine).108 They are found only in Scandinavia, and the most from Sorte
Muld, Bornholm in Denmark. 109 Andrén mentions that the guldgubber were often found in
halls, and although their function is debated, but it seems that they had ritual functions. 110
Nonetheless, the swine foils as yet only make up a few of the total number. Neither the
guldgubber nor the bracteates will be discussed any further in this thesis, outside marginal
references.
The main problem with the archaeological sources noted above, including the
guldgubber and rock carvings, is that of identifying what they actually are. This includes the
identification of the depicted animal together with its meaning and context. Usually, it is
possible to identify the boar by its tusks,111 crested back and long snout. Nonetheless, some
images are very unclear or the animal is difficult to identify. It is thus useful to look at other
100
See Starkey 1999, p. 373; see also Simek 1993, p. 43. See further Hauck 1985-1989.
These bracteates are similar to the medallions of Roman emperors, and probably are imitations of them: see
Starkey 1999, p. 375.
102
Starkey 1999, p. 375; Simek 1993, p. 43.
103
Simek 1993, p. 43; Starkey 1999, p. 375.
104
Simek 1993, p.43; Starkey 1999, p. 375.
105
Simek 1993, p. 44. Simek does not mention their relation to the other types.
106
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 93.
107
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 95; Watt 1991, p. 373.
108
See Watt 1991, p. 381.
109
See Watt 1991.
110
Andrén 2005, p. 112. See also Ratke and Simek 2006.
111
See Speake 1980, p. 78.
101
31
images which are described by scholars as wolves, dogs, even bears and other unidentified
animals (in case they might be swine). It is clear that the identification of animal images is
quite often based on fantasy of the author. It is thus always often necessary to look at images
again, with more care before trusting the opinions of others.
2.2. Literary Sources
Compared to the material sources, in literature, objects and events are usually given meaning
and interpretation, something which does not apply to archaeology. On the other hand, these
sources were written mostly by outsiders (such as classical writers or Arab travellers) who
were describing their contemporary neighbours, or by people who were describing their own
culture but several centuries after the events in question took place. These latter authors were
already Christians and therefore their accounts might be influenced by Christian ideology. 112
Both types of account must be examined with care. We can expect possible
misunderstandings or interpretations given in the wrong context. On the other hand, we must
also remember that the fact that people had been baptized does not necessarily mean that they
were deep believers. It is also clear that these Christian writings often contain poetry which
may belong to the late heathen period. We always have to consider the power of the oral
tradition, which suggests that literature recorded in the 13th or the 14th centuries might
preserve material which is several centuries older.
The first step is to look at the kind of source we are dealing with. Here one must
consider not only the age of sources and their possible origin, but also their purpose. While it
is disputable whether people who were already Christian understood heathen myth or ritual,
the information given in the sagas about farming life (which had changed little) seems to be
quite trustworthy, not least because that information contains no ideology. Law books are also
a valuable source with regard to medieval farming and the value of animals. They
nevertheless say little about pre-Christian values and are thus not an important source for this
thesis.
112
McKinnell 2005, p. 13, Clunies Ross 2010, p. 74.
32
2.2.1. Old Norse Literature
The first literary material I want to look at here is Old Norse literature which is the richest
available material and is written in the vernacular. Foremost in this material is certainly Eddic
poetry which the main source for Old Nordic myth, and therefore the most important source
on the Old Nordic religion.113 The poems are usually dated to between the middle of the 9th
century and middle of the 13th century. It is unlikely that any poem is older than the 8th
century.114 Nonetheless, this material probably existed for a long time in the oral tradition
before it was recorded. 115 The poems are anonymous and are usually divided into
mythological and heroic poems. In both types, we find references to the swine. The most of
the poems are preserved in the Codex Regius which is believed to have been compiled in the
second half of the 13th century.116
As noted above, several Eddic poems mention the swine. Grímnismál provides
essential cosmological information, and in its essential form, is believed to date to the end of
the 10th century. 117 Here boar meat is associated with the idea of the afterlife (st. 18: see
further Chapter 5.5.1). Other mythological Eddic poems containing information on the boar
have been preserved elsewhere but are also classed as “Eddic” because of their form and
character. Hyndluljóð is preserved in the Flateyjarbók manuscript which comes from the late
14th century.118 It contains important references to Freyja‟s boar not known from elsewhere
(strophes 5-7 and 45: see further Chapter 9). In the part of the poem known as Vǫluspá in
skamma (strophes 29-44) a boar sacrifice is described (st. 38). Some scholars argue that
Vǫluspá in skamma was originally a separate poem which is dated to the 12th century. 119 It
contains some borrowings from Vǫluspá but also gives some original information.
Nonetheless, the strophes concerning boar sacrifice also appear almost word by word in
Guðrúnarkviða in forna, which is preserved full length in the Codex Regius; strophes are 19,
113
For more details on the Eddic poems, see further Einar Ól. Sveinsson 1962, Jónas Kristjánsson 2007,
Vésteinn Ólason 2006.
114
McKinnell 2005, p. 37. See further Einar Ól. Sveinsson 1962, pp. 203-229.
115
Gunnell 2005, p. 83.
116
See, for example, Simek 1993, p. 52.
117
See, for example, Simek 1993, p. 119.
118
See, for example, Simek 1993, p. 169.
119
As a proof of this, Simek notes that Snorri quotes it under this name in Gylfaginning, Ch. 4 (Simek 1993, p.
367). See also Vésteinn Ólason 2006, p. 80. Nonetheless, McKinnell, for example considers Hyndluljóð to be a
single united poem, arguing that there is no real evidence for different origins of parts of it having existed
separately (McKinnell 2005, p.86).
33
22 and 23 and also in Vǫlsunga saga.120 Another boar ritual is mentioned in the prose part of
Helgakviða Hjǫrvarðssonar, also preserved in Codex Regius. According to North, this work is
of Norwegian origin and comes from the beginning of the 11th century.121 Another relevant
poem is Rígsþula which is preserved in the Codex Wormianus manuscript of Snorra Edda.
The dating of this poem is problematic: It has been said that poem is either quite old (from the
10th century) or rather late (the 13th century).122 The poem deals with the beginning of social
division and here the pig is mentioned there in two different contexts of two different social
groups (see Chapter 5.5.2.).
Unlike Eddic poetry, the authors of Skaldic poetry are mostly known and the dating of
poems is much easier. Nonetheless, it is always possible that some verses were created later
and attributed to poets who were long dead, as McKinnell has pointed out.123 Some of Skaldic
poems contain mythological material, especially in the form of kenningar or heiti. According
to John Lindow, Skaldic poetry is not religious, and neither the kenningar nor the heiti tell
myths, but a skald and his audience had to be familiar with the mythological material that lies
behind them. This shows that myths were being still passed down from generation to
generation, even though the belief in them may have died out. 124 Although the swine is rarely
a subject of Skaldic verse, there are several heiti for the boar known only from þulur, which
leads me to believe there may have been more verses involving the boar which are now lost.
The other Old Norse sources are prosaic, but involve several genres. One of them are
the Íslendingasögur or Icelandic family sagas which usually deal with few first generations of
Icelanders.125 Besides containing very detailed information on family relations, these sagas
inform us about people‟s lives and sometimes their religious activities. Nonetheless, we must
again be careful in interpreting these descriptions. The Íslendingasögur are not preserved in
manuscripts any older than from the 13th century. Many of the manuscripts are much more
recent. 126 The sagas were written down by people who were already Christians and it is
probable that the information about the Old religion was somewhat modified. All the same, it
certainly did not come from nowhere. Admittedly, it has often been noted that the sagas often
reflect ideas which were more valid at the time of writing than in the time of the past they
120
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, pp. 227-228; Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, pp. 72-73.
North 1997, p. 74.
122
Simek 1993, p. 265.
123
McKinnell 2005, p. 40.
124
Lindow 2005, pp. 27-28.
125
The sagas deal mostly with events in the 10th and early 11th centuries (Vésteinn Ólason 1998, p. 21).
126
Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 102. See also Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 217-223.
121
34
describe.127 Nonetheless, it is expected that an oral tradition lay behind the sagas. 128 Vésteinn
Ólason, however, doubts that whether any saga existed in full length in oral form. The
tradition was probably fluid, the narration changing with the narrator and his/ her audience.
According to Vésteinn, the saga writers were not inventing the saga; they were composing a
written work based on something which was already known, but it was up to them what to
include and what not.129
Some of the accounts concerning pigs which are told in the Íslendingasögur are
similarly described in Landnámabók, which deals with the settlement period.130 If we consider
the pigs mentioned by the sagas and Landnámabók, it is worth bearing in mind the words of
Vésteinn Ólason who states that “important figures are usually introduced by a statement
outlining the character‟s outward appearance, abilities and underlying nature.”131 On the basis
of this, it is worth considering whether that same interest is given to certain animals as a
means of proving their importance. It is certainly important to consider why pigs are
mentioned in the various sagas. They are usually important for the story, and make events
move forward.132
Other important sources were composed by Snorri Sturluson in the beginning of the
th
13 century. Snorri probably wrote his Edda in around 1220.133 At that time, Christianity had
been the official religion in Iceland for more than two hundred years, and according to
McKinnell, Snorra Edda sometimes reveals the author‟s orthodox Christian faith.134 On the
other hand, one wonders whether an orthodox Christian would write a work about Nordic
gods? Certainly, Snorri was an educated man and some of his writings contain influences of
Latin-based learned tradition.135 In addition to the old verses he cites, his works also contain
his own writings. There has been a long debate about how much of the myth cited by Snorri
was invented by him, and the degree to which he was a Christian.136 It seems that his primary
127
Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 102. See further Vésteinn Ólason 2006; Andersson 1964.
See further Gísli Sigurðsson 2004
129
Vésteinn Ólason 1998, p. 20.
130
There are several manuscripts of Landnámabók, the oldest being Sturlubók by Sturla Þórðarson who probably
composed it in later part of his life (died 1284) (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 125). The other manuscripts are
younger but the Hauksbók (after 1300) manuscript, for example, used among its sources Styrmisbók which was
probably composed before 1245 (the date of the death of Styrmir), and now is lost. For more information of
manuscripts of Landnámabók, see Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 124-127.
131
Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 107.
132
See Chapter 5.0-5.3.
133
This dating is based on the information of his travels during which he composed Háttatal, the poem on King
Hákon and Earl Skúli (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 175).
134
McKinnell 2005, p. 13.
135
Gísli Sigurðsson 2004, pp. 6-7.
136
The long debate among scholars was concluded by Gísli Sigurðsson: see Gísli Sigurðsson 2004, p. 7.
128
35
sources were mostly the poems he quotes. Some of the myths he tells can also be compared
with the versions that appear in the Poetic Edda. This suggests that while it is possible that he
changed some facts, there is also a possibility that he knew different versions. As has been
noted above, there was no universal version of myth at that time.137
Snorra Edda is usually divided into parts: Prologue, Gylfaginning, Skáldskaparmál
and Háttatal, although people sometimes include the lists of skalds and þulur, and the list of
poetic heiti. As with the sagas, there are several manuscripts of Snorra Edda which contain
slight differences.138 As will be seen in this thesis, Snorra Edda is an important source on
Freyr‟s boar.
Heimskringla is another work composed by Snorri Sturluson. It begins with Ynglinga
saga, the saga dealing with legendary kings in Sweden. Snorri‟s main source for the saga was
Ynglingatal, a poem composed by Þjóðólfr from Hvin (9th century), 139 which he quotes.
Heimskringla then continues with several kings‟ sagas. The swine is mentioned several times
here, but is essentially marginal material.140
Further important material appears in the fornaldarsögur. These take place outside
Iceland before the time of Iceland‟s settlement. There are 25 of these sagas in addition to
some shorter tales.141 The earliest of them can be found in Hauksbók (the early 14th century).
Otherwise, the manuscripts of fornaldarsögur are usually from the 15th century and later but
as with the other sagas, this is not decisive proof that they were composed late.
142
As
McKinnell notes, some of them certainly existed before the Íslendingasögur were written
down.143 They are also often very important because of the verses they preserve (outside the
Codex Regius). These poems are referred to as the Eddica minora. 144 The fornaldarsögur
contain many fantastic motifs while the Íslendingasögur were seen as more realistic.
137
See Chapter 1.2.2.
The main manuscripts of Snorra Edda are: U: DG 11 4to - Codex Uppsaliensis (c.1300-25), R: GKS 2367 4to
- Codex Regius Snorra Eddu (c.1300-25), W: AM 242 fol. - Codex Wormianus (c. 1350), A: AM 748 Ib 4to (c.
1300-25), B: AM 757 a 4to (c. 1400), C: AM 748 II 4to (c. 1400), T: Traj. no.1374 4to - Codex Trajectinus (c.
1595) (Guðrún Nordal 2001, pp. 44-45). For a detailed description of the manuscripts of Snorra Edda, see
Guðrún Nordal 2001, pp. 41-72.
139
Simek 1993, p. 378.
140
On Snorri, see Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 166-178. Besides the kings‟ sagas written by Snorri, other kings‟
sagas exist which will be used mainly as comparative material. For details, see Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 145166, and Andersson 2005, pp. 197-238.
141
Torfi Tulinius 2002, p. 17.
142
Torfi Tulinius 2002, p. 47. On the age of the manuscripts, see further http://am-dk.net/fasnl/bibl/index.php.
[last checked 17.5. 2011].
143
Two fornaldarsögur are said to have been recited at a wedding which took place in 1119. See Þorgils saga ok
Hafliða (Halldór Hermannsson 1945, p.14); and McKinnell 2005, p. 40.
144
Torfi Tulinius 2005, p. 448. See Heusler and Ranisch‟s edition from 1903.
138
36
Nonetheless, although they probably served principally for entertainment, some of them
appear to contain very ancient material.145
It is noteworthy that the boar appears more commonly in the fornaldarsögur, usually
in connection with shape-changing or as a dangerous beast. Two fornaldarsögur also seem to
be crucial as a source of beliefs connected to the boar. The first of them is Hervarar saga ok
Heiðreks (Heiðreks saga), where very important connections between Freyr/ Freyja and the
boar are mentioned, as well as the connection between the boar and rituals involving solemn
vows, (heitstrenging) (see further Chapter 10.2). The saga was preserved in several
manuscripts and there are minor differences in the different versions of the accounts
concerning boars which must be included.146
The other important saga for this thesis is Hrólfs saga kraka, which is a younger
source. The saga only survives only in 17th century paper manuscripts, which probably
originated from a common lost source from the second half of the 16th century.147 Nonetheless,
a version of the saga must have existed earlier because is listed among the books owned by
the Möðruvellir library in 1461. It could thus have been composed around year 1400. 148 While
the recension of the saga is rather late, it points to literature that is more ancient. 149 Probably
the oldest existing source of the story is Skjǫldunga saga which was composed in the 12th
century but only survived in a few fragments and in part in a Latin abstract written by
Arngrímur lærði at the end of the 16th century.150 It thus seems that Hrólfs saga kraka was
partly derived from Skjǫldunga saga.151
The main problem of the fornaldarsögur is that they are young and fantastic, and
when using them as a source on Old Nordic religion one must be very careful. Catharina
Raudvere who uses the fornaldarsögur as a source for ideology rather than religion shows one
of the possible approaches.152 McKinnell also notes that using fornaldarsögur as a source for
145
McKinnell 2005, p. 41.
The main manuscripts are Gl.kgl.sml.2845, 4to, called R (early 15 th century), Hauksbók, AM 544, 4to (first
half of the 14th century), and R 715 from the mid-17th century, called U (Turville-Petre, Tolkien 2006, p, xvii).
147
Ármann Jakobsson 1999, p. 139.
148
Ármann Jakobsson 1999, p. 140.
149
Ármann Jakobsson 1999, pp. 139-140. See also Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 352-353.
150
Jakob Benediktsson edited Arngrímur‟s work in several issues in Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana: The part of it
that matters is Rerum Danicarum fragmenta, which is published in Íslenzk fornrit under the name Danasaga
Arngríms lærða. Beside Skjöldunga saga, Arngrímur Jónsson probably also used some other parallel sources
(Jakob Benediktsson 1957, p. 107). It is also important to say that Arngrímur did not make an exact translation
of Skjǫldunga saga but only made an abstract of it, which in some places is much abridged (Jakob Benediktsson
1957-9, p. 50).
151
Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 352-353.
152
Raudvere 2007, p. 127.
146
37
pre-Christian belief is possible, but only if the sagas contain some ancient verse or some other
early materials exist which can be used for comparison.153 Luckily, in the examples I wish to
discuss, such literary evidence mostly exists, and one is also given some assistance from
archaeology.154
The last genre I want to mention is not usually included amongst the sources of Old
Nordic religion, but I have decided to include it here. This is the genre of riddarasögur which
is late, and based on foreign tradition. There are, however, several reasons for their use. First
of all, they were written down for Icelandic audience and circulated together with other
material. Secondly, some riddarasögur seem to belong to the borderline between
fornaldarsögur and riddarasögur. As Matthew Driscoll has pointed out, the sagas in question
take place outside of Scandinavia (which is one of the criteria for their being riddarasögur),
but in the Viking rather than the chivalric milieu. 155 They might be unoriginal and called
lygisögur, but their popularity cannot be doubted. One potentially relevant motif which occurs
in them, and needs to be discussed is that of fighting the swine (see further Chapter 5.1.). Here
the swine appears as an evil beast. In general, the riddarasögur contain a lot of comparative
material to the fornaldarsögur, and thus cannot be left out of a discussion of the latter.
2.2.2. Other Germanic Literature
In searching for more information on the boar, it is necessary to look at Anglo-Saxon tradition.
The most important is the epos Beowulf that has many notes on boar helmets and contains
other material that belongs to the topic. Beowulf is preserved in manuscript form around 1000
but the poem itself is older, probably around 800.156 Another Anglo-Saxon poem with a brief
mention of boar is Cynewulf‟s Elene aged not much before beginning of the 9th century.157 It
is noteworthy that in England where the boar artefacts were found we also have this rich
literary account. From German area, I have used Nibelungenlied, but only as comparative
material, because there are some mentions of the boar. The poem was written down in about
1200 AD but the tradition seems to go back to the 5th and 6th century AD.158
153
McKinnell 2005, p. 41.
For further information on the fornaldarsögur, see Torfi Tulinius 2002; and Ney, Lassen, Ármann Jakobsson
2009 and 2003.
155
Driscoll 2005, 191.
156
Vésteinn Ólason 2006, p. 25.
157
The manuscript is dated to the second half of the 10th century (Gardon 1977, p. 22).
158
Hatto 1969, p. 7.
154
38
2.2.3. Greek and Latin Sources
The first literary source, which mentions a boar as an emblem of battle in the Germanic area,
is Tacitus‟ Germania, written in Latin in around 98 AD. It is believed that Tacitus used older
works in writing this, mostly Bella Germaniae by Elder Pliny which is now lost.159 Otherwise,
there is not so much on the swine in the connection with cult activities but classical writers
like Tacitus also talk about daily life and habits and keeping pigs and eating pork are
sometimes mentioned. A common problem with classical literature is the interpetatio græca
and romana that means that local gods were called by the names either in the Latin or in the
Greek. Nonetheless, pigs are always pigs, and that makes the research easier. The classical
sources together with Medieval Latin annals and chronicles are useful although they mostly
refer about Germanic people outside Scandinavia. While the Icelandic literature is mainly
within Icelandic-Scandinavian world, here we get more information on continental Germanic
people.
From the Medieval Latin sources, I have to mention Historia Langobardorum by
Paulus Diaconus written in the 8th century AD and anonymous Origo gentis Langobardorum
(7th century). Both refer to a person with boar name.
Another relevant work is Gesta Danorum, probably written by Saxo Grammaticus
around 1200.160 Although there are not many references here to the swine, it is an important
source for the Skjǫldunga tradition. Otherwise as a source for religion, it is much more
influenced by medieval thoughts and writings than Snorra Edda is; the style is typical for
medieval writing. Nonetheless still there is visible that Saxo knew different versions of myth,
which is important for the knowledge of diversity in the Old Nordic religion.
2.3. Language and Place names
Another source of religious belief is the language, including personal names, place names,
and runes. 161 Here I want to concentrate on individual examples, because not every place
159
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 7.
According to Ellis Davidson, it was written between the years 1208-1218 (Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006. vol. I,
p. 1).
161
Two runes fehu* and uruz* are named after animals, and in the Old English runic poem, there is one possible
reference to the boar (see Chapter 4.1). Otherwise, boars or pigs were not the object of runic inscriptions, as far I
know. The name of the rune fehu* appears in the Viking futhark and in the Icelandic as fé with the meaning
“cattle” but also “property”. It is a natural connection that rich people were those who had a lot of cattle.
160
39
name and personal name involving animals reflects a belief. 162 It is important to look at these
examples in broader context, and especially how they are interpreted in the literature and in
the case of place names, especially if there are any legends about them. Beside the personal
and place names with swine components, it is important to look at different expressions for
the swine, and what the etymology says about them. This may not always reveal a belief but
says something about the way people thought about these words and therefore bring us closer
to understanding their relationship with the animals in question.
2.4. Folklore
The last source on Old Nordic religion is Nordic folklore in which we might find many
survivals of older beliefs. In my thesis, I did not go so far and the examples from folklore are
very marginal. I refer mainly to Christmas traditions concerning the swine in England and
Sweden which are both areas where the swine had big importance in pre-Christian
religions.163
Following this short summary of the main sources and their problems, it is time to
look at how the scholars approached these sources and how it influenced the interpretation of
the swine in the Old Nordic Religion.
162
On animal personal names, see Müller 1970. The boar names are also discussed by Beck 1965, pp. 70-86, and
later by Owen-Crocker 2007. On common words for swine and their possible connection to cult, see Charpentier
1936.
163
See chapters 3.1., 3.2.2. and 5.5.
40
3.0. The Swine in the Light of the Previous Research
The purpose of this chapter is to trace the development and changes in thinking in scholarship
with regard to Old Nordic religion, and how these changes have influenced the understanding
of the role of the swine in Old Nordic religion. This survey will lead on to a final discussion
regarding my own personal approach and the problems relating to some concepts still used
today. As detailed, referenced information regarding the boar and its role within society and
religion will be presented in particular chapters, the main aim here is demonstrate how the
boar was interpreted by scholars and why. As will be seen, these interpretations have changed
together with the changes in society, which have often influenced approaches in scholarship.
The chapter will also show how new approaches to the history of religion and related fields
have determined how scholars have interpreted myths, rituals, and/ or folk beliefs. It is
especially noteworthy that particular terminologies often had their own periods of use.164
3.1. The First Scholars: The Collectors
The interpretation of Old Nordic myth actually began with Snorri Sturluson and has continued
with other collectors of myths throughout history. Nonetheless, in terms of methodological
concepts, there is no need to begin much earlier than in the 19th century.165 The European
scholarship of this time into Old Nordic religion commonly involved not only the analysis of
texts but also the detailed collection of other material of the various kinds, including not only
local mythology but also folklore and comparative material from other countries. Nordic myth
was taken as part of the supposedly common body of Indo-European mythology, a great deal
of comparison taking place, but without any real method behind it. Scholars of this time often
refer to the “Greek” or “Indian” myth.166 For this reason, the conclusions of the scholars of
this time sometimes go too far. As noted above, in comparison with later research during the
19th century, folklore was commonly used to help provide “proof” for an original heathen
164
Terms such as “vegetative daemon” or “Sun symbol” are typical of the early period. See further below in this
chapter.
165
On the earlier scholars and collectors, see further Steinsland 2005, pp. 68-73, de Vries 1956, pp. 50-52, or
Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, pp. 7-48.
166
See for example, Grimm 2004, p. 213, Finnur Magnússon 1828, pp. 82-83.
41
tradition, something probably influenced by the nationalism of the 19th century.167 Alongside
this, many scholars concentrated on language and the etymological origins of words, and the
related idea of a common Indo-European origin. On the other hand, during this period the use
of archaeology in research into religion is very limited. In the relation to the boar, it is
noteworthy that while helmets and weapons with boar images are mentioned, no mention of
bone finds is made at all, to the best of my knowledge.168 During this period, little attention is
paid either to the everyday functions of animals in discussions of their potential religious
meaning. This is something that was to continue right up until recent times.
With regard to the question of how earlier scholars dealt with the image of the boar in
Old Norse mythology, we can start with the Danish scholar Frederik Severin Grundtvig
(1783-1872), who mentions the boar several times in his Nordens mythologi (1808). Apart
from making the usual connections with Freyr and Freyja, Grundtvig placed particular stress
on the connection between the boar and helmets,169 suggesting that the mythological figure of
boar Gullinbursti was developed from a boar-helmet owned by Freyr.170
Another scholar of this period was the Icelandic philologist Finnur Magnússon (Finn
Magnusen) (1781-1847). In his Priscæ veterum borealium mythologiae lexicon (1828), he
applies solar mythology to the analysis of Old Nordic mythology,171 seeing Freyr‟s boar as
being a representative of the sun, while Freyja‟s boar is viewed as the representative of the
moon.172 This idea may also be related to the fact that Finnur interprets Freyr himself as a god
of the sun (probably from the comparison with Roman Apollo)173 and following on from this,
Freyja as a goddess of the moon or the planet Venus (from comparison with Diana or the
goddess Venus). 174 It is also noteworthy that Finnur Magnússon makes no attempt to decide
167
The interest in a “national past” started with romanticism in the early 19 th century. See, for example,
Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, p. 14.
168
This was caused in part by the limitations in the technology of the time.
169
It might be remembered that at that time (1808), real helmets with boar crests had not yet been discovered, so
Grundtvig‟s research was only based only on descriptions of them in poems and sagas (Grundtvig 1808, pp. 574,
274, 276 and 491).
170
“At for Resten Gylden-Börste oprindelig ingenlunde har været Freys Ganger men hans Tryne-Hjelm (hildesvin)” (Grundtvig 1882, p. 491). This idea is probably based on comparisons with Freyja‟s boar Hildisvín, which
is also called Gullinbursti, and the helmet called Hildisvín which appears in tales about the Swedish king Aðils:
See further Chapter 11.0.
171
Finnur‟s interpretation resembles in many ways the “natural mythology” approaches that introduced by
Friedrich Max Müller: see further below.
172
Finnur Magnússon 1828, p. 131.
173
Finnur Magnússon 1828, p. 82.
174
Finnur Magnússon 1828, pp. 81-82, and p. 133. Like many others in later times, Chantepie de la Saussaye
(1902, p. 13) rejected these astronomical interpretations even though he valued Finnur‟s material.
42
whether the mythological swine is wild or not.175 Finnur Magnússon also uses comparisons
with Oriental and Egyptian mythology as proof of a common primitive origin.176
Better known to the world is Jacob Grimm (1785-1863), 177 whose Deutsche
Mythologie (trans. as Teutonic Mythology) was published for the first time in 1835,178 and is
still useful for the comparative material on folklore and German tradition that it contains. 179 In
this huge work, Grimm makes several mentions of the boar, first of all in the context of
sacrifice.180 According to Grimm, all boar sacrifices were related to “Frô” (Freyr), the boar
being viewed as Freyr‟s “holy animal”.181 He also suggested that Frô‟s animal was a wild
boar, underlining that the most of the other gods have tamed animals. 182 Like Grundtvig,
Grimm discussed the boar figures on helmets, putting them in direct connection with Freyr,
and interpreting them as “a sacred divine symbol” (heilige, göttliche symbol) 183 which was
supposed to protect warriors in battle and scare the enemy. 184 In the same way, he suggested
that folk beliefs relating to the “Christmas pig” both inside and outside Scandinavia should be
interpreted as reminiscences of a Freyr cult. 185 On the other hand, Grimm also made some
reference to the actual nature of the boar, pointing out that the veneration of boar was caused
by the fact that it rooted in the ground, among other things showing people how to plough.186
It is possibly such ideas that led later scholars to think of the boar as a chthonic animal. 187
Typically for his time, Grimm made great use of comparative religion, making comparison
with Greek sacrifices of swine to the goddess Déméter, who, according to Grimm, was
identical with Nerthus, and thus very near to Njǫrðr, Freyr and Freyja.188 In the context of folk
beliefs, Grimm also mentioned a tradition of corn-thrashing in which people made a pig out of
straw, in connection with the idea of a boar or wild sow walking in the corn. Nonetheless,
175
For Freyja‟s boar, he used the expression “aper sive verres” (the wild boar or domestic boar): Finnur
Magnússon 1828, p.156.
176
Finnur Magnússon 1828, pp. 82-83. See also Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, p. 13.
177
See Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, pp. 16-23.
178
Nonetheless, the first edition contained only two volumes while the fourth edition (1875-1878) had three. It
contained also Grimm‟s posthumous papers (Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, p. 19, n.2).
179
Nonetheless, Chantepie de la Saussaye is also very critical of Grimm‟s etymologies. Nonetheless, he admits
that in his time, Grimm‟s Deutsche Mythologie is still the chief work on the subject (Chantepie de la Saussaye
1902, p. 21).
180
Grimm 2004, pp. 46-57.
181
Grimm 2004, p. 647.
182
Grimm 2004, p. 215. In the original, Grimm uses the word Eber is used (1854, p. 196).
183
Grimm 1854, p. 195.
184
Grimm 2004, pp. 214-215.
185
For example, Grimm mentions the popular belief in the figure of a golden piglet in Thuringia (Grimm 2004, p.
51). See also Grimm 2004, pp. 213-214. See further Chapter 5.5.
186
Grimm 2004, p. 666. See also Ellis Davidson 1998, pp. 63-64.
187
See below in this chapter paragraphs on Frazer and Beck.
188
Grimm 2004, p. 52.
43
Grimm‟s interpretation was not yet connected to the figure of the “vegetative daemon” which
appeared a few decades later.189
Another scholar from this period who deserves a brief mention is the Norwegian
scholar Rudolph Keyser (1803-1863) who wrote Nordmændenes Religionsforfatning i
Hedendomen (1847). 190 For Keyser, the boar Gullinbursti is again “the symbol of the
productiveness of the fields”191 mainly discussed in connection with Freyr (no mention at all
being made of Freyja‟s boar Hildisvíni). Both Freyr and Freyja are nonetheless mentioned in
relation to sonar-gölltr, which is translated as “the Atonement-Boar”.192
Another of the early scholars to take up the question of the role of the boar was Victor
Rydberg, (1828-1895), a Swedish scholar and a romantic poet. Some of Rydberg‟s theories
were quite radical, and this applies quite clearly in relation to the boar. 193 Like Finnur
Magnússon and Grimm, Rydberg was an enthusiastic promoter of the idea of a shared IndoEuropean mythology, reconstructed through comparative methods. As with Keyser, for
Rydberg, the mythical boar Gullinbursti (Slíðrugtanni) was “clearly the symbol of
vegetation” 194 (växtlighetssymbol). 195 His new suggestion concerned the relation between
boar-like names and certain characters in the original sources. His main idea is expressed in
the title of a chapter contained in Undersökningar i Germanisk mythologi (1886). The chapter
is called: “Svipdag‟s father Orvandil. Evidence that he is identical with Volund‟s brother Egil.
The Orvandil synonym Ebbo (Ebur, Ibor).” [Svipdags Fader Örvandel. Bevis, att Han är
Identisk med Völunds Broder Egil. Örvandelssynonymet Ebbo (Ebur, Ibor)]. Such a
comparison might seem strange, but it might be noted that Rydberg uses Saxo‟s Gesta
Danorum more than other scholars did. He makes the strange suggestion that the name of the
character Egill in Vǫlundarkviða (prose introduction and sts 2, and 4-5) is related to other
characters whom he connects with the boar - but offeres no serious evidence for this. Another
unusual connection is that Rydberg interprets Ottar (Óttarr) from Hyndluljóð is being as
189
Grimm 2004, p. 1355.
Translated as The Religion of the Northmen by Barclay Pennock in 1854.
191
Keyser 1854, p. 134.
192
Keyser 1854, p. 176. See Chapter 10.2 on Sacrifice.
193
As it is noted by translator William P. Reaves, Rydberg pointed out that the known myths were once part of a
much broader epic cycle which had a chronological order, running from the creation until Ragnarök (Rydberg
2004, p. xi.). According to Turville-Petre, Rydberg‟s views were “extreme and therefore won less recognition
than they deserved” (Turville-Petre 1964, p. 103). To my mind, he tried to fill in the empty spaces in myths by
creating relationships between characters even when there is no evidence for it.
194
Rydberg 1891, p. 590.
195
Rydberg 1886, vol. I, p. 652,
190
44
Svipdag (Svipdagr), 196 and also Oðr (Óðr), the husband of Freyja. 197 As he writes: “The
fable‟s author lets Hyndla proclaim that the boar upon which Freyja rides is none other than
Freyja‟s husband Ottar, i.e. Svipdag (Oðr), in boar-guise.”198 Rydberg suggests that Svipdag‟s
father was called Ebur, Vildbur or Ibor (meaning boar).199 For him, the identification with the
boar is absolute, because he calls Ottar/ Svipdag directly the son of a wild boar. 200 This idea is
based partly on Book VII of Saxo, in which a hero Otharus is said to be a son of Ebbi (Ebbi
possibly meaning a wild boar).201 According to Rydberg, the name of Otharus‟s bride, Syritha,
is a Latinised form of Freyja‟s name Sýr (see further Chapter 6.2).202
As can be seen above, this period was strongly influenced by romanticism, national
movements, and the methodology was somewhat suspect, interpretations often being based on
suggested etymological relationships.
3.2. The End of the 19th Century, and the Beginning of the 20th Century
It is not until the end of the 19th century that we can really talk about “serious” scholarship,
mainly because of the introduction of disciplines of the history of religion and anthropology
and their methods. Among influential scholars in this period, it is necessary to mention
Edward Burnett Tylor (1832-1917), the English anthropologist and representative of
evolutionary theory. His most famous book is probably Primitive Culture, first published in
1871. Tylor believed in evolution and the “psychic unity” of humankind,203 and in order to
find an original form of religion, he offered the concept of animism, which supposedly
reflected man‟s original belief in spirits.204 Although his theories are no longer seen as valid,
Tylor did point out many important things regarding human kind‟s relationship with animals,
196
Svipdagr is a hero who appears in Grógaldr and Fjǫlsvinnsmál, which are considered as Eddic poems even
though they come from late manuscripts (17th century): see further Simek 1993, p. 307.
197
See Simek 1993, pp. 249-250.
198
Rydberg 2004, p. 161.
199
These names are probably etymologically related to the names Jǫfurr and Eofor: see further Chapter 6.1.
200
Rydberg 2004, p. 161. A character from Þiðreks saga (Vilkina saga) called Vildifer (Guðni Jónsson 1954, vol.
I, p. 252-253) is mentioned in the same context (Rydberg 1891, p. 585). On this name, and its relationship to the
boar, see further Chapter 6.1.
201
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, p. 208. For the original, “Tunc Otharus quidam, Ebbonis filius...”, see
Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, vol. I, p. 454. On the name Ebbi, see further Chapter 6.1.
202
Rydberg 1891, p. 527.
203
Waardenburg 1999, p. 209. For details, see Tylor 1903, vol. I, Chapter 9, and vol. II.
204
Tylor 1903, vol. I, p. 287.
45
many of which have been neglected until recently (see further below in Chapter 3.5.). He
writes:
First and foremost, uncultured man seems capable of simply worshipping a beast as beast, looking on it as
possessed of power, courage, cunning, beyond his own, and animated like a man by a soul which
continues to exist after bodily death, powerful as ever for good and harm. 205
According to Tylor, in a later stage of development the animal is believed to be incarnated
deity.206 His theory makes it absolutely clear why animals in Old Nordic religion came to be
discussed mainly in relation to gods, rather than as entities in their own right. The
presumption of scholars, based on Tylor‟s evolutionary theories, was that polytheism is a
subsequent stage of development from animism. Later in this chapter, it will be shown how,
for a certain period, scholars saw the boar as being an incarnation of Freyr at a hypothetical
earlier stage of Old Nordic religion. 207 Nonetheless, for some years to come, the idea of
worshiping an animal as an animal was almost forgotten.208
During the same period, two central approaches appeared, both of which were to
influence the interpretation of the boar in other ways. The first arose from the field of folklore,
and developed Grimm‟s suggestion that the boar should be connected to the belief in the “last
sheaf” which sometimes took the shape of a boar in harvest feasts. The second approach,
introduced by Friedrich Max Müller, arose within the field of the history of religion. It was
based on the idea that myths were interpretations of natural phenomena, an approach which
sometimes involved the boar being connected with the Sun. In the following section, a closer
examination will be made of both approaches.
3.2.1. The Daemon of Vegetation
Between the end of the 19th century and the start of the First World War, the term “daemon of
vegetation” came to be very popular among scholars of various fields, including Old Nordic
mythology. The term was introduced by the folklorist Wilhelm Mannhardt (1831-1880), often
205
Tylor 1920, vol. II, pp. 229-230.
Tylor 1920, vol. II, p. 230.
207
De Vries echoes this idea when he suggests that the boar could have been identified with Freyr at an earlier
stage of religion. See below in this chapter.
208
The idea was to reappear as part of new approaches, and in different contexts. See below with regard to
modern researches concerning shamanism.
206
46
regarded as a pioneer of modern scholarship in both folklore and the history of religion. 209
Among his works, Wald und Feldkulte (1875-1877) is particularly worthy of mention. 210
Regarding the boar, however, Mannhardt‟s study Die Korndämonen: Beitrag zur
Germanischen Sittenkunde (1868) is more important. It is here that he identified the Swedish
pig “Gloso” and the German “Roggensau” (both seen as so-called “corn daemons”, more
specific examples of the “daemons of vegetation”) with Freyr‟s and Freyja‟s boar.211 While
Mannhardt was a pupil of Jacob Grimm, in his later works he also shows strong influence
from Tylor and his theories of animism and the so-called “lower mythology”.212 Mannhardt in
turn had strong influence in Scandinavia on the works of the Norwegian folklorist Nils Lid
(1890-1958), among others. For suggestions that Nordic traditions concerning the boar at
Christmas and as part of Yule feasts might be connected with Freyr, see, for example, Lid‟s
Joleband og Vegetasjonsguddom (1928).213
More influential with regard to the spreading of Mannhardt‟s theories was Sir James
Frazer (1854-1941).214 The first volume of Frazer‟s Golden Bough was first published in 1890.
Frazer‟s approach here focuses particularly on fertility rites. Like Mannhardt,215 he talks about
a corn-spirit in the shape of an animal which in some areas was believed to have the shape of
a pig (both a boar and a sow).216 Another idea which was prominent in Frazer‟s work was that
the vegetation divinities of the Ancient world were originally understood as animals. 217 The
idea that divinities had an animal shape was thus seen as reflecting a lower stage of
209
Waardenburg 1999, p. 13, See also Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, pp. 27-30.
Mannhardt‟s theories were summed up briefly by von Sydow in 1934 (pp. 296-309). Von Sydow rejects
Mannhardt‟s approach completely. He also rejects the fertility aspects of feasts. Von Sydow interprets the
tradition of the last sheaf in a very rationalistic way. To his mind, the identification of last sheaf with an animal
had the purpose of scaring children away from trampling on the corn. It had nothing to do with demonic belief
(von Sydow 1934, pp. 303-304). As von Sydow writes, “The animistic corn demon, which nowhere is believed
in but only mistakenly constructed by Mannhardt, ought not here to be considered at all.” He also notes that the
real cult of last sheaf was not actually found anywhere in Europe (von Sydow 1934, p. 307). Also important to
consider is von Sydow‟s simple statement that: “… the rule that every kind of animal attribute in a god or demon
signifies that the god or demon previously had the form of an animal is absolutely false” (von Sydow 1934, p.
308).
211
Mannhardt 1868, p. viii.
212
Chantepie De la Saussaye argues that Mannhardt was first influenced by the Comparative School, and only
later by Grimm and Tylor, this bringing him to see animism as an original form of belief (Chantepie de la
Saussaye 1902, p. 28). See also von Sydow 1934, p. 295.
213
Lid 1928, pp. 38, 49, 78, 81 and 84. See also Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 31.
214
Waardenburg 1999, p. 13 See also Eliade 1996, p. 362.
215
Mannhardt 1868, p. 1.
216
Besides Scandinavia, Frazer mentions some areas in Thuringia and Swabia, but also Courland (Latvia) and
Estonia (Frazer 1993, pp. 460-463). In addition to the boar, he notes that the corn spirit can appear in the shape
of other animals (the stag, fox, roe, sheep, bear, ass, mouse, quail, stork, swan and kite) (Frazer 1993, p. 463).
See also Mannhardt 1868, p. 1.
217
Frazer 1993, pp. 464-479. Eliade rejects such theories as the “arbitrary creation of a rationalist mind” (Eliade
1996, p. 365).
210
47
development, and such approaches were a common feature of religious scholarship during this
period.218 They were still present in scholarship at the beginning of the 20th century, and also
appear in other fields. Another note made by Frazer might help explain why the boar was
considered to be a chthonic animal. At one point, he notes a ritual from India in which an altar
designed for a sacrifice for victory was supposed to be made out of the earth in which a boar
had been wallowing because the strength of the boar was believed to still be in the earth. For
Frazer, this is an example of homoeopathic magic, a branch of sympathetic magic.219
3.2.2. The Boar as a Sun Symbol
While the concept of the daemon of vegetation was principally connected with folklore, the
concept of the Sun Boar was mainly based on myth, although some folk beliefs were in
support of this theory. Several scholars had stressed the connection between the sun and the
boar in previous years220 but the concept became very popular at the end of the 19th century
and in the early 20th century. Behind this idea was the concept of natural mythology originally
formed by the philologist and founder of the history of religion, Friedrich Max Müller (18231900). According to Müller, the worship of nature lies behind myths, something that was
supported in part by comparative linguistics. 221 Of all natural phenomena, the sun and the
solar myth were seen as being most important by Müller.222
One of those scholars who were certainly influenced by the solar myth theory was
Karl Blind the title of whose essay “The Boar‟s Head Dinner at Oxford and a Teutonic SunGod” (1892-6) immediately reflects this idea. Blind proposed that the tradition of eating a
boar‟s head on Christmas day at Oxford 223 was a survival of pre-Christian tradition. The
218
See Tylor 1903.
Frazer 1993, p. 31. On the concept of sympathetic magic, see further Frazer 1993, pp. 11-47.
220
Even in the second half of the 20th century, the boar was sometimes connected to the sun: see, for example,
Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 50. On the other hand, Ellis Davidson rejects the idea that sun worship was the first stage
in man‟s religious development (Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 63).
221
Concerning the origins of this school see Chantepie de la Saussaye (1902, p. 25), who explains how theories
based on etymology could not be used any more, as research had advanced meaning that the comparison of IndoEuropean mythology could be used. See also Steinsland 2005, p. 74.
222
Müller 1883, p. 216. On Müller‟s words about the solar myth, see further Dorson 1955, p. 399. As Eliade
notes, the idea of global sun-worship, so popular in the early scholarship of the history of religion, was soon
rejected. As early as 1870, it was pointed out by Bastian that the sun worship was only known in a few parts of
the world (Eliade 1996, p. 124).
223
The tradition was maintained at Queen‟s College, Oxford (Blind 1892-6, p. 90).
219
48
possible origin of that tradition was then discussed alongside an examination of several
versions of the so-called “Boar‟s Head Carol.”224 Blind states that:
The Oxford ceremony of eating boar‟s head is a survival of a sacrificial meal, in which the SunBoar is the symbol of the German and Norse god Fro (or Freyr), and it played a great part at the
winter solstice among the Teutonic tribes.225
The mythological boar with the golden-bristles is here referred to as Freyr‟s sacred animal,
and according to Blind, “the golden bristles poetically signified the rays of the heavenly
orb”.226 Nonetheless, according to him, Gullinbursti was not the only boar to represent the sun:
the same also applied to Sæhrímnir (here called „Sährímnir‟), because it is eaten (disappears)
every evening and next day is whole again, like the sun.227 For Blind, even the bright colour
of the apple traditionally put in the mouth of the boar eaten at the Oxford Boar‟s Head feast
symbolized the sun.228
Another scholar who took the same approach was Angelo de Gubernatis (1840-1913)
a philologist, who specialized in Sanskrit. His huge work Zoological Mythology (1872)
focuses largely on Indian myth. The idea that he too was influenced by the theory of the solar
myth is reflected in his suggestion that the hog or wild boar is the sun hero in disguise in the
night.229 Although he gives some details about the swine, these cannot be seen as trustworthy
sources, because his approach is to compare various myths without any logical system.230
Pierre Daniel Chantepie de la Saussaye (1848-1920),231 a Dutch scholar, was one of
the most important scholars in the early history of religion. He was also interested in the
philosophy of religion, and wrote particularly about the religion of the Germanic people. His
224
The Boar‟s Head carol is a carol, celebrating the boar‟s head dish: see Blind 1892-6, pp. 91-93.
Blind 1892-6, p. 93.
226
Blind 1892-6, p. 93.
227
Blind 1892-6, p. 99. On Sæhrímnir, see further Chapters 5.5 and 6.3.
228
The gilding of the snout is also interpreted as reflecting the idea that the boar was the symbol of the sun
(Blind 1892-6, pp. 100-101). It is also worth briefly mentioning in this context an article about the boar‟s head
tradition written by James E. Spears in 1974, and published in Folklore. This actually reflects a similar approach
to that used by Blind, once again stressing the heathen origin of the tradition of the boar‟s head. Similarly, the
boar is associated with Freyr and Freyja as gods of fertility, and reference is made to the Greek myth of Adonis;
since Adonis was killed by a wild boar, this myth must be seen as a myth about the “course of vegetation”
(Spears 1974, p. 195). In addition to this, Spears once again suggests that the boar-head was eaten in the honour
of the Sun-Boar. Compared to the century-older text written by Blind, this one is much shorter. It is noteworthy
that it makes no mention of Blind‟s text, but again concludes that the Boar‟s Head Carol must be of heathen
origin (as Blind suggested).
229
De Gubernatis 2003, p. 2.
230
To give one example of De Gubernatis‟ ideas: “According to the Italian belief, the hog is dedicated to St.
Anthony, and St Anthony is also celebrated as the protector of weddings, like the Scandinavian Thor, to whom
the hog was sacred. The hog symbolises fat; and therefore in the sixteenth Esthonian story, the hog is eaten at
weddings” (De Gubernatis 2003, p. 6).
231
See Waardenburg 1999, pp. 105-114.
225
49
The Religion of the Teutons (1902)232 is particularly useful for its review of previous research
up until his time. He rejects the theories of Ur-monotheism and animism, and although he
supports the ideas of natural mythology, he argues that gods also had other functions. 233
Although he only mentions the boar briefly (noting that Gullinbursti belonged to Freyr), he
connects it to the “figures of wild boars” mentioned by Tacitus (see Chapter 8.1) and suggests
that Tacitus wrongly ascribes the boars to Baltic Æstii. To his mind, they should be seen as
belonging to the Ingævonic Teutons (which would connect them to Freyr). 234 In addition to
this, Chantepie de la Saussaye also mentions the boar in connection with the folk belief of the
Wild Hunt.235 Another noteworthy suggestion is his observation, echoing the earlier ideas of
Grimm,236 that particular animals were chosen for sacrifice to particular gods, “horses, cattle,
and dogs being set apart for Wuotan, swine and cats for Frija, he-goats, geese and fowl for
Thunar” (see further Chapter 10).237
The blending of approaches also appears clearly in an essay by the theologian Helge
Rosén, “Freykult och djurkult” (1913).238 Conceptually, this article follows the patterns of
natural mythology, the main difference being that Freyr is not said to be a sun god but a
himmelsgud (sky god). 239 Nonetheless, the patterns of contemporary folklore research are also
present here, especially in the Mannhardtian use of the appellative “daemon” with regard to
the corn spirit, which is once again said to sometimes appear in the form of a swine. 240 Like
many other scholars of the time, Rosén‟s main sources come from folklore, literature and
Greek myth.241 Like other scholars, he states that the boar was the most important animal
connected to Freyr. The study centres on a list of sources, the argument being once again that
232
Translated from the Dutch.
Chantepie de la Saussaye mentions their relation to a tribe, armed host, or a thing: Chantepie de la Saussaye
1902, p. 283.
234
Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, p. 252.
235
The idea of the Wild Hunt is that during a storm, Wodan and his army rush through the air. The Wild Hunt is
sometimes described as pursuing an animal, such as a boar, a cow, a deer (Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, p.
225). See also Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, pp. 216-217.
236
See above in this chapter.
237
Chantepie de la Saussaye 1902, p. 376. Chantepie de la Saussaye does not explain this further but it is clear
that the animals are supposedly chosen on the base of the myth. References to any cat or he-goat sacrifice are
missing.
238
Besides the boar, the study discusses other animals possibly related to Freyr, including the horse, the bull, and
the dog.
239
Rosén 1913, p. 216.
240
This figure was known in folklore in Sweden, Germany and Switzerland. Rosén 1913, p. 219. See also
Chapter 3.2.1.
241
Besides Swedish folklore, Rosén mainly uses Icelandic literature. Nonetheless, he also refers to the
descriptions of helmets in the Anglo-Saxon Beowulf, using articles by Knut Stjerna and Herrmann and Golther.
233
50
the boar was Freyr‟s sacrificial animal (as Grimm had earlier said). 242 It is nonetheless
noteworthy that Rosén talks of the boar itself being worshipped, and thus not only because of
its connections with Freyr.243 In his discussion of the helmets in Beowulf (see further Chapter
8.3.1), Rosén also refers to other two scholars, Herrmann and Golther who had thought that
the boar appears on helmets largely because it was an attribute of Freyr. 244 Rosén also
mentions Freyja, but says little more than that she also had a boar.245
During the same period, an Icelandic scholar Finnur Jónsson (1838-1934) wrote
Goðafræði Norðmanna og Íslendinga eftir Heimildum (1913) in which he rejects the natural
mythology of Finnur Magnússon.246 He nonetheless places the swine in connection Freyja and
Freyr, and interprets Freyr‟s boar as a fertility symbol (“frjósemdartáknun”).247
To sum up the approach of this period to the boar in Old Nordic myth and religion,
one can see that it was dominated by ideas related to natural mythology and especially solar
mythology. Although the decline of Müller‟s solar mythology had already begun in the early
decades of the 20th century, as Littleton has pointed out,248 the influence of natural mythology
were still present in the interpretations of scholars in the later part of the 20th century. 249
Approaches which originated in the next period, however, were to become more influential.
3.3. The Thirties to the Fifties (The New Comparative Mythology, and
Structuralism)
While the early scholarship was mostly rejected in the period that followed, approaches which
originated in the thirties came to be used for a long time, and are still being used by many
today. Among other things, one also has to consider the political background of the mid-20th
century which came to influence the thoughts of some scholars. Among the new approaches
242
Grimm 2004, p. 647.
Rosén 1913, p. 215. Rosén‟s evidence is drawn from Hrólfs saga kraka, where King Aðils makes a sacrifice
to a boar: see further Chapter 10.3.
244
Rosén 1913, p. 216. This statement is based on Herrmann 1903, p. 208. Herrmann says that the myth of the
golden-bristled boar arose from a misunderstanding by of people in the 10 th century. He says that the boar was
not an actual boar but a helmet with a golden crest. Freyr‟s boar thus belongs alongside the other tools of gods,
such as the spear of Óðinn and the hammer of Þór. In addition to this, Herrmann interprets the boar as a symbol
of strength; the bristles being are a symbol of the sunshine (Sonnenstrahlen) (Herrmann 1903, p. 207). Another
source used by Rosén was Golther 1895, p. 224.
245
Rosén 1913, p. 215.
246
Finnur Jónsson 1913, pp. 1-2.
247
Finnur Jónsson 1913, p. 75.
248
Littleton in: Dumézil 1973, p. x.
249
See Lindow 1988, p. xiii.
243
51
that came to be used in scholarship, one can include not only the psychology of Freud and
Jung and their followers, but also the new approaches of anthropology, including the
functionalistic approaches of Bronislaw Malinowski and Radcliffe-Brown,
250
and the
structuralism of Lévi-Strauss in the fifties. 251 For Old Nordic religion, however, the most
important influence was the Indo-European structural theory of Dumézil, which was adopted
by many others, and most particularly by Jan de Vries, Folke Ström, Hilda Ellis Davidson and
Turville-Petre.
The French scholar Georges Dumézil (1898-1986), was a philologist who also trained
in the history of religions and was based in the French sociological school. 252 His work might
be seen as continuing with the idea of Indo-European religion presented by the first scholars.
However, while they based their comparison mainly on language, Dumézil developed a
structure which he saw as being present in all Indo-European religions. 253 Steinsland later
referred to Dumézil‟s approach as “comparative Indo-European structuralism”.254 In spite of
certain similarities, the structuralism that Lévi-Strauss earlier developed was not accepted by
Dumézil.255 Both scholars were nonetheless influenced by the ideas of Durkheim.256
Because the boar continued to be seen by scholars mainly as an attribute of Freyr and
less often Freyja, it is important to consider how Dumézil‟s tripartite theory influenced the
view of Freyr and the boar respectively at this time. Among numerous Dumézil‟s books,257
Les Dieux des Germains (1959), 258 translated into the English as Gods of the Ancient
250
Malinowski‟s main work was Argonauts of the Western Pacific (1922). For Radcliffe-Brown, see The
Andaman Islanders (1922).
251
Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908-2009) was a French anthropologist who applied structuralistic methods to religion
and myth. Structures based on binary opposition were seen by Lévi-Strauss as representing a universal, deep
structure (see Littleton 1981, p. 92). Lévi-Strauss‟ structural approach is reflected strongly in the works of Einar
Haugen (1967); Eleazar Meletinskij (1973-74); and later Margaret Clunies Ross (1994); and Jens Peter Schjødt
(2008). See also Schjødt 2007, p. 3.
252
Littleton in: Dumézil 1973, p. x. The French sociological school centred on the works of Durkheim and
Mauss.
253
Structuralism began to be used in the history of religions mainly after Claude Lévi-Strauss wrote his “The
Structural study of Myth” (1955). Nonetheless, structuralism had already been popular for certain time in France,
beginning in linguistics with the works of Ferdinand Saussure (1857-1913): See Csapo 2005, pp. 181-189.
254
Steinsland 2005, p. 79. Littleton mentions several key followers of Dumézil‟s theory, including Émile
Benveniste, Jacques Duchesne-Guillemin, Edgar Polomé, Jan de Vries, Marie-Louise Sjoestedt, Francis Vian,
Françoise Le Roux, Atsuhiko Yoshida, Donald Ward, Jaan Puhvel, David Evans, Einar Haugen, C. Scott
Littleton and Udo Strutynski (Littleton in: Dumézil 1973, p. xv-xvi). Udo Strutynski refers to their approaches as
reflecting “wholesome open mindedness toward Dumézil” (Strutynski in: Dumézil 1973, p. xxxiii).
255
Littleton in: Dumézil 1973, p. xvi. Nonetheless, it might be said that Lévi-Strauss‟ binary opposition can
possibly be found in Dumézil‟s duality of the first and third function (Littleton in: Dumézil 1973, p. xvii).
256
Although Lévi-Strauss rejects Durkheim, Littleton feels there is some influence. Both scholars make great use
of linguistics, but not in the same way (Littleton 1981, p. 93).
257
For a bibliography of Dumézil‟s works, see Lindow 2005, pp. 57-58.
258
Although his Mythes et dieux des Germains (1939) was first published twenty years earlier, I have stressed
this later work because Dumézil changed his theories several times.
52
Northmen (1973),259 is worth special mention. According to Dumézil, Freyr is a god of the
third class, the class of farmers which is the lowest of his three classes. 260 To his mind, Freyr
and the other Vanir are gods of fecundity, pleasure, and givers of riches, as well as being gods
of peace, connected to both the earth and the sea. 261 Nonetheless, Dumézil states that the
golden-bristled boar of Freyr is a wild boar, rather than a domestic one.262 While in the earlier
period, the boar was considered as being a symbol of fertility mainly on the basis of certain
elements drawn from folklore, since the time of Dumézil, it has come to keep this role largely
on the basis of the structural interpretation of Germanic pantheon, and the aforementioned
view of Freyr.
Another point made by Dumézil concerns the idea of tripartite sacrifice, and this may
also have played an important role with those scholars of religion connecting the boar with the
Earth.263 There is not enough space for me to go into detail here, but the most important
feature of this idea is that the sacrifice is compounded of three animals, the pig (or goat), the
sheep, and the bull, the idea being that the traditional Roman sacrifice contained a sacrifice of
a swine to the Earth, a ram to Jupiter, and a bull to Mars.264
The Dutch scholar Jan de Vries (1890-1964) followed many of the ideas of
Dumézilian structural division. His Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte I-II was first
published 1935-37, but most used is the revised edition from 1956-57. Like many others
before him, De Vries sees the boar as being principally connected to the power of fertility
(Fruchtbarkeit) because of its connection to Freyr and the feast of Yule. According to him,
the golden boar is an attribute of Freyr,265 to his mind, the boar being sacred to Freyr, the ram
to Heimdallr,266 and the goat to Þórr.267 De Vries also discusses the old idea of the “sacred
boar” as being a possible form of the god Freyr.268 According to him, zoomorphic gods of this
kind were certainly present among many nations, and the same thing applied to the Germanic
259
Dumézil‟s theories took some time to reach the English- speaking world: see Littleton in: Dumézil 1973, p. ix
Dumézil 1973, p. 4. See also Lindow 2005, pp. 42-46, Orton 2005, pp. 311-312, Steinsland 2005, pp. 77-80.
261
Dumézil 1973, p. 4.
262
Dumézil 1973, p. 6. In the original, the word sanglier (wild boar) is used (Dumézil 1959, p. 8).
263
Dumézil‟s main ideas on tripartite sacrifice are presented in Tarpeia (1947) pp. 115-58, and Archaic Roman
Religion (1970) pp, 237-240.
264
Watkins 1995, p. 198.
265
De Vries 1956, p. 367.
266
This idea had been suggested earlier by Dumézil (1973, pp. 132-136).
267
De Vries 1957, p. 178. There is actually very little reference in Norse literature to goat sacrifice, however the
word smali could mean both sheep and goats (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 166-168). There is, however, a goatsacrifice for Þórr in Egils saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana: “Hét ek þá á Þór at gefa honum hafr þann,
sem hann vildi velja, en hann skyldi jafna með oss systrum” (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III,
pp. 175-176) (see Chapter 10 on animal sacrifice).
268
De Vries 1957, p. 6.
260
53
religion. Nonetheless, such features only came to be present in later stages of the supposed
development, when the animals became part of the company and symbols of the
anthropomorphic deity.269 He argues that the animal should be understood symbolically. The
connection between a god and an animal does not automatically mean that the god should
have been worshipped in animal shape. According to de Vries, the idea of Freyr having once
had animal shape cannot be proven by the existence of a boar sacrifice.270
Of other scholars from the Old Norse field from this period who followed the
ideologies of Dumézil and de Vries, one can also mention Otto Höfler (1901-1987).271 Among
Höfler‟s works, one can mention in particular in the present context Germanisches
Sakralkönigtum (1952), in which Höfler suggested that the idea of Freyja riding a boar was an
ancient motif, which originated in the belief in a holy wedding between a goddess and a
mortal man.272
After the Second World War, there was relatively little work on animals in Nordic
religion. However, one scholar belonging to the same period was Nils von Hofsten (18811967). His Eddadikternas djur och växter (1957) deals with the animals and plants that appear
in the Eddic poems, and how they reflect the knowledge of Norse people about nature, the
swine being discussed here in a short paragraph which mainly goes over the sources on the
swine.
Also writing at this time was Ólafur Briem who in Norræn goðafræði (1940) discusses
the boar several times. Ólafur understands that the boar Gullinbursti is only one of several
boars mentioned in the literature, and is sometimes given to Freyja even though it is more
often said to be Freyr‟s. He also underlines that Freyja is more often said to travel in a wagon
drawn by cats (see Chapter 9.0). 273 It nonetheless seems that Ólafur Briem places more value
on the work of Snorri, tending to choose his version, presenting it as fact. The example given
above of what he says about the boar and cats is typical of his approach. In another of his
books, Heiðinn Siður á Íslandi (1945), he mentions animal worship. He supports the common
opinion that certain gods are associated with the sacrifice of certain animals.274
269
De Vries 1957, p. 6.
De Vries 1957, p. 190.
271
On Höfler, see further Lincoln 1999, pp. 125-126, and Lindow 2005, p. 49.
272
Höfler 1952, p. 137, n. 198 (taken from Näsström 1995, p. 170: Unfortunately, the original was not available
to me.)
273
Ólafur Briem 1991, p. 54.
274
Ólafur Briem 1985, p. 144.
270
54
More noteworthy for the present discussion is Barði Guðmundsson‟s Uppruni
Íslendinga (1959), in which all the evidence of pigs in the Íslendingasögur (see Chapter 5. 2)
is placed in the context of the worship of Freyr and Freyja, who he too regards as being
essentially deities of fertility. Among other things, Barði connects the eating of a pig during a
wedding feast with the evidence given by Adam from Bremen about Freyr being the patron of
weddings. 275 Otherwise, Barði puts all the sagas mentioning swine in a broader context,
connecting them in a way which sometimes goes too far. For example, the idea of Ragnarr
loðbrók comparing himself with a boar (see Chapter 7.3.2.) is understood in context of kings
who had boar-helmets, Barði suggesting that Ragnarr might have had a boar sign as his
emblem.276
Returning to influential scholars in history of religions at this time, one must also
mention Mircea Eliade (1907-1986), a Romanian historian of religions, who was widely used
but later criticised for his absolute comparisons and unscientific methods. Nonetheless,
Eliade‟s concept of the “Sacred” and the “Profane” were to influence scholarship for many
years.277 He was particularly influenced by Rudolf Otto and his “idea of holy”,278 as well as
the Jungian approach which played a key role in Eliade‟s interpretation of symbols. 279 This
side of his work was presented in particular in Eliade‟s phenomenological work Traité
d’historie des religions (1949).280 Here he deals with the boar within the context of agriculture,
one of the motifs explaining the perennial interpretation of the boar as a symbol of fertility.
The generative power of bull, goat and pig, gives an adequate explanation of what the sacrifice
means in relation to the agricultural ritual; fertilizing energy, concentrated in these animals, is set
free and distributed over the fields.281
Another influential book by Eliade is Le Chamanisme et les techniques archaïques de l’extase
(1951),282 which is still a very useful survey on shamanism. It might nonetheless be noted that
275
Barði Guðmundsson 1959, p. 137. See further Tschan 2002, pp. 207-208.
Barði Guðmundsson 1959, pp. 195-199.
277
See further Chapter 1.2.2. It is only in the recent period that people have started to reject the traditional
division between the Sacred and the Profane.
278
Otto‟s main book, Das Heilige was first published in 1917.
279
Jens Peter Schjødt has pointed out that although Eliade shows strong influence from Jung, he makes a sharp
distinction between the history of religion and depth psychology (Schjødt 2008, p. 28).
280
Translated to English in 1958 as Patterns in Comparative Religion.
281
Eliade 1996, p. 365.
282
Translated as Shamanism and Archaic Technique of Ecstasy (1964)
276
55
Eliade was no specialist in Old Nordic religion, and his books sometimes do not contain the
correct information. All the same, his concepts have changed the views in the field.
To conclude the analysis of this period, one notes that several new approaches came
into being which influenced the view of the boar in the Old Nordic religion. In this period, the
boar came to be interpreted in the light of structuralism and new comparative mythology and
this was to continue for several decades.
3.4. From the Sixties until the End of the Century
Scholarly approaches to the boar at the end of the twentieth century mainly have roots in the
ideas of previous decades. Those international scholars engaged in research on mythology and
religion who were most popular in this period were mostly Dumézil, Eliade and Lévi-Strauss.
However, while in earlier periods, it was mostly philologists, historians of religion or
folklorists who wrote about Old Nordic religion, in this time, archaeologists began to play a
greater role in the field of Old Nordic religion.283 While in the earlier periods, only a few
artefacts (such as the boar helmets) had been discussed in relation to religion, now other
objects, such as animal bone remains (especially in burials), came to be discussed as well.284
A particularly big step forward during this period was that animals such as the boar at
last started to be discussed in their own right, and not only as an attribute of particular gods.
In this context, one must mention in particular Heinrich Beck (1929- ), a German philologist
whose dissertation Das Ebersignum im Germanischen: Ein Beitrag Zur Germanischen TierSymbolik (1965) remains the key work on boars up to this point. Beck was influenced by
Höfler, and Eliade, for example. Since he is a philologist, his work contains very detailed
information on personal names derived from “Eber” (boar) and heiti jǫfurr (see further
Chapter 6.1.1.). 285 In addition to this, the book contains a very detailed description of all
possible connections that might exist not only between the boar and battle symbolism286 but
also the boar‟s connection to chthonic symbolism and fertility. In the chapter called “Der Eber
und der Aspekt des Chthonisch-Vegetativen” (The Boar and the Chthonic-Vegetative Aspect),
283
According to Ellis Davidson, the increase of archaeology started already in twenties (Ellis Davidson 1964, p.
17.)
284
See for example, Beck 1965, or Ellis Davidson 1968a.
285
On jǫfurr (the boar) and jǫfurr, heiti used for a chieftain, see further Chapter 6.1.1.
286
Beck 1965, pp. 4-55. Here Beck discusses the boar in relation to the boar helmet, shields, battle standards, the
battle formation called svínfylking, swords and spears and also brooches and belts.
56
Beck suggests that the boar was one of those animals connected with the chthonic-vegetative
cult, this idea being supported by the existence of the cult of dead and finds of pig bones in
graves (implying sacrifices).287 For Beck, the symbol of the boar is dialectic, related as much
to battle as it is to chthonic-vegetative.288 Nonetheless, Beck does not think that the original
symbolic was chthonic-vegetative or that this later changed into battle symbolism as some
tribes became more warrior-like, simply because this is difficult to prove. To his mind,
Germanic tradition contains both aspects (related to battle and the chthonic-vegetative), which
are inseparable.289 In addition to this, Beck draws some comparison with Celtic symbolism
involving the boar and later medieval symbolism. As noted above, his work is innovative in
its concentration on the animal (boar) itself and its own symbolism. But he also concentrates
on the symbol itself, not on its meaning to medieval Germanic people (if I understand
correctly), which is an approach which comes much later.
Another study from this period which is important for its discussion of animal
symbolism is “The Heroic Pattern: Old Germanic Helmets, Beowulf, and Grettis Saga”,
written by A. Margaret Arent in 1969. Like many other scholars at this time, Arent was
influenced by Jung‟s concept of archetypes, and her study is mainly important mainly for its
comparison of repeated animal motifs.290 One of these motifs is that of a warrior with a boar
helmet, which appears on several helmet plates from Sweden (see further Chapter 8.3), but
she does not discuss the boar in detail, rather some common patterns in animal symbolism in
general.
Also appearing at around this time were a large number of works on Old Nordic
religion which stemmed from the pen of Hilda Roderick Ellis Davidson (1914-2006) who
specialized in the fields of archaeology and anthropology. Her dissertation The Road to Hel
(1943) contains some very useful material on concept of the human “soul” which often
287
Beck 1965. The main argument is given on p. 56 where Beck states that that the cult of the dead and fertility
were connected.
288
Beck 1965, p. 68.
289
Beck 1965, pp. 68-69.
290
For details on helmets, see further Chapter 8.3, which contains more about the contributions of archaeologists.
Of particular importance is Bruce-Mitford‟s work on the helmets from Benty Grange and Sutton Hoo, as well as
the other artefacts related to them (see further Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 198-209 and 214-352). Bruce Mitford
was probably the first scholar to point out how the helmet from the Sutton Hoo grave helped with understanding
the helmet mentioned in Beowulf (see further Chapter 8.3.1) Ellis Davidson 1968b, p. 353). A review of studies
relating to Beowulf and archaeology is given in Catherine M. Hills 1997 p. 291-293. Among earlier
archaeologists, it is also important to mention Charles Roach-Smith who in 1852 probably first discussed the
Benty Grange helmet in the connection with Beowulf (Hills 1997, p. 291). In Knut Stjerna‟s Essays on Beowulf
published in 1908, and translated into English in 1912 is an essay on the helmet in Beowulf. Of other studies
relating to the helmets are Rosemary Cramp 1957, and H. Ellis Davidson‟s “Archaeology and Beowulf”
published in 1968 in Beowulf and its Analogues.
57
appears in animal shape in the Old Nordic world (see further Chapter 7.1.). Also noteworthy
in the present context is her text “Shape-Changing in the Old Norse Sagas” (1978) which
contains some discussion of the question of shape-changing into the shape of the boar (see
further Chapter 7.2.). In other books, Ellis Davidson often refers to ideas related to Celtic
religion which is especially useful in the case of the boar.291 Among other things, she points to
the similarities between the Otherworld feast in Celtic myths and that which takes place in
Valhǫll (where the boar is eaten). According to Ellis Davidson, the boar is connected to the
dead and the Otherworld.292 Within Old Nordic religion, she nonetheless interprets the boar in
relation to fertility because of its connection to the Vanir as fertility gods. 293 All the same, like
Beck, Ellis Davidson could not doubt the war aspects of the boar. According to her, the
protection of the Vanir extended to times of war.294 In connection with the boar helmets and
the figure of Óttarr in Hyndluljóð (see Chapter 9.0.), Ellis Davidson points out that the
disguising of Óttarr as Freyja‟s boar “might be explained by the donning of a boar-mask by
the priest of Vanir, who thus claimed inspiration and protection from the deity.” 295 In some
ways, approach of Ellis Davidson reflects the old concepts of natural mythology (see section
3.2.2. above). For example, Ellis Davidson notes that the description of the boar resembles the
symbol of the sun travelling through the underworld.296 Another suggestion she makes is that
boar-masks might have preceded the development of boar helmets (see further Chapters 7.2.3.
and 8.3.). She stresses that the boar was mostly popular among the Germanic people between
the years 600 and 800 AD, which corresponds to the Vendel Period (see further Chapter 8).297
Another important scholar of the same period was E. O. G. Turville-Petre (1908-1978),
a professor of Icelandic literature and follower of Dumézil‟s tripartite theory. Turville-Petre
discusses Freyr, fertility and the boar in several of his studies. 298 Following up earlier ideas
291
Gwyn Jones has also discussed Celtic boars in relation to the boars in Old Norse literature (Jones 1972, pp.
102-119).
292
Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 49. In a different context, Marija Gimbutas has commented on the boar in Old Nordic
Religion. According to her, the boar is the totem of Freyr, but it is seen as “an animal incarnation of the death
goddess or god”. Her statement is based on comparison between Freyr and Hermes and Hermes‟ role as a god of
the Underworld (Gimbutas 1999, p. 195). In connection with Freyja, Gimbutas also sees the boar as an animal
associated with death (Gimbutas 1999, p. 193).
293
Ellis Davidson 1964, p. 98. Elsewhere, Ellis Davidson places the Vanir in the category of “Gods of Earth” as
opposites to “Gods of Sky” (Ellis Davidson 1969, pp. 52 and 74.
294
Ellis Davidson 1964, p. 99.
295
Ellis Davidson 1964, p. 99.
296
Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 83. Both boars (those belonging to Freyr and Freyja) are linked to the sun according
to Ellis Davidson (Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 50). See further Chapter 3.2.2.
297
Ellis Davidson 1988, 49.
298
See Turville-Petre 1935, pp. 317-322; Turville-Petre 1969, pp. 244-264.
58
expressed by Frazer,299 he suggests that the sacrificed boar represented the god himself, and
that people who participated in such sacrifice were absorbing the god‟s power by eating boar
flesh.300 This argument is based solely on the existence of the heiti Vaningi which is used for
both boar and Freyr.301 It might also be noted that Turville-Petre is another of those scholars
who thinks that some beasts are more suitable than the others to be sacrificed to certain gods,
the boar therefore being considered a suitable sacrifice for Freyr. Nonetheless, it might also be
noted that as early as in 1956, Turville-Petre had suggested that the boar had been worshipped
independently of the god; in spite of this, he still interpreted it as the symbol of fertility.302
Among other scholars who mention the boar and sacrifice, was the Swedish historian
of religions, Folke Ström. In his Nordisk Hedendom (1961), he echoes Rosén (1913) in
suggesting a relationship between Freyr and boars, stallions, and bulls (foremost and most,
“fertile” animals, as he says), which are seen as his sacrificial animals. Nonetheless, he too
interprets them as Freyr‟s animal aspect, which is, according to him, part of Freyr‟s function
as the deity of breeding and prosperity, the other side of his being the bearer of the power of
fertility.303
Another Swedish scholar of the time, Åke Ohlmarks (1911-1984), also discusses the
boar in terms of it being Freyr‟s sacrificial animal in Asar, vaner och vidunder: den
fornnordiska gudavärlden: Saga, tro och myt (1963). According to Ohlmarks, both Freyr and
Freyja can be identified with their own specific sacrificial animal, in other words, the boar and
the sow respectively.304 Like Turville-Petre, Ohlmarks understands the boar (Gullinbursti) as
being a metastasis of Freyr himself.305
To sum up the attitudes of this period, it is noteworthy that relatively little research
was undertaken into animals in Old Nordic religion. Few developments took place to
differentiate this period from the previous one, except for the fact that there was more use of
archaeology, and that a number of key works were at last produced on Old Nordic religion in
English, including the works of Ellis Davidson and Turville-Petre which have retained a
central role.
299
See Frazer 1993, p. 494. See also Bing 1920-25, p. 277.
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 255
301
On name Vaningi, see further Chapter 6.0.
302
Turville-Petre, Tolkien 2006, p. 78.
303
Ström 1967, p. 177.
304
“De Båda syskonen kan alltså också identifieras med sina specifika blotdjur: galten och suggan” (Ohlmarks
1963, p. 260).
305
“Syr betyder helt enkelt „suggan‟ och måste ses i samband med den förut omtalade Frejsgalten Gullenborste,
en metastas av Frej själv” (Ohlmarks 1963, p. 260).
300
59
3.5. Recent Scholarship
Recent scholarship in Old Nordic religion reflects on many sides a continuation of earlier
approaches. However, it is also possible to spot several new approaches appearing in line with
the political situation in the contemporary world. While early scholars looked for synthesis,
nowadays the trend is to look for diversity. While early scholars looked for the origin of the
religion and common features shared with other religions, nowadays scholars are looking
more at details, and differences within the field of Old Nordic religion itself.306 To start with,
Old Nordic religion itself is now being approached through a search for diversity (see further
chapter 1.2.2.), something which will logically throw new light on particular aspects of it. As
has already been mentioned in the first chapter, the idea of one original common IndoEuropean religion is no longer automatically accepted. At the same time, scholars are paying
more attention to neighbouring cultures, which are sometimes of a different language group.
This applies in particular to the research into Sámi interaction with Scandinavian people
which has become a popular approach, bringing with it more interest in the concept of
“shamanism”, which increasingly has been used in relation to Old Nordic religion.307 It is also
noteworthy that in the contemporary period, there has been less use of methodological
backgrounds drawn from the history of religion. There are several reasons for this. First of all,
the first historians of religions wanted to answer questions about the origin of religion, and
this mean that Old Nordic or “Germanic” religion formed a natural part of their research.
Later researchers such as Dumézil and Eliade were more interested in finding shared ancient
patterns and symbols through comparison. Such questions as these have less relevance today,
when more focus is being placed on contemporary religions.308 Secondly, more works on Old
Nordic religion are being written by archaeologists than used to be the case, which has led to
new focuses and approaches.309 Recent research on Old Nordic religion has started to involve
more interdisciplinary research, involving scholars from the fields of archaeology, folklore,
literary history, history, linguistics and more working together. This has resulted in an
306
For review of recent scholarship in Old Nordic religion, see Schjødt 2007, pp. 1-16.
Although shamanism was discussed earlier (see, for example, Strömbäck 1935, Buchholz 1968, 1971), its use
as a key term for understanding Old Nordic religion has only really appeared in recent years: see Schjødt 2007, p.
5; Price 2002, Glosecki 1989, Tolley 2009.
308
There could be several reasons for this. The contemporary world is much more multicultural than it was,
something that means that meeting other religious groups is no longer a question of travelling far away from
home: it happens in daily life.
309
Among archaeologists, see Price 2002, Brink 2007, Hedeager 2004, Jennbert 2006, and Gräslund 2006.
Among historians of religions, see, for example, Schjødt 2008 and Steinsland 2005.
307
60
increase in the number of works which involve compilations of material by several authors on
common topics. 310 The increased concentration on detail in the last few years has also
fortunately resulted in an increase in works concentrating on individual animals and their
symbolism.311
Among such recent works which deal with animal symbolism, one might mention
articles written by the archaeologists Lotte Hedeager, Kristina Jennbert and Anne-Soffie
Gräslund. Hedeager is particularly interested in how different animals were understood and
what meaning was involved in animal ornaments. In her essay, “Dyr og andre mennesker mennesker og andre dyr: dyreornamentikkens transcendentale realitet” (2004), she points out
that animals had a central place in the pre-Christian worldview which she sees as being
shamanistic. 312 As she notes, those animals which appear most often in Old Nordic
iconography are snakes, the eagle, the wolf and the wild boar.313 According to Hedeager, the
Nordic animal style reflects the cognitive structure of pre-Christian Nordic society,314 rather
than a direct presentation of myth. 315 In her studies, she stresses the interrelation between
animals and people, among other things noting the way that people dressed in animal
costumes, or used helmets with animal crests.316
Jennbert has also concentrated on the relationship between humans and animals in the
Old Nordic world. 317 As an archaeologist, she has placed her main emphasis on death
rituals,318 her suggestion being that the finds of animals in graves shows that both people and
310
For example Ordning mot kaos: studier av nordisk förkristen kosmologi (2004), Old Norse Religion in LongTerm Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (2006), or The Viking World (2008).
311
In this context, it is worth mentioning the archaeologist Miranda Aldhouse-Green, who is the author of a
number of works on the animal symbolism of Celtic religion. Among her many works, Animals in Celtic Life
and Myth (1992) is perhaps the most important. This work mentions many concepts which can be also applied to
Old Nordic religion; some patterns she mentions were common in pre-industrial societies, which included Old
Norse society. Aldhouse-Green stresses the importance of animals for humans in pre-industrial society and the
relationship between them is seen as being intimate (Green 1992a, p. 3). Like many other scholars, she also
admits that religion is also bound up with warfare, and other aspects of life. She thus discusses in particular
chapters all of those aspects of human life connected to animals, except for the element of animal names. What is
modern and new about her approach is the importance she places on the human role and the relationship between
people and animals. This is the reason for why I have used her books, even though she is mainly talking about
Celtic religion.
312
Hedeager 2004, p. 228.
313
Hedeager 2004, p. 225. She points out domestic animals were not included in iconography (Hedeager 2004, p.
232).
314
Hedeager 2004, p. 227.
315
In spite of this, Hedeager sees bracteates as often representing myths. This is nonetheless disputable because
interpretations can vary: see Hedeager 2004, p. 227; and Chapter 2.1.5.
316
See also Hedeager 2003, pp. 127-136, and 2005, pp. 231-245.
317
Jennbert 2006, p. 135, Jennbert 2004b, p. 160.
318
Jennbert 2004a, pp. 183-217.
61
animals were understood in a similar way:319 they were seen as being much closer to each
other than they are today. 320 Jennbert also underlines that animals were understood in
different ways, depending on whether they were domestic, wild, or fabulous, each kind
representing a different sphere of human life.321 For her, animals are:
mouthpieces for human characteristics and reflections of people‟s social positions. With the aid of
animals one could show who one was, and with animals one could moreover control the higher
powers.322
Anne-Sofie Gräslund meanwhile has concentrated on animals connected to Óðinn:
wolves, birds and serpents. 323 Noteworthy about her approach is that she sees animals as
symbols, and thus her study concerns their symbolic meaning. On the other hand, she also
underlines that we must remember that animals formed a natural part of daily human life.324
She has also pointed out that the presence of animals in graves is one of the strongest signs of
non-Christian burial.325 However, Gräslund provides an example of an approach which occurs
fairly frequently, which is to posit a significant connection between a deity and a particular
animal on the basis of a short mention. Thus, Gräslund sees the serpent as being connected to
Óðinn because he once transforms himself into such a reptile.326 In a similar way, McKinnell
connects Freyja with the dog or with the goat, largely based on the evidence of an insult.327 I
consider the use of such evidence for connections of this kind insufficient.
A slightly different approach is taken by Judith Jesch in her examination of “animals
of battle” based on the evidence of Old Norse literature. In her article “Eagles and Wolves:
Beasts of Battle” (2002), Jesch uses literary evidence to demonstrate that eagles and wolves
are connected with corpse eating and death and therefore also with battle. 328 The main point
of her article is that the common association of these animals with Óðinn must be secondary,
as the result of Óðinn being god of war, and that animal symbolism in itself should be seen as
319
Jennbert 2006, p. 135.
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
321
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
322
Jennbert 2006, p. 138.
323
Gräslund 2006, pp. 124-129.
324
Gräslund 2006, p. 124. Another of Gräslund‟s studies examines the symbolism of dogs in graves (2004).
325
Gräslund 2004, p. 170.
326
Gräslund 2006, p. 126
327
McKinnell 2005, p.87.
328
Jesch 2002, p. 254. Among the examples given by Jesch are Hǫfuðlausn, Eiríksflokkr, and Eiríksdrápa, (Jesch
2002, pp. 256-257).
320
62
“independent of religious associations”. 329 This is, of course, something that can also be
applied to the boar.
Jane Hawkes has concentrated on animal symbolism in Anglo-Saxon culture. In her
article “Symbolic Lives: The Visual Evidence” (1997), she associates the boar with religious
ritual, fertility, tribal identity, male concerns in battle and dynastic power. 330 According to her,
the boar symbol can thus be seen as having a multivalent significance, depending on
context.331 Gale R. Owen-Crocker has made similar comments about the boar in Anglo-Saxon
culture, while focussing on name symbolism. In her article “Beast Men: Eofor and Wulf and
the Mythic Significance of Names” (2007), she discusses the possible connection between
persons bearing animal names and real animals (see further Chapter 6.1.1.).
Stephen O. Glosecki has also discussed boar symbolism in Anglo-Saxon context. His
book Shamanism and Old English Poetry (1989)332 offers an interesting view of the animal
symbols used in Beowulf. Glosecki goes into traditional shamanism and its context in some
detail, interpreting the images on helmets first and foremost as animal guardians.333 Although
he occasionally goes too far in his application of shamanism, he makes several interesting
observations about the use of animal images. According to Glosecki, the boar on Beowulf‟s
helmet is “a nigouimes 334 left over from the Germanic Iron Age”. 335 For him, the animal
symbolism also retains reflexes of animism,336 the evidence of Beowulf clearly demonstrating
that the boar was first and foremost a shamanistic animal helper of the warrior. 337 Glosecki‟s
ideas of animal symbolism are presented further in the article “Movable Beasts” (2000) in the
book Animas in Middle Ages.338 Here he discusses animal symbolism in Early Germanic art,
including examples of boar images, showing them as quite independent from Freyr 339 (an idea
consistent with my arguments in Chapter 12.4.). He also suggests that the boar might be a
329
Jesch 2002, p. 267. The argument for such a statement is that the kenningar continue to be used by Christian
poets.
330
Hawkes 2003, p. 316.
331
Hawkes 2003, p. 316.
332
Glosecki discussed this topic earlier in his PhD, “Boar Helmets in Beowulf” (1980), which I have
unfortunately not been able to see.
333
Glosecki 1989, p. 193.
334
The term nigouimes is a borrowing from the Native American Ojibwa, and means “shamanistic personal
guardian”. As Glosecki points out, the usual English translations (familiar, follower, tutelary spirit, guardian
spirit, animal spirit, animal companion, animal helper, animal protector, animal guardian) are all misleading
(Glosecki 1989, p. 31).
335
Glosecki 1989, p. 53.
336
Glosecki 1989, p. 53. Glosecki uses word animism elsewhere, in the meaning of worldview (see, for example,
p. 54). For further discussion of the animal symbols on helmets, see further Chapter 8.3.
337
Glosecki 1989, p. 55.
338
Of several texts by various authors in this book, Glosecki‟s is the only article related to Old Nordic religion.
339
Glosecki 2000, p. 14.
63
“movable beast”, an emblem which might be removed from people‟s helmets after the
battle.340
Aleksander Pluskowski is another scholar whose research has been connected mainly
with animals and the human-animal relationship in recent years, although most of his work
concentrates on the medieval period.341 Among other things, he has looked at how actually the
Christian world-view changed the view of predators in early medieval Scandinavia.342
The relationship between people and animals in the Nordic world has also been
examined by Lena Rohrbach in her book Der tierische Blick. Mensch – Tier- Relationen in
der Sagaliteratur (2009), in which she uses an anthropological approach to discussion the role
of animals in saga narrative, although little is said here about the swine. Moreover, Rohrbach
concentrates more on the medieval period which is less relevant for the present discussion.
Besides works such as the above, dealing with animal symbolism in general, recent
years have seen an increase in the number of works dealing with individual animals. Jennbert
has discussed sheep and the goat, 343 Ulla Loumand has written on the horse,344 Pluskowski on
wolves, 345 and Ásdís R. Magnúsdóttir on boars. 346 Ásdís‟ article “Graisse, sagesse et
immortalité: Le verrat merveilleux et le culte du porc dans la littérature islandaise du Moyen
Âge” (Fat, Knowledge and Immortality. The Miraculous Boar and the Cult of Pork in
Icelandic Medieval Literature) discusses the cult of the boar as it appears in Icelandic
literature. Ásdís‟ conclusion is that in the sagas, the boar was both the symbol of royalty and a
symbol of shame. 347 She concludes that based on Dumézil‟s tripartite theory, it might be
argued that the boar contains all three functions. Nonetheless, when Ásdís starts considering
the swine‟s connection with agriculture (and therefore fertility: see Chapter 12.3.), her
340
Glosecki 2000, p. 11. An original approach to the sources was made by Terry Gunnell in his argument that
some Eddic poetry might have been presented in a dramatic fashion (Gunnell 1995; see also Phillpotts, 1920).
Gunnell‟s discussion involves some examination of material sources, especially in the first part of his book, The
Origins of Drama in Scandinavia (1995), which deals with the evidence for dramatic activities. This section
contains several notes on animal images which Gunnell argues might depict animal masks (see, for example,
Gunnell 1995, p. 83).
341
Among other works edited by Pluskowski are Wolves and the Wilderness in the Middle Ages (2006a) and Just
Skin and Bones? : New Perspectives on Human-Animal Relations in the Historical Past (2005).
342
Pluskowski 2006b, p. 120.
343
Jennbert 2004b, pp. 160-166.
344
Loumand 2006, pp. 130-134.
345
See Wolves and the Wilderness in the Middle Ages (2006a).
346
Ásdís‟ article appears in a monograph on the swine called Mythologies du porc (1999) edited by Philipe
Walter. This work includes articles by several authors. The most of the texts concern medieval motifs, or nonEuropean myths which are not relevant for this work.
347
Ásdís Magnúsdóttir 1999, pp. 166-169.
64
evidence is drawn solely from Greek and Celtic sources.348 As will be seen below, and as has
been noted often above, the boar is often connected with fertility on the basis of its presumed
function. However, as Ásdís‟ work shows, finding firm evidence to support this argument is
difficult, as I will show in the final discussion in the thesis (Chapter 12.3.).
Ásdís Magnúsdóttir‟s article is the only article in recent years to concentrate on the
boar in Old Nordic literature independently. The swine is nonetheless mentioned in general
publications dealing with Old Nordic religion as a whole or in works focusing on other
subjects, and then, as usual, mostly in relation to Freyr and Freyja. These works underline that
although nowadays there are several ideas about the boar around, the older ideas discussed
above are still widespread: the boar is seen as a symbol of fertility,349 of kingship,350 of battle
and death,351 as a sacrificial animal of Freyr or all of these together. Lotte Motz stresses the
royal character of the boar symbol. According to her, the animals of Freyr, the horse and the
boar, “relate him to warfare, to valour and to kingship, and to the promotion of human welfare
in the context of peaceful life”. 352 In a similar way, John Lindow has noted that scholars
usually associate the boar with the fertility of the Vanir and thus with early Swedish kings,353
an idea echoed by Rudolf Simek in his statement that the boar as a sign of fertility was
connected with Freyr and the Swedish royal house, and that this was an old attribute. 354 In a
similar way, John McKinnell makes the hypothesis that the boar could have a sacred fertility
function in connection with Freyja. 355 According to McKinnell, Óttarr, who becomes the
sacred boar in Hyndluljóð may possibly have been a consort-priest, or even a representative of
348
Ásdís Magnúsdóttir 1999, p. 172.
Simek 1993, p. 91, Ásdís Magnúsdóttir, 1999, p. 172. Owen-Crocker (2007, p. 266) states that both Freyr and
Freyja were fertility rather than war gods, and that the boar was probably linked with them because of its
outstanding reproductive qualities. Wilson (Wilson 1992, p. 109) meanwhile sees the boar as a symbol of
fertility because of the presence of boar tusks in female graves. Ingunn Ásdísardóttir has suggested that pigs
were connected to fertility because they are fertile animals (Ingunn Ásdísardóttir 2007, p. 250).
350
Motz 1996, p. 19.
351
In addition to fertility, Ingunn Ásdísardóttir suggests that the boar was connected to battle and death (Ingunn
Ásdísardóttir 2007, pp. 248-251).
352
Motz 1996, p. 19. Motz otherwise made an important step in dealing with the heritage of Dumézil in her
study The King, the Champion, and the Sorcerer: A Study in Germanic Myth (1996). Although she also uses a
tripartite structure, hers is of a different kind. She underlines that the Vanir cannot only be seen as gods of
farmers, since Freyr is also seen as the god of kings with aspects of the warrior (Motz 1996, pp. 14-15). This is a
big step forward in that it helps us view the boar a different point of view. Motz‟ theory has nonetheless received
some criticism of its own: see, for example, Schjødt 2007, p. 5.
353
Lindow 2001, p. 153.
354
Simek 1993, p. 91
355
McKinnell 2002, p. 277. In the case of Freyja, McKinnell suggested that she is connected to lustful animals
like the nanny goat, the sow and the bitch, the cat. In his eyes, the insult made of Freyja has mythological
reference (McKinnell 2005, p.87). He means the insult of Hjalti Skeggjason in Íslendingabók (See Íslenzk fornrit
I, p. 15). This evidence seems to me, however, insufficient to connect these animals explicitly with Freyja.
349
65
Freyr who was also Freyja‟s lover.356 In the same work, Freyja is mentioned in connection
with “ritual transformation of fertility goddess into an animal”,357 McKinnell suggested in a
later work that while Freyr had the boar as his sacred animal, Freyja‟s animal was the sow,358
the boar here being referred to as the “totemic representative” of Vanir and their
descendants.359 Gro Steinsland is another modern scholar who considers the boar to be first
and foremost the sacrifice animal of Freyr.360 In her eyes, however, Freyr‟s boar should be
viewed as a domestic boar because he is the ruler of domestic animals, as opposed to Óðinn
who is associated with has wild animals (ravens and wolves).361 Like many others before her,
Steinsland thinks of the warriors in boar helmets as warriors of Freyr, possibly from the
Ynglinga family. 362 According to her, the boar represents essentially strength (styrke) and
fertility (fruktbarhet).363
Further discussion is made of the boar in Britt-Mari Näsström‟s Freyja – the Great
Goddess of the North (1995). For logical reasons, the boar is here predominately discussed in
the connection with Freyja, and mainly in a short chapter called “War Boar” (pp. 169 - 173),
in which the idea of boar‟s connection to war is stressed. Näsström underlines that Freyja‟s
boar is called Hildisvíni (“war-swine”: see Chapter 6.3.) and should therefore be connected
with war rather than fertility. 364 For her, as with Ellis Davidson, the boar image had a
protective function,365 and could be seen as being a symbol of warrior himself.366 She also
rejects Phillpotts‟ interpretation of “totemic explications” of Freyja and Óttarr in Hyndluljóð
(see further Chapter 9.0.). According to Phillpotts, both figures appeared in animal form in
this poem. 367 Although Näsström rejects the fertility aspect of the boar, her argument is
somewhat overwhelmed by the overall concept of the book which is written in a somewhat
Dumézilian way, Näsström following Gimbutas‟ concept of a Great Goddess who had various
356
McKinnell 2002, p. 274.
McKinnell 2002, p. 277.
358
McKinnell 2005, p. 60.
359
McKinnell 2005, p. 20.
360
Steinsland 2005, p. 153.
361
Steinsland 2005, p. 152.
362
Steinsland 2005, p. 154.
363
Steinsland 2005, p. 152.
364
Näsström 1995, p. 89. She is referring to Ellis Davidson 1964, pp. 98-99. See paragraph above on Ellis
Davidson.
365
Näsström 1995, p. 171.
366
Näsström 1995, p. 172.
367
Näsström 1995, p. 170. Phillpotts discusses this theme in her book The Elder Edda and Ancient Scandinavian
Drama, as part of a discussion on the characters in the fertility drama, although not on pp. 165-167, as Näsström,
says but on pp. 168-171. Phillpotts‟ exact words are that: “The boar, once the sacrificially consumed totem,
became the divinity, and our records show the half-way stages of complete anthropomorphisation, if we may use
such a word” (Phillpotts 1920, p. 171). See also Näsström 1995, p. 86.
357
66
functions including fertility, love, death and war, among others.368 Nonetheless, in general,
Näsström states that like Njǫrðr and Freyr, Freyja can be seen as supporting the fertility of
beast and soil.369 In one of her other later books, Fornskandinavisk religion (2002), Näsström
suggests that Freyr had to share his boar with Freyja. 370 She nonetheless makes the
noteworthy observation that the boar‟s role as the symbol of king‟s power (kungamakten) in
Nordic Europe echoed that of the lion in other European countries.371
To sum up the above review of recent scholarship, it is clear that nowadays various
opinions exist about the social and religious understanding of the boar in the Nordic world.
While the idea of the boar as a symbol of fertility which goes back to the nineteenth century
still exists, there have been several attempts to reject it. A big step forward in recent years has
been the increased understanding of the role of animal. This can be seen especially in the
various studies of animal symbolism, which discuss the animal (boar included) independently
from a deity. This is also one of my purposes in this thesis, although I am aware of the fact
that the relationship to Freyr and Freyja cannot be excluded. Nonetheless, as this chapter has
shown, this relationship has been the main reason why the boar has been continuously
interpreted first and foremost as a symbol of fertility. As I intend to demonstrate (and as other
scholars such as Näsström have already noted) there is actually very little real evidence
concerning Old Nordic religion to suggest that the boar should be associated primarily with
fertility.372 However, before we can reach that conclusion, it is important to learn as much
about the boar as is possible, and it is best to start with the swine‟s biology and history in
order to reach some understanding of how the Old Nordic people understood the animal they
interacted with.
368
Näsström 1995, pp. 73, 89.
Näsström 1995, p. 77.
370
“…som Frey får dela med Freyja” (Näsström 2002, p. 87). See Briem 1991, p. 54, mentioned above.
371
Näsström 2002, p. 87.
372
Besides the literature on Old Nordic religion, I used also some sources from other fields, but I am not going to
discuss them deeper here because they do not discuss the swine from religious point of view. The main books
which helped me concerning the common background of the swine are the Icelandic Saga svínaræktar á Íslandi:
Frá landnámi til okkar daga by Friðrik G. Olgeirsson (2005); and, Pigs and Humans; 10, 000 Years of
Interaction (2007) by various scholars. Among them, I have to mention Peter Rowley-Conwy who did deep
research into animal bones, mainly pig and pig domestication.
369
67
4.0. The Biological and Historical Background
In this chapter, I will provide some biological and archaeological background to the figure of
the swine, something which is important for a context for the evidence of the swine in
Northern Europe. My belief is that it is necessary to look at swine in the broader context in
order to understand what kind of swine the Old Nordic people knew, and also how swine
seem to have changed from earlier periods, something which might help us understand
potential survivals from older periods which might have remained in Nordic people‟s later
worldview. We have to be aware of the fact that Old Nordic religion was a religion belonging
to people who already knew the domestic pig and their approach to animals would thus have
been different to people from earlier times (who did not know such an animal). However, we
must remember that the wild swine still remained a common part of environment of people in
the Iron Age and should therefore start by examining the nature of this animal.
4.1. Wild Swine: Biological Information
The wild pig is a mammal, an even-toed ungulate belonging to the Artiodactyla. 373 The
species of the Sus scrofa (wild swine), nonetheless contains several subspecies.374 Together
with its domestic relatives, the suidae family is one of the most widespread and adaptable
animals in the world. 375 The wild pig is an omnivore, eating almost everything, including
birds, mice, invertebrates, insects and carcasses of larger animals. Nonetheless, food of
vegetable origin dominates, acorns and beechnuts being central. 376 Indeed, the connection
between the wild swine and acorns was well known in the period under examination,
appearing, for example in the understanding of one verse of the Old English Runic Poem.377
The wild pig lives in family groups containing only females and young males.378 The
old males live alone. Both the males and the females can be dangerous, the females most
373
Groves 2007, p. 13.
According Groves, there are 16.5 subspecies, the 0,5 being an anomaly from Sri Lanka (Groves 2007, p. 22).
Nonetheless, according to Clutton-Brock there are 25 of subspecies (Clutton-Brock 1999, p. 91).
375
Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 8.
376
Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 15. The diet nonetheless varies with by area.
377
“Ac byþ on eorþan elda bearnum flæsces fodor ...” (the oak fattens the flesh (of swine) for the children of
men) (Dickins 1915, pp. 20-21).
378
The males leave the group no later than eighteen months of age (Meynhardt 1983, p. 17). The number of
individuals in a family group depends on the ability of the area to feed them (see Meynhardt 1983, pp. 32-33).
374
68
often when accompanied by the piglets, using their snout and teeth to fight and bite because
they do not have such big tusks as males. The boar on the other hand uses his sharp tusks for
fighting.379 The tusks logically become one of the typical symbols for the boar and it cannot
be surprising that they became trophies for hunters.
The fecundity of the wild swine is a typical characteristic well known among people.
It is true that the sow can produce many piglets but in nature, many of them do not survive. In
a normal natural system, predators would eat the weakest individuals; but today the number of
wild swine is mostly regulated by hunting.380 Nonetheless, the high reproduction rate of the
swine is better known amongst domestic swine where natural dangers are eliminated and
people can help them survive. Another reason for connecting the swine with fertility is
probably the fact that the wild pig has quite a long mating period: Although they mate for the
main part in the late autumn and during the winter,381 they are able to breed throughout the
whole year.382 It is also noteworthy that wild swine could start to breed during the first year of
their life. However, the fecundity of the boar increases with age.383
Another important fact to bear in mind (not least when considering the monstrous
boars that occasionally appear in literature) is that the boar keeps growing throughout its
lifetime,384 which means that an old boar may be quite a huge monster.
4.2. The Wild Swine in Europe and Wild Swine Hunting
The oldest period involving swine in Northern Europe (about 10,000 BC - 3000 BC) precedes
the introduction of agriculture, and thus represents a very different period from those that
came after, both in terms of way of life, and religion. Nonetheless, this period needs
mentioning, principally in order to highlight the differences, but also with regard to for the
later discussion in this thesis which touches on possible survivals, mainly in connection with
They might involve 20 to 40 of members (Friðrik G. Olgeirsson 2005, p. 13). Meynhardt also pointed out that
the groups are based only on blood relations; he did not observe that a stranger was accepted into group
(Meynhardt 1983, p. 30).
379
Meynhardt 1983, p. 8.
380
It is mostly the wolf which kills piglets and young animals, rarely the lynx (Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 13).
381
Most piglets are born in spring. Meynhardt says that period of mating starts at the end of October and ends at
the end of January, sometimes in February. The main months for mating are, however, November, December
and January. The dates nonetheless differ by time and area (Meynhardt 1983, p. 61).
382
Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 12.
383
Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 12.
384
Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 12.
69
totemic or shamanistic features reflected in the relationship between animals and people in the
Iron Age (see Chapters 7.3. and 8.3. concerning battle symbolism).
It is clear that the wild swine became an important animal of prey for the early huntergatherers in Scandinavia soon after the end of the Ice Age when forests started to move to
North, in about 9500 BC (the Mesolithic period). 385 Nonetheless, in Southern and Middle
Europe, evidence of the wild swine already exists in the Palaeolithic period.386 According to
Christopher Smith, the wild swine is exclusively a postglacial animal. 387 Herbert Schutz
similarly notes that the forest‟s replacement of the tundra in about 7000 BC brought about an
increase in non-migratory animals such as the red deer, the moose and the wild pig.388 At this
time, the oak, elm, linden and especially the hazel displaced the pine in the continental
Europe.389 The wild pig usually lives in a broad-leafed forest habitat,390 and among the trees,
the oak is most important for the swine because acorns are the wild pig‟s favourite food, as
mentioned above.391 Thus consideration of the type of the forest and the climate mean we can
trace the northern border of the area in which the wild pigs lived in that period. Today, they
do not live further north than in Southern Sweden and Southern Norway, but the population is
growing.392 Nonetheless, outside of Scandinavia there is evidence suggesting that the wild pig
can live much further north. In the European part of Russia, for example, wild pigs exist at
about 62-63° N and even in 66°.5´ N in Karelia, even though they do not appear regularly
there.393
385
Jonsson 1986, p. 125. See also Andersson 2004, p. 57. In Sweden, wild pigs were already present in 8,600 BC,
and in Norway in 7,500 BC (Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 9).
386
Evidence suggests that the wild pig was already being hunted by man from Bilzingsleben, Eastern. Germany,
in around 300,000 BC (Schutz 1983, p. 7). Nonetheless, the boar was not the main game animal at that time.
There were much bigger animals which gave more meat than the boar. In Scandinavia, the wild pig was already
among the hunted animals found at some Stone-Age settlement sites in Skåne, Sweden, although the reindeer
was the main game animal of the people in question at that time (Andersson 2004, p. 60). The wild pig only
became the main game animal in Skåne at a later point, during the Mesolithic Age. Apart from the wild boar,
these people also hunted the red deer, the roe deer, and the elk, the elk then almost disappearing during the
Mesolithic Age (Andersson 2004, p. 79).
387
Smith 1992, p. 67.
388
Schutz 1983, p. 53. In the Mesolithic Age, it seems that the wild pig and the red deer were the most important
source of food in Europe (Clutton-Brock 1999, p. 93).
389
Schutz 1983, p. 53.
390
Smith 1992, p. 67.
391
This statement is based on an experiment with wild pigs carried out by Meynhardt. Although they eat various
things, according to Meynhardt (1983, pp. 38-40), wild pigs value acorns above any other food (Meynhardt 1983,
p. 41). See also Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 13.
392
Friðrik G. Olgeirsson 2005, p. 14. The growth in population is possibly caused by a warmer climate, but one
must also consider the question of food availability (Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 8).
393
It is noteworthy is that the depth of snow which prevents rooting in the soil matters more than the temperature
(Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 11).
70
As noted above, when the wild pig first appeared in the north, Nordic societies were
still made up of hunter-gatherers. In such societies, the roles played by animals were very
different from the roles they played in agricultural society. The hunter-gatherer society was
dependent on successful hunts which make the relationship toward animals quite special. In
such societies, as in some modern traditional hunting societies, rituals are directed towards
animals or their spirits in order to achieve successful hunting. For example, caribou hunters in
Labrador feel they have to show respect to the caribou and believe that the King of the
Caribou gives them the animal. 394 Aldhouse-Green notes also that in societies of huntergatherers a common belief is that of fluidity between animals and humans - that they have a
similar and interchangeable identity.395
It is obvious that with the introduction of farming and domestication of animals, the
approach changed. Turville-Petre points out that with the introduction of agriculture in around
3000 BC, people started to live a more settled form of life which also changed their religious
views. As he puts it, the gods of the soil overcame the gods of the hunt.396 The hunt was no
longer in the forefront of life. It became an occasional entertainment and sport, the fertility of
the fields and animals supposedly now taking a central role in people‟s lives and thus also a
central role in the cult.397 Religion, logically, had to correspond with the needs of humans.
The importance of the wild swine hunting also changed a great deal after the
domestication of the swine. Schutz points out that at the beginning of the Chalcolithic Age (c.
3500-1700 BC) with the advent of the Funnel Beaker culture, hunting decreased (even though
the bones of wild animals, including swine, are still found in graves, showing occasional
hunting continued). 398 It seems that the male wild swine remained an object of hunters‟
interest, which gives reason to continue concentrating on the boar here. According to Jonsson
though, it is obvious that people who kept pigs that were comparable in size to the wild pigs
did not need to hunt boars, which was a quite dangerous and uncertain activity.399 The main
problem is that the wild swine is a dangerous animal; the boar has sharp tusks and knows how
to use them. The other difficulty is that the boar lives alone and it is hard to find and track
394
Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 17.
For example, the Inuit believed that humans and animals lived once together and were able to change shapes
with each other: Aldhouse-Green 2005, pp. 61-62. On shape-changing and becoming animals, see further
Chapter 7.2.
396
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 3.
397
The inventions of bronze or iron had a remarkable impact on people‟s lives, something that was certainly
mirrored in their worldview and religious belief. Iron was introduced into Scandinavia in about 500 BC
(Turville-Petre 1964, p. 6).
398
Schutz 1983, p. 122.
399
Jonsson 1986, p. 24.
395
71
it.400 Nonetheless, hunting was still going on during both the Vendel and the Viking periods,
both as a source for meat, fur and antlers. At around the same time, it was becoming a sport of
the upper classes in Scandinavia.401
4.3. The Domestication and Rearing of Pigs
According to Bengt Wigh, the domestication of the wild boar probably started during the
Mesolithic period, with the capturing of young piglets.402 Nevertheless, this is quite difficult
to prove because there is no proof of changes taking place in the size of the pig in the
Mesolithic Age. 403 Nonetheless, the most recent studies on the subject show that pig
husbandry in the world may be 10,000 years old.404 When the so-called Neolithic revolution
began in the Middle East about that time, many important changes in human lifestyle were
occurring, the domestication of the wild pig being just one of them. As noted above, with the
domestication of animals, there is a transition from a hunting society to a society of farmers.
In Europe, this seems to occur between the 7th and the 4th millennium BC.405 Research into
comparisons of pig DNA shows that the Near Eastern pig was definitely introduced into
Europe during the Neolithic period, coming by at least two distinct routes. 406 By around the
4th millennium BC, it is clear that the European wild boar had also been domesticated and
spread throughout Europe where it replaced the Near Eastern pig. 407 Also noteworthy is that
the first farmers kept more pigs and cattle than sheep and goats, the reason for this being that,
according to Clutton-Brock, the wooded area they lived in was much better for pigs and cattle
than for sheep and goats. It was only with the beginning of the Bronze Age that sheep began
400
Meynhardt 1983, p. 17. While the average wild pig disperse about 10 km, in the case of lonely males, there
are known examples of individuals migrating over 250 km (Rosvold, Andersen 2008, p. 14).
401
Jørgensen 2002, p. 137. Similarly, in England, wild swine and red deer were the special preserve of royalty.
As Clutton-Brock notes, this actually helped wild pigs to survive until the 17 th century (Clutton-Brock 1976, p.
391).
402
Wigh 2001, p. 78.
403
Jonsson mentions that the decrease in the size of animals was caused mainly by domestication, but there was
also a general decrease in the medium size of many kinds of mammals during the end of Pleistocene and
Holocene periods (Jonsson 1986, p. 125).
404
Albarella, Dobney, Ervynck and Rowley-Conwy 2007, p. 3.
405
Larson et al. 2007, p. 15276.
406
Larson et al. 2007, p. 15276.
407
Near Eastern pig DNA appears in the Neolithic sites of Romania, Germany, France and Croatia. The main
point of the evidence of pig DNA is that the domestication of the European wild boar clearly was not
independent but rather a result of the introduction of the Near Eastern domestic pig into Europe (Larson et al.
2007, p. 15277.
72
to be the most common animal in Northern and Western Europe.408 Even so, it is clear that the
swine retained an important place in humans‟ lives and minds, something which will become
clearer in the next section.
4.4. The Swine in Bronze-Age Rock Carvings
When talking about the Bronze Age, it is important to mention the Southern Scandinavian
Bronze Age rock carvings from between 1500 and 500 BC. 409 These show various
interactions between humans and animals, including images of the hunt, herding (or keeping
animals), and even images of sexual intercourse between a man and an animal.410 There are
few carvings of the hunting of the wild boar, but as Ellis Davidson has pointed out, Bronze
Age carvings are mainly concerned with agriculture. 411 On some carvings, footprints of
animals appear.412 On other images, animal heads appear to be attached to the ships (if these
images are ships), which might be linked to the later tradition of dragonheads being put on
ships. 413 Other relevant images are those in which human-like figures are portrayed with
animal or bird masks. 414 Indeed, zoomorphic figures which appear on the rock-carvings
sometimes have wings, bird heads, or horns.415 Although there seem to be no half-man, halfswine images, such images of zoomorphic figures are important for the discussion of the later
concepts of shape-changing and other shamanistic features of Old Nordic Religion,
encouraging it to be traced back to the Bronze Age (see further Chapter 7.2.).
Animal motifs make up one of six main motifs on Bronze Age carvings.416 As Peter
Gelling has noted, Scandinavian rock carvings in Scandinavia can actually be divided into
two groups. The first group involves hunting images and is centred in the North Scandinavia,
while the other group concerns more the interests of the agricultural Bronze Age population
408
Clutton-Brock 1999, p. 93.
See Chapter 2.1.2.
410
For example, images from Kallsängen, Vitlycke, Tanum, and Stora Hoghem (Bohuslän). See Coles 2005, p
50.
411
Ellis Davidson mentions also images of war as being another main theme of the carvings: Ellis Davidson
1967, p. 51.
412
Wolf and bear footprints appear in rock carvings in Bohuslän: see Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p. 112.
413
Shetelig and Falk 1937, p. 159, pl. 26; Coles 1994, p. 36, fig. 20. See also Coles 2005, pp. 18-30.
414
See Aldhouse-Green 2005, images on pp. 90-93.
415
A bird-headed man can possibly be seen on a figure from Brandskog (Uppland): Coles 1994, p. 31, fig. 16e.
Winged figures appear in Kallsängen: Coles 1990, p. 67, fig. 61. Horns appear, for example, on the image of the
horned man with the lurer horn from Kalleby (Coles 1990, p. 33, fig. 19, b), and the horned man from Karslund:
ibid, p. 67, fig. 62.
416
Coles 1990, p. 15.
409
73
located more in the South of Scandinavian peninsula.417 It is also noteworthy that the swine
appears in two contexts in these latter images: as a hunted wild boar or as domestic pig,
usually in a herd. The problem with these images, according to Shetelig and Falk, is that the
animals represented on the rock carvings are often hard to distinguish, with exception of the
hart, horses and oxen.418 Farm animals logically appear in the rock-carvings from southern
Scandinavia. All the same, it is noteworthy that carvings of pigs are quite unusual, even
though they were probably common animals on Bronze Age farms.419 Coles notes that the
kinds of animals appearing on rock-carvings appear to show a particular selection: some
animals do not appear at all, while the most often portrayed tend to be four-legged herbivores
and some birds.420
Fig. 1. From the left: figures of pigs on rock carvings from a) Ryckeby F; b) Boglösaby A.
It is nonetheless interesting to note that the main areas in which the pigs appear on
rock carvings are in South-Eastern Sweden; and especially the area of Uppland, an area which
was to be strongly connected with the boar in the Vendel period (see Chapters 8.3. and 11.0.).
Coles mentions that in Uppland there are almost 200 images of animals. 421 Although, as noted
above, many of these animals are hard to identify, in several cases they are clearly pigs. For
417
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 1.
Shetelig, Falk 1937, p. 159.
419
Other farm animals in the Bronze Age were cattle, sheep, goats, horses and dogs: Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p.
73.
420
Coles mentions that pigs and bears are rare, while the badger, the beaver, the seal, and the dolphin are absent
(Coles 2005, p. 52). Nonetheless, the interpretation of the animals needs a great deal of imagination. For
example, in one carving from Stenbacken (Tanum 66), in Coles 2005, p. 60, fig. 88, I can clearly see a seal,
while Coles interprets the same figure as a fish.
421
Coles 1994, p. 35.
418
74
example, the carving from Rickeby F clearly contains group of four pigs (fig. 1a).422 Coles,
meanwhile, mentions animals from Boglösaby A, or Boglösa gård, which might be pigs or
bears.423 To the above, one can add another group of animals from the same place which are
clearly pigs (fig. 1b).
Fig. 2. Swine on rock carving from Himmelstadlund, Norrköping.
The second important area in Sweden for rock carvings of swine in the Bronze Age is
Norrköping municipality in Östergötland, where a swine appears several times on rock
carvings.424 One image shows a man pointing at a wild swine with spear, the animal seeming
to have a crested back, a typical symbol of an angry boar.425 Another possible hunting scene
also comes from Östergötland426 and shows a group of five animals, three of them clearly
being wild boars, while the other two are probably an ox and some kind of doe. 427 Another
carving from Himmelstadlund, Norrköping in Östergötland, is called “gristavlan” (the pig
tablet) because of its huge number of pigs (figs. 2 and 3).428 This shows a sword pointing
toward the penis of a boar, with another herd of pigs above. In addition to these pictures on
422
See Coles 1994, pp. 77-78, Janson, Lundberg, Bertilsson 1989, p. 186.
Coles 1994, p. 35 and fig. 29. See also Janson, Lundberg, Bertilsson 1989, p. 183.
424
It is noteworthy that in Östergötland, animal figures represent 2,8% of the total number of carvings, while in
Västergötland they are 0,0% (Janson, Lundberg, Bertilsson 1989, p. 135).
425
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, fig.15.b.
426
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 84, fig.41.g.
427
It is also noteworthy that all the boars here are portrayed with penises, while the other two animals are not.
428
Hasselrot, Ohlmarks 1966, p. 182.
423
75
the “gristavlan” is another image of a huge wild boar, two hunters with spears and probably
with dogs. The boar has visible tusks and, once again, a crested back. Above the hunting
scene are what seem to be four smaller wild pigs and another animal on the left side. 429 Yet
another wild boar is perhaps depicted on the carving from Leonardsberg in Norrköping.430
Fig. 3. A boar hunt on rock carving from Himmelstadlund, Norrköping.
Another important area for rock carvings is the border area between Sweden and
Norway, in Bohuslän and Østfold.431 This area contains several images of animals pulling
carts. These are very simple in shape, as Coles notes, and the characteristic horse head is not
stressed with any clarity. According to Coles, however, these animals seem to be meant to be
horses or oxen.432 Nonetheless, I would argue that the animals depicted on the rocks at Valla
Sörgård, Tossene (nr. 48), 433 might be pigs. 434 The nose is a bit longer, they do not have
visible ears, and they are of a smaller size than other cattle or horses. One of them looks more
like a pig then the other. Similarly, in another cart image, at Begby II, Borge, there is another
animal with a longer nose, which is possibly a snout.435 A pig might also possibly be seen on
one carving from Vitclycke, Tanum 1, although arguably this is just on the drawing of the
429
Hasselrot, Ohlmarks 1966, p. 183.
Hasselrot, Ohlmarks 1966, p. 202.
431
For details see Hygen, Bengtsson 2000 and Coles 2005.
432
Coles 2005, p. 70.
433
Coles 2005, p. 69, fig. 101.
434
Although it might seem unusual for a pig to pull a cart, such an idea appears later regarding Freyr's boar
Gullinbursti, who is said to pull Freyr's wagon (see further Chapter 9)
435
Coles 2005, p. 71, fig. 103.
430
76
image. 436 Several pigs also appear on a carving 255 from Fossum, Tanum (fig. 4). They
include a group of four animals which might be pigs: another pig which seems to be above a
man with an axe, and the last one which can be seen on the left-hand bottom corner of the
rock. 437 Other images from Bohuslän area depict hunting: A carving from Håltane, Kville
parish, shows a man with a bow (or another weapon), and a group of dogs chasing a wild boar.
This animal is certainly different from the dogs: it has no ears and seems to have a crested
back and snout.438
Fig. 4. Rock Carving from Fossum, Tanum, Bohuslän.
Another relevant example of rock art from this period which must be briefly
mentioned is Kivik Stone 7 (c. 1200 BC) from south-eastern Skåne.439 It contains an image of
a pig and a goat, Freyr‟s and Þórr‟s animals, according to Ohlmarks. 440 Nonetheless, it is
noteworthy that both animals have very long noses, and the left one has no horns. Ellis
Davidson interprets them as two horses facing each other, suggesting a context of funeral
games.441 Personally, I do not think that any of the animals is a pig or a horse. It is very hard
to decide. They could just as well be dogs.
436
Coles 2005, p. 136, fig. 161. (The “pig” is nearby an image of a man having intercourse with an animal.)
Coles 2005, p. 158, fig. 182.
438
Janson, Lundberg, Bertilsson 1989, p. 48.
439
Gunnell 1995, pp. 47-49. See also Ellis Davidson 1967, pp. 48-50.
440
Hasselrot, Ohlmarks 1966, p. 252.
441
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 49.
437
77
4.4.1. Interpretations of the Animals on the Rock Carvings
There have been many attempts to interpret the rock carvings noted above. Some of them are
based more on fashionable concepts than the evidence in the sources themselves and therefore
there is good reason to use them critically and with care. For example, Ellis Davidson
suggested that the presence of the bull, the stallion, the ram and the boar in the carvings
confirms a conception of a sky-god as a begetter and fecundator,442 even though we have no
idea whether people who made rock-carvings had such a concept. According to Gelling,
meanwhile, the image of the boar and the sword from Östergötland can be associated with the
later cult of Freyr, because it is connected to reproduction and sex. According to Gelling, it is
noteworthy that the sword and boar appear together, giving a clear reference to a fertility
function as early as in the Bronze Age.443 Gelling also mentions another image in connection
with the possible role of the spear as a guardian of domestic animals.444 As he writes: “Wild
animals, even more than disease, would be a peril which had to be warded off, and here the
spear seems to be pointed menacingly at a wild boar.”445 According to Hygen and Bengtsson,
erect sexual organs also indicate reproductive power;446 Ellis Davidson notes that the boar
appears to be associated with the sword, and the ships; 447 and Hultkrantz notes that these
images could be connected to fertility.448 All of these interpretations are pure suggestions;
there is no way to prove them.
The zoomorphic figures have sometimes been interpreted as gods in an animal shape.
Such an interpretation was based on the suggestion that the religion of the Bronze Age was at
a lower stage of development than that of the Iron Age and that the animal shape preceded the
anthropomorphic shape of a deity.449
More recent interpreters seem to have been influenced by the recent popularity of
shamanism.450 They see in the animal-masked figures noted above the figure of a shaman,451
442
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 54.
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 39.
444
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 34.
445
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, pp. 34 and 32, fig. 15b.
446
Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p. 30.
447
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 57. Ellis Davidson does not give any examples, but there is a ship nearby some pigs
on Boglösaby A (see Coles 1994, p. 52, fig. 29: Site 3). A sword and pigs also appears at Himmelstadlund, for
example (see fig. 2).
448
Hultkrantz 1986, p. 44.
449
Bing ends his essay with the words that the human form of gods had triumphed over the animal form (Bing
1920-25, pp. 280 and 300).
450
See Chapter 3.5.
451
See Aldhouse-Green 2005, pp. 89-110. See Chapter 7.2.3. on masking.
443
78
considering the idea of shape-changing.452 In a similar way, the hunting images are interpreted
as the possible visions of a shaman during a trance. 453 Such interpretations might be backed
up by the fact that in shamanistic traditions people dress in animal skins, and act as animals.
On the other hand, the idea that we might be observing a previous stage of religion in which
gods were half-animal is, in my opinion, impossible to prove.
To my mind, the main problem with all of these interpretations is that most of them
involve the rock carvings being connected with myths and beliefs known in a later period (the
Iron Age). We should consider the possibility that they mean something that we know nothing
about. As Hultkrantz admits (alongside his attempts at interpretation) they could mean almost
anything.454 This last point is probably the closest that we will come to the truth with regard to
the rock carvings. In the following summary, I will thus not attempt to add to the list of
interpretations, but rather make some observations that might have interest. To start with,
Ellis Davidson has noted that in Sweden, finds of slain animals are usually made near rockcarvings. She therefore suggests a ritual meaning as lying behind the Bronze Age rock
carvings.455 Hygen and Bengtsson similarly note that daily activities were rarely depicted on
rock carvings, but rather activities that belong to the world of the élite.456 On the basis of such
ideas, it may be suggested that depiction of pigs in these images means that they had high
importance for humans. 457 One of the few things we can be almost sure about the rockcarvings is that the presence of pigs or boars on them underlines that the people who made
them must have interacted with them (that is, kept pigs or hunted boars) in the Bronze Age.
4.5. Pigs in the Germanic Iron Age
In the previous section, a review was given of the earliest source material concerning swine in
Nordic Europe. We can now progress to examine the distribution of pigs in Nordic Europe
during the Germanic Iron Age. Just as pigs had become common in continental Europe and
452
Coles 2005, p. 49.
Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p. 24.
454
Hultkrantz 1986, p. 44.
455
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 25. Similarly, Hygen and Bengtsson suggest that the rock carving sites were sacred
places: Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p. 54. (They also mention, for example, the role of light which gives the feeling
that the images are alive: Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p. 30).
456
The authors are referring to horses, carts, weapons, and ships for example: Hygen, Bengtsson 2000, p. 129.
457
This is something that may reflect the archaeological and literary evidence suggesting the importance of the
boar in Uppland in later times (see Chapters 8.3. and 11.0.) but it might be also only a coincidence because a
long distance in time is involved.
453
79
the British Isles,458 they also became common features of Scandinavian farms,459 the Icelandic
settlement,460 the settlement of the Faeroes,461 and even Greenland.462 Lucas suggests that pigs
were probably useful in the earliest phases of the colonization of Iceland, because of their
ability to find food in wooded environments and mainly because of their high reproduction
rate compared to other animals.463 Nonetheless, the importance of pigs naturally varied by
period and landscape. The presence of forests near a settlement in particular would have
meant better conditions for the rearing of pigs.464 According to Lise B. Jørgensen, pigs in the
Vendel period were usually sent into the forest to feed. It was only in hard winter that they
were sent back into the village. In Southern Scandinavia, they were sometimes outside all
year.465 Nonetheless, as Jørgensen notes, in the later Iron Age on the continent (and at the
beginning of the Viking Age in Scandinavia) increased fencing and cultivation meant that
grazing areas for cattle were reduced; on big farms and in the early towns that were being
built, pigs were the most important animals.466 Skeletal remains seem to suggest which places
were most important for pig breeding: Barrett et al. mention some towns where there was a
higher proportion of pig bones. They mention Kaupang and early medieval Oslo in
Norway;467 Birka in Sweden; Hedeby and Ribe in the Denmark of that time, and Menzlin and
Gross Strömkendorf in Germany.468
458
Juliet Clutton-Brock supposes that during the Anglo-Saxon period, pigs could have greatly outnumbered all
other domestic animals, although the remains show a rather greater number of sheep and cattle. Researches made
into animal bones in a few places in England (in the Anglo-Saxon period) shows that caprines were the most
dominant domestic animals, followed by cattle. The pig comes in third place. Figures nonetheless vary by area:
In North Elmham in Norfolk, for example, pigs are in second place (Clutton-Brock 1976, pp. 377-379).
459
Jørgensen 2002, p.132.
460
According to McGovern and his colleagues, pigs were common in Iceland between the 9 th and 11th centuries
but had become rare by the 12th-13th centuries. In comparison with other animals found in excavations in
Vatnsfjörður, the pig presents only 2.11% of total number of identified fragments of the domestic animals,
caprines numbering 34.51%, identified sheep 5.63% and a single goat 0.70%. Cattle represent 15.49% of the
total finds and horses 0.70%. The rest of the creatures found are sea mammals, birds, fish and shellfish
(McGovern, Perdikaris, Tinsley 2001, p. 156). Other pig-bone finds (about 3-4 % of the domestic animals) were
made in Hofstaðir near Mývatn, Svalbarður. See further Lucas 2009, pp. 216-220.
461
Urbanczyk 1992, p. 69.
462
The first Nordic settlers of Greenland in the late 10 th and early 11th century took pigs with them, but they
rapidly disappeared (McGovern, Perdikaris, Tinsley, 2001, p. 156).
463
Lucas 2009, p. 216.
464
For example in the Carolingian settlement in Holland, sites near the coast show the frequency of pig remains
as being under 5%, while sites in the eastern Netherlands have a frequency of over 20%. IJzereef also mentions
that the presence of an oak forest would have played a role in feeding pigs (which could be sent there to feed):
IJzereef 1987, p. 49.
465
Jørgensen 2002, p.132.
466
Jørgensen 2002, p. 132.
467
The pig is in the majority among the domestic animals found in the Kaupang excavation in south-east Norway.
The one exception is the Kaupang harbour, where they are less in number than horses and cattle (Barrett et al.
2007, pp. 305-306).
468
Barrett et al. 2007, p. 305.
80
To summarize: it is clear that pig husbandry was comparatively popular in Germanic
Europe when the area was still wooded. After the cultivation of the area, the number of sheep
and cattle seems to have risen with the increase in grazing areas.469 Nonetheless, with the
arrival of towns, pigs came back because they could feed just as well on the food remains
from houses as they could earlier in the forest. I am aware of the fact that this is a very simple
overview but it underlines how dependent animals were on their environments.
4.5.1. Animal Remains
Animal remains may simply be a sign that humans kept or hunted animals. Nevertheless,
when they are found in particular places in an exceptional number, there seems some reason
to assume that some kind of belief could have been connected with them. For example, animal
bones have been found at some sites which have been identified as cultic sites, on the basis of
place names and other material.470 The higher presence of animal bones at these sites gives us
a good reason to believe that animal sacrifices might well have been held here. With regard to
the idea that the swine might have had special importance in this respect, there is no need to
look at all places where animal sacrifices were held: in many of them, the swine was only one
of several kinds of animals.471 It is more interesting to look at those places in which the swine
bones have been found in remarkable numbers or in strange positions. Here I will give only a
few examples.
Such an example is Borg near Norrköping in Östergötland. There was a small log
building, erected in the 8th century, which was possibly used for cultic purposes.472 Plenty of
animal bones were found outside of the house, and it is noteworthy that of domestic animals,
pigs were in the majority. The fact that the bones of boars and sows were deposited in
different areas could show that the sex of the pig had an importance for ritual slaughter.473
Nielsen mentions that sows‟ bones are found near amulet rings in Borg, whereas boars‟ bones
469
See Lucas 2009, p. 216.
Andrén 2005, p. 108.
471
For example, the lake at Skedemosse on Öland was probably used for sacrifices for a long period (from the
5th century BC to the 10th century AD): Andrén 2005, p. 108. Weapons, golden objects and the remains of
people were found there. The remains of 15 pigs were also found there but compared to the 100 horses, 80 cattle
and 60 sheep/ goats, this number is not remarkable (see Andrén 2005, pp. 108-109). Another site is Lunda, near
Strängnäs, in Södermanland which was in use between the 2 nd and 10th centuries. The scattered unburnt bones of
various animals, including those of pigs, were found there (Andrén 2005, p. 110).
472
Andrén 2005, p. 110.
473
Andrén 2005, p.112.
470
81
were placed around the furnaces. She also suggests connecting the female pig bones with
Freyja (because of her name Sýr) and the male bones with Freyr, both of whom are classed as
fertility deities.474 Nonetheless, Nielsen also considers another interpretation, which is that the
animal remains at Borg might also have something to do with the battle symbolism of animals
because besides the swine the wolf (or a big dog) and the eagle also appear amongst the bone
fragments, 475 and all three (the boar, the eagle and the wolf) are considered animals of
battle.476 I doubt whether either of these interpretations can be proven. While it seems clear
that the swine had some ritual importance here, the meaning is unclear.
Another sacrificial grove was found under the floor of a medieval church on the island
Frösö (lit. Freyr‟s island) in Lake Storsjö, near Östersund, Jämtland in Sweden. 477 The grove
has been dated to the Viking Age, and was probably in use in the 10th century, and destroyed
in the 11th century. The site contains a large assemblage of animal bones. The bones are
mainly from game animals and young animals. Nonetheless, pigs are in the majority. There
were eleven of them and their bone remains contain mainly heads.478
Another remarkable place containing a larger amount of pig bones is in Hofstaðir, in
the north of Iceland. Although only about 3-4% of the amount of excavated animal bones
comes from domestic animals, the percentage of bones from new-born piglets is high
compared to the other important farms in Iceland, those of Sveigakot and Hrísheimar (see
Chapter 5.5.2.).479
Another indication of the potential ritual importance of animals is their presence in
human graves. Although I will be stressing the importance of the swine in a particular period
(the Migration Period, and in particular the Vendel Period), it is important to remember that
swine remains have been found in graves since the Stone Age.480 They were also common in
Celtic graves in Britain, for example (although this examination will not extend so far).481
However, even the particular period under focus (the Vendel period) contains more material
than can be discussed in any detail here. For that reason, this present examination will be
474
Nielsen 2006, p. 245.
Nielsen 2006, p. 246.
476
Nielsen 2006, p. 246.
477
Price 2002, p. 62.
478
The other animals found here include 5 bears (whole bodies), 6 elks (only heads), 2 stags, (only heads) 5
sheep/ goats (mainly heads), 2 cows (mainly heads), the bones of reindeer, and squirrels, and the teeth of horses
and dogs (Price 2002, p. 61). See also Andrén 2005, p. 110.
479
Lucas 2009, p. 216 and fig 4.40 on p. 217. On pigs at Hofstaðir, see further Lucas 2009, pp. 216-220.
480
Swine teeth, tusks and mandibles were common in graves from Gotland (between the time of the Pitted Ware
Culture and the Early and Middle Neolithic): Fornander 2006, p.33.
481
Foster 1977b, p. 1.
475
82
confined to a few examples, and some common ideas. In order to demonstrate the complex
relationship between animals and humans (as demonstrated by grave finds), I will be
presenting a general survey from the Germanic area (but mainly Scandinavia) in order to
show that the later Old Norse literary evidence may well have deep roots and also that the
close relationship between animals (and especially pigs) and humans was not limited to one
area.
There are several things which should be stressed here. Firstly, it seems that burial
customs in Scandinavia were fairly stable between 200 and 1000 AD (practically up until the
official time of conversion) as Jennbert has pointed out.482 She notes that the first time that
larger parts or even whole domestic animals were put in the graves was in the Later Roman
Iron Age.483 Nonetheless, domesticated animals became more common in human graves after
the 3rd century, Jennbert noting that whole pigs and sheep were placed in rich graves in
Skovgårde, Zealand, Denmark (in the 3rd century AD). Nonetheless, the burials from the
Migration period, including the Vendel period (400-800 AD) seem to have been the most
splendid,484 especially with regard to the use of sacrificed animals.485
The swine appears comparatively often among those animals placed in graves, a
common suggestion being that it formed part of a funeral feast.486 Although pig bones were
present in Scandinavian graves from earlier periods, their presence increased from the
Migration period and during the Vendel period, and decreased afterwards, as Berit Sigvallius
has pointed out.487 For example, of the five Vendel boat graves from the 7 th century; three
contain not only pig bones, but also those of other animals.488 It is also noteworthy that these
same graves contained helmets.489 While the horses and dogs continued to appear in Vendel
graves until the 9th-10th centuries, the pig disappears from Vendel graves after the 8th century
(grave nr. III being the last).490 With regard to the pig remains, Beck notes an old wild boar
which is found in Vendel grave nr. XII, along with the remains of two pigs.491 Grave nr. III
482
Jennbert 2006, p. 135.
Jennbert 2002, p. 109.
484
Jennbert 2006, p. 135.
485
Ellis Davidson, 1968a, p. 15. Jennbert mentions that at the end of the 6th century, graves became richer in
their use of animals (Jennbert 2006, p. 136).
486
Jennbert 2004a, pp. 200-201. In connection with Anglo-Saxon graves, see Wilson 1992, p. 99. Lucas, in
connection with Scandinavian graves, notes that animal sacrifices occurred not only at religious feasts but also at
any mass gatherings, including funerals and assemblies (Lucas 2009, p. 405).
487
Sigvallius 1994, p. 74. I am grateful to Torun Zachrisson for providing me with this reference.
488
Andrén 1993, p. 46, fig. 5.
489
Those graves containing helmets are nr. I, nr. XII, and nr. XIV (Arent 1969, p. 136-137).
490
Andrén 1993, p. 46, fig. 5.
491
Beck 1965, p. 58.
483
83
contains one wild boar; grave nr. I a pig, and grave nr. XIV, the remains of another pig‟s
skeleton.492 Ellis Davidson also notes that in grave nr. XIV, the remains of a joint and a ham
were found, something which, according to her, supports the idea that the dead man was
supplied with food.493 Personally, I do not have any better explanation, but it sounds logical
that people should have consumed pork or given it to a dead person to take with him.
Although there are not so many examples in this survey of the archaeological evidence
for the swine in ritual contexts, it seems that swine jaws (with tusks) in particular seem to
have had a special importance, even though it is hard to suggest what the meaning of these
tusks was. These appear in graves, ritual places, and settlement sites. For example, a complete
adult pig mandible was found under the floor of the long hall in Vatnsfjörður, Iceland. 494
Similarly, as Gräslund points out, the pig bones found in Borg (mentioned above) mostly
came from the jaws.495 Pig jawbones appear also in some graves in Birka, Uppland, Sweden,
Price noting five graves containing such. 496 Three of these graves are examples in which
unburnt jaw bones were placed in cremation graves, clearly after all rituals were completed.
According to Price, the jaws may well have had a function relating to the grave itself, rather
than being possessions of a dead person.497 Similarly, in the grave Bj. 959, the jawbone was
probably not placed there by coincidence. The grave contains the body of decapitated woman,
whose head was placed under her arm, a pig‟s jawbone being laid across her severed neck.498
Another grave containing a pig jawbone is grave nr. 4, at Fyrkat, Jutland, Denmark (from c.
980). According to Price, the grave belonged to a völva and the jaw could have had a magical
association,499 although it is difficult to know what this magical association was. To my mind,
the jaws may have had particular importance because of the tusks growing out of them, these
being a symbol of the power of the boar. It might thus have been felt that both the tusks and
the jaws had importance as the source of this power.
Unlike Scandinavia, Anglo-Saxon graves were not as rich in animal bones. For
example, the Sutton Hoo burial had only a few traces of animal bones.500 Nonetheless, there
492
Beck 1965, p. 58.
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 17.
494
McGovern, Ragnar Edvardsson 2005, pp. 26-27.
495
Gräslund 2008, p. 251. In comparison, in Kootwijk in Holland twenty of the well-preserved lower jaws of
pigs were found under the floor of a sunken hut in a find from the second half of the 8 th century: IJzereef 1987, p.
39, van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1987, p. 109.
496
The graves with jaw bones are nrs Bj 83, Bj 84, Bj 86, Bj 210 and Bj 959 (Price 2002, p. 206).
497
Price 2002, p. 206.
498
Price 2002, p. 206.
499
Price 2002, p. 155. See also Jennbert 2004a, p. 204.
500
Ellis Davidson, 1968b, p. 359.
493
84
are some interesting finds. For example, Meaney notes a pig‟s head found in Frilford in
Berkshire in England. She suggests that it was a sacrifice because it was carefully buried
beneath flat stones and was accompanied by some fragments of pottery and an oyster shell.501
According to Wilson, however, this head was buried on its own and not associated with a
human burial.502 The presence of boar tusks in graves is also noteworthy, because contrary to
expectation, they appear mainly in female graves.503 The only male graves containing boar
tusks are graves from in Stowting, Kent and Kemp Town, Sussex (6th century). Here tusks
were found together with spears. 504 Among female graves, there is, for example, the 6th
century grave from Wheatley, where two boar‟s tusks mounted for suspension were found.505
Another two tusks, one perforated, one not, were found in female graves from Cassington,
Oxfordshire (c. 7th century).506 According to Wilson, these tusks could have had a protective
function.507 Speake notes that they no doubt served a similar function to the images of boars
decorating the objects,508 which, to his mind, represent kingship, protection and fertility.509
Personally, I am wary of going so far in interpretation. There is no obvious reason to connect
a tusk with fertility; it is rather a dangerous weapon belonging to the boar, and a natural
trophy of hunters. While it is clear that it had a magico-religious function for its owner, we do
not know the exact context of its use in the Anglo-Saxon period.
The final piece of evidence regarding the importance of animals that will be mentioned
in this section relates to animal graves, in other words, examples of animals being buried on
their own, like human beings. 510 For example, it is known that the bear was an important
cultic animal for the Sámi and when it is killed, they made a proper grave for it. 511 In a similar
way, the finds of animal bones in Germanic graves might well suggest a particular cultic
importance for that particular animal. Indeed, according to Jennbert, the presence of animal
501
Meaney 1964, p. 47.
Wilson 1992, p. 100.
503
Wilson 1992, p. 108.
504
Wilson 1992, pp. 108-109.
505
In graves 12 and 27 (Speake 1980, p. 79). Owen-Crocker mentions that one tusk was found together with the
teeth of a wolf or a dog (Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 262).
506
Wilson 1992, p. 108.
507
Wilson 1992, pp. 108-109.
508
Speake 1980, p. 79.
509
Speake 1980, p. 81.
510
The practice of burying an animal can perhaps be seen behind a story from Flóamanna saga: Þorgils is said to
have kept a boar which certainly had special importance to him. When he converted to Christianity, Þórr
apparently killed the boar. Þorgils then had the boar buried (Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p. 274).
511
Kulonen, Seurujärvi-Kari, Pulkkinen 2005, p. 34.
502
85
bones in graves means that animals and humans were seen as beings of equal status. 512
Nonetheless, it seems clear that the practice of animal burial mostly disappeared in the second
millennia, as Pluskowski has pointed out.513
4.5.2. The Keeping of Pigs
After examining the way animals seem to have been used after their deaths, it is also
important to consider how people in Pre-Christian Nordic Europe took care of them when
they were still alive. In this section, another general survey will be made of material from
various areas and sources, in order to demonstrate certain common patterns. As has been
noted above, pigs formed part of the settlement in Iceland. The sagas nonetheless tell us more
about, how people understood and approached these animals. The difficult nature of pigs is
mentioned in Valla-Ljóts saga, when a man called Halli goes to get a piglet and his mother
warns him: “... at þú værir eigi skapbráðr, því at gríssinn mun vera illr með at fara.” 514
Vatnsdæla saga, similarly, states that it is difficult to deal with pigs.515
Regarding earlier times, other information from both literary and archaeological records
suggests that pigs in later Iron Age Germanic Europe were often herded. It was easy to fatten
the pigs by sending them to forests where they could feed on acorns, beechnuts, or ferns. They
could also eat the stubble of the fields.516 The pigs were usually in the care of swineherds, but,
as Clutton-Brock mentions, these herdsmen had little control over them because pigs are
notoriously difficult to control. 517 As noted earlier in Chapter 4.5., both literary and the
archaeological evidence suggests that pigs were kept in towns and herded in forests. The
approaches varied in accordance with the site, relating to natural conditions. Pigs could be
easily kept in towns because they can eat almost everything. Cattle, meanwhile, need pasture.
As in Kaupang and Birka (see Chapter 4.5.), it seems clear that there were high numbers of
pigs in Viking Age Dublin, where they probably stayed at the town. 518 In England they were
also common, these being the only animals that could be kept in towns. Indeed, in some
places in England, there seems to have been a relative increase of pigs during the Viking Age
512
Jennbert 2006, p. 135.
Pluskowski 2006b, p. 119.
514
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 235.
515
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 116.
516
Van Wijngaarden-Bakker 1987, p. 114.
517
Clutton-Brock 1976, p. 378.
518
Barrett et al. 2007, p. 305.
513
86
while the number of cattle decreased.519 The same seems to have applied in the Viking Age
settlement at Åhus II in north-eastern Skåne, where pigs were probably kept inside the
settlement rather than being left outside in the pasturage. 520 Old Norse literature provides
further details about where pigs were kept. Valla-Ljóts saga for example talks of a pig being
kept somewhere inside. 521 Heimskringla meanwhile mentions on several occasions a
svínabœli (hog sty).522 Other words from the sagas are svínaból523 and svínstí.524 So much for
inside dwellings: during the summer, it seems that pigs were probably allowed to roam free
like sheep, sometimes even surviving the winter outside.525 It is unlikely that there were any
big herds of pigs in Iceland, but on the continent or in Britain, the number of animals was
probably higher.526 Nonetheless, there are examples of larger numbers in Iceland in Old Norse
literature, as Vatnsdæla saga shows:
Þar var fáment heima, en starf mikit fyrir hǫndum, bæði at sækja á fjall sauði ok svín ok mart
annat at gera. Þorkell bauzk til at fara með vǫrkmǫnnum á fjall. Ormr kvazk þat vilja. Þeir fóru
síðan, ok sóttisk þeim seint, því at fét var styggt; sótti engi knáligar en Þorkell. Þat þótti
torsóttligast, at eiga við svínin.527
Grágás, 528 similarly, demonstrates that pigs were allowed outside at that time. The law
mentions a fee that has one to pay if he let his pigs feed on someone else‟s land:
Ef maður beitir svínum sínum í land annars manns, og varðar slíkt sem hann beiti öðru fé, enda eru
þá óheilög við áverkum þess manns er land á, eða þeirra manna er hann biður til, nema túnsvín sé,
það er eigi má róta[K: það er hringur eða knappur eða við sé í rana].529
A similar suggestion of pigs being kept outside appears elsewhere in Grágás where it also
becomes apparent that some farmers only kept sows because there was a fee for those who
519
One of these places was Coppergate in York in England (Richards 1991, p. 73).
Mattsson 2004, p. 88.
521
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 235.
522
Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar in Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 295, 297; Hálfdanar saga svarta in Íslenzk fornrit
XXVI, p. 90. Svínabæli is also used in Flateyjarbók (Sigurður Nordal 1944, vol. I, p. 260).
523
Fagrskinna: Íslenzk fornrit XXIX, p. 57.
524
Ágrip: Íslenzk fornrit XXIX, p. 17.
525
See Chapters 4.5.
526
For example, one can examine the will of Alfred of Surrey, which mentions a pig herd of 2000 animals
(Clutton-Brock 1976, p. 378).
527
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 116.
528
The main manuscripts of law book Grágás were probably written between years 1250-1280, although as in
the cases of other literary sources, different opinions are held about this (Gunnar Karlsson, Kristján Sveinsson,
Mörður Árnason 1992, pp. xii-xiii).
529
Gunnar Karlsson, Kristján Sveinsson, Mörður Árnason 1992, p. 299.
520
87
allowed their sow to breed with someone else‟s boar without the owner knowing of it. 530 In
comparison with this, it is worth noting the Lombard law, Edictus Rothari, §351 (643 AD)
where pigs are said to be outside, the leading boar being called the sonorpair:531
Ipse dicitur sonorpair qui omnis alius verres in grege battit et vincit. Tamen in uno grege, quamvis
multitude porcorum fuerit, unus conpoterur sonorpair, nam si minor grex de trigenta capetum
fuerit, non repotetur sonorpair, nisi sit ride trigenta capetum fuerint. Et si in damnum ipse
sonorpair occisus fuerit, aut simile aut meliorem ipse qui occiderit restituat, et damnum ei
conponatur, nam si alii verres aut porci furati fuerint, in ahtogild reddatur. 532
On boars. He who steals another man‟s boar shall pay twelve solidi as composition in the case of
that boar called the leader of the herd (sonorpair) which has fought and conquered all the other
boars in the herd. In any one herd, however many pigs there may be, only one is regarded as the
sonorpair. Moreover, if the herd is smaller than thirty head, there is no sonorpair. If the sonorpair
is killed while doing damage, he who killed it shall return a similar sonorpair or a better one and
composition for the damage shall be paid to him. But if other boars or pigs are stolen, they shall be
returned eightfold.533
Here, it is noteworthy that the leading boar is seen as being more valuable than the rest
of the herd. This information makes even more sense when considered in connection
with particular boars named in Landnámabók (see Chapters 5.2. and 6.3.) which were
certainly seen as being more important than other pigs, presumably because only a small
and select number of male pigs were kept as breeding animals.
This chapter has demonstrated how important the swine seems to have been in
humans‟ lives since a very early period, their existence being reflected in various forms,
such as rock carvings, and funeral habits. It is obvious that during the periods that have
been examined, pigs had more space and freedom and were very different from the
animals that we know spending their whole lives locked up in pigsties today. It is also
worth bearing in mind that the swine the Nordic people knew was either the wild or the
wildish domesticated pig (which was much closer to the wild pig in appearance than its
modern counterpart). Bearing the above knowledge about the behaviour of the swine,
and their places in the daily lives of the Nordic people in mind, we can move on to
another chapter which will show how the pigs seem to have been understood in Old
Norse literature.
530
“Ef maður leigir berfé sitt til graðfjár annars manns ólofað, kú yxna til griðungs eða meri álægja til hests eða
sú ræða til galtar eða á blæsma til hrúts eða geit til hafurs, og varðar það allt þriggja marka útlegð” (Gunnar
Karlsson, Kristján Sveinsson, Mörður Árnason 1992, p. 172).
531
On the connection between the sonorpair and sonarblót, see further Chapter 10.2.
532
Sievers 1892, p. 542.
533
Fisher Drew 1996, p. 121.
88
5.0. Different Aspects of the Swine in the Sagas
Another feature that suggests that pigs were seen as having particular meaning for Nordic
people is the large number of mentions in Old Norse literature (the Íslendingasögur,
konungasögur, and fornaldarsögur). In the previous chapter, I have already pointed to some
passages which provide information about how people kept pigs or how they thought they
were kept. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that pigs are often mentioned in the sagas in
circumstances which are important for the saga narrative itself. For example, on several
occasions, the pig is an object of conflict,534 and the conflict in question is something which
usually moves the saga forward. Other examples pointing to their significance are aetiological
stories in which a place is named after a pig, and accounts in which a boar (or a sow)
represents an enemy which the hero must kill. In each of these cases, the swine is described
differently, something which shows how the role of swine could vary according to time, place
and the kind of source.
5.1. Fighting the Boar
One of the literary motifs present in Old Norse and other Germanic Heroic literature is that of
the “fight with a boar”, which is usually described as a significantly brave deed of the hero.
And no doubt, it was regarded as a brave deed to kill such a beast. Until the introduction of
guns, a boar hunt was a dangerous activity. Several accounts from Germanic literature show
that a special boar spear was probably developed for such an activity. For example, in
Beowulf (l. 1437), a special boar spear (“eofer sprēot”) is mentioned.535 Beck names other
examples from Germanic languages which support an existence of such a weapon. He
mentions the Old Saxon ebur-spiat, the Old High German epur-spioz, and the Danish
bas(s)spiud and svinespiud.536 Nonetheless, according to Peter Lucas, such spears were not
called by these names because of their function of killing a boar, but rather because of their
decoration.537 Even if this so, it does not exclude the spear‟s potential function for killing a
534
See, for example, Víga-Glúms saga (Íslenzk fornrit IX, pp. 60-61), Hreiðars þáttr (Íslenzk fornrit X, p. 259),
Valla-Ljóts saga (Íslenzk fornrit IX, pp. 235-236).
535
Heaney 2000, p. 100. See also Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 267.
536
Beck 1965, p. 51. See Kalkar 1976, vol. I, p. 110 and Kalkar 1976, vol. IV, p. 235.
537
Lucas 1977, p. 100.
89
boar. It might also be considered that the working of boar images might also be seen as some
kind of sympathetic magic.538
Moving to the boar itself (as an object of the hunt), its image in Germanic literature
usually corresponds to the reality. The boar is described as a dangerous animal. In Þiðreks
saga539 is said “Villigöltr er allra dýra fræknastr ok verstr við að eiga, þeim er veiðir.”540 Old
English literature also mentions the boar as dangerous animal.541 For example, the gnomic
poem Maxims I,542 states about the boar hunt as a noble activity:
Earm biþ se þe sceal ana lifgan,
winelas wunian hafaþ him wyrd geteod;
betre him wære þæt he broþor ahte, begen hi anes monnes,
eorles eaforan wæran, gif hi sceoldan eofor onginnan. 543
he who lives alone will be wretched, | dwell friendless; fate/events has/have constrained him. |
It would be better for him if he had a brother, both of them [born] of one person, | they would
be a nobleman‟s sons, if they are to attack a boar.544
Bevers saga545 also contains a passage in which Bevers kills a wild boar.546 Here the boar is
so dangerous that twenty knights arenot able to kill it. Bevers himself uses a sword and a
spear, eventually cutting off the boar‟s head, and bringing it to the king.547
When it comes to the confrontation between a boar and a hero, one notes that the
monstrous character or some supernatural features of the boar are stressed, probably in order
to emphasise the hero‟s bravery. Hálfdanar saga Eysteinssonar (ms from about 1400)548, for
example, talks about a ruffian in a deep forest who keeps a wild boar, which is more difficult
to fight than twelve men: “Með honum er einn villigöltr, verri viðreignar en tólf karlar.”549
Although the boar is wild, the saga says that it lived in a sty, but stresses that the sty was big
538
On boar images, see further Chapter 8.
The saga itself was probably compiled in Norway in the 13th century, but some of its heroes are known from
heroic Eddic poems (Atli, Sigurðr Fáfnisbani, and Vǫlundr). Nonetheless, the central character is Dietrich von
Bern (Þiðrik), King of the Ostrogoths who died in c. 526 AD (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 331).
540
Guðni Jónsson 1954, vol. I, p. 253.
541
On other boar characteristics in Old English literature, see further Barco 1999, pp. 163-164.
542
Maxims I, preserved in the Exeter book, is a collection of gnomic and aphorismic verses. The manuscript
dates from the early 10th century. The poem is probably older, possibly put together in the 8 th or 9th century by a
West-Saxon poet (Krapp, van Kirk Dobie 1936, p. xlvvii).
543
Krapp, van Kirk Dobie 1936, p. 162.
544
Translated by Alaric Hall.
545
The saga is also called Bevis saga. It belongs to the riddarasögur, originally being translated from the AngloNorman narrative poem Boeve de Haumtome (late 12th century). The oldest manuscript is from c. 1350. Several
manuscripts are from the 15th century, but others are younger (Sanders 2001, p. xiii).
546
Sanders 2001, pp. 47-59.
547
Sanders 2001, p. 57.
548
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. vii.
549
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 305.
539
90
enough for cattle. The main hero, Hálfdan, then fights the boar with the help of a dog. 550
Another enormous boar fought by a dog is mentioned in Hrólfs saga kraka. Here it is said to
be troll in boar shape (“tröll í galtar líki”)551 and the dog rips off its ears together with its chin.
Once again, a negative character, the Swedish king Aðils, keeps the boar (see Chapters 10.3.
and 11.0.). The boar is described in a similar negative fashion in sources with an obvious
Christian context, making one wonder how much Christianity has influenced the image of the
boar in all of these accounts. 552 In Ólafs saga Helga in Flateyjarbók553 the following is said
about a wild boar that King Ólafr kills during his travels:
Annat kvikvendi var villigöltr. Hann hafði marga mannsaldra. Engi maðr skyldi drepa grís af liði hans.
Hann var forkunnar mikill ok ákafliga grimmligr.554
Fig. 5. Ólafr helgi killing a boar in Flateyjarbók.
Later it is said that when Ólafr killed the boar, he cut its snout off with his sword, and took the
jaw with the teeth as a trophy. Because of that, his sword received a new name: “Hneiti”:555
550
The boar is also said to make scary sounds (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 307).
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 75.
552
As Beck notes, the boar is identified with Satan in the Icelandic Physiologus from the 13th century (Beck 1965,
pp. 155-156). On the text, see Del Zotto Tozzoli 1992, p. 110.
553
This version of the saga shows Ólafr a more saintly man, compared to the version in Heimskringla.
554
Sigurður Nordal 1945, vol. II, p. 96.
555
The name is derived from the verb hníta: to cut or cause a wound (Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 275).
551
91
Þá heyrði konungr brakan mikla í skóginn alla vega frá sér. Þá rennr galti með lið sitt ok þekr allt rjóðrit.
Galti ferr rýtandi ok emjandi með illum látum ok gapanda gini. Hann var svá stórr, at konungr þóttist þess
háttar kvikendi ekki fyrr slíkt sét hafa, því at hans burst gnæfði náliga við limar uppi hinna hæstu trjá í
skóginum.556
Other Old Norse records telling of dangerous swine are found in the later riddarasögur
which naturally also have Christian elements but they will be mentioned here, because the
hunting of the boar follows the same pattern as in the records above. Vilmundar saga
viðutan557 contains many references to swine. It starts with a dream, in which a boar appears
coming from a ship with many other swine: the boar fights a bear and wins:
þar ëd vpp af einn gavltur hann var mikil og jlligur. hann hafdi Ëana og rëtadi avllv. efter honum
Ëunnv morg svin. og letv avll grimmliga. enn af landinu ofan Ëann j mëti einn ravdkinnvr. svo
fagurt dyr at eg s‰ eigi fegra. þat hliëp j mët gelltinvm og ‰ttuzt þeir vid hardann leik. enn suo kom
at gavllturin lagdi vnder biarninn. var þa fëlkit allt hrætt og flydi. þëtti mer þv koma þar sem eg
uar. þëttvnzt eg taka þig vpp vnder bialba minn. og Ëedunzt eg sidan mët gelltinvm og vaknada eg
þa.558
Later in the saga, two heroes Vilmundr and Hjarandi fight a man called Kolr, something that
is made more difficult because of Kolr‟s witchcraft. As a result of this, during the fight, fifty
swine come out of the forest and fight Hjarandi. These animals are certainly enchanted
because no weapon can wound them. The saga runs:
enn er sokn uar sem haurduzt. kuomu fram ur skoginum .l. suina. og sækja at monnum Hiar(anda).
og rifa þa til dauds.559
Soon only ten swine are left but the saga does not say how the foster brothers were able to kill
the other forty. Nonetheless, later in the saga, Vilmundr fights those ten pigs which are left
and manages to kill all of them except for one sow, which bites off one of his fingers and then
runs into the forest.560 The sow seems to be the most dangerous of all swine, and we are given
556
Sigurður Nordal 1945 vol. II, p. 98.
The saga is considered to be among the riddarasögur, although some authors have considered it to be on the
borderline between the riddarasögur and fornaldarsögur: Kalinke 2005, p. 326; Driscoll 2005, p. 191.
558
Loth, 1964, p. 161.
559
Loth 1964, p. 177.
560
Loth 1964, p. 178.
557
92
a quite detailed description of the final fight between Hjarandi, Vilmundr and the beast, which
is clearly said to be assisting Kolr.561 Kolr is killed first. Then:
[...] gylltan hliop at Hiar(anda) suo hart at hann fell til jardar. j þui kom *Wilm(undur) at. og lagdj
til gylltunar med spiote. en hun skaut uid sigginu og stauck spioted j sundr. V(ilmundr) greip þa á
aptr fot hennar. og ryckjr at ser suo fast at kuidren rifnadj. en jdren fellu nidr ur henne. hun hafdj
fest tennrnar framan j herklædunum á brioste Hiar(anda). og suo nær beinenv at hun reif af honum
geiru¹rtuna suo at berer skinu uid bringuteinarner á honum. þviat V(ilmundr) kipte suo snaukt at
bædj uar senn á lopte Hiar(andj) og gylltan. do nu gylltan en Hiar(andj) uar ouigr. 562
As the above accounts show, wild pigs in Old Norse and other Germanic literature are
described as being endowed with supernatural features, even though in comparison to the
boars that appear in Celtic myths, these Nordic boars are comparatively “normal”. 563 All the
same, all these examples of the boar hunt given above have something in common, even
though they are not of the same age and genre: The main hero who kills the boar is shown to
be a noble man. This underlines that at some point, hunting became an entertainment that was
essentially limited to the nobility. This idea follows Celtic and medieval patterns,564 but the
material suggests it might have roots within the Nordic area as well.565 The main difference is
that the boar in Old Norse sources is presented as an opponent of the hero rather than a quarry.
It is not described as an animal which a hunter pursues for several days in order to kill it. Here
the boar appears in the path of the hero as an enemy which the hero must kill.566
561
It is noteworthy that later, in the saga, Kolr makes a sacrifice to this sow (Loth 1964, p. 151): See quotation
given in Chapter 10.3.
562
Loth 1964, pp. 179-180.
563
In Celtic myths, hunting is often shown as involving supernatural powers. Furthermore, Ross has suggested
that motif of the “hunting of the otherworld boar” was one of the most fundamental Celtic cult legends (Ross
1967, p. 313). One example is the account of the pursuing of Twrch Trwyth, the otherworld boar, named
Tourtain in Breton (“Twrch” means “boar”). This boar is clearly magical: it has a razor, a pair of scissors and a
comb between its ears. Mabon and King Arthur are both said to have also hunted him (see MacKillop 1998, p.
368).
564
There is naturally nothing in the Íslendingasögur about boar hunting, because boars did not live in Iceland but
we read of hunting fish, birds and occasionally the polar bear. The same applies to other Icelandic sources
(konungasögur, fornaldarsögur) in which hunting does not play such a big role, probably because it was not part
of the common experience of Icelandic authors. Compared to this, boar hunting is a mighty theme in Celtic myth,
as noted above (Jones 1972, pp. 102-119). Aldhouse-Green also points out that: “hunting may have been largely
restricted to heroes or the aristocracy, and could well have been subject to strict rules and taboos” (Green 1992a,
p. 166).
565
See, for example, Hjálmþés saga ok Ǫlvis in which it is said that Ǫlvir, son of an earl, was a hunter: “Hann
hafði þrjátigi leiksveina ok reið á skóg dagliga at skjóta dýr ok fugla” (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944,
vol. III, p. 232). See also Rígsþula, st. 35, where Jarl, who is noble born, is said to spend his time throwing
spears, obviously as part of hunting (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 285).
566
On the hunting of the boar, see further Beck 1965, pp. 154-176. Here Beck refers to the topic of King Arthur,
before touching on the medieval Christian view of the boar.
93
5.2. Pigs in Aetiological Stories
Another common motif involving swine in Old Norse literature presents them in a very
different light. Instead of being presented as dangerous beasts, these animals (now domestic
pigs) are shown as having a role to play in the settlement of Iceland. Among other things, we
find several records of swine playing a role in place-name giving. These records are mainly
found in Landnámabók, which contains three almost identical records of pigs getting lost and
later being found in a greater number and places then being named after them. One of these
stories is about Helgi magri:
Helgi lendi þá við Galtarhamar; þar skaut hann á land svínum tveimr, ok hét gǫltrinn Sölvi. Þau
fundusk þremr vetrum síðar í Sǫlvadal; váru þá saman sjau tigir svína. 567
A similar frame account appears in the story of Ingimundr gamli preserved in Landnámabók
(S and H) and in a longer version in Vatnsdæla saga:
Þess er enn getit, at svín hurfu frá Ingimundi ok fundusk eigi fyrr en annat sumar at hausti, ok váru
þá saman hundrað, þau váru stygg orðin. Gǫltr einn mikill ok gamall fylgði þeim ok var kallaðr
Beigaðr. Ingimundr safnar mönnum til at henda svínin ok kvað svá rétt at mæla, at tvau hǫfuð væri
á hvívetna. Þeir fóru eptir svínunum ok ráku at vatni því, er nú er kallat Svínavatn, ok vildu kvía
þar við, en gǫltrinn hljóp á vatnit ok svam yfir ok varð svá móðr, at af honum gengu klaufirnar;
Hann komsk á hól einn, er nú heitir Beigaðarhóll, ok dó þar. Ingimundr festi nú yndi í Vatnsdal. 568
Steinólfr lági Hrólfsson is another man whose pigs are said to get lost, and be found
later, a place then being named after them (according to Landnámabók S116 and H88):
567
(S218) Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 250 and 252. The other manuscript (H184) states that he had a boar and a sow:
“Hann lendi við Galtarhamarr; þar skaut hann svínum tveimr á land, gelti þeim, er Sǫlvi hét, ok gyltu. Þau
fundusk þremr vetrum síðar í Sǫlvadal ok váru þá saman sjau tigir svína” (Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 251).
568
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 43. The shorter version preserved in Landnámabók (S179 and H146) runs as follows:
“Ingimundi hurfu svín tíu ok fundusk annat haust í Svínadal, ok var þá hundrað svína. Gǫltr hét Beigaðr; hann
hljóp á Svínavatn ok svam, þar til er af gengu klaufirnar; hann sprakk á Beigaðarhóli” (Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 220).
It is noteworthy is that a similar story appears in a Celtic context. Ross mentions a prose account called
Dindshenchas, where the dogs of Mananánn chase a giant, devastating pig. The pig goes into a lake and the dogs
go after it. The pig them causes all to be drowned. The lake is then named after the dogs (Loch Con). The pig
then swims to an island which is later named after it: Mucc-Inis (Pig-island) (Ross 1967, p. 318). Here, I would
like to note that even though these stories are definitely aetiological, some facts in them correspond to reality: A
boar could actually swim over a lake, because pigs are good swimmers: Friðrik G. Olgeirsson notes that wild
pigs could swim at least six to seven kilometres (Friðrik G. Olgeirsson 2005, p. 13). See also Meynhardt 1983, p.
28.
94
Steinólfi hurfu svín þrjú; þau fundusk tveim vetrum síðar í Svínadal, ok váru þau þá þrír tigir
svína.569
Another aetiological story in Landnámabók (S115 and H87) mentions a very rich
chieftain called Geirmundr who had pigs, sheep and also many slaves:
Hann var vellauðigr at lausafé ok hafði of kvikfjár. Svá segja menn, at svín hans gengi á Svínanesi,
en sauðir á Hjarðarnesi, en hann hafði selfǫr í Bitru.570
As noted above, these three stories follow the same pattern, suggesting that they might have
had an influence to each other. It is interesting though that, apart from their links to place
names, all of the characters involved in these legends had a relation to Sweden and/or
Freyr.571 The similarities do not make them less valid: although they do not prove whether it
was for economic, religious, agricultural or other reasons, they do underline that pigs had an
cultural importance for authors and audience of Landnámabók (and the sagas), not least
because places are named after them, although naturally the same applies to other animals.
Indeed, another very similar aetiological account in Vatnsdœla saga deals with lost sheep,
although it is noteworthy that the account in question does not say anything about the number
of sheep that were found. It would thus seem that fertility was seen as being more applicable
to pigs.572 It also seems that the stress on the fertility of pigs is meant to imply that the place
was a good place to live (since the pigs survived there the winter). The high number of pigs
suggests the same: Pigs have more piglets when there is enough to eat.573
5.3. Pigs as a Symbol of Wealth
Another fact which has some importance when the number of pigs is stressed, is their possible
symbolic meaning as signs of wealth for Nordic people. In accounts given in Landnámabók,
an exact numbers of boars (30, 70, and 100 respectively) are given, and in one case, only one
569
Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 158.
(S 115) Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 154 and156. H87 contains a few small differences but not regarding the pigs (see
Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 155).
571
See, for example, Barði Guðmundsson 1959, pp. 132-137.
572
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, pp. 39 and 42.
573
Turville-Petre suggests that the prolific boar of Helgi magri might be seen as a good sign for his settlement
(Turville-Petre 1964, p. 166).
570
95
boar is mentioned. 574 It is unlikely that these numbers are accurate; they are more likely
literary motifs used as a means to show that someone was a powerful and rich chieftain
(because there is no use from pigs during their lifetime, unlike goats, sheep and cows, which
means that only rich people can afford to keep a large number of pigs). One should therefore
not be surprised to see how much space is given to pigs in Landnámabók compared to other
animals (or some persons). The main purpose of the above records, over and above their use
as a means of explaining place-names, was as a means of demonstrating the power and the
wealth of these people.575 Indeed, the relationship between pig-ownership and richness in not
limited to Iceland: the Fornaldarsögur Norðurlanda mention other powerful people who
owned the pigs.576
5.4. The Swineherd: A Slave or a Prince?
While the sagas see the owners of pigs as being powerful, the same social respect does not
seem to have been given to those who took care of them who were seen as having very low
status. Old Norse literature mentions swineherds several times. These references are
interesting for several reasons. First of all, many references suggest that tending swine was
seen as the worst kind of a job, something carried out by slaves and poor people. The social
status of swineherds is clearly indicated in Rígsþula, st. 12 where it is stated what the children
of Þræll and Þír did:
lǫgðo garða,
acra tǫddo,
unno at svínom,
geita gætto,
574
Hrafnkell Hrafnsson is said to have had a boar: “En er hann var skammt kominn, þá hljóp ofan fjallit allt, ok
varð undir gǫltr ok griðungr, er hann átti” (Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 299: (S283 and H244). See also Brandkrossa Þáttr,
in which is said about the same man and same kind of animals (Íslenzk fornrit XI, p. 183). On the other hand, In
Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða, the same man is said to be Hallfreðarsson, but it is evidently the same person (Íslenzk
fornrit XI, p. xli). It is noteworthy that this Freyr-related saga also mentions a boar: Here Hallfreðr has a dream
which warns him of impending disaster, so he moves away: “En honum varð þar eptir gǫltr ok hafr. Ok inn sama
dag, sem Hallfreðr var í brott, hljóp skriða á húsin, ok týndusk þar þessir gripir, ok því heitir þat síðan í Geitdal”
(Íslenzk fornrit XI, pp. 97-98).
575
Naturally also other animals could represent wealth: for example, in Celtic society, both pigs and cattle had
that meaning (Green 1992a, p. 5). A similar idea is seen in the Old Norse fé (meaning cattle, money or property).
Cleasby, Vigfusson (1874, pp. 147-148) underline a strong connection between domestic animals and wealth.
Besides pigs, Landnámabók mentions several other animals in this context, such as a cow called Brynja, which
was said to be very fertile. Roughly 40 head of cattle came from her (Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 57-8). Other animals
mentioned are a young mare called Fluga (pp. 235-236), an ox (p. 43), a herd of goats (pp. 330-331) and a huge
herd of sheep numbering over 2000 animals (p. 358).
576
One example is King Heiðrek in Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks: see Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943,
vol. I, pp. 223-224. Another king who had a boar was Aðils: See further Chapters 10.3. and 11.0.
96
grófo torf.577
In Vǫlsunga saga, it is said that the slave (who is killed first instead of Hǫgni) took care of
pigs and liked his job a lot: “Kveðr þann dag illan vera, er hann skal deyja frá sínum góðum
kostum ok svína geymslu.”578 Another reference to the feeding of pigs appears in Helgakviða
Hundingsbana I, st. 34, where it is used as an insult:
Segðu þat í aptan,
er svínom gefr
oc tícr yðrar
teygir at solli,
at sé Ylfingar
austan komnir,
gunnar giarnir
at Gnipalundi.579
Vǫlsunga saga includes a similar insult, but adds the feeding of dogs as a low job: “Seg svá,
at þú hefir gefit svínum ok hundum...”580 A verse in Hálfs saga ok Hálfsrekka (13th century)581
similarly talks of a swineherd negatively as a form of insult, as the lowest level of a hierarchy:
Vildi engi
við Vífil jafnast,
þó at Hámundar
hjarðar gætti.
Sá ek engan þar
svínahirði
huglausara
en Heðins arfa.582
Not all saga swineherds as low-born, though. Some are described and treated as people
of low status but in fact they are later revealed as to be noble born and better than the other
men.583 Vatnsdœla saga, for example, shows Þorkell krafla preparing a new-born piglet for
food, and some men want to disgrace him because of it. They call him the son of a slave
577
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 282.
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 82. A similar expression is used in Atlamál in
Grœnlenzco, st. 62: “at deyja frá svínom” (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 256).
579
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 135.
580
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 21.
581
Torfi Tulinius 2002, p. 23.
582
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 178.
583
This motif is known in fairy tales, such as “Swineherd” (Svinedrengen) by Hans Christian Andersen
(Andersen 1879, p. 214). It also appears in a ballad in Denmark called Per svinedreng (see Grundtvig 1967 vol.
IX, pp. 138-173), and in Sweden in a folk song Per Svinaherde. In all cases, it shows a swineherd as a prince in
disguise: see, for example, Hägg 1909, pp. 30-31.
578
97
woman, someone who is chosen to tend swine. In spite of this, Þorkell comes from a good
family, but he cannot prove it because he was exposed as a child:584
Glæðir kvazk hafa ok spurt ǫnnur tíðendi, - „en þat er fjallferð Þorkels krǫflu, at hann var valiðr til
svínagæzlu;“ - kvað hann [þat] ok makligast um ambáttarsoninn ok kvað hann drepit hafa grísinn,
þann er drukkit hafði spenann um nóttina áðr ok legit hjá galta, - „því at hann kól sem aðra
hundtík“.585
Víglundar saga (about 1400)586 contains a similar account of a man called Þorgrímr.
He was the son of an earl but born out of the wedlock:
Þorgrímr þjónaði um daginn; ok þá er Þorgrímr bar eitt stórt drykkjuker fyrir Grím, þá stöplaðist út
af kerinu, því at Þorgrímr drap við fæti, ok kom á klæði Gríms. Hann varð illa við ok hljóp upp
með stóryrðum ok kvað þat auðsét, at pútuson væri vanari at geyma svína ok gefa þeim soð at
drekka en þjóna nökkurum dugandi mönnum. Þorgrímr reiddist orðum hans ok brá sverði ok lagði
í gegnum hann;587
Similarly in Hervarar ok Heiðreks saga, it is said that the father of Hervǫr is a slave,588
(referred to in a verse as “svína hirðir”). Hervǫr, however, is shown to have been mistaken:
her father was actually a hero:
Áka ek várri
vegsemd hrósa,
þótt hún Fróðmars
fengi hylli;
föður hugdumst ek
fræknan eiga,
nú er sagðr fyr mér
svína hirðir.589
The same idea occurs in Hjálmþés saga ok Ǫlvis which also talks of pig-tending as a
slave‟s job: “Þræl þann, sem drotting hafði þangat flutt, lét hún geyma svín.”590 Nevertheless,
as saga later reveals, the slave in question is shown to actually be a king who carries out many
584
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 97.
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, pp. 116-117.
586
Víglundar saga might be even younger, composed about 1500. See Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 115; Víglundar
saga is the Íslendingasaga influenced by some riddarasögur and fornaldarsögur (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p.
289).
587
Íslenzk fornrit XIV, p. 69.
588
“...in versti þræll lagðist með dóttur hans, ok ertu þeira barn” (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol.
I, p. 198).
589
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 198.
590
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 235.
585
98
heroic deeds in the saga.591 The motif is also supported by a verse which states that the man
who feeds the swine is better than king‟s men:
Kjóstu þann þræl
af þengils liði,
sem gefr svínum soð.
Mun þér ei maðr
duga af mildings hirð,
ef þér glapvígr gerist.592
Other verses in the same saga also show that being a swineherd was a poor job.
Eyðast mun sæmd þín,
ef ek skal líkr vera
aumum illþræli,
er ekki prýðir,
ragr í hverja taug
nema reiða mat svínum
halr inn hrafnsvarti
í hrævarskrúði.593
The common motif of the noble man disguised as a swineherd may be explained in
several ways. It might be literary/ fairy tale motif showing a contrast between poor and
rich,594 and motif of the swine being chosen (in line with Christian ideology) as the dirtiest
animal (see further Chapter 1.1.). On the other hand, if we consider possible Celtic influence
on the motif, the swine here might have been chosen for its relation to the world of the Gods
and Underworld, which is something that would give the role of swineherd very different
meaning, something making it more understandable that the swineherd should be of noble
origin.595
591
O‟Connor 2006, p. 53.
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 250.
593
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 278.
594
Terry Gunnell, discussed 26. 10. 2010.
595
The figure of the swineherd is better known in Celtic tales. Some tales talk of a divine-swineherd. According
to Ross, this motif may originate from the concept of swine-god who was protector of the animals and who is
able to take on their form (Ross 1967, p. 313). The connection of swineherds to Otherworld wisdom also mostly
appears in Irish tales (Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 48).
592
99
5.5. The Eating of Pork and its Value
Returning to pigs as a symbolic representation of wealth of Nordic people, it is logical that
wealth and high status should be expressed not only by ownership of animals but also by
eating habits. In short, rich people can afford better food than the poor can. In the following
section, I will suggest that pork was seen as more suitable for the higher ranks of society. The
fact that slaves are said to take care of pigs would also seem to suggest that those who owned
the herds were rich people. These (and heroes, who were according to literary records usually
of noble origin) then were the people who ate pork regularly. For common people, pork seems
to have become a food eaten only during feasts.596
5.5.1. The Otherworld Feast
The first reason for considering that pork was seen as a food for the heroes or noble people is
that it was eaten by fallen warriors in Valhǫll, as Grímnismál, st. 18 suggests:
Andhrímnir lætr
í Eldhrímni
Sæhrímni soðinn,
flesca bezt,
enn þat fáir vito,
við hvat einheriar alaz.597
In Gylfaginning, Snorri quotes this verse as part of his description of the feasts in Valhǫll,
adding a few more details of the Otherworld feast:
En aldri er svá mikill mannfjǫlði í Valhǫll at eigi má þeim endask flesk galtar þess er Sæhrímnir
heitir. Hann er soðinn hvern dag ok heill at aptni. En þessi spurning er nú spyrr þú þykki mér
líkara at fáir muni svá vísir vera at hér kunni satt af at segja. Andhrímnir heitir steikarinn en
Eldhrímnir ketillinn.598
596
Here one might mention some Christmas traditions from Sweden and England in which the pig is given a
prominent role as food. In England, one notes the boar‟s head which became the object of a Christmas song,
“The Boar‟s Head Carol” (Blind 1892-1896, pp. 90-105). Regarding Swedish traditions, see further Lid 1928, pp.
38, 49, 78, 81 and 84 and Rosén 1913, pp. 214-215.
597
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 60.
598
Faulkes 2005, 32. This version is contained in all main manuscripts of Snorra Edda, but in U, the word galtar
is missing. In one line of R, Sæhrímnir is written “Sęmnir”, something which was corrected by Finnur Jónsson in
his edition (Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 42). According to Cleasby and Vigfusson, flesk is used for pork while kjöt is
a common word for meat. In the Scandinavian languages, similar words as flesk with the same meaning (pork)
can be found (Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 160).
100
This description has several parallels elsewhere. Simek, for example, suggests that Snorri‟s
description bears the characteristics of the medieval Paradise.599 All the same, parallels are
also found in Celtic myth, for example, in the story “The Death of Muircertach mac Erca”
which contains strong Christian elements but also mentions pork as a food for fallen heroes.600
There is nonetheless a question of whether Christians in the medieval period saw pork as a
prominent food. As has been noted in Chapter 1.1., there is little that points to this. While it is
possible that the description of Valhǫll bears traces of Christian influence, the presence of
pork must here would seem to be definitely an old Nordic/ Germanic motif. Furthermore, the
idea that Sæhrímnir is slaughtered and could be eaten again is a motif which appears widely
in the Celtic myth, both in connection to the Otherworld feast and other stories. 601 It also
appears in the Celtic story of the six pigs of Essach, where the pigs were slaughtered every
night; their bones then had to be kept without being broken or gnawed if the animals were to
come back to life another day.602 The same idea of protecting the bones of an eaten animal so
that it can be resurrected of course also appears in the myth of Þórr‟s goats.603
Although several written sources mention Valhǫll,604 there are fewer sources about
Otherworld food in the Old Nordic religion.605 Nevertheless, in this context, Ellis Davidson
points to the apparent image of a feast on the picture stone from Ardre, Gotland, which has
been interpreted by Oxenstierna as depicting two men with the dead body of a swine at a feast
in Valhǫll.606 Whether the pork in Valhǫll is meant to be taken from a wild swine or a pig is
open to question, but it is clear that pork is seen as being the best food for heroes.607
599
Simek 1993, p. 273.
Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 46.
601
Green 1992a, pp. 170-171. See also Ross 1967, pp. 318-319, De Vries 1957, p. 379, and Ásdís Magnúsdóttir
1999, pp. 156-157. There are other animals in Celtic myth which could be eaten and then resurrected, so the
phenomenon seems not to be only connected with pigs. The important feature in these Celtic stories is usually
the magical cauldron which brings about the resurrection (Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 46).
602
Ross 1967, p. 319.
603
Gylfaginning, Ch. 44 in Faulkes 2005, p. 37. Nonetheless, as Eliade notes, this motif of resurrection from
bones is also known in Siberia, in America and among African bushmen. See Eliade 1964, pp. 161- 165.
604
See for example Þórbjǫrn hornklofi‟s Hrafnsmál st. 11 (c. 900) where Valhǫll is named as a shield-covered
hall; Eyvinðr skáldaspillir‟s Hákonarmál (961), and Eiríksmál too (see Finnur Jónsson 1912, pp. 23, 57, 58 and
164. See also Simek 1993, pp. 346-347.
605
As Grímnismál notes sarcastically in the quote given above, few people know what the heroes in Valhǫll eat.
606
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 125. Besides the Ardre stone, Oxenstierna mentions another picture stone with a pig
between two men. He only gives a drawing of two standing men with weapons and a pig between them.
Oxenstierna does not say from which stone it comes (see Oxenstierna 1966, pp. 226-227). It is likely that it is a
stone from Tängelgårda, Lärbro parish, dated between 700-800 AD (see Nylén, Lamm 1988, p. 67).
607
In the Insular Celtic tradition, the pig and wild boar were equally prominent, as Aldhouse-Green has pointed
out (Green 1992a, p. 170).
600
101
Fig. 6. An animal, possibly pig on Gotland stones a) Ardre VIII stone; b) Tängelgårda stone.
5.5.2. Pork: A Food for Feasts and Noble People
As implied above, in the Nordic world, the enjoyment of eating pork does not seem to have
been limited to mythical heroes. Written sources suggest that in the world of humans too, pork
was eaten by privileged people, or on special occasions. In Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga,608 for example,
a wild boar is eaten during a wedding feast and this is mentioned as being something
exceptional:
Þar váru fram bornir alls konar réttir með inum dýrustu jurtum, allra handa dýra hold ok fugla, af
hreinum ok hjörtum ok vænum villisvínum, gæss ok rjúpur með pipruðum páfuglum. Eigi vantaði
þar inn dýrasta drykk, ál ok enskan mjöð með vildasta víni, píment ok klaret.609
The Íslendingasögur also contain several examples of pork being eaten on special occasions.
Both Valla-Ljóts saga and Vatnsdæla saga mention the preparation for a wedding which is
going to take place at the time of Winter Nights, and in both cases, pork was supposed to be
eaten.610
The value of the meat is also reflected in Þáttr Hauks Hábrókar in Flateyjarbók,
where the meat of a wild boar is sent by King Haraldr hárfagri to his foster-mother together
with other valuable things: “Ek sendi henna gullhring, er vegr tólf aura, ok tvau
608
The oldest manuscripts are from the 15th century: Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. vii.
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 457.
610
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 235 and Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 116.
609
102
villigaltarflikki gömul ok tvær tunur smjör.”611 In Rígsþula, st. 30, too, pork is mentioned
amongst other types of food that Móðir, mother of Jarl, belonging to the most noble of the
three couples mentioned, offers to Rígr on his visit.612 The difference in foods in this poem is
remarkable, because the first couple eats only heavy bread, broth (“soð”, food usually given to
pigs) 613 and a cooked calf 614 (although Dronke has suggested that the calf belongs to the
second couple).615 It is noteworthy that pork only appears on the table of the noblest couple.
The same idea is reflected in Sneglu-Halla þáttr from Morkinskinna (about 1220),616 where
the Icelander Halli is given pork by King Haraldr harðráði but he has to make a verse before
it reaches his table. His verses stress that the pig is especially good food:
Grís þá greppr at ræsi
gruntrauðustum dauðan;
Njörðr sér börg á borði
bauglands fyr sér standa;
runa síður lítk rauðar,
ræðk skjótgöru kvæði)
rana hefr seggr af svíni
send heill kunungr, brendan.617
The literary evidence thus clearly supports the idea that pork had a special status in
Nordic society. It was not a common food, but seems to have been eaten mostly by noble
people or on special occasions, something supported by the myth of Sæhrímnir which
suggests that the heroes got only the best food. As noted above, the idea that pork was a meal
for noble people is also documented by archaeology. One notes, for example, the high number
of bones from suckling piglets found at Hofstaðir, in the north of Iceland. Gavin Lucas notes
that suckling pigs were an expensive delicacy and a mark of status.618 According to Lucas,
this idea corresponds to evidence from other Later Iron Age Scandinavian noble residences.619
611
Sigurður Nordal 1945, vol. II, p. 66.
“Fram setti hon scutla fulla, silfri varða, setti á bióð, fán ok flesci oc fugla steicta; vín var í kǫnnu, varðir
kálcar; drucco oc dœmdo, dagr var á sinnom” (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 284).
613
Soð is mentioned as a food for pigs in Hjálmþés saga ok Ǫlvis (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol.
III, p. 250), in Víglundar saga (Íslenzk fornrit XIV, p. 69), and Helgakviða Hundingsbana 2, st. 39 (Neckel,
Kuhn 1983, p.158).
614
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 280.
615
The calf actually appears in strophe 4 but Dronke suggests that these words belong originally to the lost
strophe 18, as the second family had oxen and calves, but not the family of slaves (Dronke 1997, 218).
616
Sneglu-Halla þáttr appears also in Flateyjarbók, with some differences. See Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 304.
617
“Greppr þá dauðan gríss at gruntrauðustum ræsi; Njǫrðr bauglands sér bǫrg standa á borði fyr sér; lítk rauðar
runa síður; - ræðk slkjótgǫru kvæði -; seggr hefr brendan rana af svíni; send heill konungr” (Finnur Jónsson 1912,
p. 359).
618
Lucas 2009, p. 218.
619
Lucas 2009, p. 404.
612
103
The same seems to have applied in the Celtic world, where pork was also seen as proper food
for the courts of kings and the dwellings of gods.620 The possible magic function of pork will
be discussed further in the Chapter 10.2. in connection with rituals.
To sum up this chapter, here we see that swine appear in a diverse range of narratives,
heroic, aetiological or otherwise; and they appear in a diverse range of roles - whether it is as
a dangerous wild boar or a fertile breeder. In all cases, however, boars have an important role
in the plot rather than being merely decorative features. Nevertheless, there are some trends:
in some sagas (mostly riddarasögur and fornaldarsögur), for example, boars tend to appear
as enemies of the heroes, while in other sagas, swine mark a social boundary between the
poor and the rich. High class people eat pork, and own many pigs, while poor people are
associated with herding pigs. It might even be said that the poor are on the same level as pigs:
they not only have to herd them, but in Rígsþula eat the same food as them.
620
Ross 1967, p. 313.
104
6.0. Humans Reflecting the Swine in Names
The important role that the swine played within lives of Nordic people is reflected in the
number of expressions used for it in Old Norse. In addition to this, the origin of the words
used might also provide some further insight into the ways in which the swine, and
particularly the boar, was seen. Besides considering the range of words and their origin, it is
also worth considering their use and understanding, which might have changed over time.621
The following are the most common words for swine in Old Norse:
svín, villisvín, túnsvín
gylta, gyltr, sýr, göltr, galti, villigöltr,
gríss, runi, (jǫfurr)622.
There are also poetic names for them in Old Norse, most of which can be found in Snorra
Edda in the Þulur.623 Nonetheless, we know quite little about the real use of them. The heiti
used for the swine (svín) in poetry, according to Snorri are: sýr, gylta, runi, gǫltr, gríss.624
Svín is used as a common term for the swine; sýr and gylta representing the female swine,
runi and gǫltr, the male swine, and gríss the piglet. These terms are all common nouns which
appear often in the sagas.625 There is nonetheless a question whether Nordic people made a
difference between the domestic and the wild pig (as people draw differences between the dog
and the wolf): In Old Norse literature, the words gǫltr and galti (boar) and gylta and gyltr
(sow) are used almost without exception for both kinds of swine, while the words villigǫltr or
villisvín (wild boar, wild pig) are used only occasionally.626 It seems though that the words
jǫfurr or runi might have originally been used only for the wild boar. 627 It is noteworthy that
in Celtic languages, two different terms are used for the wild swine and the pig. 628 It is
nonetheless hard to say whether such a division existed in Old Norse. It is possible that the
621
This applies especially to the word sýr: see later in this chapter. I believe that the way in which people
understood words at different times was more important than the original etymology, because here we are
looking for people‟s beliefs at any given time, not merely the origins of words.
622
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 327.
623
These þulur are: Gǫltr, valglitnir, gríss, Hrímnir, svíntarr, runi, Sæhrímnir, bǫrgr, tarr, valbassi, røðr,
dritroði, þrór, vigrir, skunpr, Þrándr, vaningi (Faulkes 1998, vol. I., p. 132).
624
Faulkes 1998, vol. I., p. 90.
625
On the distribution of names for the pig in West Nordic languages, see further Bandle 1967, pp. 427-445.
626
Ásdís Magnúsdóttir 1999, p. 174.
627
The use and etymology of the word jǫfurr will be discussed later in this chapter. The reason for this is that
even though its original meaning was once “the wild boar”, jǫfurr rarely appears in the meaning of “wild boar”
in Old Norse literature (even in the þulur). See Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 327.
628
MacKillop 1998, p. 40.
105
difference became partly forgotten in Iceland (where most extant literature on Old Nordic
religion originates) because there were no wild pigs there, meaning there was no big need to
stress the difference in language. Certainly words like túnsvín and túngǫltr (used for home
pigs629 or field pigs) underline some form of difference, but these terms are not common in
literature.630 Another rarely-used word of this kind is tǫðugǫltr (lit. tethered boar), used for a
boar which was kept grazing at home.631
Svín is the word most commonly used in the sagas. If we consider its etymology, the
word is related to other Indo-European words such as the English swine, the German Schwein,
and the Latin suinus, and probably originates in Indo-European *su -īno-s.632 In Old Norse
literature, it also appears with the components villi- (wild) or hildi-, and val-, all of which are
connected to battle. The term alisvín (the prefix ali- being used for all tamed animals633) was
also used for the tamed swine but it does not appear in Old Norse literature except Stjórn.634
Like svín, the word sýr is closely related to words in related languages; the English sow, the
German sau and Latin sus.635
Gríss (piglet) has an uncertain etymological origin. According to Ásgeir Blöndal
Magnússon, it could be related to the ancient Irish grían (sun),636 or the Old Indic *gher- (to
cry)637. Another suggestion is that the word is related to the Old High German gris (grey).638
The names gǫltr or galti, gylta, gyltr have a common etymologic origin. 639 The
etymology of these names could be connected to the Old High German word gelzon which
has the same root as the verb gjalla, (to yell) points toward a likely origin of the word in the
629
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 13.
There are various examples of the use of this word in Grágás (Gunnar Karlsson, Kristján Sveinsson, Mörður
Árnason 1992, p. 299); Eyrbyggja saga (Íslenzk fornrit IV, p. 53); and Víga-Glúms saga (Íslenzk fornrit IX, p.
60).
631
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 621. The word is used in Flóamanna saga, in which a boar and later a bull are
killed by Þórr because the owner accepted Christianity. The boar is buried and no one is allowed eat its meat: As
the saga says: “Ok er Þorgils vaknar, sá hann, at töðugöltr hans var dauðr. Hann lét grafa hann hjá tóptum
nökkurum ok lét ekki af nýta. Enn barst Þórr í drauma Þorgilsi ok sagði, at honum væri eigi meira fyrir at taka
fyrir nasar honum en galta hans” [“töðugelti hans” in another manuscript] (Íslenzk fornrit XIII, pp. 274-275).
632
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 1003.
633
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 645.
634
Fritzner 1886, vol. I. p. 34.
635
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 1011.
636
The word might be grian: see Ó Dónaill 1977, p. 671. It is noteworthy that a possible connection between the
sun and the swine in Nordic mythology has been discussed by scholars: see further Chapter 3.2.2.
637
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 279.
638
Ásdís Magnúsdóttir 1999, p. 167.
639
Ásdís Magnúsdóttir 1999, p. 174.
630
106
sound made by the animal. A connection with the Scandinavian galt (castrated) and the
Icelandic verb gelda (castrate) is also possible.640
Runi is a word used for a wild boar641 or boar which has not been castrated.642 There is
a possible connection between this word and the nynorsk runa, or Norn ron, meaning “to be
sexually wild”, or “on heat”. Similar ideas may be reflected in the Swedish dialect words,
rånas, runas used for “mating”, and connected to sows (the idea of procreation). More certain
are connections with the word renna (to run, to flow), runa (row) and runi (flow).643 This
connection would seem to point to ideas concerning movement of the boar. However, some
relation to sexual side of the non-castrated boar is also logical, boars being well known for
their sexual potency.644
Besides the common terms noted above, it is worth also considering those words used
for the swine in Skaldic poetry. While poetry cannot be seen as representative of daily speech,
it gives some idea of which characteristics of the boar stood out both for the poets and their
audiences (who had to understand poetic imagery). If we look at the þulur concerning swine,
several characteristics of the boar are stressed:
Gǫltr valglitnir
gríss ok *Hrímnir
svíntarr runi
Sæhrímnir *bǫrgr
tarr valbassi
<røðr> dritroði
þrór vigrir skunpr
Þrándr vaningi. 645
To run over these heiti, Valglitnir (which appears only in the þulur) means “slaughtershiner” or “pleasant shiner”,646 the first meaning once again pointing towards battle.647
640
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 294.
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 503.
642
Bandle 1967, p. 429. In the First Grammatical Treatise, geltir (pl.) and runar are used as synonyms (Hreinn
Benediktsson 1972, p. 222).
643
Swedish orne (boar) could be of the same origin but this has been disputed. On these words, see further
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 779. See also Ordbok öfver Svenska Spräket XXIII 1962, pp. R3649-R3650.
644
Besides its listing in Snorra Edda, runi appears in Hyndluljóð, st. 5 and in Snegglu-Halla þáttr (Morkinskinna:
Íslenzk fornrit XXIII, p. 276.). In Hyndluljóð, st. 5, Freyja uses this word to call her boar, which is apparently her
lover, Óttarr. However, in the context of the poem, the idea of movement is also fitting, since the boar is
supposed to run with the wolf of Hyndla.
645
Faulkes 1998, vol. I., p. 132. Trans: “hog, slaughter-shiner, grice, Hrímnir, swine-tar, boar, Sæhrímnir,
barrow, shoat, slaughter-bear, dirt-treader, thriver, warlike, skunp, Thrond, (thriving), van-child” (Faulkes 1987,
p. 164). The þulur appear in four manuscripts of Snorra Edda: Codex Regius, AM 748 Ib 4to, AM 757 a 4to,
and AM 748 II 4to. They follow immediately on from Skáldskaparmál which implies that they belonged to it.
There are also a number of other words (or misreadings) for the swine in other manuscripts: see further Finnur
Jónsson 1931, p. 211.
641
107
Hrímnir, as the name for the boar appears only in the þulur. It is also used as a name for
a jǫtunn and appears a suffix in the other names (such as Sæhrímnir and Eldhrímnir),648 and
can be translated as “dark”, “sooty”, “rimy” or “screamer”, 649 suggesting a connection to
sound or colour. The word could be associated with either hrím (black soot) or hreimr
(scream), 650 the connection to the sound once again being most likely,
associations to colour also have logic.
651
although
652
Svíntarr also only appears in the þulur. Alone, the component tarr (or rarr) means
“stabber” or “poker”, 653 tarr perhaps being related to tarra or terra (to push, put) and tyrrinn
(irritable, snappish). There are obvious connections to the dangerous tusks of the boar, the
boar using its tusks to push at opponents. Relations to the Icelandic tara (battle, war) are also
possible.654 Connections to the Old Irish torc (swine) have also been discussed by Jan de
Vries.655
The word røðr, also written as rǫðr or rôðr, once again only appears in the þulur and
simply means “boar”.656 Its origin is also unclear, but it is related to the name Dritroði 657
(“dirt-treader”), ráði (boar)658, and the Gothic wrêþus, or wriþus (meaning a herd of swine).659
In spite of its inclusion in the þulur, the word tarr is not mentioned in Lexicon Poeticum, so it
is hard to say anything about its use in poetry.
According to Faulkes, the heiti, bǫrgr, used in Húsdrápa;660 together with the word
runi in Sneglu-Halla þáttr;661 and in Njáls saga as part of a kenning for Svínafell,662 means “a
646
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 420.
Birds of the prey are commonly given the prefix val-, as with valgjóðr (raven), valgammr (eagle), valfugl
(raven), and valþiðurr (raven) (Beck 1965, p 9). See also Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 589.
648
Grímnismál in Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 60. See Chapter 5.5.1.
649
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 318.
650
Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 284.
651
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 373.
652
The connection of between the boar and the colour black is quite widespread. For example, in Czech, the wild
swine is called “černá zvěř”, meaning “the black game”. It is also called swarzwild in German.
653
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 413.
654
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 1028
655
. See further De Vries 1962, p. 582.
656
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 380.
657
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 259.
658
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 737.
659
Lehmann 1986, p. 411. Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 788.
660
Finnur Jónsson 1912, p. 129.
661
Both words are used for the same pig. The verses deal with this pig which was eaten, so it probably did not
matter whether the boar was castrated, or not. The poet also calls it gríss and svín (Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 275).
Finnur Jónsson 1912, p. 359.
662
Íslenzk fornrit XII, p. 411.
647
108
castrated boar” or “a barrow”.663 The English word barrow is etymologically related, as is the
Old English bearg, and borg as well, 664 although a connection to verb berja is also
possible.665
The use of the word vaningi for the boar is of particular interest because it seems to
suggest a connection to the Vanir, and especially the god Freyr, the latter idea stemming from
the fact that it is used for Freyr in Skírnismál, st. 37.666 Apart from this, the word only appears
in the þulur. With regard to the potential relationship with the Vanir, Barði Guðmundsson has
suggested (as part of a discussion of “swine worship”) that Vaningi is a synonym for Freyr, as
Sýr (sow) is a synonym for Freyja (regarding Sýr, see further Chapter 6.2.).667 Dronke has
said that the boar was probably called by this name because it was a sacrificial animal related
to the Vanir,668 vaningi also having the potential meaning of “son of the Vanir”.669 Different
approaches have been taken by Faulkes who gives another possible translation “Van-born”, or
“castrated”;670 and by Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon who similarly relates the word to the verb
vana (to castrate), seeing vaningi as being a “castrated pig”.671
The heiti valbassi is formed from the prefix val- “slaughter” and the word bassi
meaning “bear” or “wild boar”672 Like many of the other heiti, this word also appears only in
the þulur.
Vigrir probably means “bearing spears”, referring to tusks, or simply meaning
“warlike”.673 While its origin is unclear, it is most commonly connected to vigr (spear) or the
verb vigra (bend), although some scholars think it can be related to the Old High German
weigar (opposite, contrary, or tough, formidable) or the Icelandic vega (to kill) or veigra (to
evade doing something).674
663
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 255. Actually, “barrow” is expression for the early castrated boar (Bennett 1970, p.
223).
664
"barrow, n.2". OED Online. March 2011. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/15782?p=emailA/jpjm3oM3YZw&d=15782 (accessed May 17, 2011).
665
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, pp. 101-102.
666
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 76.
667
Barði Guðmundsson 1959, p. 200.
668
Dronke suggests a possibility that the use of the name might be understood as an insult (Dronke 1997, p.
413).
669
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 255.
670
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 421.
671
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 1104.
672
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 43. For comparison, see Danish basse (Kalkar 1976, vol. I, pp. 110-111).
See below on how the words for bears and boar are sometimes confused.
673
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 428.
674
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 1134.
109
Skunpr or skunkr675 is simply translated as “a boar”.676 The origin of the word is once
again uncertain: it might be related to the modern Norwegian skunka (to push, or shove) or the
Swedish dialect skunka, meaning also “to push”, but also “to run” or “to limp, or hobble”, or
“to dandle”.677
Þrándr (or þróndr) means “thriving” and is probably related to name Þrór (see next
paragraph). It is probably drawn from the word þróa (to develop, evolve), developing into
*þrōwand- (plump, fleshy, corpulent, portly).678 It also appears as a name for some characters
in the sagas.679
The closely-related Þrór also appears in Old Norse texts as a name for Óðinn, a dwarf,
a sword and a boar 680 and it means “thriver” or “tempered”, 681 or “a powerful or potent
man.”682According to McKinnell, it is derived from the word þróask (to thrive, be fruitful).683
Like all of the last-mentioned names, Þrór in the meaning of a boar only appears only in the
þulur.
Although the þulur mention several names for the boar, probably both wild and
domestic, little is known about their use because, as with the words examined above, most of
them only appear here. There is no other contextual evidence from poetry about how they
were used. Nevertheless, from the above examination, it is possible to see which aspects of
the boar the heiti stress. They mostly refer to the dangerous side of the boar or are connected
to battle (valglitnir, vigrir, valbassi, svíntarr) and are sometimes also connected to the colour
of the boar or its sound (hrímnir, gríss, gǫltr). The only heiti that might refer to the idea of
675
Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 514.
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 394.
677
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 874. Hellquist 1980, vol. II, p. 720.
678
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 1195.
679
Faulkes mentions Eiríks saga viðfǫrla and Skjǫldunga saga in this connection (Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 525).
680
Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 647.
681
Faulkes 1998, vol. II, p. 436.
682
Sundqvist 2000, p. 144.
683
The name Þrór appears first as a name for Freyr (see Ynglingatal, st. 35, ll. 1-3: “niðkvísl Þrórs” [“the branch
of Þrór‟s descent”]) but later, and more often, as a name for Óðinn, probably in the meaning of “the (sexually)
prolific” (McKinnell 2005, p. 148). McKinnell disagrees with Finnur Jónsson who suggested that Þrór was
always an Óðinn name, the boar-name being connected to the svínfylking wedge formation. According to Finnur
Jónsson, the name in the sense of “the fat, stout one” could hardly be the name for a boar. He refers to the quote
from Grímnismál, st. 49, “Þrór at þingum” (= Odin) where the meaning of the name seems to be “he that lets
(matters) thrive”. Nonetheless, Finnur admits a possible transference from Freyr, who, to his mind, has a special
relationship with the boar, just as Freyja has to the sow (Finnur Jónsson 1919, p. 312). McKinnell stresses that
Finnur Jónsson ignores the instance of the name in Ynglingatal. According to McKinnell, the relationship to
Freyr was probably the original one, this being supported by the fact that Ynglinga saga contains text which is
not in Ynglingatal. Snorri‟s text in Ynglinga saga should therefore be seen more as an interpretation of the poem,
containing additional material (McKinnell 2005, p. 148). The opinion that Þrór was originally a name for Freyr
was earlier suggested by Falk, who interprets Þrór as meaning “the plump one”, related to þróask (to increase in
magnitude or size, grow, mature, thrive): Falk 1924, p. 31.
676
110
fertility are Þrándr and Þrór, but these might also be seen as relating to sexual power, more
like runi probably was. Those heiti which refer to the castrated boar (bǫrgr and possibly
vaningi and gǫltr) certainly point toward the domestic pig (wild boars were naturally not
castrated), but have little application to fertility.
Although information about the context of the use of the heiti is usually missing, the
fact that the only names present in the þulur are those of male swine nonetheless shows that
the boar was more important than the sow. One also notes that the connection to battle stands
out above other characteristics. This idea is supported by the fact that several heiti for helmets
also bear the name of the boar (see further Chapter 8.3.1.). For now, however, it is worth
noting that the helmet is more often connected to the boar than it is to any other animal,684
something that echoes the battle aspect of the animal reflected in the vocabulary.
6.1. The Boar in Personal Names
As already have been noted, the number of words used for the boar shows the important role
they played in humans‟ lives. This importance is also expressed by the use of boar names as
personal names. The origin of such a tradition could have been in a belief that when being
given an animal name, an individual takes a quality of an animal on himself. Jennbert has
suggested that animal names reflected the idea of human-animal transformation, and perhaps
a belief in the possession of animal powers by those bearing the name of the animal.685
Nevertheless, Woolf has argued that compound names do not necessarily reflect any
special meaning. To his mind, such names are simply made out of two components commonly
used in the names. They probably originally had some meaning but over time, this meaning
was lost.686 In spite of this, the Íslendingasögur contain several examples which reflect the
way people thought about their names, many of which suggest that they felt their names had
the meaning, including compound names. Here once again, I must stress that it is not
684
All the same, one of the helmet heiti is “fík-Móinn”. According to Grímnismál, st. 34, Móinn is the name of a
snake who bites the roots of Yggdrasill. Snake names are commonly used for swords: see Hatto 1957, pp. 145155. Anthony Faulkes translates “fík-Móinn” as meaning “Eager-brown” (Faulkes 1987, p. 160).
685
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
686
Woolf looks at many genealogies from the Germanic area, and observes three rules of name-giving: The first
is alliteration, where the names of children alliterate with the names of the parents. The second involves variation
where one component of the names is altered, meaning that they do not always alliterate. The third involves
direct repetition, where the same name is reused in the family (Woolf 1939, p. 263). See also Beck 1965, pp. 70109.
111
important whether the stories about name-giving are true or not: more important is that those
people who were telling the sagas thought they were true.
A good example of such name-giving occurs in Vatnsdæla saga, in which Ingimundr
gives names to his children after looking at them and evaluating their characters. 687 Evidence
from Svarfdæla saga supports the same importance of name giving, the belief being that
names offer good luck: “…góð heill mun fylgja nafni.”688 Elsewhere, the sagas indicate that a
name that did not fit the character of a person could be changed.689
Víglundar saga gives a good example of the understanding of animal names and their
relationship to human names in Víglundr‟s words: “Þat þykir mér ráð, bróðir, þar er vit eigum
sökótt, at þú nefnist Hrafn, en ek Örn.” 690 Here, the name might have a meaning, the
indication being that person is believed to have qualities of the animal. The raven and the
eagle are powerful birds, and this would indicate that the brothers Víglundr and Trausti might
take the names Hrafn and Örn to be more powerful. However, this could also be merely to
disguise themselves. Nevertheless, I think it is logical to expect that similar beliefs about
other animals and people existed, even though there are no other examples like this one. It is
noteworthy that those animal names which appear in Germanic personal names tend to be the
names of powerful and fighting animals.691 Jennbert mentions that according to extant sources,
in the naming of both males and females, the bear, the wolf, the eagle and the serpent
dominated, while the wild boar, the raven, the beaver, the fox, the hawk, the falcon and the
sparrow appeared less. Nonetheless, she has pointed out that animal names are more often
used for men than for women. She suggests that the animal qualities of speed, strength and
courage might be behind this.692 In this connection, it is also noteworthy that those animals
mainly present in personal names also appear in high numbers in the art of the area, as Speake
687
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, pp. 36-37.
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 140. See further Beck1965, p. 70.
689
Snorri goði was originally called Þorgrímr after his dead father but his name was later changed to Snorri
(Snerrir) because of his character which involved him in conflicts. According to the editors of the saga, the name
means “wild”, or “unruly” (Eyrbyggja saga in Íslenzk fornrit IV, p. 20). In a similar way, Styrr in Eyrbyggja
saga was originally named Arngrímr, but it is said that “hann var ofstopamaðr mikill ok fullr ójafnaðar, ok fyrir
því var hann Styrr kallaðr” (Íslenzk fornrit IV, p. 21). The word styrr means war. Elsewhere in the same saga, we
hear of a man called Hrólfr who was a big friend of god Þórr, and thus changed his name to Þórólfr: Eyrbyggja
saga in Íslenzk fornrit IV, p. 6. Hrólfr simply added the prefix Þór- to his name, after his favourite god. Ynglinga
saga also refers to how people understood their names saying: “Eptir Óðins nafni var kallaðr Auðun, ok hétu
menn svá sonu sína, en af Þórs nafni er kallaðr Þórir eða Þórarinn eða dregit af ǫðrum heitum til, svá sem
Steinþórr eða Hafþórr, eða enn breytt á fleiri vega” (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 20).
690
Íslenzk fornrit XIV, p. 106.
691
Hedeager 2004, p. 233.
692
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
688
112
mentions.693 The same applies to myths, according to Müller.694 Other research into animal
names has been carried out by Glosecki, who suggests that people named their children after
ferocious animals because of the apotropaic function of such names.695 He sees the totemic
ideas lying behind names such as Björn, Bera, Eofor, Wulf, Hjort, Svann and Ottr and
suggests that these names reflect the desire for these animals to protect the child.696 Wagner,
meanwhile, considers that:
Whether personal names are conceived of as a relation between the bearer of the name and some
phenomenal entity, we can consider naming itself to be a form of individual totemism. 697
The wild boar is one of these ferocious animals mentioned above which sometimes
appears in personal names. In the Old Norse, these names are related to the word jǫfurr; in
Old English, eofor; and, in German, Eber. These words probably originate from the ProtoGermanic *eburaR. 698 From Swedish runic inscriptions, the forms iufur, iafar, and iofur
appear; 699 names which are usually translated as a “wild boar”. 700 The name sometimes
appears alone but usually appears as a part of compound names. Within Scandinavia, it is
noteworthy that the element jǫfur- is a common first element in East-Nordic names, notably in
Swedish runic inscriptions where it appears as part of both male and female names.701 In this
context, Peterson has pointed out that the names with the component Jǫfur- appear only in
Uppland.702 It can hardly be a coincidence that this same area was well connected with the
cult of Freyr, and finds of artefacts bearing boar images. 703 From here, the female names
Jǫfurfǫst or Jǫfurfast appear eight times, and Jǫfurfríðr appears twice. Male names are
693
Speake mentions the frequent combinations of components in Germanic names: eagle + boar, eagle + boar +
wolf, and eagle + serpent (Speake 1980, p. 78).
694
Müller 1970, p. 195.
695
Glosecki 1989, p. 188. Neil Price also mentions a possibility of some form of totemic animal possibly having
a key role in the family when wolf- elements appear over three generations in a rune inscription. In support, he
mentions a rune stone from Istaby, Mjälby parish, Blekinge (DR 359) (Price 2002, p. 373).
696
Glosecki 1989, p. 189.
697
Wagner 1987, p. 575.
698
The word is also related to other words in other Indo-European languages, such as the Latin name aper, and
the Old Slavonic veprĭ (Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 436).
699
The transcriptions of these names vary in form, and are discussed in more detail in literature on personal
names: See further Lind 1905-1915, pp. 666-667; Müller 1970, pp. 18-19; Schlaug 1962, pp. 81-82.
700
Halldór Halldórsson 1975, p. 19.
701
Peterson 2002, p. 747. See further Wessén 1927, pp. 98 and 106-107.
702
Peterson 2002, p. 748.
703
See further Chapters 8.2, 8.3 and 11.
113
Jǫfurbjǫrn (one case), and Jǫfurr (ten cases).704 There is only one example of this appearing in
in the West-Nordic area, but this has not been convincingly proven.705
It is nonetheless noteworthy that names containing the related components, eofor- and
Ebur-, appear in Anglo-Saxon or Old German names. Eofor is a name known from Beowulf, l.
2486.706 Although Owen-Crocker suggested that Eofor is not a historical Old-English name,
which does not appear in any extant poetry outside Beowulf,707 it is worth remembering that
Beowulf concerns Scandinavian legends, and that it is more natural to look for the origins of
names there rather than in England. Indeed, while there are some names in Britain that have
eofor- as their first component, they all seem to be of the Scandinavian origin. The female
name Jórhildr appears in England as Joril (perhaps from Jorun) or Jorild. 708 Similarly, the
English names Everard and Evert are also derived from eofor. These names possibly originate
in the Swedish forms Iuvar or Iafur, known from the runic inscriptions.709 Other examples of
“boar” names from elsewhere using the same root are, for instance, the Old High German
Ebarolf (related to the Old Norse Jórúlfr),710 and the Gothic Everhardur.711
There is no need to mention all the “boar” personal names in the Germanic world, but
it is worth mentioning certain other types which are perhaps not so obviously connected to the
boar. These include those names (like some of those noted above) involving the component
Jór- which, according to some scholars, are also related to Jǫfurr (as opposed to Jó-, meaning
“horse”.
712
This element appears in several names, in both Swedish and Norwegian
inscriptions,713 and in Old Icelandic literature, where female names such as Jóra, Jóreiðr and
Jórunn, related to Jǫfurr, appear Landnámabók. 714 Male names of this kind are Jórúlfr, 715
Jórmann and Jórmundur. 716 Other names probably relating to the boar (Old Norse jǫfurr,
704
Peterson 2002, p. 748.
Fellows-Jensen 1968, p. 158. This example is from Södermanland (Peterson 2002, p. 748).
706
Heaney, 2000, pp. 168-169.
707
Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 265.
708
Fellows-Jensen 1968, p. 158.
709
Fellows-Jensen 1968, p. 158.
710
Beck 1965, p. 81, and p. 83.
711
For more examples, see further Beck 1965, pp. 81-83 and Müller 1970, pp. 20-21; Schlaug 1962, pp. 81-82.
712
Jór alone means a horse, but in components, this word appears as Jó-. On the other hand, the word for boar is
Jórr, derived from jǫfurr (the Proto-Germanic *Eƀura-), and in components this appears as Jór- (Müller 1970, p.
20). See also Janzén 1947 pp. 83- 84, Guðrún Kvaran, Sigurður Jónsson 1991, pp. 347-348.
713
Peterson 2002, p. 748.
714
Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 478. See also Guðrún Kvaran 2002, p. 233.
715
Müller 1970, p. 20.
716
The name Jórmundur is quite young (Guðrún Kvaran 2002, p. 236).
705
114
proto-Germanic *ebur-) are Ebbi or the female Ebba.717 Nevertheless, as Guðrún Kvaran and
Sigurður Jónsson have noted, the name Ebbi might represent a shortening of bear names, such
as Esbjørn, and Ærnibjørn, or the shortening of names beginning with Eber-. 718 A similar
problem appears in names with the Germanic root bēr- or pēr-, which might be related to the
“boar” or to the “bear”, since these two words are very similar.719 It is important to note that
the evidence of many of these Old Norse names would relate only to the position of boars in
the time of Common Germanic or Proto-Norse: as I discuss below, Old Norse jǫfurr seems to
have lost the sense “boar”, coming to mean “prince” (see Chapter 6.1.1.).
In addition to the above, it is possible that names with the first component *rana, Old
Norse rani (snout), might be possibly be seen as “boar” names. In this context, Beck lists the
East-Gothic female names Ranildi and Ranihildi,720 although this argument is not as certain as
those given above.
Continuing with the discussion of what animal names like this might have meant to
people in Pre-Christian Germanic Europe, and whether these names might be related to any
kind of religious belief, it is necessary to look at certain characters in Old English and Old
Norse literature, and consider to degree to which their descriptions reflect the animals they are
named after. One of the main “boar” characters known in literature is Eofor, the Geatish hero
mentioned in Beowulf, ll. 2486 and 2964,721 alongside his brother Wulf. In the poem, the
brothers both fight King Ongentheow and Eofor kills him. Owen-Crocker has pointed out that
both brothers have “beastly” characters.722 The connection between Eofor and the real boar
became clearer when the Beowulf account is compared to Ynglingatal, which most probably
deals at one point with the same characters. Ongentheow corresponds to King Egill who,
according to Ynglingatal, st. 17, was killed by a bull or, according to some scholars, by a boar.
Snorri talks of a bull in Ynglinga saga,723 and another reference to the bull appears in Historia
717
Ebba is a female name, and according to Guðrún Kvaran and Sigurður Jónsson, it reflects a German
shortening of names which begin with Eber-. Guðrún and Sigurður give the following names as examples:
Eberfried, Ebergunde and Ebertraut. The name Eberstína also exists, but this only came to Iceland in the 19 th
century (Guðrún Kvaran, Sigurður Jónsson 1991, pp. 189-190).
718
Guðrún Kvaran, Sigurður Jónsson 1989, p. 189.
719
Müller 1970, pp. 22-23.
720
Beck mentions other Germanic names with animal and battle components: For example, Gundwulf, Hildwulf,
and Ebremuth. According to Beck, there is a possible connection between names with the component *rana and
battle because of the svínfylking formation, the front of which is called rani (a snout) (Beck 1965, p. 42). On the
svínfylking, see further Chapter 7.4.
721
Heaney, 2000, pp. 168-169 and pp. 198-199.
722
Owen-Crocker 2007, pp. 261-262. In comparison, it is worth noting that in the Anglo-Saxon poem Wulf, it is
not clear whether the character called Wulf is actually a man or a wolf. See further North 1991, p. 45.
723
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 52-53.
115
Norwegiae.724 Nonetheless, Snorri‟s source was doubtless Ynglingatal, the words of which
might be interpreted differently:
Ok lofsæll
ór landi fló
Týs Óttungr
Tunna ríki.
En Flæming farra trjónu
jǫtuns eykr
á Agli rauð,725
Although in his prose account of the same events, Snorri uses the word griðungr, the
description here could equally apply to a boar.726 How could a boar and a bull be confused?
The answer is in an interpretation of Henrik Schück, who shows that the word farri
(bullock) 727 used in the fifth line of the strophe, means a boar in a Swedish dialect. 728
Chambers notes how these two words were related, the bull being fearr in Old English while
the boar is fearh (see note 728). In the case of this strophe, Chambers feels that the word
trjóna (snout) points in favour of the boar.729 Schück and Nerman also interpret these words
as referring to a boar.730 Considering also the evidence from Beowulf, I see this argument as
being quite logical. It also shows how, men with animal names could become confused with
real animals This in turn underlines how, in the views of some people, animals and people
with animal names were seen as standing close to each other.731
Another reference to a man with a boar name comes from Latin sources; an account
which is quite similar to the examples given above. The account also tells of two brothers, one
of whom is called “boar”. This figure first appears in Historia Langobardorum by Paulus
Diaconus in the shape of a man called Ibor.
724
732
In the anonymous Origo gentis
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 52, and Ekrem, Mortensen 2003, p.76.
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 52-53.
726
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 52.
727
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 144.
728
Schück points to similar forms used for the boar in other languages: porcus in Latin, ferkel in German, fargalt in Swedish, farh in Old German and fearth in Anglo-Saxon (Schück 1905, p. 107).
729
According to Chambers, it is hardly an accident that Ongentheow (Egill in Ynglingatal, st. 17) is said in one
case to be slain by a warrior called Eofor (Boar), and in another by an actual boar (Chambers 1932, pp. 411-412,
n. 2).
730
Phillpotts 1920, p. 167. According to Phillpotts, Egill was killed by a boar. However, Phillpotts also connects
this animal to the slave Tunni, who overcame Egill for some time. According to her, Tunni is also a name for a
boar (Phillpotts 1920, p. 169). We can also consider connections with the Gothic tunþus (tooth) (De Vries 1957,
p. 186; see also Köbler 1989, p. 530). See further Näsström 1995, p. 153-154, Owen-Crocker 2007, pp. 257-280.
731
See Näsström 1995, p. 154.
732
Schwarz 2009, pp. 116, and 120.
725
116
Langobardorum, the same figure is called Ybor. 733 Turville-Petre states that Ibor and his
brother came from Scandinavia.734 Otherwise so little is known about them that it is a little
difficult to connect them directly to the examples given above or say what kind of man Ibor
was.
A little more evidence about the idea of an animal living behind an animal name
comes from Þiðreks saga, which has a hero called Vildifer. The saga itself states directly that
the name means “wild boar”:
Þat jartegnir hans búnaðr villigöltr. Þat er á þýðesku Vildifer. Fyrir því er hann kallaðr svá, at hann
er aldrigi með sínum frændum ok eigi á sinni fóstrjörðu, heldr jafnan með útlenzkum höfðingjum.
Villigöltr er allra dýra fræknastr ok verstr við at eiga, þeim er veiðir. 735
Nonetheless, the research into the etymological origin of this name shows that it might
originally have been derived from wildi bero (wild bear) or even Vildivèr (wild man). 736
Indeed, there are still signs of confusion about this matter of the bear or the boar present in the
saga, which gives Vildifer both boar and bear attributes.737 The main point, however, is that,
according to the saga, it was believed that the boar stands behinds the name. 738 As noted
above, the understanding of both the saga authors and their audiences needs to be borne in
mind as part of the interpretation. It certain seems clear that in the case of the Old Norse name
Jǫfurr, there were different understandings of the name in later times, even though the name
originally meant “boar”. The word thus demands particular discussion, something that will
take place in the next section.
733
Bracciotti 1998, pp. 105-106.
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 72.
735
Guðni Jónsson 1954, vol. I, pp. 252- 253.
736
The interpretation of Vildifer (written also Vildiver or Willifer) as the wild bear also appears in The Low
German epic fragment, Van bere Wisselaue (Gentry et al. 2002, p. 137).
737
The saga states: “... á hans skildi er skrifaðr einn göltr ok einn björn með dökkrauðum lit... En björn er fyrir
því á hans vápnum, at þar með hrósar hann því, at hann kallaðist einn björn, þá er hann leysti út sinn félaga
Viðga” (Guðni Jónsson 1954, pp. 252-253).
738
It should be mentioned that Rydberg saw many more characters as being related to the boar. He mentions that
one of Vǫlundr‟s brothers was given the epithet “Aurnir”, another name which Rydberg sees as meaning “wild
boar” (Rydberg 1891, p. 647). This figure is probably comparable to one of Þjassi‟s brothers, who Rydberg calls
Ebur (based on the name of the jǫtunn Aurnir, (Urnir), which Rydberg understands as a boar, coming from the
Swedish word orne, related to Old Icelandic runi (Rydberg 1891, p. 658), and connects with the names Ibor,
Wild-Ebur, Villefer and Ebbo: See Rydberg 1891, pp. 583-586). On Rydberg‟s approach, see further Chapter 3.1.
734
117
6.1.1. Jǫfurr: Name and Heiti
Old Norse literature makes several references to figures called Jǫfurr. According to
Skáldskaparmál, one of the sons of Hálfdan gamli was called Jǫfurr. 739 He and all of his
brothers have names which have the meaning of “ruler”. This seems to be an aetiological
myth, explaining why the rulers are called jǫfurr. 740 The same person appears in Hversu
Noregr byggðist, which includes another two persons called Jǫfurr (one is said to be called
Jǫfurr or Jǫsurr).741 Otherwise, as has been shown above, the word was most often used in
compound names. In the Old Norse, the word is more often used as a heiti for a ruler, or a
prince, than as a personal name. A central question is whether the poets using this name still
saw it as reflecting the original meaning of “boar” or not. According to Cleasby and
Guðbrandur Vigfússon, jǫfurr only appears twice or thrice in poetry in the meaning of a
boar.742 According to Sundqvist, the heiti could have its origin in the custom of wearing the
boar helmets. To his mind, while jǫfurr can be translated as “prince, wild boar”, it may thus
be an appellation for a boar helmet.743 A separation between the two concepts is nonetheless
seen in the Anglo-Saxon, where the word eofur or eofor means “wild boar” while eodur,
eodor is used for prince, or protector.744
It is possible that the sense of jǫfurr as “boar” might have been forgotten in the
Scandinavian languages, and that the sense of “warrior, prince” was probably unknown in the
other Germanic languages outside the Scandinavian. 745 To stress the idea that for Nordic
people jǫfurr was already becoming more connected to the prince than to the boar, it is worth
remembering that even though the etymological origin of jǫfurr as a boar is commonly
accepted, the word jǫfurr does not appear among the heiti for the boar given by Snorri; it only
739
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p.101.
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p.101, on the heiti jǫfurr, See further Beck 1965, pp. 183-195.
741
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 139. The name Jǫsurr is not so well known. Its meaning
could be “hare” (Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 328), but most dictionaries do not mention it at all. There is a
question of whether it is simply a misreading of Jǫfurr as the letters “f” and “s” look similar in some medieval
scripts but I have not checked this case in detail.
742
Cleasby and Guðbranður Vigfússon mention two cases in which jǫfurr is used in the meaning of a boar in
poetry, in Merlínússpá, st. 39 (“sá es brezkr jǫfurr”), and in Guðrúnarkviða in forna, st. 24 (Cleasby, Vigfusson
1874, p. 327); Guðrúnarkviða in forna, st. 24: “Enn þá gleymðo er getir hǫfðo ǫll iofurs iórbjúg í sal” (Neckel,
Kuhn 1983, p. 228).
743
Sundqvist 2000, p. 141. See also Alexander Jóhannesson 1956, p. 55, and Hellquist 1980, vol. I, p. 420. It
might be added that helmets were, of course, not a common part of warrior equipment, and were only owned by
noble men (see further Chapter 8.3.).
744
Hall 1962, p. 105.
745
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 327.
740
118
appears here as a heiti for a prince. 746 In Old Norse poetry, there is also a great deal of
evidence for the heiti jǫfurr, and there is no need to mention all the examples. It is nonetheless
interesting to see whether the heiti jǫfurr appears more often in poetry concerning Swedish
people or others connected to the cult of the Vanir. One notes that among the kenningar for
the rulers are Svía jǫfurr (the ruler of the Svear) and jǫfurr sænskr (a Swedish ruler).747
However, in spite of this, most indications are that the original meaning had probably
been lost in Old Norse, something indicated still further by the fact that jǫfurr appears so
often in Old Norse poetry, not only in Ynglingatal, but also among the kenningar for the
Christian god or Christ.748 To my mind, this gives a strong indication that the meaning must
have changed: It seems highly unlikely that any Christian believer would have considered
comparing the Christian god or his son to a boar. In general, the evidence concerning the heiti
jǫfurr suggests that it originally referred to the boar, in the sense of its being a noble and
powerful animal, and then developed into a heiti for the ruler and the prince.749
6.2. The Domestic Swine in Names and Bynames
Although the symbolism of names in Nordic Europe seems to focus on wild and powerful
animals, something which is also very apparent in their appearance in art and mythology, it is
nevertheless worth noting that a few examples of personal names possibly connected with the
domestic boar also exist. These, however, are not as common and have mostly disappeared.
Most of these names are mentioned solely in Landnámabók,750 and their authenticity has been
doubted.751
The name Galti, which means “a boar”, is a variant of the word gǫltr (see further
Chapter 6.0). It is noteworthy that Landnámabók mentions five persons bearing that name.
One of these is a person called Galti Grísson, 752 a name which could point to the family
having a particular relationship to the boar. The name Gríss means “a piglet” but could also
746
Faulkes 1998 vol. II, p. 331; Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, pp. 330-331.
Ynglingatal, st. 23 and 26 (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 74); see also Sundqvist 2000, p. 46.
748
Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 331. See also Beck 1965, p. 184.
749
With regard to the idea of the boar as a noble animal, it is noteworthy how often the boar was used as an
emblem of medieval noble families, For example, the English king Richard III had the wild boar as his emblem
(Phillips 2007, p. 384).
750
Peterson 2002, p. 746.
751
Peterson 2002, p. 746.
752
Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 458.
747
119
have the same meaning as galti,753 which explains why it was used as a male name.754 There
are eleven men called Galti in the Íslendingasögur, 755 including three from Landnámabók
who also appear in the Íslendingasögur.756 Interestingly enough, the names Galti and Gríss do
not appear in Fornaldarsögur Norðurlanda nor in Heimskringla. Nevertheless, there is some
evidence of a few persons named Galti and Gríss outside Iceland.757 It is also worth noting
that while the name Galti was still used some time after the Conversion, it later disappeared,
something that also applies to other names which only appear only in old sources, like Rjúpa,
Hafr, Lambi, Refr.758
There might be several reasons for why people ceased using these names. The change
of religion might be one reason, the new ideology having changed people‟s attitudes towards
animals. On the other hand, as Sørensen has pointed out, personal names themselves did not
change after Christianization; what happened was that some Christian names started to gain
popularity.759 It is certainly clear that compound names formed from the names of heathen
gods and wild animals were still used after the conversion. This, however, does not alter the
possibility that the change of religion might have influenced attitudes towards tame animals.
Since wild animals are not under human control, they retain their symbolic power. Tamed
animals are, on the other hand, controlled and could become a source of insults, even though
this does not happen very often. One notes, however, a few jokes about the name Gríss in
Íslendingasögur, as in the following:
Karl hljóp þá út at Grísi ok hjó hann í sundr í tvá með sverðinu ok mælti: „Svá brytju vér grísina,
Grundarmenn, aldrei meir en í tvá.“760
Another joking reference is contained in Hallfreðar saga where a person called Gríss is once
talked about as being a pig (grísinn):
Hræðisk þú nú grísinn, ok væri betra at hafa tekit fyrr gott ráð, þá er hann mælti vel til, en nú mun
virt af óvinum þínum sem þú þorir eigi at berjask. 761
753
Fritzner 1886, vol. I, p. 648.
Simek mentions the name of a gýgr who in one of the the þulur is called Grisla (piglet). Nonetheless, he notes
that in other manuscripts, the name is Gnissa (Simek 1993, p. 119). Grissa actually only appears in C: AM 748 II
4to: see Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 195.
755
Guðni Jónsson 1968, pp. 45-46.
756
Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 461.
757
Müller 1970, p. 21.
758
Guðrún Kvaran 2002, p. 238.
759
Sørensen 1990, p. 395.
760
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 178.
761
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 192.
754
120
The existence of such jokes shows certainly how the name was understood. Naturally, the
same source of humour would not have come from names like Hrafn or Úlfr.
The different character of (and attitudes to) domestic animals is stressed still further by
the way they appear in bynames. In the case of bynames, the relationship between the name
and the animal seems to be clearer. The person was probably given the name because people
saw some connection between the recipient and the animal in question. Unfortunately, not all
of these bynames have explanations, but in most cases, the byname is derived from the
person‟s character or an event. Usually the byname has the pejorative sense, which is
supported by fact that in bynames, only domestic animals appear. While the names of wild
animals were probably originally used to protect the person who was given such a name,
domestic animals do not seem to have that function: bynames may conceal an insult. It should
be remembered that people do not choose their own bynames: other people do this and usually
have a reason for doing it. As noted above, in most cases, the sagas usually do not explain the
reasons behind bynames. On the other hand, bynames such as gylta (sow), ræf (fox) and get
(goat) seem to reflect certain personal characteristics. 762 For example, Finnur Jónsson has
suggested that Svína-Grímr and Svína Bǫðvarr were probably given their names because they
had more swine than the others did. However, this does not apply to Svína-Pétr because he
was given this name after his father, Svína-Stefán: 763 Indeed, as Melefors has noted, bynames
were sometimes adopted by the next generation.764
To give some examples of bynames mentioning swine, Gríss (piglet) is often used as a
byname, appearing ten times in this role in Icelandic and Scandinavian sources. 765 Gǫltr is
used in this way only once,766 while the name Galti appears as a byname eight times.767 The
byname Gylta is also used a few times,768 as is purka which means “a sow”.769 Other bynames
connected to the pig are svínskegg (“pig beard”), 770 svínhǫfði (“pig head”), and svínbógr
(“pig‟s shoulder”).771 The byname stranda-svín, meanwhile, is connected to the place name
762
Melefors 2002, p. 969.
On pig bynames, see Finnur Jónsson 1907, pp. 304-305.
764
Melefors mentions the byname Ræf (fox) which later went on to become a name for a noble family (Fääf)
(Melefors 2002, p. 969).
765
Lind 1920-21, p. 119.
766
Lind 1920-21, p. 128.
767
Lind 1920-21, p. 98.
768
Lind 1920-21, p. 127.
769
Lind 1920-21, p. 283.
770
Lind 1920-21, p. 283.
771
Lind 1920-21, p. 283. In the Melabók manuscript of Landnámabók, Sigurðr svínhǫfði is called Sigurðr svíni
(Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 116-117). Neckel, meanwhile, has discussed a connection between Sigurður svínhǫfði and
svínfylking (see further Chapter 7.4.). This formation was referred to in Latin as a “pig head” (caput porci).
763
121
Strandir and probably has an ironic meaning.772 Otherwise, it is hard to say whether many of
these bynames had a positive or negative meaning. Nonetheless, the suggestion is that pig
bynames were rather pejorative.
One example of this negative view of the pig might be seen in the byname of King
Sigurðr sýr of Norway, whose byname is understood to mean “sow”. There are several
references in the sagas which make fun of Sigurðr‟s byname. Hreiðars þáttr in particular
suggests that this byname was pejorative: Hreiðar makes a beautiful swine out of gold and
silver and gives it to the King Magnús. The king likes it until he sees that it is not a boar but a
sow. He gets angry, probably because he thinks that Hreiðar is making fun of his father,
Sigurðr sýr.773 Another understanding of the same byname appears in Stúfs þáttr which tells
of a man called Stúfr Kattarson (“the son of the Cat”). King Haraldr harðráði asks Stúfr
whether his father was a cat. Stúfr does not want to answer and starts to laugh. The king, who
is the son of Sigurðr sýr, later understands why, saying:
Þess get ek, at þú myndir því ætla at svara mér, at faðir minn var eigi svín, þó at hann væri sýr kallaðr,
en ek mynda því leita þessa dœma, at ek ætlaða, at þú myndir eigi djǫrfung til hafa at svara mér þessu,
alls ek mátta þat vita, at faðir þinn myndi eigi kǫttr vera, þó at hann væri svá kallaðr. 774
In the þáttr, the realisation that a name is only a name affords a joke, built on the
assumption that an animal could be an ancestor, a belief which is therefore hinted at by this
text. The idea of animals actually being ancestors appears several times in the fornaldarsögur,
but usually when somebody in the sagas calls someone the son of an animal, it is meant as an
insult.775
Another famous example of the byname sýr is more complicated than it seems. Sýr is
one of the names of the goddess Freyja, and it might have meant “sow”, which is a common
translation.776 The name probably lies behind Turville-Petre‟s idea that Freyja took on the
Neckel notes that Sigurðr was called kappi mikill which might be connected to battle, and thus to battle
formations (Neckel 1918, p. 293).
772
Finnur Jónsson 1907, p. 305.
773
Íslenzk fornrit X, p. 259. (This explanation is only suggested in a footnote.)
774
Íslenzk fornrit V, p. 284.
775
Bǫdvar Bjarki is said to be son of a bear (Hrólfs saga kraka, Ch. 26: Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson
1944, vol. II, pp. 42-45). Another other person with the byname Hrossþjófr (horse thief) is said to be a son of a
mare (Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar): Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 105.
776
For example, Simek 1993, p. 309; Turville-Petre 1964, p. 176; McKinnell 2005, p. 87; Ingunn Ásdísardóttir
2007, p. 153. For older possible interpretations connected to the goddess Dea Syria, see Kuhn 1978, p. 287 and
Rosén 1913, p. 215.
122
form of a sow.777 Finnur Jónsson similarly suggests that Freyja‟s name Sýr (seen as meaning
“sow”) indicates that Freyja has a similar nature and cult to Freyr. 778 According to de Vries,
the name refers to the sow in the sense of “a symbol of unlimited fertility”. 779 According to
Lindow, the name Sýr (meaning sow) is in line with Freyja‟s role as a fertility deity. 780 Most
recently, Ingunn Ásdísardóttir, in addition to mentioning that the name Sýr points to a fertile
pig, also suggests that the sow represents protective symbol in combats, connects it to death
and battle.781 All of these interpretations are nonetheless mainly based on information given
about Freyja from other sources, rather than on the name itself.
More interesting, however, is the interpretation pointed out by Schrodt, that the
byname Sýr originally meant “protectress” (Beschützerin), but later became confused with the
homonym sýr meaning “sow”.782 The word would thus be related to the Indo-European root,
*s(w)er-, meaning “to protect, to shield”,783 an explanation that has been accepted also by
Näsström.784 For support of this interpretation, it might be noted that Freyja is referred to in
poetry under the name Sýr several times, and in contexts in which the role of protectress is
more fitting. For example, in the kenning “Sárlaxa Sýr”, used for a valkyrja, “protectress of
swords” makes more sense as a translation than “swine of swords”.785
To sum up, the evidence given above shows that in general the domestic swine seem
to have had less status than wild pigs; words for them were used less as personal names, and
more in the role of bynames, perhaps in the sense of an insult. As personal names, they were
probably not meant as an insult, but it seems that they were not seen as powerful as names
involving the names of wild animals as components.
777
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 176, Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 266.
Finnur Jónsson 1919, p. 313.
779
De Vries 1957, p. 313. See also Näsström 1995, p. 77 who comments on this.
780
Lindow 2001, p. 284.
781
Ingunn Ásdísardóttir 2007, p. 266.
782
Schrodt shows that the two words actually have different declinations, Sýr as a byname of Freyja and King
Sigurðr having the genitive sýrar, while sýr [sow] takes the genitive sýr (Schrodt 1979, p. 114), and he gives
examples of kenningar in poetry which support the meaning “protector” rather than “sow” (Schrodt 1979, pp.
114-119).
783
Schrodt 1979, pp. 114-119.
784
Näsström 1995, p. 86.
785
Other kenningar of this kind are “fólk sýrar” (valkyrja), “fentanja Sýr” (gýgr), “Sýrar grátr” (gold); and
“Sýrar mær” (treasures): Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 557. See also Ingunn Ásdísardóttir 2007,
p. 162.
778
123
6.3. Named Boars
Another fact that demonstrates the social or perhaps even religious importance of certain
animals is the existence of certain animals which are given proper names. As has already been
noted above, names indicate that a subject or an animal was seen as being put at the same
level as humans. In Nordic mythology, all things have names, even such a thing as the chain
used for binding the wolf Fenrir. The same applies to swords, horses and the other creatures,
including boars. 786 One of these boars is Sæhrímnir, the boar eaten by fallen warriors in
Valhǫll. 787 According to Simek, the name means “sooty sea-animal” or perhaps “cooking
ditch”, originating from the word seyðir. 788 Other mythological boars with names are the
golden boars of Freyja and Freyr (see below), both of which are called Gullinbursti (“Golden
bristled”). Freyja‟s boar, however, also has the name Hildisvíni (“Battle-swine”) 789 while
Freyr‟s boar is also called Slíðrugtanni (“The One with the Dangerously Sharp Tusks”,790 or
“Cutting-tusked”).791 With regard to the origin of the name, Gullinbursti, according to Simek,
it is probably an invention based on the Skaldic poem Húsdrápa, where it is used as a kenning
for boar.792 Lindow agrees with this argument, adding that most scholars have associated the
boar with the fertility of the Vanir, and with the early Swedish kings. 793 Lindow also suggests
that the words “gullin bursti” are actually probably only adjectives describing the boars, rather
than their names. To his mind, the original names for golden boars of Freyr and Freyja were
Slíðrugtanni and Hildisvíni respectively.794
Both names of Freyr‟s boar are given in Gylfaginning, Ch. 49 which states that: “Freyr
ók í kerru með gelti þeim er Gullinbursti heitir eða Slíðrugtanni.”795 As noted above, the name
Slíðrugtanni796 underlines the dangerous side of wild boar, possibly supporting the idea of the
786
Jennbert notes, for example, that in Snorra Edda more than 80 animals have proper names (Jennbert 2002, p.
106). See also the þulur, in which the heiti for animals use the proper names of animals as common names.
787
Faulkes 2005, p. 32. See further Chapter 5.5.1.
788
Simek 1993, p. 273. This expression is translated as “cooking fire” in Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 525.
789
Hyndluljóð, st. 7 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 289).
790
Simek 1993, p. 294.
791
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 168.
792
Simek 1993, p. 122.
793
Lindow 2001, p. 153.
794
Lindow 2001, p. 278. Nonetheless, it might be noted that in Flateyjarbók, the words gullinbursti and
hildisvíni are written in small letters, an approach also used with other personal names. Capital letters are only
used at the beginning of sentences.
795
Faulkes 2005, p. 47. For variants, see Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 98. The main difference is that in R, the name
is written as “Gullinbusti” and in U, the name of the boar is spelled “Sligrogtanni” instead of Sliðrugtanni.
796
The boar is also mentioned in Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 7: “Hann heitir ok Sliðrugtanni” (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p.
19). In U, the spelling is “Sligrogtanni”, as in Gylfaginning (see above) (Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 98).
124
boar as battle animal. Once again, Simek suggests that the name Slíðrugtanni was invented
from a kenning.797
As noted above, it is not surprising to find boars being named in mythological sources.
In accounts that are supposed to represent real life, things are somewhat different. Here, a
named animal stands out from other anonymous animals, suggesting that it has a particular
worth. It is thus noteworthy that the Íslendingasögur and Landnámabók mention several
named boars. Beigaðr is the name of a boar belonging to Ingimundr gamli in Vatnsdæla saga.
According to Lars van Wezel, Ingimundr‟s boar might be seen as a reminiscence of Freyr‟s
Gullinbursti. Indeed, van Wezel shows that Ingimundr‟s other key possessions (his sword and
best ship) encourage resemblances to Freyr.798 It might be noted that the name Beigaðr was
also used for people,799 but is not used anymore.
Another named boar which appears in the one of the sagas is called Sǫlvi,800 a name
which both then and now is also used for people. It is noteworthy that there are no examples
of sows having their own name, perhaps because they tend form part of a herd, while the boar
tends to be the only male, thus standing out from the rest and gaining greater importance.801
6.4. Swine in Place Names
Something else that suggests boars had more social importance is the fact that they appear in
place names and in aetiological accounts explaining how these names arose (see further
Chapter 5.2.). There are many place names in Europe bearing the names of swine. This,
however, can hardly be seen as proof of a cultic role of the swine, because, as has been noted
earlier, like other animals, the swine played an important part in the daily lives of humans,
and it is natural that people reflected this importance by naming places after them. Connecting
place names to possible cult practice is much easier when these names contain obvious cultic
797
Simek 1993, p. 294. However, considering the way Snorri introduces kenningar and heiti, it appears an
opposite development could have taken place, the kenning arising from the mythological name, and then
becoming a common name for a boar. See Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 5.
798
Van Wezel 2006, p. 290.
799
For example, one berserkr in Hrólfs saga kraka is named Beigaðr (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943,
vol. I, p. 354). Barði Guðmundsson suggested a connection between the name Beigaðr (used for the boar) and
that berserkr, also pointing to links between the boar Sǫlvi and a certain Sǫlvi who was a jarl in Jutland who
later became a chieftain of Svíar (Barði Guðmundsson 1959, p. 205). I am personally doubtful about such a
connection.
800
Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 250-252.
801
A parallel to this can be seen in Heiðarvíga saga where a ram leading a herd is named Fleygðir (Íslenzk
fornrit III, p. 270).
125
elements like hof, vé, lundr, and so on, or the names of gods.802 In the case of animal place
names, however, the situation is more complicated because the animals also had other kinds
of association within daily life, as has been noted above. I do not think that detailed research
into such place names has much relevance to my present topic. I will therefore limit myself to
giving a few examples from various parts of Europe which demonstrate the social importance
noted above.
Swine place names can be found all over Germanic Europe. No attempt has been made
to register them all here, because, as noted, their cultic role is very unsure. 803 They might
simply underline the fact that people kept pigs. In addition, some of these place names might
be named after a person who bears a name related to swine,804 as occurs in the case of some
place names from England, as in place names with the component Evering- (meaning Eofor‟s
people), which is present in the name Everingham, Yorkshire (meaning the Hām of Eofor‟s
people).805 Another such place is Everington in Berkshire (the tūn of Eofor‟s people).806
Among examples from other countries, the Faroese island Svínøy stands out.
According to a folktale, it was originally a floating island which came to be fastened to the
ocean floor by a swine.807 Kvideland and Sehmsdorf have noted that the motif of a floating
island being fastened to the ocean floor by an animal, usually a pig, is also found in
Norway. 808 Another “Swine Island” (Swona) can be found in Orkney. 809 Indeed, it is of
particular interest that the name for Orkney as a whole is derived from old Gaelic name “Inci
Orc” meaning the islands of the wild boar.810
802
On theophoric and cultic place names, see Ahlbäck (ed.) 1990, and Brink 2007.
In England, several names have the prefix Ever-, such as Eriswell, which might originally be Everesvell
(boar‟s stream) (Ekwall 1960, p. 168). Yaverland was probably Everlant, which means “land where boars are
kept” (Ekwall 1960, p. 543). Everdon and Eversden mean “boar‟s hill”; and Everley, “boar‟s wood” (Yorkshire).
Other boar names are probably Eversholt, Everthorpe, Everton, Evercreech and Everdon (Northamptonshire)
(Ekwall 1960, p. 170). Other place names of this kind include Eurebi/ Everby (Derbyshire) which, like the
previous place names comes from eofor/ jǫfurr (Fellows-Jensen 1968, p. 158). To this list, one can add York
(Jórvík, also derived from jǫfurr) (Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 330). The place name Runavík
is found in the Faroe Island (Eysturoy), but it is unsure whether it is derived from the word runi (boar) (Bandle
1967, p. 430). In Germany, one finds place names like Swinefurt and Ebersberg.
804
Names such as Jǫfurr, Galti, and Gríss: see further above in Chapters 6.1 and 6.2.
805
Ekwall 1960, p. 170.
806
Ekwall 190, p. 170.
807
For the story, see Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, pp. 171-172.
808
Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 172. A similar motif of a floating island also appears in the beginning of Guta
saga (written between 1220 – 1330): Peel, 1999, p. vii. The island (Gotland) is, however, fastened by bringing a
fire to the island (Peel 1999, p. 2).
809
See further http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/pl-isle.htm [last checked 18.5. 2011].
810
See further http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/orkney.htm [last checked 18.5. 2011]. It is noteworthy that
Orkney also used to have a particular Christmas tradition connected to the boar. On December the 17 th (called
Sow-day in Orkney), every family which had a herd of swine used to slaughter one of them: see
803
126
Other examples of swine appearing in aetiological legends can be found in
Landnámabók (See further Chapter 5.2.). Iceland certainly has a high number of swine place
names, but it also has numerous place names connected with other animals too. The swine
place-names derive essentially from the words svín, gríss, gylta, gǫltr, galtar, sýr and purk.811
According to Friðrik G. Olgeirsson, these names are first and foremost proof that pigs were
kept all around Iceland. 812 Nonetheless, it is possible that Svínafell in Eastern Iceland might
have stood out and been of special importance. It is noteworthy that is very close to Freysnes,
and in the sagas, is mentioned several times in connection with prophetic dreams (see further
Chapter 10. 2.). Nonetheless, here as elsewhere some “swine” place names can be derived
from people‟s names. For example, Gull-Þóris saga states that Galtardalur (in Króksfjörður)
was named after a man called Galti.813
Another group of place names possibly related to swine are those derived from the
component Saur-. 814 According to Barði Guðmundsson and, prior to him, Guðbranður
Vigfússon, all the accounts mentioning pigs in the Íslendingasögur and Landnámabók are
connected to places with element Saur-. According to Barði, this shows an original connection
to the word Sýr, one of the names for Freyja (see above, and Chapter 6.2.), raising the
possibility that these places are connected to the cult of Freyr and Freyja.815 Although there
might be some reason to doubt some of the connections Barði makes, it seems that the Saursites used to be important, something which according to Barði Guðmundsson is proved by
the fact that quite a high percentage of these place-names are near churches.816
To sum up the information given in this this chapter, it is clear that Nordic and
Germanic place-names reflect the social and economic importance of the swine in early
society. Nonetheless, few of these have any cultic significance. The evidence of personal
names including words for the boar may nonetheless reflect certain totemic ideas suggesting
http://www.orkneyjar.com/tradition/yule/yule4.htm [last checked 8.3.2011]. A similar practice is known in
Yorkshire, which also formed part of the Danelaw: see Blind 1892-1896, p. 101.
811
Friðrik G. Olgeirsson mentions 163 contemporary place names involving pig components (Friðrik G.
Olgeirsson 2005, p. 36). Nonetheless, it is likely that the number was different in the early history of Iceland.
812
Friðrik G. Olgeirsson 2005, p. 36.
813
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p. 221.
814
The word probably used to have more meanings. Besides the meaning “dirt” and “excrement”, it also had
some sexual connotations (Barði Guðmundsson 1959, p. 129).
815
Barði Guðmundsson 1959, pp 124-125. Barði suggests that the connection between saur- place-names and
the cult of Freyr and Freyja is old idea expressed by Guðbrandur Vigfússon in his “Um tímatal í
Íslendingasögum í fornöld.” See Guðbrandur Vigfússon 1855, p. 363.
816
Following the ideas of earlier scholars like Magnus Olsen, Barði suggests that people commonly built
churches at old holy places. He notes that in Iceland, many of these places (37.5%) relate to Hof- place-names.
He states that 13% of places with the component –fell had churches in them (Barði Guðmundsson 1959, p. 130).
127
an idea of humans and animals blending in some way. More evidence of such an idea will be
given in the next chapter.
128
7.0. Becoming a Boar
While humans were clearly connected to animals by their personal names, there is little doubt
that animals had key roles in human lives in many other ways, which is something that goes
back to the Stone Age.817 There is also little doubt that the border between the animal world
and the human world was not as sharply demarcated as it is today; one might even say that
there was no clear distinction between the animal and the human.818 Evidence from the sagas
(and elsewhere) suggests that a human being might even think of him/ herself as an animal.
Indeed, the human soul might even have been understood as having animal shape. 819 It was
even believed (as is reflected in the Nordic folk legends of later times) that people could go
further than this and physically change their shapes, and become animals. In order to
understand such beliefs, it is important to understand that the view of the soul and the body in
pre-Christian Scandinavia was quite different from that introduced by Christianity.
7.1. The Concept of the Soul in Pre-Christian Times
In Christianity, the soul is distinguished from the physical body and is seen as living on after
death.820 Such a concept was not known among Norse heathens. 821 Even the word for the soul,
sál, or the older sála, is a loan word in Old Norse, although it is of Germanic origin. It most
likely came from Saxon with the introduction of Christianity and in Old Norse literature was
only used in a Christian context. 822 It occurs for the first time in a poem by Hallfreðr
vandrædaskáld (d. 1007), a verse composed not long after the advent of Christianity in
Iceland and after he became a Christian.823 It also appears in a verse supposedly composed by
the heathen Gísli Súrsson in the 10th century. 824 According to Cleasby and Guðbrandur
817
Such a relationship is already present in the cave-art of the Stone Age: see Jennbert 2002, p. 105.
Hedeager 2004, p. 235.
819
Hedeager 2004, p. 235.
820
Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 41.
821
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 229.
822
The Gothic sauwala was used for psyche; in addition to this are the Anglo-Saxon sawl and sawle, the English
soul and the Old High German sala (Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, pp. 516-517).
823
The words in question are “ef sálu minni vissak borgit” (Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 199).
824
The word is translated as “soul” or “spirit” in The Complete Sagas of Icelanders, and “soul” in the earlier
translation by George Johnston (1963). As Björn K. Þorólfsson and Guðni Jónsson note, this is the only example
in the skaldic poetry when the word sál is used in this sense by a heathen man. It is not used anywhere else in the
old Skaldic poetry in the same meaning as here. Here it has the essential meaning of hugr, or geð (mind, mood):
Íslenzk fornrit VI, p. 62. The saga itself is dated to c. 1250 (Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 115). It thus seems that
818
129
Vigfússon, however, the verses are of later composition (the 12th century); they also note Gísli
was a prime-signed man.825 Otherwise, the word sál is very rare in the Íslendingasögur, and
when used, it always appears in a Christian context. It is also rare in the fornaldarsögur. It is
used there only twice: firstly in Yngvars saga víðfǫrla (in a Christian context)826 and secondly
in the poem Buslubæn in Bósa saga, where the poem is given a Christian context in the sense
that the saga mentions that the chant contains many words bad for Christians.827
Several other Old Norse words seem to reflect a concept similar to that of the human
„soul‟. Here, however, the concentration will be placed on those which have some connection
to animals.828 The most common and the most important word reflecting the concept of soul
seems to have been hugr (thought, mind).829 As Bente Alver notes, this word was probably
closest in the meaning to the modern concept of psyche and represents thought, wish, desire or
temperament.830 It is noteworthy that in the sagas and poetry, the word hugr is often used in
relation to animals. When the thoughts or desires of people appear to others in dreams, they
often take on the shape of animals and are called “manna hugir” (minds of men).831 Another
motif reflected in Old Norse literature, and a widespread motif in folklore, was that the hugr
could cause harm to the others.832 For example, the bad thoughts of King Atli in Vǫlsunga
saga are said to be úlfshugr,833 which probably reflects the dangerous character of the wolf. It
also seems that people believed the hugr could leave the body and travel in the animal shape,
even a heathen could have known Christian terms for the soul. As is well known, there were Christians among
the first settlers of Iceland and the influences of Christianity were already making themselves known before the
official acceptance of Christianity in the year 1000.
825
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, pp. 516-517.
826
This saga is not always counted among fornaldarsögur: see Torfi Tulinius 2002, pp. 17-18. It was probably
composed in the early 13th century (Rowe 2005, p. 153).
827
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 472. Buslubæn is often named as an example of an
ancient incantation that is supposed to be older than the saga itself (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 361). The oldest
manuscript of the saga dates from the 15th century (Heusler and Ranisch 1903, p. xcvii).
828
These words are ǫnd (breath), andi (breath, breathing), óðr (mind, wit, or manner), læ (spirit, mind or craft),
and lá (blood): translations taken from Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874. For other translations, see Faulkes 2005, and
Polomé 1969, pp. 265-290. The word geð (mind, wits) is related to the Anglo-Saxon word for the pre-Christian
soul, giedd (North 1991, pp. 40-49). Munr (mind) is related to the name of the raven Muninn, and the word is
used for the mental state (North 1991, p. 105).
829
Hugr also appears in personified form in the shape of Hugi (thought) in the myth of Útgarðaloki in
Gylfaginning (Faulkes 2005, p. 40). It is also noteworthy that one of Óðinn‟s ravens is called Huginn
(Grímnismál, st. 20: Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 61).
830
Alver 1989, p. 111.
831
Hávarðar saga, Ch. 20, talks about hugir in wolf shapes (Íslenzk fornrit VI, pp. 349-50).
832
Strömbäck, 2000, p. 228. On Hugr messages, see Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, pp. 60-64.
833
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 75. On wolfish thoughts, see Ellis Davidson 1968a, p.
129.
130
while the body itself lay in bed in sleep or a trance. 834 For such a phenomenon, scholars use
the term “external soul”.835
Hamr (skin, shape)836 is another term closely connected with the concept of the hugr.
It is used in the context of shape-changing, when the hugr takes physical shape (hamr).837 The
hamr thus seems to be opposite to the hugr. These two terms are closest to the Christian
division between the soul and the body. The idea of the inner self and outer self was thus
present as in Christianity, but it seems that not every hugr could take form in a hamr. Only
skilled people could become shape-changers. The hamr and shape-changing will be discussed
in greater detail later (see Chapter 7.2.).
The hamingja is another concept also related to the hamr, and in original form was
probably *ham-(g)engja. The etymology of the word refers to a spirit having a shape (hamr)
and walking (ganga) outside.838 The idea of such a spirit again originates in the belief that the
hugr could take physical shape outside of the body.839 Nonetheless, it seems that hamingja
became a personification of good luck and as such something that could be transferred from
one person to the other, usually within the family but sometimes also outside of the family.840
In this context, one should also mention the word vǫrdr (warden, guard).841 In later
Scandinavian folklore, it is known as the vor or vord and is used in the compounds gardvord
or tunbord for beings that watch over the farms. Vardøger is a related word used for the spirit
that follows a person‟s footsteps and warns the person in a kind of aural experience842 that can
be also understood as a hug-message.843 In the Scandinavian tradition, vardøger is thus used
in the same sense as fylgja.844 This kind of spirit, nonetheless, seems to be of later origin, as
vǫrdr is not used in the sense of spirit in Old Norse literature.
Another word which has a possible connection to animals and the concept of the soul
is gandr. Historia Norwegiae contains a description of the magical trance and shamans
fighting for the gandus, a word of Norse origin used for the Sámi soul. In Old Norse literature,
834
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 122. See also Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 73.
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 127.
836
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, pp. 236-237.
837
Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 41.
838
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 303.
839
Simek 1993, p. 129, where Simek actually uses the word “soul”.
840
Simek 1993, p. 129. See also Turville-Petre 1964, p. 230.
841
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 722.
842
Alver 1989, pp. 116-117.
843
Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 64.
844
Kvideland, Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 66. In a similar way, the Swedish dialect words vård, vål, or val could be also
used for the fylgja (Strömbäck 2000, p. 223).
835
131
the word gandr is used for something enchanted.845 However, Dag Strömbäck defines gandr
as being “something which is connected with the soul of a magician and can be sent out from
him or her in sleep or ecstasy.”846 Gandr is sometimes also used for magic itself.847 It has
many possible meanings, and appears in many compound words.848 Most significantly in the
context of this thesis, it is a force that can take on animal shape. 849 Price uses the term gandir
for spirits,850 and he mentions that they probably took the form of a wolf, an animal strongly
connected to sorcery. 851 According to Price, gandir are helping animal spirits which are
summoned during the seiðr performance. Nonetheless, the gandir only seem to take on the
shape of wolves and occasionally snakes, as Price notes.852 In this connection, it has been
noted that evil thoughts (hugir) appear in the shape of wolves as in the above mentioned
episode from Gísla saga, where an evil intention in a dream takes the shape of a wolf and a
snake respectively. 853 Price also mentions that gandir can be summoned while their master
sleeps; however, he does not mention any direct connection between the hugr and the
gandr.854 As in other concepts of the “soul” at this time, it can be expected that there was a
blending of ideas, and no sharp borders between different concepts. It might be stated, though,
that gandr is seems to have been more connected with magicians and is more than “a soul”.
Nonetheless, it is important to mention it for its contrast with the fylgja.
7.1.1. Fylgja
The word fylgja (attendant spirit, fetch) is another of those terms for a “soul” which could
appear in the shape of an animal according to the sagas.855 The fylgja also takes human form
in some accounts, usually the shape of a woman (fylgjukona), but that will not be discussed
here. This female figure has little in common with the animal type of fylgja except the
845
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 188.
Strömbäck, 2000, p. 221.
847
Price 2002, p. 65.
848
Price 2002, pp. 224-227. One of the meanings of the word gandr refers to a magical staff: see Price 2002, pp.
177-179.
849
Price 2002, p. 225 (based on an analysis of Tolley. See further Tolley 1995, pp. 62-65.
850
Price‟s ideas are based for example, on Vǫluspá 22 and 29 and Historia Norwegie (Price 2002, p. 224). See
Ekrem, Mortensen 2003, pp. 60-63.
851
Price also mentions a connection with the World Serpent, Jǫrmungandr, which he translates as “mighty gandr”
(Price 2002, p. 226).
852
Price 2002, p. 227.
853
Íslenzk fornrit VI, p. 46.
854
Price 2002, pp. 226-227.
855
More translations are given in Mundal 1974, pp. 12-13.
846
132
name. 856 The animal shape is also the main difference between the fylgja and the other
guardian spirits, such as the hamingja and dís. Unlike the dísir, fylgjur were probably not the
objects of cult.857
Simek simply calls a fylgja a soul which is separated from the body. However, he
admits that this is a different kind of soul to that known in Christianity. 858 According to Ellis
Davidson, the fylgja is something different. For her, it is similar to the concept of the shadowy
“double” known in Europe, rather than the soul.859 The evidence indicates that the fylgja has a
close relationship to human beings. It can even be seen as part of a human being which dies
alongside the person to whom it belongs.860 Glosecki, however, suggests that the fylgja was
essentially a spirit helper and sees it as one of the strongest shamanistic reflexes on Germanic
record. 861 Nevertheless, the literary evidence does not show that people ever got any help
from their fylgjur. They tend to be passive and people have very little control over them.862 It
might be said that fylgjur rather symbolize the power of the individual, in the sense that
persons with more powerful fylgjur are more likely to receive victory in a battle or singlecombat.863 Fylgjur are also usually invisible and only appear on special occasions, typically as
a warning of death or danger.864 Only a person with second sight can see them in normal
situations. They can, however, appear in dreams. Seeing your own fylgja is often a
premonition of death.865
The animal fylgja seems to be closely related to the concept of the hugr866 and appears
in dreams concerning animals. 867 Such dreams are nonetheless often said to represent the
minds of people, rather than their fylgjur. For example, dreams about wolves which represent
the enemy are said to depict manna hugir, not manna fylgjur.868 The difference between the
hugr and fylgja in dreams seems to be that while the fylgja is supposed to remain the same for
856
See also Mundal 1993, p. 624, Ellis Davidson 1968a, pp. 130-131. Actually, when the fylgja is said to pass
from generation to generation, it often takes the shape of a woman, and could thus be seen as blending with the
dís (Glosecki 1989, p. 185). Examples of female fylgja are given in Mundal 1974, pp. 63-71.
857
The dísir are not discussed here because they are not seen as being part of the human him- or herself. They
were also objects of cult: see Simek 1993, p. 61-62, Turville-Petre 1964, pp. 221-227.
858
Simek 1993, p. 96.
859
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 130.
860
Mundal 1993, p. 625; Turville-Petre 1964, p. 228.
861
The Sámi and some Siberian tribes had such companions (Glosecki 1989, p. 183).
862
Alver 1989, p. 121.
863
Ljósvetninga saga, Ch. 30: Íslenzk fornrit X, p. 101.
864
See Turville-Petre 1964, p. 228.
865
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 229.
866
Mundal 1974, p. 28
867
On fylgjur in dreams, see Kelchner 1935, pp. 17-30, and appendix.
868
Mundal 1974, p. 31.
133
each person, the hugr in animal form in a dream seems to depict the emotion of the person to
whom it belongs.869 For example, in Gísla saga, the murderer of Vésteinn appears first as a
wolf and then as a snake.870 Similarly, for anonymous people (that is, characters not seen as
being important enough to merit a name), it seems that the concept of the fylgja blends with
the concept of the hugr. As Ellis Davidson has noted, the fylgjur of anonymous people or
groups also seem to vary in accordance with the activity they are engaged in.871 This seems to
occur in Gísla saga, where enemies are often seen as wolves in dreams, while anonymous
people tend to appear as cattle or pigs.
The belief in animal fylgjur is often reflected in saga literature and follows several
common patterns. For example, it seems that animal fylgjur usually reflect the sex of the
person.872 Nonetheless, as Jennbert has pointed out, fylgjur in Icelandic literature are most
commonly associated with male characters.873 This does not necessarily mean that males were
the only people to have animal fylgjur, but we have probably no extant examples of women‟s
fylgjur. Nevertheless, with regard to the characteristics of the animals, the extant examples
serve well. Among other things, it seems clear that the life of a person was seen as being
closely connected with the well-being of the animal associated with him. For example, in
Brennu-Njáls saga, Þórðr sees a goat covered with blood, which is a sign of his impending
death.874 At the same time, the animal can be also understood as reflecting human quality or
social status. 875 Therefore, we tend to encounter mighty animals in the sagas, their
characteristics representing the qualities of the mighty heroes they are associated with.
Another interesting point is that in the sagas, there seems to be little agreement
between the fylgjur and the natural fauna of the Nordic world: Old Norse literature sometimes
refers to fylgjur which take the shape of animals from the outside area or even exotic
animals.876 However, Turville-Petre points out that such exotic fetches tend to appear in the
less realistic sagas and are apparently influenced by French romances. 877 They do not appear
869
See Mundal 1993, p. 625. Nevertheless, there are also some examples in which a person seems to have a
number of fylgjur, although these are probably female fylgjur, rather than animal fylgjur. Examples of this can be
found in Helgakviða Hjǫrvarðssonar in the prose between sts 34 and 35 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 148).
870
Íslenzk fornrit VI, p. 46.
871
Davidson 1968a, p. 129.
872
The exception is Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, pp. 208212), where the wizard has a little vixen as his fylgja: see also Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 128.
873
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
874
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 128.
875
Hedeager 2004, p. 235; Mundal 1993, p. 625.
876
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
877
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 229.
134
in the Íslendingasögur.878 Jennbert makes a further distinction between tamed and untamed
animal fylgjur, noting that tame animals do not appear usually as the fylgjur of leaders.
Meanwhile, polar bears or other bears are said to be the fylgjur of great people and are
commonly mentioned in this context.879 Among the tame animals which appear as the fylgjur
of leaders in the sagas are the ox and the goat and perhaps the boar (although but it might be a
wild boar as well),880 but there are not as many examples of such fylgjur as there are of bears.
It is also noteworthy that animals such as the horse or sheep do not appear as fylgjur at all.881
7.1.2. Fylgjur in the Shape of Swine
Swine fylgjur are comparatively rare in Old Norse literature, and it is noteworthy that those
we have come from the fornaldarsögur. The first reference I would like to mention here is a
group of pigs, which represent the fylgjur of enemies. This comes from Hrómundar saga
Grípssonar882, where the pigs appear in a dream that can be interpreted as a manna hugir
dream. However, neither fylgjur nor manna hugir are mentioned directly:
Þriðja draum sagði Blindr sváleiðis: „Mörg svín sá ek renna sunnan at konungs höllu, rótuðu
jörðinni upp með rananum.“883
A second example of the swine fylgja appears in Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar (late 13th
century),884 where the fylgja belongs to Ketill, a man of noble descent. He is the brother of
Hrólfr. The saga gives a detailed description of his character, which corresponds closely to
that of a wild boar: Ketill is said to be wild and headstrong. In addition, he is extremely small,
boisterous, ambitious, impulsive, and full of drive and grit.885 Elsewhere it is added that Ketill
878
Mundal 1974, p. 30.
Polar bears or bear fylgjur are mentioned, for example, in Þáttr Þorsteins Uxafóts (Þorsteinn) (Íslenzk fornrit
XIII, p. 350), Njáls saga (Gunnar) (Íslenzk fornrit XII, p. 64), Ǫrvar-Odds saga (Oddr) (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni
Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 292), and Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar (Ingjaldr, foster-brother of Hrólfr) (Guðni
Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 77).
880
According to Jennbert, this is a domestic boar: see further the discussion below.
881
Jennbert 2006, p. 137.
882
The saga survives only in a 17th century version but its existence is mentioned in Þorgils saga ok Hafliða.
which means that it was originally composed not later than in the first third of the 13 th century (Torfi Tulinius
2005, p. 450).
883
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 284.
884
Torfi Tulinius 2002, p. 28.
885
Herman Pálsson and Edwards 1972, p. 30.
879
135
was agile, but aggressive.886 It is also said that he gained more of a reputation for his courage,
ambition, arrogance, and enthusiasm than for his wisdom and wit. 887 Nonetheless, his
qualities seem to be crucial in the quest for Hrólfr‟s bride. The saga makes it clear that
without Ketill‟s help, Hrólfr would not have been successful. In the saga, two expeditions are
made for the bride, and in both cases, the queen, the mother of the bride, dreams of animals
which she interprets as the fylgjur of Hrólfr and his companions. In the second dream, she
also sees the fylgja of Ketill:
en öðrum megin fram hjá óargadýrinu hljóp fram göltr einn. Hann var ekki svá mikill sem hann
var vígligr, svá at slíkan hefi ek engan sét. Hann rótaði hverri hæð ok lét sem hann mundi umsnúa,
ok fram horfði hvert hár á honum. Hann lét sem hann mundi á allt hlaupa ok bíta þat, er í nánd var.
[…] Eirekr konungr mælti: „En hvat ætlar þú, hvers fylgja sá inn illiligi göltr mun vera
[…].“ Drottning mælti: „Sagt heyri ek, at Hrólfr konungr eigi bróður, er Ketill heitir, manna
minnstr ok skjótligastr, fullr ákefðar ok ofbeldis, ok sé inn hvatasti til allrar framgöngu. Þat er mín
ætlan, at þessi göltr sé hans fylgja, því at hann var ekki næst um með Hrólfi konungi, bróður
sínum.“888
In another version of the saga, 889 Ketill is called Kregð, which means “a wasting,
pining.”890 He is said to be:
hávamaðamaðr mikill ok þó framgjarn ok lét ecki fyrir brjósti brenna, at tala ok gera þat hónum
kom í hug, harðfengr ok fullr áræðis.891
In this version, too, he is shown as having a boar as his fylgja. The main difference is that the
boar in the dream in this case is described as being very large:
[...] hljóp göltr mikill. Hann var svá grimmligr ok illiligr, at slíkt hefi ek ecki sétt, hann fór rótandi,
sem hann mundi öllu umsnúa. Var hann ófrýnnm svá at fram stóðu öll hárin eptir hónum ok lét
þetta kykvendi, sem þat mundi á alt upphlaupa. 892
In other words, this boar is said to be aggressive, and its hair is standing on end, a sign of the
fighting stance. His fury and madness frighten the royal couple. Indeed, the boar is said to be
so mad that the queen and the king are more afraid of him than they are of the fylgjur of two
886
Herman Pálsson and Edwards 1972, p. 34.
Herman Pálsson and Edwards 1972, p. 147.
888
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 77.
889
Holm perg. 7 fol. from the early 14th century (Detter 1891, p. v).
890
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 355.
891
Detter 1891, p. 6.
892
Detter 1891, p. 21.
887
136
polar bears and a lion. I find it significant that this description of boar fylgja is very detailed.
No such prominence is given to the fylgjur in the shape of other animals. The exceptionality
of the boar is also clearly visible. Nonetheless, it is possible that this portrayal of the boar
might be influenced by Tristrams saga ok Ísǫndar (believed by Schlauch to be an adaptation
based on the poem by Thomas of Britain made in 1226).893 According to Kalinke, Tristrams
saga had an important role in introducing the genre of bridal-quest romances to
Scandinavia, 894 a category of saga which also includes Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar.895 It is
noteworthy that Tristrams saga contains a very similar description of an angry boar, which
likewise appears in a dream. The context, however, is not the same: When Tristram goes to
sleep with Ísǫnd, a servant of King Marcus dreams of an angry boar, which is seen as
representing Tristram:
En á meðan dreymdi ræðismann einn draum, at hann þóttiz sjá ór mörkinni einn hinn mesta
villigölt – gapti munni ok hvatti tennr sínar, sem óðr væri, ok svá ógurliga látandi sem hann vildi
hvatvetna í sundr höggva – ok stefndi þangat at kastalanum. Ok sem hann kom þar, þorði engi í
allri kóngshirð at verða fyrir honum né móti at taka eða bíða hans. Ok sá hann, at hann skundaði at
kóngs rekkju ok hjó kónginn milli herðanna, svá at af blóðinu ok froðunni, er fell ór munni honum,
þá saurgaði hann öll rekkjublæðin. Ok kom þá mikit folk at hjálpa honum, ok þorði hann ekki í
móti at gera.896
Even if the description of the boar in Hrólfs saga has roots in foreign sources, it still
underlines that the image of the boar was accepted and passed on by Nordic people. 897 In
short, the boar was seen as a dangerous but still noble animal. 898 Nonetheless, its image
seemed to change in connection with magic, as will be shown in the next section.
893
Schlauch 1934, p. 186. See also Jorgensen 1999, pp. 25-26.
Kalinke 1990, p. 1. Jorgensen mentions that the saga had also an influence on the Íslendingasögur, such as
Laxdæla saga and Grettis saga (Jorgensen 1999, p. 25).
895
According to Kalinke, both Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar and Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga have much in common with
the riddarasögur. The main thing which distinguishes them is their location in Scandinavia (Kalinke 2005, p.
326).
896
Gísli Brynjúlfsson 1878, pp. 109-110.
897
On the symbolism of the boar in dreams in medieval tradition, see further Reichert 1999, p. 176.
898
In comparison, one can mention an example from Scandinavian folklore, in which the description of the
fylgjur shows a clear Christian view, since the pig is there connected with greed and lust, other animal fylgjur
being interpreted quite negatively as well. The story deals with a girl who wanted to go to a dance and when she
saw the fylgjur of the people at the dance, she never went to a dance again. The text runs as follows: “The next
man leading his partner was a fat glutton from a big farm further down in the parish. His fylgje was a fat pig,
humping along on all fours.” The other “evil fylgje” mentioned in the story are a fox, a cock and a horse. It is
noteworthy that, as noted above, the horse never appears as a fylgja in the sagas (Alver 1989, p. 123).
894
137
7.2. Shape-Changing
The earlier noted concept of the hugr and the fylgja having animal shape leads naturally to the
idea of shape-changing, the fighting trance and other techniques which involve an individual
gaining some animal characteristics, or even becoming an animal, something which can be
understood in various ways. Becoming an animal can be symbolic, involving perhaps a ritual
dance, the use of animal costume and imitation of the animal behaviour (see Chapter 7.2.3).
However, there are also examples of beliefs in which people became animals by means of a
magical trance, their “soul” then traveling in animal shape, or taking on animal shape
physically; in other words, these people are seen as being shape-changers.899
In Old Norse, several words were used for shape-changing. The transformation of a
body is usually expressed with words using the component hamr-. 900 Usually the word
hamrammr (shape-strong) was used for a shape-changer.901 For example, in Landnámabók
(S350, H309 and M14), two men who fight in the shape of a bear and a bull are said to be
“hamrammr mjǫk”.902 These are just two of several Landnámabók characters who are said to
be shape-changers.903 Similarly, in Egils saga, a man named Úlfr is called Kveld-Úlfr because
it was believed that he was hamrammr.904 Later in the saga, it is stated of twelve strong men
that most of them were hamrammir.905
Another related word used for shape-changing was hamhleypa which means literally
“shape-leaping”, and is connected with persons who travel in hamfarir.906 The word hamfarir
is used for travels when a body lies in rest while the hugr travels in the shape of an animal.907
The terms skipta hǫmum, at hamskiptaz, at hamaz, at fara í hamförum or fara hamfari appear
in a number of places in Old Norse literature.908 Another expression involves the connection
of the name of the animal with the component -hamr, as in, for example, úlfhamr. 909 In later
times, in Norwegian folklore shape-changers might be referred to with expressions such as
899
Slightly different from this is the optical illusion (sjónhverfing), which means that people seemed to be
animals. Such illusion are said to be caused by magic: See Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 122. An example of this
occurs in Eyrbyggja saga, Ch. 20 where Oddr seems to be a hog: see further below in Chapter 7.2.2.
900
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 126.
901
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 126.
902
Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 355-356.
903
Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 110, 231, 286, 350-351, 355.
904
Íslenzk fornrit II, p. 4.
905
Íslenzk fornrit II, p. 62.
906
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 236.
907
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 126, where Ellis Davidson uses the word “spirit” instead of hugr.
908
Strömbäck 1935, p. 162.
909
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, pp. 236 and 668.
138
hugham. 910 The sickness of a person might then be expressed by words hamstolinn and
hugstolinn, suggesting the deprivation of hugr and hamr. 911 This might reflect an idea in
Hávamál, st. 155 which mentions a spell which forces witches to be out of their shapes and
(thus) out of their minds.912 Another related idea was that it was also seen as being possible to
assume another‟s shape (víxla hǫmum) as when Gunnar changes shape with Sigurðr,913 and
Signý with a witch in Vǫlsunga saga.914
The idea that there was some connection between the ideas of shape-changing and
animal warriors could also be expressed by the verb hamask which means “to fall into a state
of wild fury, an animal rage”. One who was in such rage was then said to be hamlauss (out of
his shape).915 It is noteworthy that the state of being hamrammr might be seen as being close
to those persons who became berserkir, in other words, warriors with animal behaviour (see
further Chapter 7.3.1.), as the following quote suggests:
Svá er sagt, at þeim mǫnnum væri farit, er hamrammir eru, eða þeim, er berserksgangr var á, at
meðan þat var framit, þá váru þeir svá sterkir, at ekki helzk við þeim, en fyrstm, er af var gengit,
þá váru þeir ómáttkari en at vanða.916
This reference might be useful to bear in mind later when we note that usually the
practitioners of shape-changing tended to be people of bad reputation (see below). The same
applies among the gods, of whom mainly Óðinn and Loki practice shape-changing; it is worth
remembering that both of them are connected with seiðr and being effeminate. 917 About
Óðinn‟s changes, Ynglinga saga states:
Óðinn skipti hǫmum; lá þá búkrinn sem sofinn eða dauðr, en hann var þá fugl eða dýr, fiskr eða
ormr, ok fór á einni svipstund á fjarlæg lǫnd, at sínum erendum eða annarra manna.918
Loki is another god who can take the shape of many animals.919 For example, both Heimdallr
and Loki are said to have fought in the shape of seals “váru í sela líkjum”.920 The goddesses
910
See Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, pp. 236-237.
Raudvere 2008, p. 241.
912
“þeir villir fara sinna heim hama sinna heim huga” (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 43).
913
Grípispá, st. 37: “litom víxla”; st. 43: “hǫmom víxlit” (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p.170).
914
In Vǫlsunga saga, Ch. 7, both skipta hǫmum and skipta litum are used (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson
1943, vol. I, pp. 13 and 55).
915
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 126. On hamr, see Fritzner 1886, vol. I, p. 718.
916
Egils saga: Íslenzk fornrit II, p. 70.
917
See Lokasenna, sts 23-24 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 101).
918
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 18.
911
139
Frigg and Freyja are both said to possess a bird costume, but according to the extant records,
it is only Loki who is said to have used one of these (see further note 988).921
According to the records, there seem to have been several kinds of shape-changing.
Each of these will now be examined in more depth, with special attention being given to those
people who are said to change into swine.
7.2.1. The Hugr Travels, The Body Stays
The first kind of shape-changing that is described seems to be similar to shamanic travelling:
here, a magician causes his hugr to travel. In such cases, the shaman/ magician is said to lie in
a trance while his hugr takes on the shape of an animal and travels. During this practice, the
body of the magician has to be left in peace, and no one may disturb him. According to the
sagas, people must not even mention the name of the person who is in the trance.922
The famous example of such a trance is in Hrólfs saga kraka where it is said that
Bǫðvar Bjarki lies on a bed in a trance while the bear is fighting. When he is interrupted, the
bear disappears but no harm happens to Bǫðvar. 923 Another example of such shape-changing
is described in Ynglinga saga where, as noted above, it is said that Óðinn could take the shape
of any kind of animal, fish, bird or serpent. It is noteworthy that the description includes all
the animal realms and all elements. In the sagas, this kind of shape-changing is sometimes
used for spying924 but also for fighting, as will be shown in the examples that follow. Such
traditions are also known among the Sámi and in Siberia.925 For this kind of shape-changing it
919
When Loki changes into a mare, as in Gylfaginning, Ch. 42, this too seems to involve a transformation of the
body because he bore Sleipnir (Faulkes 2005, p. 35). Elsewhere, he takes the shape of a salmon (“brá hann sér í
laxlíki”), an expression used in both Snorra Edda and in the prose which follows Lokasenna. When he changes
into a woman, the same words (“brá – bera”) are used (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 109). However, when he takes
bird shape, he has to borrow Freyja‟s bird costume: see Þrymskviða, st. 3 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 111).
920
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 19.
921
See Þrymskviða, st. 3 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 111), and Skáldskaparmál (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 24).
922
The examples of restrictions on naming a person practising hugr traveling are given in Hjálmþés saga ok
Ǫlvis (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 274), and Vatnsdœla saga (Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p.
35). See also Hrólfs saga kraka, in Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, pp. 88-89. Such a
prohibition is also known from shamanic traditions: see Ellis Davidson 1968a pp. 123 and 126. See also Eliade
1964, p. 381.
923
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 87-89. See also Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 128.
924
In Vatnsdœla saga, it is not clearly said that they shape-change but it becomes clear from the context (Íslenzk
fornrit VIII, pp. 34-35). In Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar, Ch. 33 in Heimskringla, the spy uses whale shape,
although this might be the physical shape-changing as well: “Haraldr konungr bauð kunngum manni at fara í
hamfǫrum til Íslands ok freista, hvat hann kynni segja honum. Sá fór í hvalslíki” (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 271).
925
Among the Scandinavian Sámi, shamans are said to be able to take the shape of a reindeer, fish, bird or snake
(Ellis Davidson 1968a, pp. 125-126) (see also Chapter 1.2.3.). It might be noted that once again, these are
representatives of all the animal realms, as is mentioned in Ynglinga saga: see Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 18.
140
is typical that the animal (the animal form of the shape-changer) is still said to be in a close
relationship with the magician himself. If the animal, shape-changer, gets hurt or is killed, the
same happens to the person who is laying in a trance.926 The death of the animal shape also
causes the death of the shaman.927 In Old Norse literature, however, this rule does not always
work. An example is the case of the Swedish king Aðils in Hrólfs saga kraka. Although the
saga does not say that he used shape-changing, the relationship between him and the boar is
apparent. It is stated that he sent the enormous boar against Hrólfr and his people. At moment
the boar disappears, Aðils arrives outside of the house, apparently unharmed:928
[...] ok er þat allt í senn, at gǫltrinn fer þar niðr, sem hann er kominn, ok þá kemr Aðils konungr at
929
húsinu [...]
Later in the saga another boar appears, which is possibly a shape-changer who fights and is
sent by Queen Skuld:
[...] hvar kemr úr liði Hjörvarðs konungs einn ógurligr galti. Hann var eigi minni tilsýndar en
þrevett naut ok var úlfgrár at lit, ok flýgr ör af hverju hans burstarhári, ok drepr hann hirðmenn
930
Hrólfs konungs hrönnum niðr með fádæmum.
It is noteworthy that the boars noted above are both connected with the enemies of the main
hero of the saga, Hrólfr kraki, in other words, Skuld and Aðils. The boars might be shapechangers, but it cannot be proven conclusively. Nonetheless, it is clear that they are certainly
connected with magic (see further Chapters 10.3. and 11.0.). 931
Of all of the shape-changing practices, the most complex is shape-changing in which a
person really becomes an animal in its entirety. This again seems to have been an ability only
held by people skilled in magic. These people could change not only themselves into animals
but even change other people. In Old Norse literature, such skills are presented in a very
926
Alver 1989, p. 112.
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 126.
928
Glosecki suggests that the boar is Aðils‟ fylgja. Nonetheless, he uses the word fylgja rather in the meaning of
hamrammr because he sees the scene from Hrólfs saga kraka as clearly referring to shape-changing, and
suggesting a scene involving a battle of shamanistic spirits (fylgjur in his interpretation) (Glosecki 1989, p. 195).
929
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 75.
930
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, pp. 89-90.
931
In circumpolar culture, some mention is made of the role of shaman during the war, when a shaman uses
charms in order to summon some of his spirit animals (Price 2002, p. 307). This is perhaps reminiscent of the
practice involved here, since both Aðils and Skuld are said to be sorcerers (see references given above).
927
141
negative way: being a shape-changer of this kind is hardly seen as being an honourable skill,
as can be seen from the examples.
7.2.2. Transformation of the Body
The other kind of shape-changing is the transformation of the body itself. Such shapechangers are nonetheless recognisable by their eyes which apparently do not change. 932 As
Ellis Davidson has concluded, the bear, the wolf, the pig and the walrus are those animals that
are most often mentioned in records about shape-changing of this kind. Other animals, like
goats, cattle, dogs or fish are less common.933 It is noteworthy, however, that once again the
shape of the animal seems to correspond with the character of person.934
The first example I want to mention with regard to shape-changing involving total
transformation of the body is very different from the rest of the evidence, because the person
here is not changed by his own will. Hyndluljóð, sts 6-7 makes it clear that the goddess Freyja
changed Óttarr into a boar.935 In a similar way, a witch is said to have changed Prince Bjǫrn,
the father of Bǫðvar Bjarki, into a bear.936 It is noteworthy that in both cases, those changed
are of royal blood. In the cases of both of the above figures, the shape-changing has no
negative effect on our view of the person involved, probably because they are not said to have
performed the magic themselves. Views of other kinds of shape-changing are very different,
will be shown in the next paragraph.
The Íslendingasögur refer several times to people physically changing into the shape of
pigs. It is noteworthy, though, that this motif appears in the later sagas. The first is Gull-Þóris
saga, also known as Þorskfirðinga saga. The main manuscript of this saga comes from
around 1400 but the saga itself might be older, perhaps around 1300-1350.937 The saga has a
lot of common with the other 14th century sagas. It contains many elements of folklore, like
932
Kormáks saga mentions a witch who takes the shape of a walrus, but the walrus retains her eyes (Íslenzk
fornrit VIII, pp. 265-266). In a similar way, Loki is recognized by eyes when he is in Frigg‟s falcon cloak in
Geirrǫðr‟s castle (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 24). The same applies to Prince Bjǫrn when he is changed into a bear:
he is recognized by his eyes: see Hrólfs saga kraka (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 42).
933
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 127.
934
Alver 1989, p. 111.
935
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 289.
936
Note that Bjǫrn is not said to be hamrammr. He is changed with the help of an úlfhanski (wolf glove) used by
a witch. However, the word bjarnarhamr is used later for the shape of the bear which Bjǫrn takes.
937
See Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 115.
142
the fornaldarsögur.938 Here shape-changing is mentioned twice, and first of all in the 10th
chapter of the saga, where mention is made of people who were searching for a man called
Askmaðr. They set his house on fire and then they saw:
at svín tvau hlupu eins vegar frá húsunum, gyltr ok gríss. Þórir þreif einn rapt ór eldinum ok skaut
logbrandinum á lær galtanum, ok brotnuðu báðir lærleggirnir, ok fell hann þegar; en er Þórir kom
at, sá hann, at þar var Askmaðr. Gekk Þórir af honum dauðum, en gyltrin hljóp í skóg, ok var þat
Katla.939
Another account in the saga seems to refer to shape-changing, but this is less explicit. The
account runs:
Þau gengu frá skipi ofanverða nótt, ok gekk Kerling first í virkit, því að þegar spratt lássinn fyrir
henna, er hon kom at; ok er hon kom í virkit, hljóp at henni gyltr mikil ok svá hart í fang henni, at
hon fór ǫfug út af virkinu, ok í því hljóp upp Þuríðr drikkinn ok bað Þóri vápnast, segir, at ófríðr
var kominn at bænum.940
Cardew points out that although no clear connection between Þuríðr and the sow is given, the
account is reminiscent of the earlier incident in the saga.941
Harðar saga also contains fantastic motifs like those typical of fornaldarsögur. The
oldest manuscript is from about 1400, and the saga might be from the 14th century, althoughit
has also been dated to the first half of the 13th century.942 The saga seems to describe either
the transformation of the body or an optical illusion. Here, Hǫrðr points out that nothing is
what it seems. First of all, Hǫrðr and his companions see a big bull which is hard to fight
with. Later the witch Skroppa creates an illusion in which people see three boxes instead of
her and her daughters. Later they appear as pigs, which could have been either an illusion or
an example of shape-changing. The description is highly reminiscent of that given in GullÞóris saga, the body also changing back at the moment of death:
Nú sá þeir, hvar gyltr ein rann með tveimr grísum norðr ór garði; þeir kómust fyrir hana. [...] ok nú
skekr gylta norðan hlustinar með grísum sínum […]. Í því tók Hörðr upp stein mikinn ok laust
gyltina til bana; ok er þeir kómu at, sá þeir, at þar lá Skroppa dauð, en dætr bónda stóðu uppi yfir
henna, þar at grísirnir voru [sýnzt.]943
938
Cardew stresses the fact that the events in the saga take place before the establishment of the law in Iceland,
something which allows more fantastic features to occur in the saga (Cardew 2000, p. 55).
939
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, pp. 200-201.
940
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p. 216.
941
Cardew 2000, p. 60.
942
Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 115.
943
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, pp. 67-68.
143
Svarfdœla saga also belongs to the later sagas. The oldest manuscript was written in
about 1450, but the saga itself might be about a half to one century older (c. 1350-1400).944
The saga contains a motif which is most commonly found in the fornaldarsögur: a man
changes into a boar in order to fight. The saga also mentions a boar and polar bear fighting
together, and it is probable that both seem to involve men who are are hamrammir because
they disappear at once:
Skíði hljóp ok þangat við þriðja mann ok sá, at bæði var [á] grundinni gǫltr ok hvítabjǫrn, ok
gengust þeir at; en Skíði gekk at skildi með þeim ok lét eigi kost at berjast lengr, því at tveir eru
hvárir. Ljótólfr hófst undan, ok hlífði Skíði honum, ok þeir þrír saman fǫrunautar, en horfinn var
bæðí gǫltrinn ok svá bersi.945
As noted above, the fornaldarsögur contain several examples of people changing
themselves into swine. Whereas in the Íslendingasögur, the shape-changer is most commonly
said to be a witch who changes herself into a sow for the purpose of saving her life, in the
fornaldarsögur, we again have the image of the boar being viewed first and foremost as an
animal which fights (see also Chapter 5.1.). Bósa saga ok Herrauds, for example, tells of a
king who changes himself into a boar. He is a king of Bjarmaland, and the enemy of the main
hero:
Hárekr konungr raknar nú við ok varð at einum gelti ok greip til Herrauðar með tönnunum ok reif
af honum alla brynjuna ok festi tennrnar í brjóstinu á honum ok reif af honum báðar geirvörturnar
niðr at beini, en hann hjó í móti á trýnit á geltinum, ok tók af fyrir framan augun. Var Herrauðr þá
svá móðr, at hann fell á bak aptr, en galtinn trað hann undir fótum sér, en gat eigi bitit, er af var
trýnit. Þá kom at glatunshundtík mikil á skipit ok hafði stórar vígtenn. Hún reif gat á náranum á
geltinum ok rakti þar út þarmana ok hljóp fyrir borð. En Hárekr var þá í mannslíki ok steypti sér
fyrir borð eptir henni, ok sukku þau til grunna, ok kom hvárki upp síðan, ok þótti mönnum sem þat
946
mundi verit hafa Busla kerling, því at hún sást aldri síðan.
Another saga describing transformation into a boar is Þorsteins saga Víkingssonar.947
King Ingjaldr is said to be of a family from India. He is the son of a certain Kolr, a man with
jǫtunn characteristics and a hamhleypa. It is again noteworthy that the description of him and
944
Vésteinn Ólason 2005, p. 115.
Íslenzk fornrit IX, pp. 181-182.
946
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 495.
947
The oldest manuscript is from the 15th century: Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. vi.
945
144
his family is quite negative, Ingjaldr being called a trana (a snout). 948 He is the one who
changes into a boar. As in the previous saga, he is an enemy of the main hero:
Litu þeir þangat, sem þeim heyrðist gnýrinn, en er þeir litu aptr, var Ingjaldr horfinn, en í staðinn
kominn grimmligr göltr ok lét ekki ógert. Sótti hann þá at þeim, svá at þeir máttu ekki annat gera
en verja sik. Ok er þat hafði gengit nokkura stund, sneri göltrinn at Hálfdani ok greip allan kálfann
af vinstra fæti honum. Í því kom Víkingr at ok höggr um þvera burstina á geltinum, svá at í sundr
tók hrygginn. Sáu þeir, at Ingjaldr lá þar dauðr. Tóku þeir síðan eld ok brenndu hann upp at
köldum kolum.949
Yet another man who physically changes into a boar appears in Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga
which states about a man called Grímr:
Hafði hann verit stundum flugdreki, en stundum ormr, göltr ok griðungr eða önnur skaðsamlig
skrípi, þau er mönnum eru meinsamligust. 950
For the sake of comparison, it might also be noted that shape-changing of this kind also
occurs in the riddarasögur. Mágus saga jarls (c. 1350)951 refers to another change into a wild
boar: “En er hann leit frá sér, sá hann, at þar sem hann hafði verit, var einn villigöltr svo
mikill, at slíkan sá hann aldri.” 952 Sigrgarðs saga frœkna which belongs to the borderline
between riddarasögur and fornaldarsögur 953 (probably from the 14th century) 954 tells of a
Princess Hilðr who is enchanted into having to take a sow‟s shape: “... at Hilldr skal verda ad
gilltu, skulu grïser mïner süga hana, enn Signï skal verda ad flöka folalldi...”.955
A similar motif to that which occurs in Gull-Þóris saga and Harðar saga also appears
in the romance Ectors saga, where a man fights a sow which is actually a woman called
Glebula,956 who is said to make sacrifices and use spells (seiðr).957
Considering the physical shape-changing stories noted above, it seems clear that the
boar or the sow are animals associated with “enemies”. Furthermore, those who are shapechangers of this kind tend to be more anonymous, which means there usually little
948
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 639.
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 201.
950
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 444.
951
Kalinke 2005, p. 319.
952
It is noteworthy that, as in Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga, this figure later changes into a dragon (Páll Eggert Ólason
1916, pp. 224-225).
953
Driscoll 2005, p. 191.
954
Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir 2001, p.cxcvi.
955
Loth 1965, p. 47.
956
Loth 1962, p. 121.
957
Loth 1962, p. 117.
949
145
information is given about their family relations. For example, Gull-Þóris saga only mentions
Katla, but nothing about her background. It might be worth remembering though that another
Katla appears in Eyrbyggja saga. This woman also uses magic, in the form of a sjónhverfing,
in which her son Oddr seems to be a hog. 958 The same lack of genealogical information
applies to Askmaðr, 959 and Skroppa, who is simply said to be fjǫlkunnig, no further
information being given about her.960 The evidence suggests that these people are essentially
created as a means of providing archetypal negative characters for the Íslendingasögur.
The evidence of similar motifs from the fornaldarsögur and the riddarasögur follows
a similar pattern, the main difference being that there, as noted above, it is mostly males that
change into the boar here. The question is whether the negative character of the figures in
these records is the related to the animal being the swine, or the performance of magic itself.
According to Mundal, the ability of taking on the shape of an animal was seen as sorcery in
the sagas, 961 something that shows that the kind of animal involved was probably less
important than the act. On the other hand, it is noteworthy that only a few kinds of animals
appear often in shape-changing stories, and the swine is one of them.962 Ellis Davidson has
pointed out in this connection that the change into a swine is generally used as a form of
disguise in order to avoid the attack of enemies, and that this is a different kind of shapechanging to that associated with bears and wolves.963 Cardew in his comment on Gull-Þóris
saga has also pointed out that the transformation here involves domestic animals which have
less connection with heroic deeds.964 To my mind, these stories show several aspects of the
swine mingling together. One of them is certainly that of the warrior characteristic of the boar,
the idea of an animal suitable for a fight. The other aspects are more complicated. Several
aspects might be involved. As noted above, these literary sources tend to be more recent, and
might be influenced by the negative Christian view of pigs. The swine might also have been
chosen because of its popular relationship to the goddess Freyja who was the mistress of
seiðr,965 and thus a natural figure to be associated with witches. Another reason for suggesting
that someone changed into a pig rather than another animal might be that the pig was an
958
“Síðan gengu þeir Arnkell ok leituðu Odds úti ok inni ok sá ekki kvikt, utan túngǫlt einn, er Katla átti, er lá
undir haugnum, ok fóru brott eptir það” (Íslenzk fornrit IV, p. 53).
959
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, pp. 193-194.
960
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p. 67. Skroppa is not named in any other sources.
961
Mundal 2006, p. 719.
962
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 127.
963
Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 140.
964
Cardew 2000, p. 61.
965
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 13.
146
animal which was naturally living near the household (in the hope of getting more food) and
that this might have made them less suspicious for a shape-changer than other animals. This
answer is perhaps less speculative, but I am aware of the fact that there might be more reasons
for why people were believed to change into swine. Interpretations might vary in accordance
with the context of individual sources.
7.2.3. The Using of Animal Skins and Masking
Although the idea of becoming an animal by help of magic has an element of the fantastic
features, one has to admit that people during the period in question seem to have believed in
such possibilities. Even without magic, people had other possibilities of “becoming” an
animal in some way of other. Archaeological evidence showing of importance of masking and
using animal costumes in Scandinavia goes back to a very early period as Terry Gunnell has
pointed out.966 Images of people in animal and bird costumes appear on rock-carvings and
although it was sometimes suggested that such a person represented a god rather than a human
being,967 the figures in question might well be meant to be persons with similar functions to a
shaman (see Chapter 4.4.1.).968 For example, among the Siberian tribes, it seems shamans
often wear a special bird-costume.969
As suggested above, a number of sources point to the use of masks continuing in the
Viking Age but according to Price they were probably not associated with religious
functions.970 According to Gunnell, they were probably used for leikar or/ and rituals.971 The
key point in the present context is that some of the masks are clearly animal masks, although
it is not always easy to decide which animal they were supposed to present. The 10 th century
mask from Hedeby, fragment 14D, could have been meant to represent either a bull or a
pig.972 More evidence of animal masks comes from the Oseberg tapestry (c. 834 AD), which
seems to contain the image of a woman in a bird mask, and also the image of a person,
probably a woman, wearing a boar mask or a boar skin over her clothes. This figure is also
966
Gunnell 1995, p. 37.
Bing 1920-25, p. 280.
968
Aldhouse-Green 2005, p. 110.
969
Ellis Davidson 1968a, p. 126.
970
Price 2002, p. 171.
971
Gunnell 1995, p. 76.
972
Price 2002, p. 172, fig. 3.52.
967
147
holding a shield in her hand.973 There are various interpretations of the background of this
boar image but they are essentially suggestions based on comparisons with other known
evidence. The problem is that there is no comparable material to this image. According to
Ingstad, the scenes on the tapestries relate to the worship of Freyja or Óðinn, largely because
the figures at the heart of the funeral are women, and because there are images of cats on the
wagon.974 Similarly, according to Gunnell, the masked women and the other figures might be
the worshippers or valkyrjur of Freyja in connection to her role as a recipient of dead
warriors.975 Nonetheless, he rejects the idea that these figures represent gods themselves.976
Price also suggests that the woman might perhaps represent one of the valkyrjur, or
skaldmeyjar, but he also considers the possibility of them being related to a woman shapeshifter.977 Elsewhere Price adds that the tapestries are based on the perception of reality than
on any mythical occurrence.978 In connection with the Oseberg tapestry Gunnell also mentions
the boar figures or boar masks much earlier mentioned by Tacitus (see Chapter 8.1.). 979
Particularly noteworthy in this connection is a suggestion made by Ingunn Ásdísardóttir about
the images on the tapestry. She mentions that in relation to the Oseberg tapestry masks that
there is good reason to think of a context involving of Freyja, because she was related to both
the swine, and the bird costume.980 However, there is no firm evidence in support of any of
these positions - indeed, it is just as possible that the boar image represents first and foremost
the battle symbolic, an idea supported by the fact that the figure holds a shield. Connections
with a deity are a suggestion which does not come from the Oseberg tapestry itself but from
comparative evidence.
Animal-masked warriors appear possibly on the Gallehus horn (from about 400
AD),
981
and another image which could possibly depict a man in a boar costume is a small
figure cast in bronze from a Viking Age cremation in Ekhammar in Uppland. Although the
teeth on the figure resemble more a wolf or a dog, the back of the figure is reminiscent of the
973
Gunnell connects the evidence of the skin-dressed figures on the Oseberg tapestry, the Torslunda plates and
the warrior dance gothikon from Constantinople with the berserkir and úlfheðnar (Gunnell 1995, p. 81 and pp.
72-74). See also Arent 1969, p. 137.
974
Ingstad 1995, 140-143. See also Price 2002, p. 159.
975
Gunnell 1995, p. 63.
976
Gunnell 1995, p. 64.
977
Price 2002, p. 337. Hougen also calls the boar figure shield-maiden (Hougen 1940, p. 104).
978
Price 2002, p. 160.
979
Gunnell 1995, p. 61. Although there might be different translations and interpretations of Tacitus‟s
description of the boar images or masks, the context of battle is obvious.
980
Ingunn Ásdísardóttir 2007, p. 93.
981
Gunnell 1995, p. 66.
148
crested back of boars, and similar to the aforementioned boar costume from Oseberg. 982
Nonetheless, there seem to be closer similarities here to the idea of a wolf-warrior such as one
of the úlfheðnar, the Ekhammar image being more like a wolf than anything else. 983 The
image is certainly also reminiscent of other images of warriors in wearing wolf masks and
carrying spears. A similar image of a man in an animal mask appears beside a dancing warrior
on Torslunda plate D from the end of the 6th century. 984 Hatto suggested that this image
depicts a man in a boar costume.985 Most people nonetheless see the mask in question as being
a wolf mask,986 and, as in the case of Ekhammar image, I am inclined to agree.
The use of an animal skin for shape-changing is a comparatively widespread motif in
Old Norse literature, and continues in Nordic folklore,987 where an animal skin could be used
for shape-changing into an animal (although this was not always the case, as I have shown
above).988 This tradition of shape-changing by means of a costume is probably the forerunner
of the later tradition of carnival masks, where people dress as animals (that is, disguise
themselves as animals).989 According to Gunnell, in later times, it seems that the goat had a
central role in these animal disguise traditions in the Nordic countries.990 It is noteworthy,
though, that while references to goat costumes are more connected with masking activities,
the references to people taking on the guise of the boar/ pig seem to be more related to shapechanging.
982
Price 2002, p. 374.
Pluskowski considers these images as typically predatory (Pluskowski 2006b, p. 121).
984
Gräslund 2006, p. 125. See also Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 215.
985
Hatto 1957, p. 157.
986
Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 215.
987
In some cases here, the shape-changer differs from the real animal by his use of a special belt (Kvideland,
Sehmsdorf 1991, p. 79). See also Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 133.
988
In order to change into a bird, a bird costume is usually used. Vafþrúðnismál, st. 37, mentions a Hræsvelgr, a
jǫtunn in an eagle‟s skin (arnar hamr) (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 51). For example, Freyja and Frigg use a falcon
costume (valhamr, valfallr) (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 30). The extant evidence states that Loki borrows this
costume to travel from Frigg (Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 18) and from Freyja(fiaðrhamr in Þrymskviða, st. 3, Neckel,
Kuhn 1983, p. 111), and her valshamr in Skáldskaparmál chs 1 and Frigg‟s valshamr, Ch. 19. In a similar way,
“álftarhamir” are mentioned in the prose section of Vǫlunðarkviða (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 116). One exception
is probably Óðinn who can changes by his own power. In the beginnning of Skáldskaparmál, he is said that: “Þá
brásk hann í arnarham ok flaug sem ákafast” (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 4).
989
On this topic see further Gunnell (ed.) 2007.
990
Gunnell 1995, p. 80. To give some examples, a goat disguise is mentioned twice in Njáls saga (Íslenzk fornrit
XII, pp. 37 and 347), once in Hrómundar saga Gripssonar (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p.
274), and once in Þorleifs þáttr jarlsskálds (Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 220). Another goat disguise is mentioned in
Gesta Danorum, Book I: “On entering Götaland he put on goat-skins to intimidate anyone who appeared in his
path; accoutred thus in an assortment of animal hides, with a terrifying club in his right hand, he impersonated a
giant.” The text is followed by verses: “Yet bold warriors have frequently concealed themselves beneath the
pelts of beasts” (Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, p. 16). See further Gunnell 1995, pp. 65-66.
983
149
It might be said that the skin of the animal is sometimes seen as having the potential of
turning the person into an animal. It is worth remembering in this context that although
Gullinbursti is said have bristles of gold, the most important part of him was the pigskin,
because that is what made Gullinbursti become a boar, as we can read from Snorri.991 Animal
and bird costumes of this kind are also encountered in the Nordic myths and sagas.992 For
example, in Vǫlsunga saga, the wolf skin called úlfhamr (“wolf shape”) is a key feature in
shape-changing:993
Þeir höfðu orðit fyrir ósköpum, því at úlfhamir hengu í húsinu yfir þeim. It tíunda hvert dægr
máttu þeir komast ór hǫmunum. Þeir váru konungasynir. Þeir Sigmundr fóru í hamina ok máttu
eigi ór komast, ok fylgdi sú náttúra, sem áðr var, létu ok vargsröddu. 994
From the saga, it is obvious that the skin had power in it, which prevented Sigmundr and
Sinfjǫtli from taking it off, a power that could only be destroyed by burning the skin. 995
According to Glosecki, the skin of an animal has a key role in transformation; the person who
wears the skin becomes the animal itself. 996 It has been already pointed out above (see
Chapter 7.1.) how the word hamr was closely connected to the Nordic concept of “soul”. In
Nordic worldview, is thus seems that an animal skin involved something more than the
potential of hiding and covering oneself; it was the animal itself in essence.
A person wearing animal skin might thus symbolically “become” someone else, in other
words, someone who takes on and accepts animal behaviour, something that can be of use in a
fight. It is thus possible that animal masks like those mentioned above could be seen in some
way as forerunners to the later helmets and explain the ideas of the boar on the top of the
helmet (see further Chapter 8.3.).997 This is, of course, only a suggestion but there is evidence
that in earlier periods, the Germanic people did fight in animal head-masks. Plutarch describes
the battle of Vercellae, in 101 BC, in Lives (Caius Marius ΧΧV), describing here the Cimbri
horsemen as being:

991
Faulkes 1998, vol I., p. 42. See further Chapter 9.
On bird costumes, see further Gunnell 1995, p. 82, and Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir 2001, pp. ccvi-ccxi.
993
See further Price 2002, p. 369, and Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir 2001, pp. clxxxi-cxciv. As Torfi Tulinius has
noted, the motif of the werewolf “may have been suggested to the author by „Bisclavret‟, one of the lais of Marie
de France” (Torfi Tulinius 2005, p. 455).
994
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 15.
995
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 16.
996
Glosecki 1989, p. 26.
997
Hatto 1957, p. 159. See further Gunnell 1995, pp. 86-87.
992
150
κράν μν εκαζμνα θηρφν θοβερν τζμαζι κα προηομας διομρθοις τονηες, ς
παιρμενοι λθοις πηερφηος ες υος θανονηο μεζοσς
(with helmets made to resemble the maws of frightful wild beasts or the heads of strange animals,
which, with their towering crests of feathers, made their wearers appear taller than they really
were)998
Hatto, with the help of etymology, argues that the original form of the helm must have been
the mask. He refers to Beowulf, l. 2257, in which the word beadogrīma is used for a helmet,
and in this context he names other Anglo-Saxon words with similar meaning: grimhelm and
eges-grīma.999 According to Hatto, the meaning of the Proto-Germanic *τelmas has more to
do with concealing than protecting.1000 This idea is supported by that fact that in Old Norse,
one of the heiti for the helmet is gríma (mask).1001
Bearing in mind the idea that the warrior wearing a boar helmet might be seen as
becoming a boar, we should move on to the concept of animal warriors.
7.3. Animal Warriors
In the pre-Christian Germanic Iron Age, it seems that the image of the warrior was often
connected with animals, some warriors deliberately taking the role of animals on themselves,
fighting with the same violence as animals. The animals in question were wild animals, which
was fitting because the whole image of war was connected with the wild area.1002 It has been
suggested that war had a ritual character among Anglo-Saxons and Iron Age Scandinavians,
and that the aforementioned animal warriors are proof of this. 1003 Certainly, depictions of
warriors in material culture often portray men with animal features. Ellis Davidson also thinks
that the tradition of shape-changing and the concept of animal warriors lie behind the images
998
Perrin 1920, pp. 532-533.
Hatto 1957, p. 159.
1000
Hatto 1957, p. 159.
1001
Faulkes 1998 vol. I, p. 123. The existence of personal names with both an animal component and the
component grim- (as in the Old Norse Arngrímr and the West Frankish Eburgrim) is interesting in this context.
See further Müller 1970, p. 220, and Gunnell 1995, pp. 86-87.
1002
Andrén 2006, p. 35. Ellis Davidson notes that beside wolves and birds of prey, the chief animals offered in
sacrifice, the boar, the bull and the stallion, were also associated with the battlefield because they were also
powerful fighters (Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 70). See also Chapter 10 on sacrificial animals.
1003
Andrén 2006, p. 33. See also Jesch 2002.
999
151
on helmet plates (see Chapter 8.3.).1004 Certainly, as noted above, the animals represented in
this context are powerful wild animals, mostly the boar, the wolf and the bird of prey.1005
Literary sources suggest that the bear and the wolf were closely connected with warriors
called berserkir and úlfheðnar.1006 These warriors will be discussed in some detail in the next
section in order to understand better the specific role of the boar, which was somewhat
different to the bear and the wolf.
7.3.1. Berserkir and Úlfheðnar
The etymology of the words berserkir and úlfheðnar clearly points towards connections with
animals: The úlfheðnar are those who dress in wolf skins, and the berserkir were those who
dress in bearskins.1007 However, in addition to this, it seems the berserkr might also assume a
“bear name”, as occurs in Saxo‟s Gesta Danorum where the members of a berserkr group
have names containing the element -bjorn or -biorn, such as Gerbiorn, Gunbiorn, Arinbiorn,
Stenbiorn, Esbiorn, Thorbiorn and Biorn.1008 As Schjødt has pointed out, the berserkir were
thus in a way associated with the bear; the initiation into the group perhaps contained fighting
with another berserkr who presented a bear in a symbolical way.1009 According to Schjødt, the
berserkir and úlfheðnar were not considered as animals themselves but were compared to
fierce animals on the symbolic level, just as we use animals to characterise people. Schjødt
actually thinks that the saga writers confused these symbolic animals with real animals,
turning warriors themselves into bears or wolves.
1010
According to Aðalheiður
Guðmundsdóttir, berserkagangr is similar to shape-changing, in that the warrior resembles
the animal.1011 Whatever the case, the animal behaviour of Nordic warriors seems to have
1004
Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 80.
Hedeager 2004, p. 235.
1006
The oldest account of the berserkir and úlfheðnar is the poem Haraldskvæði (Hrafnsmál) composed by
Þórbjǫrn hornklofi (in about 900) (Finnur Jónsson 1912, p. 23). See also Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 79.
1007
The etymology of berserkr has been much discussed. Simek prefers the interpretation of ber meaning bear
and serkr meaning shirt. To his mind, the interpretation of Snorri and the 19 th century scholars that the word was
involved berr (naked) and that berserkr is a warrior who fought without armour is the result of a
misunderstanding: Simek 1993, p. 35. The connection between the word berserkr and the bear is supported in
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 52.
1008
The Latin original keeps these forms of the names: see Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, vol. I, p. 364 (Liber VI);
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, p. 163 and vol. II, p. 95.
1009
See Schjødt, 2006, pp. 888-889. On initiation connected to the bear, see also Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 130.
1010
Schjødt 2006, pp. 891-892.
1011
According to Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir, the main difference is that in shape-changing, souls leave their
body, but in case of the berserkir, we are dealing rather with an animal in human shape: Aðalheiður
Guðmundsdóttir 2001, p. clxxxv.
1005
152
been known. For example, Leo the Deacon wrote about Norse warriors of Svyatoslav that
they howled and roared like wild beasts. 1012 Beside the connection with the fury of these
animals, berserkir are also said to be as strong as bulls.1013
Nonetheless, the role of these animals must be considered carefully in order to
understand the social status of such a warrior. Wolves and bears seem to be prominent in
battle imagery essentially because they are predators: they kill other animals. 1014 On the other
hand, the boar is an omnivore (see Chapter 4.1.), which would mean it must have also
different role on a symbolic level. The berserkir in the Íslendingasögur recorded in the 13th
century onwards are often described as people who cannot control themselves; they are not
seen to be of a good social status.1015 Nonetheless, the image of them as an elite group seems
also to be present in some places.1016 Like these warriors, predatory animals were probably
seen as having both a negative and a positive meaning. 1017 A typical example of such is the
wolf which appears in personal names and in the warrior concept of úlfheðnar, but was
simultaneously often connected with outlaws and enemies.1018 We can see that the berserkir
and úlfheðnar are often mentioned as being in the service of a king, 1019 but they hardly
represent noble heroes. On the other hand, as the following section will show, the king or
ruler himself (or the saga hero) might identify himself with the boar, either symbolically, or,
one might assume, by putting on a boar helmet.
7.3.2. Identification with a Boar: The Boar Warrior
In the previous section, some discussion has been made of animal warriors, the berserkir and
úlfheðnar, but the question remains of whether a similar concept existed for the “boarwarrior”: a warrior whose behaviour and identity was modelled on the boar in the same way
as the identity of úlfheðnar and berserkir was modelled on wolves and bears. The idea of a
1012
Leo is describing the warriors which took part in a campaign against Byzantine army in Bulgaria in 970 at
which he was present himself (Ellis Davidson 1976, pp. 113). Ellis Davidson used the Latin translation Corpus
Scriptorum Historiae Byzantie (Books 8 and 9). The original is to be found in Patrologia Græca, PG 117.
1013
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 17.
1014
Schjødt 2006, p. 892.
1015
Vatnsdœla saga describes berserkagangr as being a kind of sickness (Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 83). See also
Grettis saga (Íslenzk fornrit VII, p. 62).
1016
Simek 1993, p. 35.
1017
Nonetheless, it might be noted that for the Sámi, the bear was not seen as being an evil beast like the wolf
(Ellis Davidson 1978, p. 130).
1018
Glosecki 1989, pp. 189-190.
1019
Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir 2001, p. ccxiv.
153
man putting on a boar-helmet 1020 would certainly fit such an idea. However, it is worth
considering what kind of a man the boar warrior would be and what would make him
different from the berserkir and úlfheðnar? The state of fury typical for the berserkir which is
often described in negative sense is something that is not seen in the case of warriors who are
associated with boars. Although the boar has some characteristics (such as fierceness) which
are comparable to those of the other beasts of battle (the wolf and the bear), it seems
additionally to be associated with protecting warriors, as Tolley has pointed out. 1021 The
explanation for this may lie in the fact that a boar warrior seems to have typically been a
prince or a noble man, as will be demonstrated below, while the berserkr was a man with not
such a good reputation.1022 In support of this theory, it is worth remembering that the poetic
word for a prince or a chieftain is jǫfurr which originally meant “the wild boar” (see further
Chapter 6.1.1.).
Fig. 7. A warrior possibly representing a boar on Vendel XIV helmet plate.
The connection between the boar and the noble warrior may also have been based on
warriors‟ physical appearance in battle recalling that of the boar, probably mingling with the
idea of shape-changing. One helmet plate from Vendel grave XIV, from Uppland, shows two
warriors wearing the bird helmets, one of whom is portrayed as wearing a helmet with boar
tusks. It seems that the plate portrays a warrior whose armour was meant to make him a
representation of the boar itself. In later textual sources, some warriors are said to resemble
1020
The boar helmets will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 8.3. Here the concentration is placed on their
symbolic function.
1021
Tolley 2009, p. 579. The idea of protection is also mentioned by Ellis Davidson 1964, p. 99 and Speake 1980,
p. 81.
1022
Simek 1993, p. 35.
154
boars. For example, the legendary Danish king Haraldr hilditǫnn (war-tooth) got his name
because when he was young, he lost two of his teeth, which were replaced by big tusks. 1023
Similarly, Gǫngu Hrólfs saga mentions a man called Brynjólfr who, when in a state of battle
fury, was said to have teeth like a wild boar: “Hann var tenntr sem villigöltr.”1024 As has been
noted above in Chapter 4.1., boar tusks are the typical sign of the wild boar. 1025 Also in
Kjalnesinga saga, a man who fights with Búi is compared to a boar:
En er þeir höfðu at gengizt um stund, þá mæddist blámaðrinn ákafliga, ok tók at láta í honum sem
þá lætr í göltum, þá er þeir gangast at, ok á þann hátt felldi hann froðu.1026
To show that this idea was widespread in the Germanic-speaking world, it is worth noting that
a warrior is compared to the boar in the 10th century poem Waltharius.1027 A slightly similar
comparison is used several times in the Nibelungenlied.1028
Beside the element of battle fury, when the warriors might have resembled the boar or
the other animals mentioned, there are other references that suggest that men might have seen
themselves as a boar in other situations. In Ragnars saga loðbrókar, Ragnarr, dying in the
snake pit, compares himself with the boar and his sons with piglets:1029 “Gnyðja mundu nú
grísir, ef þeir vissi, hvat inn gamli þyldi”,1030 based probably on this stanza, also said to be
spoken by Ragnarr:
Gnyðja mundu grísir,
ef galtar hag vissi,
mér er gnótt at grandi,
grafa inn rönum sínum
ok harðliga hváta,
hafa mik sogit, ormar;
1023
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, I, p. 226. The name Haraldr hilditǫnn is given in the Sǫgubrot af
Fornkonungum (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 122).
1024
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 443.
1025
See chapter 4.1.
1026
Íslenzk fornrit XIV, p. 37.
1027
Gentry et al. 2002, p. 47. Watharius 898-9 “Alpharides parmam demum concusserat aptam, et spumantis apri
frendens de more tacebat” (Peiper 1873, p. 50). (The son of Alphere thrust his shield to the right place in time,
and gnashing like a foaming boar, kept silent (Kratz 1984, p. 45).
1028
At one point in the Nibelungenlied, a man called Dancwart is compared to a boar as a means of showing his
bravery: “Dô gie er vor den vîenden als ein eberswîn ze walde tuot vor hunden” (Bartch, Boor 1972, p. 306, v.
1946). “He stood at bay before his enemies like a wild boar before the hounds in the forest” (Hatto 1969, p. 241).
Elsewhere a man called Volker is said to fight like a wild boar: “Dâ vihtet einer inne, der heizet Volkêrm als ein
eber wilde unde ist ein spileman” (Bartsch, Boor 1972, p. 314, v. 2001). “There is a man in there called Volker
who fights like a wild boar, and he is a minstrel, too” (Hatto 1969, p. 247). In both cases, the boar is used in a
positive meaning.
1029
On metaphors about young animals, see further Müller 1970, pp. 228-229.
1030
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 135.
155
nú munk nár af bragði
ok nær dýrum deyja. 1031
It is also noteworthy that Gesta Danorum, Book IX, refers to Ragnarr (Regnerus) as a boar,
which shows that Ragnarr‟s connection with the boar was probably widely known:
Si suculę uerris supplicium scissent, haud dubio irruptis haris afflictum absoluete properarent.1032
If the young pigs only knew the distress of their boar, they would certainly break into the sty and
release him from his suffering without delay. 1033
A similar comparison is given in a proverb in Þórðar saga hreðu: “Rýta mun göltrinn ef
grísinn er drepinn.”1034 The connection between the male boar and the piglets mentioned in
Ragnars saga and Þórðar saga is interesting because it does not correspond to the real
behaviour of the boar. As have been mentioned in Chapter 4.1., adult boars do not live with
the herd except when they are mating.1035 Evidently, the idea of the boar is more important
here than the reality. 1036 These ideas of the boar draw rather on a rich set of symbolic
associations between the boar and human warriors. This, therefore, provides further evidence
for close parallels being drawn in Norse culture between human warriors and boars,
suggesting the validity of a concept of a “boar-warrior”.
The idea of the warrior as a boar was perhaps also imagined by the poet of Beowulf.
Here battle is referred to as “eoferas cnysedan” (boars clashed), l. 1328, where “boars” have
been understood by scholars to refer to boar-crests on helmets, as clearly in lines 1110 and
2152 (see Chapter 8.3.1.). This line is interpreted by Lundborg as a reflection of close
relationship between a warrior and his war-gear. 1037 The idea of the warrior as a boar is
perhaps also encoded in helmets in other ways in the early Germanic world. One example is
Beowulf, but there are more examples, as Aldhouse-Green has pointed out. She says that the
stress on the dorsal bristles in images of the boar in Iron Age art seems to underline the anger
1031
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 135. Other variants are given in Finnur Jónsson 1915, p.
258, and in Olsen 1906-08, p. 159, but do not change the fact that Ragnarr compares himself to the boar at this
point in all the versions.
1032
Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, p. 608.
1033
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, p. 291.
1034
Íslenzk fornrit XIV, p. 182.
1035
Meynhardt 1983, p. 30. See also Chapter 4.1.
1036
The motif of the wild boar and its piglets is known also in Celtic myth, for example in the story of the
magical boar Twrch Trwyth and its piglets which was pursued by King Arthur. See Green 1992a, p. 169.
1037
Lundborg 2006, p. 40. Glosecki similarly reads “eoferas” as a paraphrase for warriors (Glosecki 1989, p.
196).
156
and ferocity of the boar, something that, by implication, might draw comparisons with the
warrior himself.1038 Nonetheless, Aldhouse-Green also considers that there might also be a
possibility that the images might recall shamanistic imagery like from Namibia, in which the
depiction of dorsal ridges is used to refer to a dead or spirit animal. 1039 This might be
connected to Glosecki‟s argument that the use of animal names, animal regalia, and animal
behaviour drew a limited degree of shamanic power, thus making the warrior virtually
indistinguishable from the shaman.1040 To my mind, it is too bold to call a warrior a shaman,
but certainly battle was different form of reality and it might be said that the warrior was in a
different state of being when in battle. Considering this, Aldhouse-Green‟s note on the idea of
spirit animals with dorsal ridges makes some sense, if we consider the warrior in battle as
being between life and death. The main problem with using this interpretation is that
Aldhouse-Green‟s example comes from distant countries, and there is no direct evidence that
such beliefs existed in the Old Nordic world view or religion.
Other examples involving comparisons between warriors or princes and wild boars or
pigs appear in Old Norse literature, but they are different in form to the examples given above.
It seems that they point rather to the manner of death than to a warrior being a boar. For
example, in Vǫlsunga saga, Sigurðr Fáfnisbani draws comparisons to the wild boar when he
is dying, saying: “ok torveldra mundi þeim at drepa mik en ein mesta vísund eða villigölt.”1041
Much clearer is another example in which people‟s deaths are compared to those of pigs, and
it is clear from the context that here is nothing heroic involved. Haraldssona saga tells of men
who were killed like pigs: “... þó hirðmenn hans væri drepnir, annar at ǫðrum, svá sem
svín.”1042 In Grettis saga, enemies are compared to pigs:
Mitt vas gilt
gæfuleysi
í markþaks
miðjum firði,
es gamlir
grísir skyldu
halda mér
at hǫfuðbeinum.1043
1038
Green 1992a, pp. 89-91.
See Aldhouse-Green 2004, p. 133. On this subject, see further Chapter 8.1.
1040
Glosecki 1989, p. 42.
1041
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 68.
1042
Íslenzk fornrit XXVIII, p. 339.
1043
Íslenzk fornrit VII, pp. 170-171. Translation: “Great was my lack of good fortune in the midst of the searoof‟s fjord when those old hogs grabbed a firm hold on my head‟s bones” (Viðar Hreinsson 1997, pp.131-132).
1039
157
Another general comparison between people and pigs also occurs in Gesta Danorum, Book V:
When a foreign king comes to Denmark, it is said:
Naam etsi nunc Dani diuiduis esse sententiis uideantur, unanimes tamen mox excipient hostem.
Crebro corrixantes porcos conciliauere lupi.1044
Although Danes now appear to be divided in their motives, they will soon unite in the face of an
invader. Squabbling pigs often form a solid front when threatened by wolves. 1045
From the examples above, it becomes obvious that not every comparison to the swine
indicates a close association of warriors with boars. In the case of Ragnarr‟s words, it seems
that the hero might see himself as the boar, reminding us of the original meaning of the word
jǫfurr, and that the way in which the wild boar dies might be seen as heroic, boars often
making a last stand, surrounded by hunters and dogs. On the other hand, those accounts in
which one‟s enemies are compared to pigs seem to refer to the slaughter of domestic pigs
which is not heroic at all. It thus seems clear that wild boars are strongly associated with a
positive, aristocratic warrior identity, whereas domestic swine are associated with enemies or
other ignoble figures. This is an idea which forms a part of my final argument (see further
Chapter 12.2.).
7.4. Svínfylking
The svínfylking is another term that seems to imply connections between warriors and boars.
It is a name used in the sagas for a wedge battle formation and received its name because in
form it resembles a swine‟s snout.1046 As Ellis Davidson notes, it was probably introduced to
the Roman army by Germanic soldiers,1047 Roman soldiers referring to the formation with a
similar expression as cuneus,1048 or caput porci.1049 According to Beck, the earliest reference
1044
Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, p. 286.
The same passage includes a comparison with powerful birds and eagles: Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I,
p. 122. In her commentary on this passage, Ellis Davidson mentions other proverbs known by Kallstenius
(Kallstenius 1929, p. 18, no. 4): “Wlff gør swijn sotthe” and “Úlfur er svína sættir” (Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006,
vol. II, p. 74).
1046
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 613. See also Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. II, p. 36, and Stock McCartney
2008, p. 37.
1047
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. II, p. 36. See also Turville-Petre 1964, p. 212.
1048
Beck notes all the same that a wedge formation of this kind was known in the Antic world of the
Mediterranean (Beck 1965, p. 41).
1049
On the other hand, the expression caput porcinum is used in Vegetius III, 19 “Quam rem (cuneum) milites
nominant caput porcinum”. According to Stock McCartney, these quotations show that the official name for the
1045
158
to the expression caput porci appears in Ammianus Marcellinus‟ Rerum gestarum libri XXXI,
Book XVII, 13, 9 (4th century AD), as part of a description of the battle between Constantine
and the Sarmatians in 358 AD:1050
… disinente in angustum fronte (quem habitum caput porci simplicitas militaris appellat)
They took the form of a wedge (an order which the soldier‟s naïve parlance calls “the pig‟s
head.1051
Agathias also mentions the boar-shaped battle formation in his Histories, where he writes
about the Heruli:
The disposition of their forces was in the shape of wedge. It was like a triangular figure resembling
the letter delta, the pointed part in front being a dense and compact mass of shields, which
presented appearance of a boar‟s head. 1052
In Germania, Ch. 6, Tacitus similarly mentions a wedge formation used among Germanic
warriors: “Acies per cuneos componitur” 1053 (The battle line is made up of wedge-shaped
formations).1054 Caesar likewise mentions a phalange in de Bello Galico 1, 52:
At Germani celeriter ex consuetudine sua phalange facta impetus gladiorum exceperunt.
But the Germans, according to their custom, speedily formed mass, and received the sword
attack.1055
As noted above, Old Norse literature seems to use the same idea in the verbs svínfylkja
or fylkja hamalt 1056 which are supposed to be synonyms, 1057 even though Neckel has
suggested that they are not.1058 In this present discussion, the concentration will thus be placed
on the word svínfylking, which is mentioned in several sources. In Sǫgubrot af fornkonungum,
formation was cuneus, while the expressions caput porci or caput porcinum were used by soldiers (Stock
McCartney 2008, p. 8).
1050
Beck 1965, p. 41.
1051
Rolfe 1950, vol. I, pp. 386-387.
1052
Frendo 1975, p. 40. Unfortunately, here I was not able to access the Greek original.
1053
Winterbottom, Ogilvie 1975, p. 40.
1054
Mattingly, Handford 1970, p. 106.
1055
Edwards 1958, pp. 84-85.
1056
On hamalt and svínfylking, see further Finnur Jónsson 1917, pp. 47-51; Neckel 1918, pp. 284-349; Olrik
1915 pp. 113-144.
1057
Beck 1965, p. 44.
1058
Neckel 1918, p. 304. The expression “hamalt fylkja” is mentioned, for example, in Ǫrvar Odds ævidrápa, st.
12 (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 392), and in Reginsmál, st. 23 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p.
179).
159
for example, it is said that king Hringr had a svínfylking: “Hann hefir svínfylkt her sínum, ok
mun eigi gott at berjast við hann.” 1059 Elsewhere in the same chapter, the head of the
formation was referred to as a rani (snout): “Hringr hafði svínfylkt öllu liði sínu. Þá þótti þó
svá þykk fylking yfir at sjá, at rani var í brjósti.”1060 Other references appear in Gautreks saga:
(“ok svínfylktu liði sínu til bardaga.”1061); in Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar in Flateyjarbók (“Nú
skulu vér þat ráð taka at fylkia liði váru ok gera á svínfylking”1062), and Ólafs saga helga, in
the same manuscript:
sjáið þar fylking konungs, ok má hanna kalla ekki þykkva, en eigi kemr mér þat á óvart, þó at
raninn verði harðsóttr á fylking hans. 1063
The svínfylking is also mentioned in Knýtlinga saga (probably 1260-1270 ):1064
Hann hafði svínfylkt liði sínu, svá at rani var framan á fylkingarbrjóstinu ok lukt útan allt með
skjaldborg1065
and in Konungs skuggsjá, st. 37:1066
Ef þú ert staddr í orrostu á landi, ok skal á fœti berjask, ok ert staddr í belli1067 svínfylktar fylkingar,
þá varðar þat miklu, at vel verði gætt í önverðri vápnasamankvám, at eigi taki hlíðask eða rof á
gerask bindinni skjaldborg;1068
Considering these records, it seems that their only connection with the swine is
the name. Nonetheless, the answer is not so simple, because there are also sources
which mention a relation between the svínfylking and Óðinn, which gives the formation
a potentially ritual character.1069 Sǫgubrot af fornkonungum states that Óðinn is the one
who knows how to form this battle shape: “Hverr mun Hringi kennt hamalt at fylkja?
1059
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 127.
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 127.
1061
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 21.
1062
Sigurður Nordal 1944, vol. I, p. 152.
1063
Sigurður Nordal 1945, vol. II, p. 115.
1064
Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 164.
1065
Íslenzk fornrit XXXV, p. 223.
1066
Konungs skuggsjá was probably composed in about 1240 (Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, p. 219). See further
Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 334-336.
1067
Here the word bǫllr is used in the meaning of “the front of a phalanx” (Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 92).
1068
Keyser, Munch, Unger 1848, p. 85.
1069
Andrén notes that in Nordic culture, the battle was often ritualized (Andrén 2006, p. 33). See also Chapter
7.3.
1060
160
Ek hugða engan kunna nema mik ok Óðin....”1070 Another reference comes from Gesta
Danorum, Book VII, in which it is connected with King Haraldr hilditǫnn (Haraldus
Hyldetan), a favourite of Óðinn, from whom he apparently learned this formation.1071 At
the same time, it is worth bearing in mind that Haraldr hilditǫnn shows some physical
similarities to the boar (see above, Chapter 7.3.2.), which connects him, according to
Turville-Petre to the god Freyr.1072
It appears that the svínfylking formation was one of the reasons for why some
scholars have connected the boar with Óðinn. 1073 To my mind, however, this is not
enough evidence for making such an assumption. Even though (as noted in Chapter 7.3.)
battle may have had a ritual character, the name of the formation alone does not
necessarily mean that it invoked, or was associated with the power of the boar. Once
again, it is necessary to be careful considering the context and the origin of the
phenomenon. In this case, differently from the helmets (see Chapter 8.3.), it seems that
the svínfylking is essentially connected to the swine because of its visual form rather
than because of any religious connections, even if it was associated with battle and
warriors.
7.5. Summary
To sum up this chapter, it seems clear that animals (the boar included) formed an
inseparable part of the Nordic mind. As the first part of the chapter demonstrates, the
1070
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 127.
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, pp. 226-227. For a comment, see vol. II, p. 36.
1072
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 212.
1073
See Olrik 1915, pp. 142-144. Neckel (1918) also connects the expressions svínfylking and hamalt fylkia with
Óðinn (Neckel 1918, pp. 284-349). Another reason for this might be the role of Woden (Óðinn) in royal
genealogies: according to Barco, the boar was a royal symbol and was connected with Woden as the ancestor of
Anglo-Saxon royal house (Barco 1999, p. 169). See also Speake 1980, p. 81, and Wilson 1992, pp. 109-110. It
has also been suggested that another connection between the boar and Óðinn can be seen in the bracteates. The
main argument offered by Hauck involves the suggestion that one of the figures presented on bracteates is Óðinn
healing a horse (based on the Merseburg charm) (Simek 1993, p. 44). However, it might be remembered that
Hauck mainly used the Type C bracteates. Type A bracteates also involve several animal figures which Hauck
identified as boar (Hauck 1978, pp. 368 and 382-383; see also Starkey 1999, pp. 380-381). According to Hauck,
the boar was also associated with Óðinn because it appears in Valhǫll, and regenerates every day. According to
Hauck, the bracteates involving boar images all recall the myth of Óðinn as a healer, and Sæhrímnir and his role
of regeneration, and thus it fits to the concept of healing, that is a form of regeneration. Starkey nonetheless
argues that Hauck does not explain why the boars supposedly connected with Óðinn seem to appear in pairs on
several images (Starkey 1999, p. 381). (Unfortunately, Starkey does not say in which of Hauck‟s various books
this opinion is stated about the boar).
1071
161
idea of the “soul” in the form of the fylgja, hugr and hamr seems to have contained
associations with the animal aspects of humans. These animal aspects were definitely
seen as forming part of a human beings‟ identity and were therefore naturally associated
with beliefs about shape-changing, in which humans took animal form, in both a
spiritual and a physical sense. As has been shown, there are many references to swine in
this sense. Although these animal aspects of people appear in different contexts and
with different meanings, the blending of animal and human identities seems to form a
common factor of all the accounts that have been discussed. Of particular interest is that
this blending is especially associated with death and the battlefield. In the case of the
latter, the idea of an animal identity might have been useful for a warrior who might be
seen as becoming an animal. This was a natural literary image, but might also have
referred to real life, the warrior needing to possess some animal qualities in order to
fight. As the evidence shows, it seems that the boar was probably understood differently
from predatory beasts like the bear and the wolf. Although there is also some evidence
of domestic swine, which seem to be associated with poor qualities, it seems clear that
boar warrior (associated with the wild boar) was essentially seen as being a noble man,
rather than a mad warrior, something already noted in the examination of the vocabulary
related to the boar (see Chapter 6.0.). This idea leads us to the next chapter which will
show how this idea of the noble boar warrior is supported not only by archaeological
finds connected to battle but also by the literary evidence concerning such objects.
162
8.0 The Boar and the Battlefield
In the previous chapter, we looked at various ideas concerning the boar, and most of them
concern the warrior and the noble aspect of the boar. In this chapter, I want to show how these
aspects might well be reflected in objects such as helmets and other warrior equipment. For
the most part, we will be dealing with objects from the 6th and 7th centuries that come from
England and Scandinavia. The boar images of the time nonetheless extended beyond the
sphere of objects connected to battle, and I will therefore also be giving a brief survey of other
types of boar-related objects, giving some examples. For obvious reasons, however, more
emphasis will be placed on objects connected with battle, especially as a result of their
relevance to Old Norse and Anglo-Saxon literature which not only give descriptions of these
objects but also some indication of how they were understood.
8.1. The Oldest Evidence of Boar Artefacts
Before proceeding to the boar objects of the Anglo-Saxon and the Vendel period (600-800
AD), it is worth presenting a chronological survey of the oldest “boar” material in Germanic
Europe. There are two reasons for why this is important. Firstly, it is important to bear in
mind that boar images were known in Europe a long time before the Anglo-Saxon or the
Vendel period, and this might have had an influence on later art. Secondly, this earlier
evidence shows a possibility that boar images might have existed without any relation to
Freyr and Freyja; indeed, they might be older and more widespread than any cult of Freyr and
Freyja (as we know them from later sources). Moreover, when considering the origin of the
boar symbol, it should not be forgotten that boar images were known not only to Germanic
people but also to the Romans and Celts.1074
Although some images of the boar which appear in Bronze Age rock carvings have
been noted in Chapter 4.4., the real “boar fashion” came into being much later, in both the
Celtic and Germanic areas. It has been noted by Ross that the boar does not appear
extensively as a cult animal in the proto-Celtic context.1075According to MacKillop, the boar
seems to have become popular among the Celts from the Hallstatt period (c. 800 BC - 450
1074
1075
North 1997, p. 73; Foster 1977b, pp. 26-28. See also Speake 1980, p. 81.
Ross 1967, p. 308.
163
BC) onward.1076 The huge quantity of boar figures and images of Celtic origin nonetheless
leave no doubt that the boar came to be a popular animal among Celtic people, 1077 boar
figures becoming relatively common from the middle to the later Iron Age. 1078 To Miranda
Aldhouse-Green‟s mind, some of these figures were more likely helmet crests or standardfittings than statuettes.1079 All the same, as Foster has observed, it is not certain that those boar
figures found in Britain were originally helmet crests.1080 Her conclusion is that of twenty-two
Celtic boar figures found in Britain, only four of them show signs of having been attached,
and Forster does not expect that they were originally helmet crests.1081 This, however, is only
in Britain, and even though no Celtic helmet has been found with a boar crest, there is good
reason to believe they could have existed.
Fig. 8a) Detail of a boar helmet from the Gundestrup cauldron; b) the coin from Esztergom, Hungary.
1076
MacKillop 1998, p. 40. The Hallstatt culture in early phase started already about 1200 BC, but it was
widespread in Europe, as the dates above show (MacKillop 1998, p. 265).
1077
There are some statues which are possibly connected to Celtic deities. The most known and enigmatic Celtic
image of a boar is that from Euffigneix (Haute-Marne) in France. The stone block contains a carving of a man
with torques around his neck. Along on his body, the image of a boar is carved. The statue is dated to between
2nd and 1st century BC (Green 1992a, p. 219). Another image appears on relief from Reichshoffen near
Strasbourg, which contains a portrait of a god wearing Gaulish sagum, carrying a piglet under his arm.
According to Aldhouse-Green, it might be the god Vosegus (Green 1992b, p. 100).
1078
Green 1992a, p. 152.
1079
Green 1992a, p. 152. Foster is, however, of different opinion. See Foster 1977b, pp. 26-28.
1080
Foster points out that the Celtic boar figures are often assumed to have been helmet crests. Nevertheless, to
her mind, we do not have any example of helmets with boars attached to helmets. The only exception is the
Benty Grange helmet which is of Anglo-Saxon origin: Foster 1977b, p. 5. (Note that when Foster was writing,
the other Anglo-Saxon boar helmet from Wellingborough in Northamptonshire had still not been discovered.)
1081
Foster 1977b, p. 26.
164
Certainly, in these figures, the dorsal crest (i.e. crested bristles) is characteristic,
something which points to the fierceness and aggression of the boar, and logically points to
battle symbolism.1082 Aldhouse-Green has nonetheless also noted that crested hair in some
cultures might represent a dead or spirit-animal,1083 something which is very interesting when
one considers recent debates concerning the shamanistic aspects of Old Nordic religion (see
Chapters 1.2.3, 7.1.1. and 7.2.1.). The image of boar-helmeted warriors was certainly known
among Celtic people, as can be seen on the Gundestrup cauldron (2 nd century BC) (fig.
8a).1084 Possibly related to these is the image on a Celtic coin from Esztergom in Hungary,
from the 1st century BC, which depicts a warrior with a boar on the top of his head (fig. 8b).
Here, however, the boar figure cannot be seen directly as a helmet crest. Instead, it seems to
be standing on the top of the head of the man.1085 Nonetheless, a helmet with a raven crest has
been found, in which the raven (or just a bird) was able to move its wings. 1086 This logically
leads toward the conclusion that boar figures could also have been originally attached to the
helmets, similar to images on the Gundestrup cauldron. 1087 Furthermore, according to
Aldhouse-Green, the boar from Gaer Fawr, Montgomeryshire, is believed to have been a
helmet-crest.1088 The same applies to the boar figures from Hounslow, near London (1st c.
BC).1089 Two of three boar figures found there had „pegs‟ on their feet. Foster nonetheless
suggests that these animals were more probably fixed onto stands.1090
Among other Celtic objects depicting a boar or a pig, is the shield found in the River
Witham (Lincolnshire).1091 This boar was originally attached to the shield with rivets and is
now only visible on drawings. The shield is made out of bronze, with a glass inlay, and is a
1082
Green 1992a, p. 152.
Aldhouse-Green mentions that in the shamanistic imagery of San and Namibian tribes (southern Africa), the
depiction of dorsal ridges is used to show a dead or spirit animal (Aldhouse-Green 2004, p. 133). See further
Blackmore 1996. Glosecki has interpreted the boar-crests on Anglo-Saxon helmets in a similar way. According
to him, the boar is the animal guardian of the warrior who wears it (Glosecki 1989, pp. 192-193).
1084
The bowl contains images of several warriors with boar figures on the top of their helmets. This bowl is
probably from the 2nd century BC and it seems to be Celtic work (Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 76). It definitely
contains motifs which are Celtic (war trumpets) but many other motifs seem to be very exotic (MacKillop 1998,
p. 231). Both the origin and the age of the cauldron are still under discussion. It could also be of Thracian origin,
and its age might go back to 150 to 50 BC (Enright 2007, p. 106). It is worth noting that boars are not only on
helmet crests but also appear on another plate (exterior plate A) in which two men are holding pigs in their hands.
1085
As Aldhouse-Green mentions in the context of Celtic art, the combination of the human and the boar was a
common motif on Iron Age coins (Aldhouse-Green 2004, p. 133).
1086
The helmet from Ciumesti in Romania is from the 3 rd century BC (Cunliffe 1997, p. 98). Aldhouse-Green
also mentions another Celtic helmet which bears a goose and yet another helmet which has horns (Green 1992a,
p. 87).
1087
Cunliffe 1997, p. 98.
1088
Green 1992a, p. 90.
1089
Green 1992a, p. 46.
1090
Foster 1977b, p. 13.
1091
Cunliffe 1997, p. 98.
1083
165
typical Celtic long shield, like those depicted on the Gundestrup cauldron.1092 An example of
a pig in a non-warrior context is the pig depicted on the Rynkeby bowl (Fyn, Denmark),1093
which has a curly tail, and is therefore unlikely a wild swine.
Beside the Celtic boars, other influences on the Germanic boars may have come from
the Roman Empire. Indeed, Foster, in her research on boar figurines in Britain admits that it is
a problem to decide which figures are actually Celtic and which Roman. 1094 Speake in
research on Anglo-Saxon animal art also mentions the importance of considering art from the
Celtic and Roman periods, suggesting that some of the later boar images might even be
survivals of motifs from earlier periods.1095
A possible link between Celtic and Germanic boar symbolism is a description of boar
signs given by Tacitus in Germania, Ch. 45 (1st c. AD) which is an important source on the
antiquity of the boar symbol.1096 In this description the use of the boar symbol is ascribed to a
tribe, whose tradition is Germanic (Suebi) but whose language recalls Celtic languages:
Ergo iam dextro Suebici maris litore Aestiorum gentes adluuntur, quibus ritus habitusque
Sueborum, lingua Britannicae propior. Matrem deum venerantur. Insigne superstitionis formas
aprorum gestant: id pro armis omniumque tutela securum deae cultorem etiam inter hostis
praestat.1097
(Turning, therefore, to the right hand shore of the Suebian sea, we find it washing the country of
the Aestii, who have the same customs and fashions as the Suebi, but a language more like the
British. They worship the Mother of the gods, and wear, as an emblem of this cult, the device of a
wild boar, which stands them in stead of armour or human protection and gives the worshipper a
sense of security even among his enemies.) 1098
What exactly does this description mean? Opinions vary. Beck mentions it as a reference to
boar insignia, 1099 while Owen-Crocker understands it as a reference to boar masks. 1100
Näsström sees it as proof of the use of boar-helmets.1101 Barco, on the other hand, interprets
formae as being boar figures which had function of protective amulets.1102 The fact that the
1092
Mac Cana 1996, p. 95 (British Museum, London).
Ellis Davidson 1967, p. 76. The swine is on the inner side of the bowl.
1094
Foster 1977b, p. 26. See also Foster 1977b, pp. 26-28.
1095
Speake 1980, p. 77.
1096
See further Foster 1977b, p. 5.
1097
Winterbottom, Ogilvie 1975, p. 60.
1098
Mattingly, Handford 1970, p. 139.
1099
Beck 1965, p. 40.
1100
Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 268. See Chapter 7.2.3.
1101
Näsström 1995, p. 170.
1102
Barco 1999, p. 165.
1093
166
word forma here appears in the plural accusative is certainly more applicable to the idea of
boar masks or helmets, objects that we know existed in the Anglo-Saxon and Vendel period.
8.2. A General Survey of Non-Martial Boar Objects
Before proceeding to the boar objects connected to battle, it is important to note briefly that
images of the boar also appear on objects connected with the daily life of the Germanic
people, as Speake pointed out, in other words on bowls, brooches, buckles, plates, bracelets
and pendants and more.1103 There is no point in naming them all. The main point is that the
boar symbol extended beyond battle artefacts. Nonetheless, as we will see later, the main
emphasis in the extant literary sources is on battle symbolism. There are several points worth
considering in this context. First of all, some of the non-martial objects belong to a much
older period than the later martial objects. Furthermore, while boar helmets are mainly
connected with just two areas (England and Sweden), the boar images as a whole appear in a
much broader Germanic area, including Norway, Germany, Switzerland and even northern
Italy.1104
It seems that the boar had attained importance in the Elbe region in the north of
Germany – more firmly within Germanic-speaking regions than the tribes on which Tacitus
focused (see Chapter 8.1.) – as far back as the 3rd century AD. 1105 Boar objects have also
been found in other places as well, but not as many in one area.1106 Those objects which seem
to have had particular importance in the Elbe area are clay pots made in the shape of a swine
or with a swine as the decoration. One of the objects in question is a clay pot from Greussen
(about 200 AD) (fig. 9a).1107 Todd also mentions other zoomorphic vessels which come from
the same place, one of which had boar faces on its sides.1108 Beck also mentions the find of
another pot from this period from near Schlotheim in Lower Saxony which had the shape of
pig with two heads and four feet.1109
1103
Speake 1980, pp. 78-79.
See Speake 1980, p. 79.
1105
Speake calls the boar importance in the Elbe region evidence of a boar-cult, an expression I think we should
be more careful about using. See further Speake 1980, p. 81 and Beck 1965, p. 65.
1106
Beck mentions a shield boss from Hungarian Herpály (300-350 AD) and a bronze sheet from Thorsberg
moor in Schleswig-Holtstein (Beck 1965, pp. 34 and 53-55).
1107
Beck 1965, p. 61.
1108
Todd 1975, p. 197.
1109
Beck 1965, p. 62.
1104
167
Other swine pots have been found, coming from the 5th century AD. They include a
Saxon cremation urn (5th century) from Issendorf in Germany which has the figure of a boar
on its lid (fig. 9b). 1110 Another clay pot lid with a depiction of a boar from the same period
comes from Altenech, Oldenburg in Lower Saxony. Compared with the Issendorf boar, this
one is rather clumsy and not so well made.1111
Fig. 9. From the left: the pots from a) Greussen, b) Issendorf, c) Leibenau.
Yet another pot (cremation urn) from the same period in the shape of a boar comes from
Liebenau in Lower Saxony (fig. 9c).1112 According to Ellis Davidson, the find from Issendorf
suggests that Germanic people associated the boar with the dead. 1113 Reichert, however,
connects these pots with the sacrifice of food. 1114 I personally do not have any better
explanation for them. The general message has to be that these pots certainly had some
meaning because so many of them appear in one area. Other examples of objects depicting
boars from the same area are a boar fibula found in a well in Bad Pyrmont, Lower Saxony,
(from c. 200-400 AD) (fig. 10b)1115 and another boar fibula from Zauschwitz in Weideroda,
near Borna in Lower Saxony (3rd century) (fig. 10a).1116
1110
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 164.
Beck 1986, p. 332.
1112
Todd 1975, p. 197.
1113
Gelling, Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 164.
1114
Reichert 1999, p. 179.
1115
Beck 1965, pp. 55 and 60.
1116
Krüger 1983, plate 9.
1111
168
Fig. 10. Copies of the 3rd-century boar fibulas from a) Zauschwitz b) Bad Pyrmont.
Among other Germanic examples from this time (the 6th-7th century) are the boar on a beltend application from Grave 8, Esslingen-Sirnau, in Baden-Wurttemberg,1117 and also the boar
on the end of a gilded cross from Wurmlingen, Baden-Wurttemberg.1118
Moving to Scandinavia, the boar starts appearing in a somewhat different context. It is
worth starting with a brief mention of the Gotland stones. Besides some images which have
been speculatively interpreted as boars, 1119 one picture stone from Smiss, När parish, in
Gotland, (400-600 AD)
1120
has particular importance because of one image‟s possible
connection with later art (fig. 11). The image in question is a triskele involving the heads of
three animals, one of which (at the bottom) is probably a boar (because of its big tusk). One of
the other animals is without doubt a bird of prey but the third animal is hard to identify.
Underneath is an image of a woman holding what appear to be two snakes.
1117
Hedeager 2004, p. 224.
Hedeager 2004, p. 226.
1119
Beck mentions the Ardre VIII and Lärbro I stones as having a boar-like figure (Beck 1965, p. 59). See
Chapter 5.5.1.
1120
Price 2002, p. 222, fig. 3. 106. See also Nylén, Lamm 1988, pp. 40-41.
1118
169
Fig. 11 The Smiss stone, Gotland.
In other images of the same kind, the boar‟s head appears together with that of other animals
which are usually called “beasts of battle” (in other words, the wolf, the bird of prey, probably
eagle and the boar).1121 They usually date to the Vendel Period (600-800).1122 In the case of a
buckle from Sjælland, Denmark (fig. 12a) a human head appears in the middle and in two
triads) of animal heads appear on each side. In this case, the boar is present on either side in
each case, accompanied by a wolf and a bird of prey. 1123 A similar buckle was found in
Skärholmen (Södermanland) in Sweden (c. 600 AD (fig. 12b)
1124
and another in
Gammertingen, Germany (fig. 12c) both showing a boar on each side, but the latter one has a
1121
See Nielsen 2006, p. 246, Hedeager 2004, p. 238.
See Shetelig 1949, p. 90.
1123
Speake 1980, fig. 5g. According to Shetelig, this piece was most likely imported from Southern Germany.
Shetelig also notes a similar buckle with a boar head in the middle from Hungary (Shetelig 1949, p. 90). See also
Hedeager 2004, p. 224.
1124
On the buckle, a boar, a man, and perhaps the beak of a bird of prey are all present (Speake 1980, fig. 5i).
1122
170
“snake” ornament in the middle. 1125 Yet another boar buckle comes from a 6th- century
chieftain‟s grave found in Åker, Hedmark, Norway (fig. 13), this one containing the heads of
a boar and a bird of prey.1126
Fig. 12. From the left: Buckles from a) Sjælland, b) Skärholmen, c) Gammertingen.
A final group of Scandinavian objects from the Vendel period worth mentioning are
some huge golden neck rings about which I have unfortunately not succeeded in finding any
detailed reports. Nonetheless, Sune Lindqvist describes how various animals and figures are
included in the ornamentation on some of these rings. For example, images of swine appear
on the necklace from Ålleberg, Västergötland. 1127 The presence of boars on Scandinavian
neck rings (especially from Sweden) is especially noteworthy, because, as in the case of the
boar helmets, they reflect the literary evidence, in this case, the ring called Svíagrís which
might be a neck ring of similar appearance (see Chapter 11.0.).
1125
Speake 1980, fig. 12g.
Beck 1965, p. 55.
1127
See Lindqvist 1926, pp. 56-57.
1126
171
Fig. 13. Buckle from Åker, Norway.
In Anglo-Saxon England, the boar also seems to have become a favourite animal
during the same period as that discussed above (the 6th and 7th century). Here boar images are
used to decorate a range of objects. Usually it is only the boar‟s head, but cloisonné shoulderclasps from Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, depict two interlinked figures of boars, with tusks, crested
backs and curly tails.1128 Boars‟ heads also seem to appear on several objects from Faversham,
Kent,1129 on an open-work buckle from Grave 300, Kingston, Kent,1130 and on square-headed
(Leeds‟ type A3) brooches. 1131 The boar head is similarly simplified and hidden on a
cloisonné bracteate-pendant from Womersley, Yorkshire (early 7th century).1132 Concerning
the Anglo-Saxon material, three pairs of boars are depicted on a bronze-gilt bracelet from
Kingston (Gr. 299), and another two pairs on a silver-gilt bracelet from Faversham.1133
1128
Speake 1980, p. 78.
Speake mentions four triangular buckles, a silver plate riveted to the border of a harness mount, a damaged
cloisonné disc-brooch and three pairs of boar‟s heads which appear on a bronze gilt bracelet (Speake 1980, pp.
78-79).
1130
The animal is not so clearly a boar, but it seems that it has tusks (Speake 1980, fig. 6l, and p. 79).
1131
Speake 1980, p. 79.
1132
Speake 1970, p. 8, fig. 4. See also Hawkes 2003, p. 332.
1133
Speake 1980, p. 79 and figs 11k and 11l.
1129
172
To conclude this short survey, it is worth considering what these objects have in
common. It seems that the objects noted above were used by both men and women, 1134 and
were used by the higher ranks of society.1135 Speake points out that many of the examples
come from the royal burial in Sutton Hoo, or the so-called “King‟s field” cemetery at
Faversham, Kent.1136 Certainly, it is probable that only noble people could afford such pieces
of work. As regards the meaning of these decorations, Beck suggests a possible belief that
such objects as belts and buckles give their bearer supernatural power.1137 Although such a
protective function is possible, their decorative function and fashionable role must be
considered as well. As Speake has pointed out, the purpose of art is the creation of beauty. 1138
To me this later suggestion is more likely. It is certainly quite possible that the meaning of the
boar could have differed by individual and by object. As will be shown in the next chapter,
the same could have applied to martial objects.
8.3. Helmets and Martial Objects
Although older evidence of boar helmets (the Gundestrup cauldron) has been mentioned
above (in Chapter 8.1.), it is several centuries before they come to appear again in Germanic
sources.1139 While the use of boar images continued over centuries, no further boar helmets
appear until the 6th and the 7th century, when they come to be found in England and in
Scandinavia.1140 Each, however, has a different style.
Anglo-Saxon boar helmets contain a figure of boar on the helmet crest, while the
Scandinavian “boar helmets” only have plates depicting warriors with boar helmets, similar to
those found on the Gundestrup cauldron (fig. 8a). The Anglo-Saxon helmets in question are
1134
Speake mentions that boar brooches were present in female graves (Speake 1980, p. 81).
Hawkes 2003, p. 316.
1136
Speake 1980, p. 79.
1137
Beck 1965, p. 53. Beck‟s argument is based on existence of such belts in mythology (including Þórr‟s belt
megingjarðar) and a magical “wolf-belt” which, according to folk legend, helps the wearer change shape (Beck
1965, p. 54).
1138
Speake 1980, p. 77.
1139
Speake 1980, p. 80.
1140
In this connection, it is worth mentioning the grave of a 4 th-century Germanic chieftain in Monceau-le-Neuf,
where two boar tusks were found. The tusks were extremely big and joined together by a silver sheet. As Werner
has pointed out, they were probably originally riveted to a leather helmet (Werner 1949, p. 249). See also Speake
1980, p. 80. Nonetheless, since this is not related to a boar figure, it has not been mentioned in the main text. The
warrior himself, however, might have been reminiscent of a boar.
1135
173
the helmet from Benty Grange (fig. 14),1141 and the “Pioneer” helmet (fig. 15), but the boar
from Guilden Morden (also Anglo-Saxon) (fig. 16) may be considered as well.1142 The Benty
Grange helmet, Derbyshire, can probably be dated to the middle or latter part of the 7th
century, because of the evidence of the cross on the nasal section.1143 The boar has gilded
Fig. 14. The Benty Grange boar.
studs, which, according to Bruce-Mitford, might possibly suggest an association with the
golden boar of Freyr, the golden spots representing the golden bristles of the animal (see
further Chapter 9.0.).1144 Nonetheless, it is questionable whether this myth was ever known in
Britain.1145
1141
The helmet is probably one of the most recent objects to be put in the grave (Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 242).
All that remains are the frame of the helmet which includes a boar on the top, with a strong accumulation of iron
oxide. Although very corroded, the representation of the boar is clearly visible. See Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 226
and 228, and plates 63-67 which contain a reconstruction of Benty Grange boar with radiographs.
1142
It has been suggested that the boar was originally on the top of the helmet because of the pin and socket in its
legs (Foster 1977a, pp. 166-167).
1143
Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 242.
1144
Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 238. To summarize the most important facts of Bruce-Mitford‟s description, the boar
is about 9 cm long; and has golden spots, possibly for bristles, and tiny garnet eyes. The grave also contains a
cross and the helmet has the image of a cross on the nasal section. The boar itself is iron with bronze eyes. The
body is also made in part of bronze but iron was also used. The hips of the boar were of silver but gilded. The
use of iron, bronze and silver is unique in Germanic jewellery, but the eyes of garnet, gold and filigree are a
typical combination in Germanic jewellery. Mercury gilding was also used on the tusks, the ears, the spine and is
found also on the remains of the tail. The snout and jaw seem to have originally been more extensive than they
appear now (Bruce-Mitford 1974, pp. 241-242).
1145
Similarly, there is some question of how far Freyr himself was known in Britain. On this topic, see further
North 1997.
174
The so-called “Pioneer” helmet was discovered in 1997 near Wellingborough in
Northamptonshire. It has been dated to the middle of the 7th century. Compared to the Benty
Grange boar, this one is simpler. Here the boar is very symbolic, and simply formed in
iron.1146
Fig. 15. The boar crest on “Pioneer” helmet.
The bronze boar found in Guilden Morden, Cambridgeshire, is similar to that from
Benty Grange and probably comes from the same period.1147 It is possible, however, that the
grave in which it was found belonged to a woman.1148
Fig. 16. Boar figure from Guilden Morden.
1146
Underwood 1999, p. 104.
Foster mentions that the boar was originally considered to be Celtic but as a result of a comparison with the
Benty Grange boar, it was interpreted as Anglo-Saxon (Foster 1977a, p. 166).
1148
Underwood 1999, p. 102.
1147
175
As noted above, the helmets of Scandinavian origin do not have any boar crests like
those from England, but do contain plates depicting warriors wearing helmets with boar
crests. Hatto has suggested that the warriors depicted on helmet plates are wearing helmets of
a more archaic type than the helmet itself.1149 The first example, the Vendel I helmet (c. 650
AD)1150 contains a plate with an image of a riding warrior who has the entire figure of a boar
on top of his helmet (fig. 17a). One person is holding his horse and a bird of prey is following
them. The image is repeated several times in other plates along the right side of the helmet.
On drawings of the plate images, the tusk, crested back and straight tail of the boar are
visible.1151
Fig. 17. From the left: Boar warriors on helmet plates from a) Vendel I, b) Valsgärde 7.
The second example, a helmet from the Valsgärde 7 boat grave (early 7th century)1152
contains several plates containing motifs which appear elsewhere, such as warriors with birdcrested helmets and spears, a man between two bears, and two foot- warriors with spears and
boar-crested helmets. 1153 The boars from the Valsgärde 7 helmet plates (fig. 17b) are
extremely big in comparison to the head of the warrior. It is noteworthy that the same motif of
1149
Hatto 1957, p. 159.
Arent 1969, p. 135.
1151
See Arent 1969, p. 134, and plates 23 and 24.
1152
Gräslund 2006, p. 125. See further Arwidsson 1977.
1153
Gräslund 2006, p. 127; See Arent 1969, plates.
1150
176
boar-helmeted foot-warriors also appears on one of the Torslunda plates from Öland (the 6th
century)1154 (fig. 18), which were probably supposed to be used on helmets as well.1155
Fig. 18. Warriors with boar helmets on one of Torslunda helmet plates.
To understand to the role of the animal figures on these helmets, it is very helpful to
look at the literature that refers to them, something that will be done in the next section. Here,
however, I would like to mention briefly the function of the helmet as such. Obviously, the
helmet has a protective function, but if we consider religious connotations, it is also worth
considering that the helmet might also be seen as having the function of a disguise. In the
same way that dressing in an animal skin changes a person‟s identity, putting on an animal
helmet creates a “beast of battle” (see Chapter 7.3.2.). In this connection, it is worth
considering a helmet plate from Vendel grave XIV (7th century), on which a man is portrayed
wearing a helmet with boar tusks (fig. 7).1156 (On this subject of changing personality, see
further Chapter 7.3.2.).
1154
Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 41.
Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 214. The grave could have been that of the helmet maker according to Bruce-Mitford
who suggests that the helmets known from the Svear area could originally be Geatish. Bruce-Mitford asks
whether both the Svear and the Geatish warriors used the same types of helmets or whether the helmets could be
war trophies won by Swedish from the Geats (Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 218).
1156
Hedeager 2004, pp. 228-229. On helmet plates from the Vendel period, see further Gunnell 1995, pp. 66-76.
1155
177
Other boar objects connected to battle are shields and swords, although there is not as
much evidence as in the case of helmets. One can mention an Anglo-Saxon sword from the 7th
century found in the River Lark (Cambridgeshire), which contains three figures of boars,
stamped or punched into the blade. As Ellis Davidson has pointed out, there are no other
swords with such animal stamps from this period.1157 Ellis Davidson describes the boars here
as being small, plump beasts, with ears, tail and eyes clearly visible in profile. To her mind,
the boar here is no mere decoration. She mentions the boars on the helmets by way of
comparison, but stresses a similarity between the boar stamp on the sword and coinage in
which the symbol of a local ruler was used.1158 It is nonetheless noteworthy that such stamps
are also known on Celtic swords, like the sword from Port in Switzerland (where they could
simply be the artisan‟s personal marks and guarantees of quality, as Cunliffe pointed out).1159
The boar motif also appears several times on cloisonné sword pommels from the 5th-7th
century, Speake noting those from Hög Edsten in Bohusän and Vallstenarum (Gotland).1160
Shields of this period were also decorated with animal and bird images, 1161 AngloSaxon shield-fittings in particular being ornamented with animal motifs. 1162 One animal
which is possibly a boar is depicted on the Barton Seagrave (Northamptonshire) apex disc,1163
and on another shield from Bidford-on-Avon (Warwickshire),1164 but here we cannot be sure
at all whether the animal is really a boar.1165 In Scandinavia, meanwhile, there is the example
of the shield handle from Valsgärde 7, which again contains the heads of three animals,
probably the boar, the wolf and the eagle.1166 The identity of the boar here is more certain
because of the tusks.
Following this archaeological survey, we are approaching the need for an
interpretation, but before that it is necessary to complete the review of evidence by adding the
1157
Ellis Davidson 1962, p. 49. In one of her other books (Scandinavian Mythology), Ellis Davidson also
mentions a sword from the River Ouse (Davidson 1969, p. 83) but this must be a mistake. She probably means
the sword from the River Lark (now in Cambridge Museum). The description corresponds to that object, on the
basis of her other footnotes. I have not encountered any sword from the River Ouse that fits this description.
1158
Ellis Davidson 1962, p. 50.
1159
Cunliffe 1997, p. 115.
1160
Speake 1980, p. 79. The sword pommel from Hög Edstein in Kville (Bohuslän) has been dated to 400/ 500
AD
(http://www.historiska.se/historia/Tema-Guld/Guldskatt/Gotaland/Bohuslan/Kville-guldfyndet/),
last
examined 23.5. 2011.
1161
It is worth noting that the shield from Sutton Hoo also has animal motifs: See Speake 1980, p. 32.
1162
See further Dickinson 2005.
1163
Dickinson 2005, p. 152.
1164
Wilson 1992, p. 110.
1165
Dickinson mentions the fish-like features of this animal (Dickinson 2005, p. 153).
1166
Hedeager 2004, p. 225 and fig. 8b. See also Gräslund 2006, p. 128.
178
literary records which are crucial in terms of the interpretation. Literature provides a great
deal of information about the meaning of these objects.
8.3.1. The Literary Tradition of Boar Helmets
As noted earlier, the boar objects documented in Anglo-Saxon and Old Norse literature are
objects connected with the battlefield. Of these, the helmet is without any doubt the most
significant object connected with the boar. What is important here is not only that these
objects appear in the literature but also that the literature is much younger than the objects
themselves. What, then, does the literature show: the way in which people imagined the
heroic times of the past, or it is a folk memory preserved in oral tradition? There is no space
here to deal with such a question, but it is nonetheless worth noting that helmets seem to be
remembered differently in the Icelandic and the Anglo-Saxon traditions.
In Icelandic tradition, helmets are preserved in memory by their names rather than by
any description, and there are no descriptions of any boar crests. One therefore has reason to
doubt whether the poets ever had any personal experience of such helmets. It seems that all
that is left of the original tradition of boar helmets are the names, which clearly survived.
Snorri, for example, mentions several boar names among the heiti for the helmet:1167 Here the
heiti valhrímnir and hallhrímnir possibly refer to the boar, because of the component hrímnir
(see Chapter 6.0.).1168 A more specific boar heiti for a helmet is hildigǫltr1169 which appears in
the saga literature together along with the name of the helmet Hildisvín, both being used as
proper names for Swedish helmets.1170 Hildigǫltr and the similar heiti valgǫltr are used in
skaldic poetry.1171
1167
“Hropts hattar skal ek segja heiti: hjálmr gullfáinn hraunn valhrímnir hallhrímnir skólkr ok hlífandi fjǫrnir
flokki ok fík-Móinn. Hildigǫltr kellir herkumbl ok velgr gríma œgir glævir stefnir” (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 123).
On other versions of this, see Finnur Jónsson 1931, p. 204.
1168
Beck also includes Valhrímnir and Hallhrímnir among names for helmets: Beck 1965, p. 7. This might be
based on the readings of versions of Snorra Edda where Hrímnir appears among the heiti for the boar (Faulkes
1998, vol. I., p. 132).
1169
Faulkes 1998, vol. I. p. 123
1170
Hildisvín was a helmet worn by King Áli, and Hildigǫltr a helmet worn by King Aðils (Faulkes 1998, vol. I,
p. 58). Hildisvín is also mentioned in Bjarkarímur (Finnur Jónsson 1904, p. 163).
1171
Hildigǫltr is used as a heiti for protection of the head by Snorri in Háttatal, st. 2: “holt felr hildigelti heila
bœs, < ok> deilir gulls í gelmis stalli gunnseið skǫrungr reiðir” (Faulkes 2007, p. 5): trans. “The outstanding one
covers the hill of the dwelling of the brain (his cranium) with a battle boar (helmet) and the distributor of gold
brandishes the battle fish (sword) in the hawk‟s perch (hand)” (Faulkes 1987, p. 168). The expression “gollbyrsti
valgǫltr” appears in the poem, Hrafnsmál (st. 1) by Þormóðr Trefilsson (the 11th century) as a part of the kenning
for battle: “Felldi folks valdi fyrst ens gollbyrsta velti valgaltar, Vígfús þanns hétu” (Finnur Jónsson 1912, p.
179
On the other hand, the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf describes helmets in many details
but mentions no proper names. Line 303 states:
Eofor-līc scionom, ofer hlēor-bergan: gehroden golde, fāh ond fȳ-heard, ferh wearde hēold: gūþmōd grummon.
(Boar-shapes flashed above their cheek-guards, the brightly forged work of goldsmiths, watching
over those stern faced men.)1172
Fig. 19 Sutton Hoo helmet.
It is noteworthy that the boar is described as having a protective function. According to
Glosecki, the images of animals by the eyebrows were a kind of sympathetic magic meant to
protect the eyes as the weakest point of the warrior‟s skull.1173 This description is also closely
196). Another use of the expression is in Gráfeldardrápa, st. 6: “vargfœðandi lét marga valgaltar þorna” by
Glúmr Geirason (10th century) (Finnur Jónsson 1912, p. 67). Eyvinðr skáldaspillir (10th century) in Lausavísur,
st. 5 talks about the boar of Áli: “Ála galtar” (Finnur Jónsson 1912, p. 63). This kenning is certainly a reference
to the helmet Hildisvín which the king had owned (See further Chapter 11.0.). Shetelig and Falk also mention
that poetic names Hildisvín, Hildigǫltr, Valgǫltr, Valhrímnir, and Valbassi mean “boar of battle” (Shetelig, Falk
1937, p. 402).
1172
Heaney 2000, pp. 20-23.
1173
Glosecki 2000, p. 19, note 1.
180
reminiscent of the helmet from Sutton Hoo, Suffolk, which has the images of the boar above
the eyebrows. It is also important to bear in mind that the helmet has been said to be of
Swedish origin.1174 It does not mean that the helmet was worn by Beowulf himself (who was a
Geat), but the fact that such helmets existed (as at Sutton Hoo) shows that the description was
not imagined by the poet.1175
Another boar is nonetheless mentioned in line 1111 of Beowulf: “swȳn eal-gylden,
eofer īren-heard” (swine all-golden, the boar hard as iron).1176 According to Owen-Crocker,
this line also refers to a boar-figure on a helmet crest, reflecting the boars found on the Benty
Grange 1177 and Pioneer helmets, mentioned above, which both helmets have boar crests on
top. Yet more “boar shapes” are mentioned in lines 1448-1454, and here their function is
clearly protective:
Sē hwīta helm... since geweorðad
befongen frēawrāsnum, swā hine fyrndagum
worthe wæpna smið, wundrum tēode,
besette swīn-līcum, þæt hine syðþan nō,
brond nē beado-mēcas bītan ne meahton.
(To guard his head he had a glittering helmet ... It was of beaten gold, princely headgear hooped
and hasped by a weapon-smith who had worked wonders in days gone by and adorned it with
boar-shapes; since then it had resisted every sword.)1178
Line 1326 also contains a reference to boar crests:
…ðonne wē on orlege hafelan weredon, þonne hniton fēþan, eoferas cnysedan.
(…a true mentor, my right-hand man hen the ranks clashed and our boar-crests had to take a
battering in the light of action.)1179
The role of the boar on helmets was probably both practical and magical. Line 1286
mentions how Grendel‟s mother cuts off a boar off a helmet, the context here making it clear
that cutting off the boar will mean the death of the warrior:
1174
See Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 198; Underwood 1999, p. 98 and Wilson 1992, p. 168.
On such parallels, see further Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 257.
1176
Owen-Crocker 2000, p. 46.
1177
Owen-Crocker 2000, p. 48. It is noteworthy that as in Beowulf (l. 1111), the boar on Benty Grange helmet is
made partly out of the iron and partly out of bronze (Bruce-Mitford 1974, p. 239).
1178
Heaney 2000, pp. 100-101.
1179
Heaney 2000, pp. 92-93.
1175
181
Sweord swāte fāh svīn ofer helme, ecgum dyhtig, andweard scireð.
(And gleaming blade slathered in blood, razes the sturdy boar-ridge off a helmet.)1180
According to Glosecki, the boar crest should thus be seen as a source of supernatural power,
the boar being an animal guardian of the warrior who wears it.1181 The boar thus gives the
warrior the power of protection, allowing no sword to cause him harm. Therefore, if an enemy
wants slay a warrior, the boar must be cut off first. In terms of life and death, it thus seems
that the boar and the warrior are seen as being one (see further Chapter 7.3.2).
Another martial object connected with the boar in Anglo-Saxon literature is the
standard or the banner. Although no archaeological finds have been made of boar
standards,1182 they are described several times in Anglo-Saxon poems. One boar standard is
mentioned in Beowulf, line 2152 (“eafor, hēafod segn”) when Beowulf gives it to King
Hrothgar.1183 According to Ellis Davidson, this could have been a similar standard to that
found in Sutton Hoo; the boar replacing the image of the stag. 1184 However, Beowulf might
also be referring to a beast-head staff, like the one from Anglo-Saxon find from Yeavering,
Northumberland, 1185 or a banner. 1186 Certainly, in Cynewulf‟s Elene, eoforcumbol, a boar
banner (or sign) is presented as a symbol of heathenry and a counterpart of the symbol of
cross, which is the crucial theme of the poem.1187 According to the poem (l. 76), the Emperor
Constantine had a vision in his sleep and saw the boar sign: “He of slæpe onbrægd
eoforcumble beþeaht.” (he started up from his sleep, canopied by the boar-adorned
standard).1188 Later in the poem come the words: “Þær wæs on eorle eðgesŷne …grimhelm
manig, ænlic eoforcumbol” (l. 260) (There ... was conspicuous on a man ... many a masked
helmet and the matchless boar-effigy). 1189 Grimm understood the words eoforcumbol as
1180
Heaney 2000, pp. 90-91.
Glosecki 1989, pp. 192-193.
1182
Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 270. Similarly, just as the Celts also seem to have used animal crests on their
helmets, they also used animals on their standards, as with the raven banners (Green 1992b, pp. 100 and 140).
1183
It is translated as being a boar-framed standard (Heaney 2000, pp. 146-147). See also Beck 1965, p. 39.
1184
Ellis Davidson 1968b, p. 354. Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 269.
1185
Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 269.
1186
Owen-Crocker 2007, p. 269. Regarding banners, see further Beck, who also discusses other words for
standards and banners, for example, the Anglo-Saxon cumbol, guðfana, þūf, and segn; the Gothic bandwa; the
Old High German cumpal, gundfano; and Old Norse merki (Beck 1965, pp. 37-41).
1187
According to Gardon, the theme of the poem is the Invention of the True Cross, which is part of the whole
complex of medieval legends about the Holy Cross (Gardon 1977, p. 15). On the symbol of the cross, see also
DuBois 1999, pp. 140-172.
1188
Gardon 1977, p. 29. Translated by Bradley 1982, p. 167.
1189
Gardon 1977, p. 37. Translated by Bradley 1982, p. 171.
1181
182
referring to an “auspicious omen”. 1190 According to Chaney, this is a reference to a boarbanner.1191 Speake, similarly, sees it as a banner.1192 According to Hatto, however, the Old
English word eoforcumbol once again refers to a boar-crest on a helmet.1193 The main point,
however, is that the boar sign seems to have been seen as something specifically heathen,
whatever it looked like.
To complete the review of literary evidence of martial boar objects, it is worth noting
other records telling about shields with boar images, but in this case, the sources are of later
date and foreign origin. In Þiðreks saga, for example, a hero called Vildifer (meaning “wild
boar” according to the saga (see Chapter 6.1.) is said to have had a depiction of a boar in his
shield:1194
á hans skildi er skrifaðr einn göltr ok einn björn með dökkrauðum lit. En gulan hefir hann lit á
skildi ok um utan dökkrauða rönd, ok þvílíkan lit hefir hans öll herneskja. þat jartegnir hans
búnaðr villigöltr.1195
Concerning interpretations of the boar images noted in this chapter, it is, of course,
impossible to give a final answer as to what the boar images meant and what their function
was, but some possibilities are more likely than others. First of all, from both the
archaeological and literary evidence, we can see that boar objects were connected with
highest ranks of society. There is also a suggestion that these archaeological finds were of
special importance for people because (according to the literary sources) they had a magicoreligious meaning,1196 whatever that was. On the basis of the Beowulf poet‟s description, it
seems the defence power of helmet was seen as having been increased by presence of the boar,
the idea of the boar being a symbol of protection in battle also appearing in Cynewulf‟s Elene
where it is seen as a symbol of heathenry and counterpart of the symbol of the cross.1197
1190
Grimm, 2004, p. 214.
Chaney 1970, p. 124.
1192
Speake 1980, p. 80.
1193
Hatto 1957, p. 158.
1194
It is also noteworthy that in Gottfried‟s Tristan (12th century), line 4940, the hero also had the boar as an
emblem on his shield: “den eber an dem schilte” (Marold et al. 2004, p. 85); trans.: “A boar had been cut out
over it most skilfully from coal-black sable” (Hatto 1967, p. 130).
1195
Guðni Jónsson 1954, vol. I, pp. 252 and 273.
1196
Nonetheless, Irving Jr. has suggested that boar images might have been little more than a verbal image for
Anglo-Saxon poets, without any special religious connection, and was probably not seen as a symbol of Freyr.
Irving Jr. explains this with reference to the days of the week which people still use without any thought of the
original gods (Irving Jr. 1998, p.179).
1197
DuBois 1999, pp. 144-152 (on the symbol of the cross, see the whole chapter, pp. 140-172).
1191
183
Glosecki also points out that the helmets with animal guardians had apotropaic functions.1198
However, it is also worth considering whether the helmet might also have had the function of
frightening an enemy? This is something that cannot be discounted, especially when the
dragonheads placed on ships were believed to have had the power to frighten away the land
spirits.1199 It is also possible that a belief in shape-changing may also lie behind the images on
helmets, especially when we have helmet plates depicting warriors with animal heads, or the
helmets with animals on them. 1200 Indeed, the helmet might have been seen as having a
similar function to an animal skin, which was probably believed to change a man into animal
(see Chapter 7.2.3.). All of the above ideas might lie behind the images of boars, and we can
never be sure which was right. The main point is that we should be aware that literary
descriptions underline that the understanding of the boar symbol was being passed down
orally over the centuries and might thus have altered from the original meanings attached to it.
Another question is: Why does the boar appear in such a connection? Hatto answers
this question by referring to boar behaviour. The boar, as Germanic warriors knew, was most
dangerous in its last stand when surrounded by enemies.1201 It does not try to escape when
attacked. However, one might also ask who were the warriors fighting under the boar‟s
protection. They were certainly noblemen, as has been noted several times above. Indeed,
helmets were quite rare in the north1202 and it can be assumed that only noble people had them.
In support of such an idea, Shetelig and Falk point out that the poetic name for chief, hilmir, is
etymologically related to the word for helmet (hjálmr), and thus means “the helmeted
one”.1203 Furthermore, as has been noted in Chapter 6.1.1., there is also a certain connection
between the words for a boar and its later use in the meaning of “prince” (or any other noble
man).1204
1198
Glosecki 1989, p. 188.
Íslenzk fornrit I, p. 313. See further Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1999, pp. 162-163.
1200
Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 80. See also Gunnell 1995, pp. 66-75.
1201
Hatto 1957, p. 156.
1202
Shetelig, Falk 1937, p. 401.
1203
Shetelig, Falk 1937, p. 401.
1204
Hatto sees the use of the word jǫfurr for “king” as being evidence of the exclusivity of boar-helmets (Hatto
1957, p. 158).
1199
184
9.0. The Swine in Nordic Mythology
In contrast to the abundance of literary and archaeological evidence about the boar, Old
Nordic myths only contain a few stories about the swine. The boars we know from Nordic
mythology all have certain fantastic features. Nonetheless, the Old Nordic mythical swine, in
contrast to that which appears in Celtic myths1205 is neither a god itself nor a figure which
brings about creation, but “merely” an animal of the gods, or a source of food.1206 The boar
Sæhrímnir, which is eaten in Valhǫll has already been discussed in Chapters 5.5.1 and 6.3.
More important here are the those boars connected with the Vanir gods, Freyr and Freyja. As
will be noted below, both Freyr and Freyja are said to ride a boar with golden bristles, and in
both cases these animals are said to made by the dwarves. Nonetheless, the sources on each
boar are different, and different traditions might lie behind them.
According to Snorri in Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 35, Freyr‟s boar was made from gold by
two dwarves who also made other artefacts for the gods:
En er þeir kómu til smiðju, þá lagði <Eitri>1207svínskinn í aflinn ok bað blása <Brokk> ok létta
eigi fyrr en at tœki þat ór aflinum er hann lagði í. En þegar er hann gekk ór smiðjunni en hinn blés,
þá settisk fluga ein á hǫnd honum ok kropaði, en hann blés sem áðr þar til er smiðrinn tók aflinum,
ok var þat gǫltr ok var bur<s>tin ór gulli. 1208
Later in the account, Brokk gives this boar to Freyr:
En Frey gaf hann gǫltinn ok sagði at hann mátti renna lopt ok lǫg nótt ok dag meira en hverr hestr,
ok aldri varð svá myrkt af nótt eða í myrkheimum at eigi væri ærit ljóst þar er hann fór, svá lýsti af
burstini.1209
1205
According to Mac Cana, both Insular and Gaulish mythology show similarities with regard to zoomorphic
imagery. The gods on sculptures are often accompanied by animals and so it is believed that they took on animal
form as well (Mac Cana 1996, p. 39). On the continent, the goddess Arduinna was believed to live in the forests
of the Ardennes and to be the guardian of the wild boar on whose back she rides, as Aldhouse-Green has
mentioned (Green 1992b, p. 27). She is of Romano-Gaulish origin. MacKillop calls her the boar-goddess
(MacKillop 1998, p. 20). Meanwhile, the swine-god is named Moccus. He was the god of the continental Gauls,
probably especially among the tribe Lingones, as he is known from Langres in France where an invocation to
him took place. He may thus have been the guardian of Lingones boar-hunters (MacKillop 1998, p. 294).
Another example comes from a Welsh legend, in which a magical sow called Henwen (the Old White) appears.
She is the mother of various creatures and even of a grain of wheat (Green 1992a, p. 170).
1206
It is noteworthy that the boar is never named in connection with the tree Yggdrasill or the cosmogonic myths.
On the other hand, it should be remembered that many other animals do not appear in the myths at all.
Nonetheless, it might be considered that their appearance in a myth does not necessarily mean that animals had
importance in the cult and its beliefs.
1207
The dwarf is sometimes named Sindri (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 171).
1208
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 42.
1209
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 42.
185
In another passage in Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 7, Snorri states about Freyr: “Hann <er>
eigandi Skíðblaðnis ok galtar þess, er Gullinbusti heitir…”1210 This statement is followed by a
quotation from Úlfr Uggason‟s Húsdrápa which was probably Snorri‟s main source for the
boar‟s name:
Ríðr á *bǫrg til borgar
bǫðfróðr sonar Óðins
Freyr ok folkum stýrir
1211
fyrst ok gulli byrstum.
Freyja, like her brother Freyr, is said to ride a golden-bristled boar. The only source
which mentions Freyja‟s boar is Hyndluljóð, which in st. 7 states that Freyja had a golden
bristled (“gullinbursti”) boar called Hildisvíni, which was made by two dwarves, Dáinn and
Nabbi.1212 This poem also explains that in fact this boar is Freyja‟s human lover Óttarr, which
has been changed into the boar.1213 Freyja is then said to ride on this boar to Valhǫll where
she helps the young Óttarr in his competition with Angantýr. Hyndla (a gýgr),1214 however,
recognizes that the boar is a human (st. 6). In strophe 7, Freyja answers her with the following
words:
Dulin ertu, Hyndla,
draums ætlig þér,
er þú qveðr ver minn
í valsinni,
þar er gǫltr glóar,
gullinbursti,
Hildisvíni,
er mér hagir gørðu,
dvergar tveir,
Dáinn oc Nabbi1215
Later, in strophe 44, further mention is made of the boar, and here is no doubt that this boar is
Óttarr. Freyja says to Hyndla: “Ber þú minnisǫl mínom gelti…” so that Óttarr will remember
what Hyndla had said about his ancestors.1216
1210
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 19.
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 19. “Battle-skilled Freyr rides in front of Odin‟s son‟s [Baldr‟s] pyre on goldenbristled boar and governs hosts”: Faulkes 1987, p. 75.
1212
See further Chapter 6.3. on the names of boars. Dáinn is otherwise mentioned in Vǫluspá, st.13, but Nabbi is
known only from Hyndluljóð.
1213
For a detailed interpretation of Hyndluljóð, see McKinnell 2005, pp. 85-89. and Näsström 1995, pp.151-177.
1214
Hyndla is called iotuns brúðr (st.4) and is said to live in a cave (st.1) (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 288). See
further Simek 1993, p. 169.
1215
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 289.
1211
186
It seems that Snorri had not heard about Freyja‟s boar, since he only mentions her
cats.1217 On the other hand, he mentions Freyr‟s boar several other times. The statement in
Skáldskaparmál, quoted above, seems to imply that Freyr rides on Gullinbursti, although in
Gylfaginning, Ch. 49 it is stated that Gullinbursti pulled his wagon: “en Freyr ók í kerru með
gelti þeim er Gullinbursti heitir eða Slíðrugtanni.”1218 As noted above, the oldest source on
Freyr‟s boar and the fact that it had golden bristles, and the only poetic source, is probably
Húsdrápa (believed to be from the end of the 10th century),1219 Snorra Edda being written a
few centuries later. Snorri‟s account is the only source giving the longer story of
Gullinbursti‟s origin (which might thus be based either on an oral source or Snorri‟s
imagination, although considering the evidence of Hyndluljóð, the former is more likely). As
noted above, Hyndluljóð suggests that Freyja‟s boar was brought about by dwarves.
Hyndluljóð is considered by many to be a later poem. It is only preserved in
Flateyjarbók from the second half of the 14th century, but there is some reason to believe that
the poem itself is probably older.1220 I consider it important that Hyndluljóð, like Snorri, talks
of a golden-bristled boar as an object which is made by dwarves. This raises the question of
whether Snorri did in fact know about Freyja‟s boar and chose not to mention it or chose to
describe it as a belonging of Freyr‟s (under the influence of Húsdrápa)? It would not be the
first time that Snorri gives one god the attributes of other gods (according to the Eddic
poems).1221 On the other hand, as noted above, he just might have known a different version
from the oral tradition. As has already been discussed, motifs change within the oral tradition,
and Old Nordic religion itself was never a united system. The myth may have had regional
differences.
As I have shown in Chapter 3, the problem of interpreting the boar within Old Nordic
religion and society is closely tied up with the interpretation of the Vanir, not least because it
is so commonly stated that the boar is an animal associated with Freyr and Freyja. The boar
has usually been connected with fertility, essentially because of the presumed functions of
1216
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 295.
Faulkes 2005, p. 47.
1218
Faulkes 2005, p. 47.
1219
Simek 1993, p. 166. Whaley says that it was c. 983 (Whaley 2005, p. 481).
1220
Vésteinn Ólason 2006, p. 98. According to Einar Ól. Sveinsson, the poem is not older than from the latter
half of the 11th century but not younger than from the latter half of the 12th century (Einar Ól. Sveinsson 1962, p.
351). See also McKinnell 2005, p. 86.
1221
For example, in Grímnismál, st. 43 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 66), Freyr owns the ship, Skíðblaðnir, but Óðinn
has it in Ynglinga saga (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 18). One also notes the myth about Þjazi‟s eyes. In
Hárbarðsljóð, st. 19, it is Þórr who puts them in the sky (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 81) but in beginning of
Skáldskaparmál, it is Óðinn (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 2).
1217
187
Freyr and Freyja as deities of fertility. 1222 In the previous chapter, I have shown that the
meaning of boar images can be understood without being placed in direct connection with any
deity. Here, I would like to consider the degree to which the “battle boars” noted above can be
connected to Freyr and Freyja. If we consider the battle aspect (rather than the fertility aspect)
of the boar as being the main one, it is noteworthy that also both gods, although they are
usually connected with fertility, have a battle aspect. Freyr‟s relation to battle might be
suggested from various kenningar,1223 and Freyja is clearly involved in battles. According to
Grímnismál 14, she takes half of the fallen warriors.1224 A fact which connects Freyja more
closely to the idea of the “battle boar” is the description given by Tacitus of boar images in
Germania, Ch. 45 (see Chapter 8.1.) which mentions a goddess being associated with a boar,
not a god. Although it cannot be proven that this goddess was Freyja or a “proto-Freyja”, it
still underlines a female connection to the boar rather than a male. Nonetheless, if we look at
myths objectively, the boar here is de facto nothing more than an animal that the gods ride or
a golden object made by dwarfs. If the boar was little more than a companion of the gods,
would it appear in such high numbers in art? One notes mythological references to other
“driving” animals like the goats of Þórr and the cats of Freyja, but despite occasional
mentions,1225 it seems that they play no big role either in art, or in sacrifice. In the same way,
we have to ask, do we have any images of the boar that are directly related to the myths about
Freyr or Freyja? There are none (to date).1226 In general, the spread of imagery related to the
boar points towards a concept that was much older and independent of the extant
mythological accounts in Snorri‟s works and poetic sources. We should now proceed to look
1222
For example, Snorri mentions about Freyr that “Hann ræðr fyrir regni ok skini sólar ok þar með ávexti jarðar,
ok á hann er gott at heita til árs ok friðar. Hann ræðr ok fésælu manna” (Faulkes 2005, p. 24). According to
Adam of Bremen, Freyr is connected with marriages and peace and pleasure (see Tschan 2002, pp. 207-208). On
the other hand, there is no indication anywhere that Freyja is connected with fertility of the earth. In
Gylfaginning 24, she is connected mainly with battle and love (Faulkes 2005, p. 25) and in Skáldskaparmál 37
with gold (Faulkes 1988, vol. I, p. 43).
1223
In Húsdrápa, Freyr is described as a leader of army. He is described as a rider, similarly as in Lokasenna, st.
37. Also in the poem Haraldskvæði by Þorbjǫrn hornklofi we can see the image of Freyr as a warrior, and as a
god of fertility. The poem contains the kenning “Freys leik” which is usually translated as “battle” (Finnur
Jónsson 1912, p. 22). See also Turville-Petre 1976, p. 14.
1224
Faulkes 2005, p. 24; Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 60. On Freyja‟s connection with death, see further Ingunn
Ásdísardóttir 2007, pp. 261-264. A possible connection between Freyja and valkyrjur, who take fallen warriors is
discussed by Näsström 1995, p. 88 and p. 135.
1225
A goat-sacrifice is mentioned in Egils saga einhenda ok Ásmundar berserkjabana (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni
Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, pp. 175-176), and cats are, for example, carved on the wagon from Oseberg burial
(Ingunn Ásdísardóttir 2007, p. 252).
1226
As we already have seen in the previous chapter, the boar imagery within Germanic culture contains only the
boar‟s head, and boar figures, but not an images portraying a person riding a boar. Nonetheless, such an image is
known from Celtic finds. There is a statuette of a woman (goddess) riding a boar from the region of Ardennes
forest (Green 1992a, p. 218). Also noteworthy are Etruscan statues of persons riding boars, described as toys
(National Museum, Copenhagen).
188
at the evidence concerning religious practice involving boars, whether this was connected to
Freyr or Freyja and what it says about the function of the swine in Old Nordic religion.
189
10.0. The Boar in Religious Practice
Animals were considered important in religion because they played a central and crucial part in life.
1227
In contrast to the mythic source material, the evidence of the practical life of the Nordic
people and their beliefs presents a different image of the way the boar was conceived. In this
chapter I mean to look at the accounts of sacrifices and beliefs concerning the boar in the
extant literary sources, and how they might be understood if they are considered independent
of a particular deity. Various kinds of sacrifice are noted as part of Old Nordic religion, and
these are mostly well researched. 1228 Animal sacrifice is only one type of sacrifice but,
according to Simek, it was the most important one. Here the animal was usually slaughtered
and eaten.1229 As Turville-Petre pointed out, the literary sources seem to agree that animal
sacrifice was quite a common part of the feasts, animals such as cattle, horses and other
domestic animals being slaughtered for the feasts, and their blood sprinkled on the altar.1230
We have already answered the question of the value of eating of pork (see Chapter 5.5.)
and it is evident that there was a difference between the ways in which particular animals
were understood. In a similar way, we should consider the way an animal was chosen for
sacrifice. I will therefore be concentrating here on the animal itself and its role in the sacrifice
rather than on the sacrifice as such. However, it is necessary to recognise that although the
animal is usually itself sacrificed (killed and eaten), occasionally it is the recipient of sacrifice
(in which case the sacrifice itself is not specified). Examples of both exist. It is also worth
remembering that in Old Norse, the word blóta could be used for both “worship” (with acc.)
or “sacrifice” (with dat.).1231
Although Old Nordic religion was not a united system, it seems that there were some
shared beliefs concerning sacrifice. Thus, I will argue below that different customs were
associated with the sacrifice of swine to those connected to the sacrifice of bulls. The
widespread opinion seems to have been that certain animals were more suitable for sacrifice
1227
Green 1992a, p. 92.
The sacrifice was discussed mainly in a connection with feasts and sacred places. See Näsström 2001, Jón
Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1997, and 1999, pp. 16-22. Here Jón Hnefill discusses the meaning of the word blóta and
the sun sacrifice (Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1997, pp. 123-133). See also Steinsland 2005, pp. 274-305. On
sacrifice in theories of mythology, see Csapo 2005, pp. 175-179.
1229
Simek 1993, p. 271.
1230
Turville-Petre 1964, p. 251.
1231
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 70. See also Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1998, p. 49.
1228
190
to a particular god than others,1232 an opinion which is mainly based on the myths which
suggest that some gods are associated with particular riding animals or other animals
connected with them in some other way. To my mind, the connection between a particular
animal and a god was not the main reason for why an animal was chosen for sacrifice. I will
demonstrate here that the most important thing was the purpose of the sacrifice rather than the
god it was directed towards. I will show this with examples of boar and bull sacrifice.
10.1. Bull Sacrifice
Besides the boar, no other sacrificial animal is mentioned in Old Norse literature as often as
the bull. According to Gould, the bull was the most important sacrificial animal because there
are no words such as *blótsvín, *blóthestr or *blótgöltr, while the word blótnaut is frequently
used.1233 Although there are some exceptions, the majority of references suggests that bull
sacrifice was connected with legal matters. 1234 First of all, a bull‟s blood is mentioned in
accounts of ceremonies related to oath-taking. Several literary sources mention that the ring
used in such ceremonies was reddened in the bull‟s blood. The most famous example is
contained in Úlfljótslǫg, which is argued to be a heathen law:1235
Baugr tvíeyringr eða meiri skyldi liggja í hverju hǫfuðhofi á stalla; þann baug skyldi hverr goði
hafa á hendi sér til lǫgþinga allra, þeira er hann skyldi sjálfr heyja, ok rjóða hann þar áðr í roðru
nautsblóðs þess, er hann blótaði þar sjálfr. Hverr sá maðr, er þar þurfti lǫgskil af hendi at leysa at
dómi, skyldi áðr eið vinna at þeim baugi ok nefna sér vátta tvá eða fleiri. „Nefni ek í þat
vætti,“ skyldi hann segja, „at ek vinn eið at baugi, lögeið; hjálpi mér svá Freyr ok Njǫrðr ok hinn
almáttki áss, sem ek mun svá sök þessa sækja eða verja eða vitni bera eða kviðu eða dóma, sem ek
1232
This opinion probably began with the earlier scholars: See for example, Grimm 2004, pp. 51-52. It was later
developed in Dumézil‟s tripartite theory, in which sacrifice was interpreted as being tripartite in accordance with
the classes of gods. See, for example, Turville-Petre 1993, p. 255, Simek 1993, p. 16. On Dumézil, see Chapter
3.3.
1233
Gould 1930, p. 149. On the other hand, the existence of words sonarblót and sonargǫltr (see examples below
in Chapter 10.2.) may argue the importance of the boar sacrifice.
1234
For example in Ynglinga saga it is said that it was during the reign of the King Dómaldi, when there was
great hunger and starvation (“sultr ok seyra”), that people first sacrificed oxen (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 31). It is
possible to interpret such act as being an attempt to establish law, because famine is a sign of chaos. Nonetheless,
I do not wish to push this idea too far. Another example comes from Þiðranda þáttr ok Þorhalls. There is a bull
called Spámaðr which was supposed to be slaughtered for the festival of the winter nights (Sigurður Nordal 1944,
vol. I, p. 466). It might be noted that Ellis Davidson connects both the boar and the bull with divination but only
mentions one example from Ireland (Ellis Davidson 1988, pp. 51 and 143).
1235
On Úlfljótslǫg, see further Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1999, pp. 158-177.
191
veit réttast ok sannast ok helzt at lǫgum, ok öll lǫgmæt skil af hendi leysa, þau er undir mik koma,
1236
meðan ek em á þessu þingi“.
The same idea occurs in Víga-Glúms saga which refers to an oath and a bull sacrifice:
Sá maðr, er hofseið skyldi vinna, tók silfrbaug í họnd sér, þann er roðinn var í nauts blóði, þess er
1237
til blóta væri haft, ok skyldi eigi minna standa en þrjá aura.
Another example of bull sacrifice appears to be related to the hólmganga,1238 when a
bull is sacrificed before or after. The hólmganga can also be understood as being an act of law,
both in terms of its rules and its legal role. 1239 Egils Saga contains an account of such a
hólmganga: from the context, it is obvious that a bull should always be sacrificed when a
hólmganga took place:
Þar var leiddr fram graðungr mikill ok gamall; var þat kallat blótnaut; þat skyldi sá hǫggva, er sigr
hefði; var þat stundum eitt naut, stundum lét sitt hvárr fram leiða, sá er á hólm gekk. 1240
Another example of a bull sacrifice connected to the hólmganga occurs in Kormáks
saga where we read that “Kormákr hjó blótnaut eptir siðvenju....”1241 Here, once again, the
context shows that bull sacrifice seems to have been firmly connected with the hólmganga.
The use of the word “siðvenja” (tradition) is interesting because it once again shows that there
was a particular tradition of bulls being sacrificed before or after the hólmganga, and suggests
that this example was probably not unique.
Another sacrifice made in Víga-Glúms saga has also kind of legal purpose. Here Þorkell
hávi makes a sacrifice of an ox to Freyr in the hope of getting justice:
Ok áðr Þorkell fór á brott frá Þverá, þá gekk hann til hofs Freys ok leiddi þagat uxa gamlan ok
mælti svá: „Freyr,“ sagði hann, „er lengi hefir fulltrúi minn verit ok margar gjafar at mér þegit og
1236
Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 313-314. See also Þorsteins þáttr uxafóts (Íslenzk fornrit XIII, pp. 342-343). A similar
description is in Eyrbyggja saga but here, there is no mention of a bull sacrifice but simply sacrificial blood
(hlaut) taken from animals (Íslenzk fornrit IV, pp. 8-9).
1237
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 86.
1238
See Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 280.
1239
Hólmganga is discussed by Kellett in the context of juridical combats. Kellett calls it a “juridical” act
because it was part of a legal process and it determined guilt or innocence (Kellett 2008, p. 12).
1240
Íslenzk fornrit II, p. 209.
1241
Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 290.
192
vel launat, nú gef ek þér uxa þenna til þess, at Glúmr fari eigi ónauðgari af Þverárlandi en ek fer
nú. Ok láttu sjá nǫkkurar jartegnir, hvártú þiggr eða eigi.“ 1242
The same thing occurs in Brandkrossa þáttr: Oddr who has to leave his district holds a
feast where he offers a whole bull in honour of the god Freyr:
En er Oddr bjó sína ferð í braut, þá lét hann höggva graðung ok sjóða. En inn fyrsta fardag, þá er
Oddr var á brott búinn, lætr hann borð setja með endilöngum sætum, ok vat þetta allt graðungsslátr
á borð borit. Gekk þá Oddr þar at svá talandi: „Hér er nú vandliga borð búit ok svá sem inum
kærstum vinum várum. Þessa veizlu gef ek alla Frey, at hann láti eigi þann með minna harmi brott
fara af Oddstöðum, er í minn stað kemr, en ek fer nú.“ 1243
Nonetheless, it should be remembered that this passage seems to be influenced by VígaGlúms saga.1244
Another reference to a bull sacrifice which seems to be about getting one‟s rights is in
Hyndluljóð (st. 10). Once again, the context suggests that the sacrifice has something to do
with the law, 1245 since Óttarr sacrifices to Freyja in order to get help in his contest with
Angantýr:
Hǫrg hann mér gerdi
hlaðinn steinom
nú er griót þat
at gleri orðit;
rauð hann í nýio
nauta blóði
æ trúði Óttarr
á ásynior.1246
All of the examples given above thus place bull sacrifices within the context of legal
matters and although in some cases a god or a goddess are mentioned, the purpose is
underlined clearly.1247 In short, it seems that the relationship between the god and the animal
is not valid in the case of the bull which is not obviously connected to the Vanir in other
accounts. Indeed, from the mythical sources, it is far from certain which god the bull is most
1242
Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 34.
Íslenzk fornrit XI, p. 186.
1244
Jón Jóhannesson in Íslenzk fornrit XI, p. lxxxiii. See also Turville-Petre 1964, pp. 255-256.
1245
See Näsström 1995, pp. 151-152.
1246
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 289.
1247
It is noteworthy that in these examples only the Vanir are mentioned.
1243
193
closely connected to. 1248 It nevertheless seems clear that in all cases the bull sacrifice is
related to legal matters. In short, the purpose of the sacrifice seems to be the most important
with regard to the choice of animal. The same seems to apply in the case of the sacrifice of the
boar, in which the context is different, strengthening the idea that the animal was also
important for its own quality, rather than merely its connection to a god.
10.2. The Boar and the Magic
The evidence concerning boar sacrifices suggests that this was connected with things of a
magical character, such as seeing things which have happened elsewhere or will happen in the
future (including dreams).1249 The words sonarblót, sonargǫltr or the associated sonar dreyri
appear several times (see references below). Early scholars interpreted sonargǫltr as meaning
“Sun-Boar” or “Boar of atonement.” 1250 Nonetheless, Sievers rejected this interpretation,
pointing out that sonargǫltr almost certainly means the biggest boar in the herd. 1251 The
Sonarblót is mentioned in Ynglinga saga, in which king Dagr makes the sacrifice to learn the
whereabouts of his lost sparrow: “Gekk hann þá til sonarblóts til fréttar ok fékk þá svǫr, at
spǫrr hans var drepinn á Vǫrva.”1252 Although Ellis Davidson interprets this sacrifice as an
inquiry into the future, this it is clearly not the case.1253 In this case, the purpose of the blót
1248
Besides Freyr and Freyja, who are mentioned in the examples noted above, one might remember that
according to Snorri, Ullr is connected with duels (einvíg) (Faulkes 2005, p. 36). Turville-Petre suggests that
Freyr and Freyja must have been thought of in the form of a bull or and a cow (Turville-Petre 1964, pp. 255-256).
According to Ellis Davidson, meanwhile, the bull may have been associated as much with Þórr as with Vanir
deities (Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 53). Nevertheless, there is no proof for either of these arguments except that the
name Freyr was also used as poetic word for the ox (Finnur Jónsson 1912, p. 669). Moreover, the literary
evidence suggests that other animals such as horses or pigs could also be dedicated to Freyr. On Freyr‟s horse,
see Hrafnkels saga Freysgoða (Íslenzk fornrit XI, p. 100) and Vatnsdœla saga (Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 90. See
also Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1998, pp. 107-125. On a boar associated with him, see Heiðreks saga (Guðni
Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 214). It might be noted that Finnur Jónsson has suggested that both
the bull and the boar might be sacred animals associated with Freyr (Finnur Jónsson 1919, p. 313).
1249
Noteworthy is the connection between the Vanir and seeing the future mentioned in Þrymskviða , st. 14
(Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 113).
1250
See Grimm 2004, p. 213; Blind 1892-6, p. 100.
1251
Sievers refers to the Langobard law Edictus Rothari from 643 AD, which mentions a leading boar called
“sonorpair” (Sievers 1892, p. 542). See further Chapter 4.5.2.
1252
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 35-36.
1253
Ellis Davidson 1993, p. 93. In an earlier book, Ellis Davidson mentions that the sonarblót was said to be
associated with divination, giving Ynglinga saga as support (Ellis Davidson 1988, p. 50). In this context, it is
noteworthy that the boar also has symbolic meaning as an omen among the Slavonic people, something referred
to by Thietmar of Merseburg. He mentions in Book VI that “a big boar with foam on its tusks emerging from the
lake” was seen as a sign of long civil war or a calamity: “Testatur idem antiquitas errore delusa vario, si quando
his seva longae rebellionis assperitas immineat, ut e mari predicto aper magnus et candido dente e spumis
lucescente exeat seque in volutabro delectatum terribili quassatione multis ostendat” (Trillmich 2002, p. 268).
194
was to find out what has happened somewhere else. Nonetheless, there is admittedly a
similarity in that in both cases the enquirer wants to see something that is usually impossible.
Another ritual connected with the boar is the heitstrenging, a ritual involving a solemn
vow.1254 Although this is similar to an oath, the two are essentially different. The solemn vow
or heit concerns a resolution or promise regarding the future and thus cannot be seen as a legal
activity. There were several occasions on which heitstrenging are said to take place, and one
of them is Yule evening.1255 On several occasions, which I am going to mention, the vow is
connected with a boar. The prose text of Helgakviða Hjǫrvarðssonar refers to the Yuletide
heitstrengingar as follows:
Um qveldit óro heitstrengingar. Var fram leiddr sonargǫltr, lǫgðo men þar á hendr sínar, oc
strengðo heit að bragarfulli.1256
The same kind of the ritual is described in Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks. It is noteworthy,
though, that the passage about sonargǫltr is quite different in the main manuscripts. The most
conservative-looking manuscript (Gks 2485 4to, known as version R) actually does not use
the word heitstrenging. Instead of the known formula strengja heit , it uses the verb “sverja”
which means “swear”:1257
Heiðrekr konungr lét ala gölt mikinn. Hann var svá mikill sem öldungar þeir, er stærstir váru, ok
svá fagr, at kvert hár þótti ór gulli vera. Konungrinn leggr hönd sína geltinum, en aðra á burst ok
sverr þess, at aldri hefir maðr svá mikit af gert við hann, at eigi skuli hann hafa réttan dóm
spekinga hans, en þeir tólf skulu gæta galtarins, eða ella skal hann bera upp gátur þær, er hann gæti
1258
eigi ráðit. Heiðrekr konungr gerist ok nú inn vinsælasti.
1254
Heitstrengingar were usually made in public: they might be made at a þing (Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks 11,
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 226), or one might stand on a piece of wood in public (stígja
á stökk) like in Örvar-Odds saga 30 (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 385), in Hrólfs saga
kraka 42 (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 74), or in Gǫngu-Hrólfs saga 22 (Guðni Jónsson,
Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 406).
1255
Näsström 2001, pp. 109-110. Other examples of heitstrengingar made during Yule Eve appear in Hervarar
saga ok Heiðreks, Ch. 2 (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 192), Ketils saga Hængs, Ch. 4
(Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 257), Sturlaugs saga Starfsama, Ch. 21 (Guðni Jónsson,
Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 344), Eireks saga Víðförla Ch. 1 Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944,
vol. III, p. 446), Harðar saga og Hólmverja, Ch. 14 (Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p. 38).
1256
Neckel, Kuhn, 1983, p. 147.
1257
Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 610.
1258
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 214.
195
As Turville-Petre notes, manuscripts U and H contain more details about the boar in the ritual
than R.1259 H gives more details about the ceremony as a whole, and actually provides the
only direct evidence that a boar was sacrificed to Freyr. It is also noteworthy that here the
boar is called to be holy (“helgr”):
Heiðrekr konungr blótaði Frey; þann gǫlt, er mestan fekk, skyldi hann gefa Frey; kǫlluðu þeir hann
svá helgan, at yrir hans burst skyldi sverja um ǫll stórmál ok skyldi þeim gelti blóta at sonarblóti;
jólaaptan skyldi leiða sonargǫltinn í hǫll fyrir konung ok lǫgðu menn þá hendr yfir burst hans ok
1260
strengja heit.
Nevertheless, it seems that the audience of Heiðreks saga might have known of a
connection between Freyja and the boar because in one manuscript (U), the sacrifice of boar
is said to be made for Freyja, although this was usually corrected by editors. The text runs as
follows:
H(eidrekur) kongur blotadi Frey og tignadi hann mest aff ollum sinum godumm. Þad var siduenia,
ad taka einn gollt þann stæstan fieck, og skylldi ala hann; hann skylldi gefa Freyu1261 til aarbotar i
vphafi manadar þess, er Februarius heitir; þa skylldi blot hafa fyrir til farsælldar. Kongur seigir, ad
þessi golltur var so heilagur, ad menn skylldu fyrir þetta offur kunna ad dæma vm oll stor mal.
Jolaaptann skylldi leida þenna sonargollt til kongs; logdu menn þa hendur yfir bust honum og
streingdu heit. 1262
It is noteworthy that this version once again stresses the idea of tradition by using the word
“siðvenja”. Another difference with other variants is that here it is seems to be the tradition to
breed the biggest boar for the ritual.
From the quotations above it is not clear whether the boar was killed (and eaten) after
the ceremony or not. Nonetheless, there are other references about the boar and its killing as
part of a sacrifice. Guðrúnarkviða in forna (st. 21) states regarding the sacrificial blood of the
boar:
1259
Turville-Petre, Tolkien 2006, p. 79. On manuscripts of Heiðreks saga, see note 146 in Chapter 2.2.1.
Jón Helgason 1924, p. 54.
1261
In this version U, the manuscript gives (“Freÿú”) as I have shown with bold letters according to the
manuscript (R 715, 24v). However, this word was corrected by Jón Helgason on the basis of H, and in his edition
stands “Frey” (Jón Helgason 1924, p. 129). Jón Helgason notes that his correction was made on the basis of H
and the line above, which talks about Freyr (“freÿ”). The correction of Freyju to Frey in Heiðreks saga was
actually made much earlier: Grimm talks of a boar being sacrificed to Freyja in Heiðreks saga and notes that “By
the editors of the Fornald. sög. I., 463, the passage is banished into the notes as an unsupported reading” (Grimm
2004, p. 304). Grimm probably meant the edition by Rafn, which contains a footnote on boar to be given to
Freyja, but Rafn mentions also Freyja few lines above and not Freyr as in the manuscript. See Rafn 1829, p. 463.
1262
Here comes another correction. In the manuscript is sanargollt, and sanar is then written above the line. Jón
Helgason 1924, p. 129.
1260
196
Það var um aukit
urðar magni,
svalkǫldom sæ
oc sonardreyra.1263
The same strophe is included in Hyndluljóð (st. 38), in the part of the poem referred to as
Vǫluspá in skamma:
Sá var aukinn
iarðar megni,
svalkǫldom sæ
oc sonardreyra.1264
Although there are some small differences between the two strophes, there cannot be any
doubt that the strophes describe the same enigmatic ritual. A paraphrase of these verses is
used in Vǫlsunga saga:
Síðan færði Grímhildur henni meinsamligan drykk, ok varð hún við at taka ok mundi síðan engar
sakar. Sá drykkr var blandinn með jarðar magni ok sæ ok dreyra sonar hennar, ok í því horni voru
ristnir hverskyns stafir ok roðnir með blóði.... 1265
If we compare these two versions (the poetic and the prosaic), we can see that the intention
behind the sacrifice in each case is different. Nonetheless, both are strongly magical, which
contrasts with the sacrificial accounts involving the bull.
Another magical connection to pork appears in Guðrúnarkviða in forna, st. 23, where
cooked pig‟s liver is used for evil magic:
Vóro þeim bióri
Bǫl mǫrg saman,
urt allz viðar
oc acarn brunnin,
umdǫgg arins,
iðrar blótnar,
svíns lifr soðin,
þvíat hon sacar deyfði.1266
1263
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 227.
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 294. These verses might be another reason why Heimdallr is sometimes seen as one
of the Vanir (Näsström 1995, pp. 70-72).
1265
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 72.
1266
Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 228.
1264
197
Here pork forms part of some very evil magic. As in the previous quotations, this seems to be
a strong spell.
Something else which connects swine to the area of unseen things is their connection
with prophecy. Although the accounts in question are not directly about sacrifice, they
nonetheless underline once again the magical associations of the animal. References to such
connections often appear elsewhere in Europe.1267 In Scandinavia, similarly, there are several
references to the idea that a pigsty was a good place to dream of the future. In Hálfdanar saga
svarta in Heimskringla, King Hálfdan never had dreams and was advised to sleep in a pigsty.
The method had success and his resulting dream was prophetic.
1268
In Ólafs saga
Tryggvasonar in Heimskringla a similar reference appears in the account of the death of
Hákon jarl who tried to escape from Ólafr Tryggvason and hid himself in a pigsty. His slave
Karkr, who accompanied him had prophetic dreams here. Hákon interpreted these dreams as
meaning that his slave was going to betray him, as later took place.1269 There are, however,
differences in the versions of Hákon‟s death and only in one version we find that all the
dreams occurred in a pigsty.1270
There have been several interpretations of these episodes which can be roughly
divided into two groups. One group attempts to interpret hiding and dreaming in a pigsty as a
relic of a heathen belief. According to Haraldur Bessason, for example, a pigsty had a degree
of sanctity. Haraldur thus suggests that Hálfdan‟s dream in the pigsty should be placed in the
context of other examples involving the veneration of pigs and the fecundity of the god
Freyr.1271 Nora Chadwick earlier suggested that sleeping in a pigsty actually means sleeping
on a mound. Her argument is based on the suggestion that burial mounds were associated with
Freyr and Freyja, and that the pigsty is thus a poetic periphrasis for a mound. 1272 Both
interpretations, however, are mainly based on presumed relationship between the swine and
1267
Prophetic swine also appear in Breta sǫgur in Hauksbók. Nonetheless, it might be remembered that the story
deals with an area of Italy and Carthage and the hero Æneas. The account in question runs as follows: “sva sem
þv ferr veg þin þa mantv finna vndir einv tre þvi er vlex heitir hvita gyllti með .xxx. grisvm alhvitvm ok i þeim
stað skalltv borg reisa ok skalltv kalla Albans borg” (Hauksbók 1892-1896, p. 233). In Celtic tradition, the flesh
of a red pig was apparently used for divination, known in early Irish tradition as “Himbas Forosnai”, and the
flesh of a dog or a cat could be also used (Ross 1967, p. 311).
1268
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 90. Fagrskinna mentions the same idea: see Íslenzk fornrit XXIX, pp. 57-58.
1269
Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 297. As noted below, the pigsty is not mentioned in all the versions of Hákon‟s
death. For example, in Ágrip, while a svinstí is mentioned (“ok hón leyndi hónum ok þrælinum í svínstí sínu”)
the dreams are dreamt in another place: see Íslenzk fornrit XXIX, p. 17. Regarding Hákon‟s death, see also
Ólafur Halldórsson 2004, pp. 179-182.
1270
See Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar in Flateyjarbók (Sigurður Nordal 1944, vol. I, p. 260). See also Sverrir
Tómasson 2004, p. 190.
1271
Haraldur Bessason 1977, p. 277.
1272
Chadwick 1968, p. 41.
198
Freyr (Freyja) which I have disputed earlier (see Chapter 3). The second group of
interpretations is based on the Christian point of view which sees pigs as symbols of dirtiness
and Hákon as a sinner,1273 who dies like a pig.1274 It is also argued that a Latin play on words
might be involved here: Monumenta Historica Norwegiæ, written by Theodoricus monarchus
in the 12th century, refers to “ara porcorum”, which is translated as pigsty, even though the
word ara means also altar.1275 The connection between the two might be, however, no more
than an amusing coincidence which had been noticed by Latin writers.
Nonetheless, although it might be logical that Christian symbolism is involved in the
account of Hákon‟s death, we also have also the possibility that the pigsty could have had
different meaning in Nordic culture. It is not certain that everyone understood it as a place of
disgrace.1276 It seems that there was a widely known tradition in which pigs were associated
with prophetic dreams, without any negative connotations being involved – or any obvious
links to Freyr and Freyja. One German tradition mentioned by De Gubernatis is noteworthy:
Here it is stated that people there went to sleep into a pigsty on Christmas Day in the hope of
having dreams which might bring good luck.1277 Brennu-Njáls saga also mentions a prophetic
dream about death which takes place at farm of Svínafell. 1278 That this is not a mere
coincidence is suggested by the account of Þorsteinn Síðu-Hallsson who also had a prophetic
dream when he slept at Svínafell: “Draum þenna dreymði Þorsteinn, son Halls á Síðu, austr at
1273
Sverrir Tómasson interprets Hákon‟s death in the light of The Second Epistle of Peter 2, 22, as the death of
an apostate (Sverrir Tómasson 2004, p. 194). The verses from the letter run as follows: “A dog returns to his own
womit,” and “a sow, having washed, to her wallowing in the mire” (The Holy Bible: Nelson 1982, p. 641). On
the other hand, in Ágrip, the account is different in that Hákon asks his slave to kill him so he will not die at the
hand of an enemy (Íslenzk fornrit XXIX, p. 17). Regarding further interpretations of the boar here, Hamer says
that pigs symbolize unbridled appetite, and especially lechery. He uses as proof a quote from Martinus saga
Byskups III in which the pig is a symbol for fornication: “… er svin hafa um snuit, mekir hordom” (Unger 1877,
p. 624). Hamer also quotes from Patrologia Latina 111, 206 and 205, 265 (Hamer 1992, p. 60).
1274
Hamer 1992, p. 62.
1275
Although as it is written ara could correspond to the Latin āra “altar”, it could also be understood as a
medieval spelling of the Latin hara or ăra “pigsty” See Storm 1880, p. 18. Nonetheless, in the normal Latin text,
no interpunctional signs occur (as in transcriptions of ara), allowing the similarity to become the basis for some
linguistic jokes, as in Summulae Logicales by Peter of Spain (13th century) where the following stands: “Omnis
ara est in templo; stabulum porcorum est ara; ergo stabulum porcorum est in templo” (Petrus Hispanius 1572, p.
189), (All altars/sties are in temples; a pigsty is an altar/sty; therefore pigsties are in temples) Pearcy 2007, p. 3.
Other jokes appear in the medieval play Babio, where a person swears by a holy pigsty (“Iuro sacras per ăras”: I
swear by holy pigsties), and later in the same play, it is said that “est ăra porcorum, respicit āra deos” (Sties are
for pigs, altars are appropriate for gods): see Pearcy 2007, p. 3.
1276
The secret room under the pig-sty might be according to McKinnell “reminiscent of a funeral mound”
(McKinnell 2002, p. 272).
1277
De Gubernatis mentions this example as proof for his Solar-myth interpretation of the boar symbol. He
follows this reference with the words “The new sun is born in the sty of the winter hog” (De Gubernatis 2003, pp.
13-14). On De Gubernatis, see further Chapter 3.2.2.
1278
“Nú er þar til máls taka at Svínafelli, at Flósi lét illa í svefni eina nótt” (Íslenzk fornrit XII, pp. 346-348).
199
Svínafelli, áðr hann væri þar veginn.”1279 I am aware of the fact that in Iceland there are many
place names involving words for swine, but this one might be of specific importance, because
it is next to a place called Freysnes. This might potentially also be seen as adding strength to
the argument concerning Freyr‟s association with swine.
To sum up the rituals concerning swine, we can see that they were clearly different
from those of involving a bull. Although the examples contain various kinds of rituals, their
purpose seems to be connected with magic, especially prophecy. Although one might suppose
a connection with the prophetic function of the Vanir,1280 the records show that the swine
served the purpose of the ritual on its own.
10.3. The Animal as an Object of Veneration
Besides the fact that animals are sacrificed or involved in rituals, it seems that there are also
examples of animals being seen as special, sacred or even recipients of sacrifice. There are
examples of people making sacrifices to animals. Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson found fourteen
examples of sacrifices made to animals among the one hundred and sixty mentions of word
blóta. 1281 However, where we have examples of animals being worshipped, the animal is
usually a bull or a cow.1282 Þorsteins þáttr uxafóts, for example, mentions a blótnaut which
means a bull which was worshipped. 1283 Other examples drawn from the sagas show that
some animals were the actual recipients of sacrifices. Snorri, in Ólafs saga Tryggvasonar in
Heimskringla mentions a king Ǫgvalðr, who sacrificed to a cow.1284 Ragnars saga loðbrókar
also mentions a cow, called Síbilja who was said to be mjög blótin and in which the Swedes
1279
Draumr Þorsteins Síðu-Hallssonar in Íslenzk fornrit XI, p. 323.
See Þrymskviða 15 (Neckel, Kuhn 1983, p. 113).
1281
Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1998, p. 49.
1282
As comparative evidence, Ellis Davidson mentions the context of an Irish saga in which the sacrifice of a
bull was connected with a new king: A man with second sight eats some flesh and drinks the blood of a
sacrificed bull and then dreams of the future king (Ellis Davidson 1993, p. 92).
1283
Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p. 367. As noted above (in section 10.1), the blótnaut is also mentioned elsewhere as a
sacrifice. In many cases, however, there are no references to purpose of the sacrifice. For example, in Orms þáttr
Storólfssonar, a blótnaut is mentioned as a means of comparison as something very big (Íslenzk fornrit XIII, p.
407). Hljámþérs saga ok Ǫlvis (Ch. 15) provides no detailed information either, apart from the fact that it eats
human meat: “Þat er it mesta blótnaut ok fæðist mest á mannaholdi” (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944,
vol. III, p. 267).
1284
“…Ǫgvaldr var konungr ok hermaðr mikill ok blét kú eina mest ok hafði hann hana með sér, hvargi hann fór,
ok þótti honum þat heilnæmligt at drekka jafnan mjólk hennar” (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 313).
1280
200
had great belief.1285 Landnámabók also seems to suggest ravens could be the recipients of
sacrifice.1286
There are, however, only a few references to swine in this context. One comes from
Hrólfs saga kraka, in which King Aðils sacrifices to a boar: “Blótar hann einum gölt....”1287
Here it is clear that the boar is a recipient rather than an offering. The boar is described as a
dangerous creature.1288 The saga is comparatively negative about Aðils, and from the context
it is clear that the sacrifice to the animal is also understood as something connected to sorcery.
For comparison, a similar example is contained in Vilmundar saga, where Kolr, a sorcerer and
an evil man makes sacrifices to a sow:
[…] hann blotadj eina gylltu. og vard hvn svo mikjl meinvættr. at hun drap bædj menn og fe en
spillte aukrum bædj fyrir kongi og audrum. 1289
There are nonetheless other examples of the swine having a cultic importance. Although
it does not always mean that the animal was worshipped itself, it is seen as different from
other animals. For example, in one version of Heiðreks saga, a boar is described as being holy
(“helgr”) but is then offered in sacrifice in February.1290 This fact underlines the importance
and value of the animal meant for sacrifice. It is no longer seen as a normal animal, but an
especially chosen animal which is kept to one side. Similarly, the boars mentioned in
Landnámabók are given proper names (see Chapter 6.3.), which suggests they too could have
been special, unlike the rest of the herd.
It is worth noting that apart from the example from Vilmundar saga (which is a
riddarasaga), all of these “sacred” boars are somehow connected to Freyr, if not always
directly: Aðils is said to be of the family of Ynglingar, descendants of Freyr (see Chapter
11.0.); Heiðrekr is said to have been a worshipper of Freyr;1291 Ingimunðr who owned the
boar Beigaðr mentioned in Landnámabók had certainly a close relationship to Freyr;1292 and
1285
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1943, vol. I, p. 113.
Flóki Vilgerðason is said to have sacrificed to three ravens (“Hann fekk að blóti miklu ok blótaði hrafna
þrjá”) (Íslenzk fornrit I, pp. 37 and 39). According to Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson, the raven sacrifice was one of
the key features of legends about Flóki (Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson 1999, p. 148).
1287
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 74.
1288
“tröll í galtar líki” (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 74).
1289
Loth 1964, p. 151.
1290
Jón Helgason 1924, p. 129.
1291
Jón Helgason 1924, p. 54.
1292
See Íslenzk fornrit VIII, pp. 30 and 33.
1286
201
Helgi who owned the boar Sǫlvi was from family of Freyr‟s worshippers if not a believer
himself according to Landnámabók.1293
While I have stressed that the boar was important for its own qualities (as can be seen
in the cases of boar sacrifice), it seems that in accounts of boar cultic importance, Freyr or
Freyja are often somehow involved, although not all the examples name them directly. To
understand the relationship between the boar, Freyr and Freyja and humans, we have to look
at a particular area in which the boar seems have had more importance than elsewhere.
1293
For deeper context regarding the relations of these men, see Barði Guðmundsson 1959, pp. 124-140.
202
11.0. The Boar and Sweden
In previous chapters, I have mentioned several times possible totemic features in Old Nordic
religion regarding the boar (see Chapters 1.2.4. and 6.1.). If one was to consider the
possibility that the boar might have been a “totemic” animal for a tribe or people of a
particular area, it would definitely be Sweden, and in particular the area of Uppland, where
the legendary Ynglingar used to rule. However, it is also possible to trace such a connection
back to the Suebi tribe when they have lived elsewhere. 1294 There are several reasons for
drawing such a conclusion. Summing up the evidence from previous chapters, one can
mention first of all the personal names with the component Jǫfurr- (boar) which are only
present in runic inscriptions from Uppland (see Chapter 6.1.1.);1295 and then the helmet plates
with boar images which seem to come mainly from Valsgärde and Vendel in Uppland (see
Chapter 8.3.). It also seems clear that Uppland was also a centre of the cult of the Vanir,1296
including Freyr and Freyja, who are both closely connected with the boar (see Chapter 9.0). It
is similarly possible to trace back to Sweden those families of Icelandic settlers who are said
to have owned boars (and appear to have been attached to Freyr).1297 Finally, there is great
amount of literary evidence mentioning boar artefacts connected to Sweden (see Chapter
8.3.1.) and the same applies to accounts in which the boar was of cultic importance (see
Chapter 10.3.).
As will be remembered, several of these aforementioned references to the boar are
connected to the legendary Swedish king Aðils, who was said to have owned the helmets
Hildisvín and Hildigǫltr and also the ring called Svíagríss which means “the little pig of the
Swedes.”1298 Moreover, Aðils owned a boar to which he had sacrificed. Nonetheless, it seems
that the significance of the boar did not start with him, since some references imply Aðils was
1294
Tacitus describes the Suebi as being a big group which was divided into many tribes (Germania, 38-45) and
notes especially the tradition of wearing boar signs as being Suebic (see Chapter 8.1. It might be noted that
Tacitus did not see the tribe as being Germanic. See also Winterbottom, Ogilvie 1975, p. 60.
1295
Peterson 2002, p. 748.
1296
For example, see the evidence of place-names in Brink 2007, p. 109. The Prologus of Heimskringla states
about Yngvifreyr: “þess er Svíar hafa blótat lengi síðan” (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 4). See also Ynglinga saga, Ch.
5, which talks of “Freyr at Uppsǫlum” (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 16), and Ch. 9 which states: “Var hann kallaðr
dróttinn yfir Svíum” (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 23). See also Simek 1993, p. 92. Other references to Freyr as a
Swedish god are taken from Flateyjarbók: Sigurður Nordal 1944 vol. I, pp. 374 and 448. See also Turville-Petre
1964, pp. 168-169, Motz 1996, pp. 23-34.
1297
See Barði Guðmundsson 1959, pp. 132-137. Based on Landnámabók, Barði mentions that Ingimundr gamli
and Helgi magri had their background in families from Gautaland (were “gauzkri ætt”): Barði Guðmundsson
1959, p. 214. See also Turville-Petre 1964, p. 166.
1298
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. II, p. 44.
203
following the family tradition. First of all, Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 44, mentions Aðils‟ helmet
Hildigǫltr,1299 but does not say anything about where it came from. Nevertheless, the same
source underlines that his other helmet, Hildisvín,1300 came from his parental uncle Áli (who
also came from the Ynglinga family).1301 This supports the idea that the boar and boar objects
had already had a particular importance for the royal identity of the Ynglingar for some time.
Further evidence for such an idea comes from the references to Aðils‟ ring, Svíagríss.
Although it is impossible to be certain whether this ring actually existed or how it looked, its
name points to the idea that it contained the image of a boar, 1302 something that may be
supported by the solid evidence of the boar-helmets which appear to lie behind the names
Hildisvín and Hildigǫltr. 1303 Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 44, also states that Svíagríss had been
owned by Aðils‟ ancestors, and that it was among the trophies which the Danish king Hrólfr
kraki chose as a reward for his help to Aðils:
Það var hjálmrinn Hildigǫltr ok brynjan Finnsleif er hvergi festi vápn á ok gullhringr sá er kallaðr
Sviagríss er átt hǫfðu langfeðgar Aðils.1304
It seems that this ring had particular importance as a royal artefact because it became
the subject of fight between kings. There are several accounts in the fornaldarsögur
concerning a ring, and it is only from comparing these sources that it becomes clear that they
are dealing with the ring Svíagríss. First of all, a ring is mentioned earlier in Hrólfs saga
kraka, and is said to be owned by Helgi, the father of Hrólfr kraki. It is noteworthy that all of
1299
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 58.
“Þá tók Aðils konungr af honum dauðum hjálminn Hildisvín ok hest hans Hrafn” (Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p.
58). Hildisvín is also mentioned in Bjarkarímur: “Hestrinn beztur Hrafn er kendr, hafa þeir tekið af Ála,
Hildisvín er hjálmrinn vendr, han kaus Bjarki í mála” (Finnur Jónsson 1904, p. 163).
1301
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 58. Áli is also mentioned in Ynglinga saga. Although the saga states that he came
from Norway, Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson has suggested that this must be a mistake and that it is more likely that Áli
came from Uppland in Sweden, rather than Upplönd in Norway (Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 57).
1302
Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. II, p. 45.
1303
Of course, this evidence does not mean that the helmets found were precisely those helmets described in
literature. The main problem with such an assumption is that the helmets are younger than their potential owners
were supposed to be. According to the reckoning of Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson, Aðils died in about 575 AD (Íslenzk
fornrit XXVI, p. liii). While the boar images on Torslunda plates showing boar-helmeted warriors come from the
end of the 6th century (Ellis Davidson 1969, p. 41), the boar images on the helmets themselves are probably from
the early 7th century (Gräslund 2006, p. 125) (see further Chapter 8.3.). Regarding objects that might resemble
the ring, there are some bracelets from Kent, in England, which have boar heads on them: see Speake 1980, figs
11 k and 11 l (see Chapter 8.2.). There is also the possibility that Svíagríss was a collar ring: see Fisher, Ellis
Davidson 2006, vol. I, pp. 53-54.
1304
Faulkes 1998, vol. I, pp. 58-59.
1300
204
his siblings wanted to own it. Helgi, however, gives the ring to his brother Hróarr. 1305 Later in
the story, Hrókr, the nephew of Hróarr and Helgi, wants to get the ring. He is not successful in
his quest, but manages to throw the ring into the sea in order to ensure that no one can have
it.1306 The ring is nonetheless eventually found by Hróarr‟s son, Agnarr.1307 The idea that this
ring was actually Svíagríss comes from other sources, like Bjarkarímur,1308 which also state
that Agnarr found the ring in the sea.1309 Nonetheless, Bjarkarímur are the only source to state
that the ring was Svíagríss. 1310 Bjarkarímur also explain how Svíagríss came into Aðils‟
possession: The poem states that Agnarr was later killed by Bǫdvar Bjarki, and that the ring
then came to Hrólfr kraki who sent it to his mother Yrsa (who was married to Aðils by that
time).1311 This account nonetheless implies that Hrólfr kraki would have had the right to own
the ring because, according to the poem, his father Helgi had owned it originally. Nonetheless,
the question is more complicated. Arngrímur‟s abstract of Skjǫldunga saga gives another
explanation (On Arngrímur, see further Chapter 2.2.1.). According to him, Hrólfr‟s ancestors
had taken the ring from the Swedish kings in a war long time ago,1312 something that meant
both Hrólf kraki and Aðils might have had a right to own it. Connections between the boar
ring and the Uppland kings are also supported by Tolley, who also believes that the swine was
a dynastic protector and that the person who owned the ring was marked as a prince of the
dynasty.1313 Similarly, Nylén believes that Svíagríss was a national symbol of both the Svíar
and their royal dynasty, which was believed to descend from the god Yngvi-Freyr.1314
1305
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 19. The saga does not give any more details as to where
Helgi got this ring from.
1306
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 21.
1307
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 23.
1308
Bjarkarímur are from the 15 th century and were also one of the sources for a part of Arngrímur‟s Rerum
Danicarum fragmenta (See Chapter 2.2.1) (Jakob Benediktsson 1957, p. 108). Jakob Benediktsson points out
that Bjarkarímur is derived from Skjǫldunga saga, but only indirectly, borrowing from another saga which was
derived from Skjǫldunga saga: see Jakob Benediktsson 1957-9, p. 53, see also Jakob Benediktsson 1957, pp.
233-237.
1309
Finnur Jónsson 1904, p. 157.
1310
“...hringrinn Ingjalds Svíagrís heitir” (Finnur Jónsson 1904, p. 155). Here, differently from Hrólfs saga, the
poem states that Agnarr is a son of Ingjaldr, as is also stated in Skjǫldunga saga (Íslenzk fornrit XXXV, p. 22).
On the question of Svíagríss, see further Bjarni Guðnason 1963, pp. 65-67.
1311
Finnur Jónsson 1904, pp. 157-162. Earlier support for this idea comes from the Latin version of Bjarkamál,
contained in Gesta Danorum which states that Agner, son of Ingel, was killed and that “the trophy was brought
back home” (ut Agner Ingelli natum fudi retulique trophæum) (Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, pp. 58; Latin
version in Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, p. 182).
1312
Íslenzk fornrit XXXV, p. 32. Here the ring is not mentioned as having been among the treasure given by
Yrsa. It is only stated that she brought them an animal horn full of gold and the three things which the berserkir
had previously chosen: a helmet, a coat of mail and a horse. Svíagríss is only mentioned by name later, the
context not making it clear whether it was among the treasures which Yrsa gave to Hrólfr or whether Hrólfr had
had it with him before.
1313
Tolley 2009, p. 578.
1314
Nylén also sees this ring as a sign of honour and dignity (Nylén, Lamm 1988, p. 66).
205
The above survey makes it clearer why Hrólfr kraki should have chosen the ring
Svíagríss from among Aðils‟ treasure of Aðils and why Aðils (in some versions) should
refuse1315 to give it to him. In Hrólfs saga kraka, when Hrólfr gets the ring (from his mother
Yrsa) along with other treasure,1316 he wants to leave Sweden. Although the story implies that
this was related to a fight for power which had nothing to do with the boar, the name of the
ring, and Aðils‟ relationship with the boar might explain the insult which Hrólfr delivered to
Aðils on his way home from Sweden. The humiliation is achieved by the action of scattering
the gold on the ground in order to stop the Swedish army, which was pursuing the Danes; and
it was mainly Aðils who was said to be greedy.1317 According to the accounts, Hrólfr sows the
gold and Swedes stop to pick it up, but not Aðils. Then Hrólfr throws the ring Svíagrís to
make Aðils bend for it. The humiliation is seen not only in the idea that Aðils bowed for the
ring1318 but in the insult that Hrólfr delivered at the same time. This insult seems to have been
famous, because it is quoted with hardly any differences in all the versions. Three sources
contain a sentence which has the same basic form, which states: “I made the most famous of
Sweden bend like a pig.” In Skáldskaparmál, Ch. 44, Hrólfr says: “Svínbeygt hefi ek nú þann
er ríkastr er með Svíum,”1319 while in Hrólfs saga the words run: “Svínbeygða ek nú þann,
sem Svíanna er ríkastr.” 1320 The insult is even mentioned in Arngrímur‟s version of the
account, which, it might be noted, is in both Icelandic and Danish but not in Latin:
Nu heff eg svijnbeygt hann, sem rijkastur var med svijvm ↄ: Nu haffuer jeg ladet hannem bucke so
itt svijn, den der var megtist iblant de svenske. 1321
1315
According to Saxo, he gave the ring to Hrólfr: “Ferunt illum, collatis in privignum opibus, as ultimum
ingentis ponderis torquem, quo donum cumulatius redderet, expendisse” (Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, p.164).
(They say that he showered wealth on his step-son, and lastly, to crown his gifts, gave him a collar of huge
weight) (Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I, p. 53).
1316
She states: “Ok nú er hér eitt silfrhorn, sem ek vil fá þér ok varðveittir eru í allir inir beztu hringar Aðils
konungs ok sá einn, er Svíagríss heitir ok honum þykkir betri en allir aðrir” (Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson
1944, vol. II, p. 77). See also Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 59. Here, however, nothing is said about Aðils‟ feelings
about Svíagríss.
1317
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 66.
1318
It might be remembered that it was not considered royal behaviour to bend.
1319
Faulkes 1998, vol. I., p. 59.
1320
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 79. It is noteworthy that this insult is used in a similar
form in Vatnsdæla saga where the person insulted is from another family connected to Freyr and boars. “Bergr
mælti þá: “Svínbeygði eg nú þann sem æðstur var af Vatnsdœlum” (Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 88). The use of a pig
insult here was probably not coincidental.
1321
In Arngrímur‟s version, the ring is called “Suija-grijs ɔ: succula svecorum”, which means “the Swedish
piglet”. Arngrímur mentions Svíagríss by name for the first time when Aðils takes it from the ground: Íslenzk
fornrit XXXV, p. 33.
206
It is clear that all of the versions are very similar.1322 The only exception is the account in
Saxo‟s Gesta Danorum which preserves the humiliation of Aðils bending for the golden ring,
but does not mention the verbal insult.1323
Returning to the question of the boar and its connections to the Swedish kings, there
are two things in this insult which might be considered particularly humiliating. First of all,
Hrólfr makes use of alliteration involving similarity between words svín and Svíar, 1324 a
poetic technique that was probably common.1325 Secondly, the connection between Aðils and
the boar could have been seen as so important and well known that Hrólfr found it natural to
turn against Aðils.1326
As has been mentioned above, Aðils‟ connection with boars was emphasised by his
keeping of a boar, and once again it seems unlikely that he was the first of the Swedish kings
to have such connections: For example, one of his ancestors, King Dagr, is said to have held a
boar sacrifice, 1327 even though the boar does not seem to have been the recipient of the
sacrifice as was the case with Aðils.1328 Another connection between Sweden and the boar can
be found in the description of the death of Hrólfr kraki, who is killed by the magic of his halfsister Skuld. Part of this magic involved her sending a monstrous boar at him.1329 This boar
might also be seen as being connected to Sweden. In Hrólfs saga, Skuld is said to be the
daughter of Helgi and an elfish woman.1330 In Arngrímur‟s version, on the other hand, she is
said to be the daughter of Aðils and Yrsa,1331 which makes her half-Swedish, and sheds new
1322
Nonetheless, Arngrímur‟s version is closer to that in Snorra Edda than to the version given in Hrólfs saga:
see further Jakob Benediktsson 1957, p. 237.
1323
“When Rolf spied him bending face-down to pick up the treasure, grovelling for his own gifts, he chortled at
the idea of someone desperately retrieving what he had craftily given away” (Fisher, Ellis Davidson 2006, vol. I,
p. 54). “Quem Roluo tollendę pecunię gratia pronum demissumque conspiciens propriis prostratum muneribus
risit, perinde ac cupide repetentem quod callide tribuisset” (Friis-Jensen, Zeeberg 2005, p. 166).
1324
One might think even of these words being etymologically related: Indeed, if the swine was their totemic
animal, this idea is not as odd as it might seem. Nonetheless, Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon says that this was
unlikely (Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 999). See further Hellquist 1980, vol. II, p. 1126.
1325
For example, Hrólfs saga Gautrekssonar uses an insult based on the alliteration of Gautar (Geats) and geit
(goat): see Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. III, p. 79.
1326
Insults usually involve a basis in truth, which is why the recipients get more upset.
1327
See Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, pp. 35-36. As has been mentioned above, those settlers of Iceland who are said to
have kept pigs (and boars with proper names) seem to have had family relations in Sweden (see above in this
chapter). In addition to this, it seems that King Heiðrek who also had a boar had some relations to Sweden, and
certainly a relationship to Freyr: see Chapter 10.2.
1328
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson, vol. II, p. 74. For the quotation, see above in Chapter 10.3.
1329
Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, pp. 89-90 (see also Chapter 7.2.1.).
1330
Helgi was the father of Hrólfr kraki, and here Skuld is Hrólfr‟s half-sister on his father‟s side.
1331
Here Skuld is Hrólfr‟s sister from his mother‟s side. “qvi inconsulto Rolphone Sculldam, Adilli Regis
Sveciæ et Yrsæ Reginæ filiam, Rophonisqve proinde sororem uterinam” (Íslenzk fornrit XXXV, p. 28). (It might
be noted that Bjarkarímur also state that she was the daughter of Aðils and Yrsa: See Finnur Jónsson 1904, p.
145.
207
light on her relationship to the boar, which then appears as an animal of the Swedes par
excellence.
This chapter thus underlines another aspect of the boar. In addition to its protective
aspect in battle and its royal character, the boar almost certainly had a “totemic” function in
Old Nordic religion for particular people. As has been indicated above and elsewhere, the
people in question who were in most cases related to Sweden and had a relationship to the
Vanir gods, especially belonging to the royal family of the Ynglingar.
208
12.0. Conclusions and Discussion
In this thesis, the swine has been researched from various angles and in various contexts
mainly within the Nordic world and also to some extent within the wider Germanic-speaking
world, from the later Iron Age to the Viking Age, using both archaeological sources relating to
the period and later literary sources. All the evidence, however, focuses on two key features:
the social and religious importance of swine for humans during the period in question, and
their close relationship and interaction. These relationships show both positive and negative
attitudes to swine depending on the context.
12.1. The Dialectics of the Swine Symbol
From the evidence given in the above thesis, it seems to be clear that the overall image of the
swine was far from unified, not only because Old Nordic Religion contained many local
differences but because of several other features that need to be borne in mind. One of these is
the influence of Christianity on the image of the animal. As I have shown, the Icelandic
literary sources were mostly written by Christians; they also include later romances of foreign
origin which have blended with native tradition, and in these works we find pre-Christian
motifs assimilated with those from later times and other contexts. The influence of
Christianity on these motifs might be reflected in the fact that the swine is sometimes
presented as a rather negative animal. 1332 In Christianity, the swine is often presented as
unclean, shameful and lustful animal,1333 and in Christian bestiaries, it is often connected with
the power of Satan.1334 How much were these views known to common people and how much
did they influence the sources? It seems to be likely that the image of Saint Ólafr fighting a
boar (in Ólafs saga helga in Flateyjarbók, see Chapter 5.1.) might have the symbolic meaning
1332
The Christian mind was certainly influenced by the Bible where the attitude toward the swine is quite
negative. The reason for it lies without any doubt in Judaism where the pig is seen as unclean animal. In
Leviticus 11, 7-8 it is said of the swine: “and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, is
unclean to you; Their flesh you shall not eat, and their carcasses you shall not touch. They are unclean to you.”
This attitude was followed by the first Christians, who were originally of Jewish origin, until Saint Peter had a
divine vision telling him that it was possible for Christians to eat these foods. After that, permission was given
for all “unclean” animals to be eaten (Acts 11, 6-10). Nonetheless, the status of pigs certainly did not become
better. The unclean status of pigs is still shown in several other places. In one place, for example, we see Jesus
letting evil spirits go into a herd of pigs (Matthew 8, 28-32).
1333
See Phillips 2007, pp. 374-379 and Hamer 1992, pp. 60-61.
1334
See Beck 1965, pp. 155-156.
209
that he is fighting Satan or some pagans. Nevertheless, I do not see any reason to connect
every dangerous boar in Old Norse literature with Satan. In other sagas where the hero is not
obviously representing Christianity (as applies in the case of Ólafr helgi), the boar is simply
depicted as a dangerous animal, as it is in reality. The role of the boar is thus to allow the hero
to show his physical strength and heroic quality. Indeed, we should not forget that the wild
boar maintained this symbolic image of power throughout the Middle Ages and even up until
now, as can be seen in its use as a heraldic sign for noble families, towns, pubs or even later
sports clubs.
12.2. Wild or Domestic? For Whom is it Important?
Closely related to the dialectic of the swine symbol is the problem of whether the
mythological boar represents a wild or a domestic boar. As has been shown in Chapter 3,
sometimes the mythological boars of Freyr and Freyja have been understood by scholars as
wild boars and domestic animals. Does it really matter which kind of boar they own? For the
people of the Old Nordic world, the difference might not have been so remarkable for the
animals were still very similar in appearance at that time (see further Chapter 4.5.3.).1335 It
nonetheless matters more for scholars, who, especially in a structuralist approach, have
assigned animals to either the wild or the domestic sphere. The role of the domestic boar is
mainly that of inseminating (fecundating) all the sows in the herd and only the most fertile
boar is kept alive by farmers. On the other hand, the wild boar is known to people as an angry
animal which interacted with people when they were hunting it. Therefore, symbolically, there
is a big difference between these two animals: one of them is more connected with sexual
fertility and the other with battle and fighting. The boar which appears in art sometimes looks
like a domestic one, because of its curly tail, something which is a sign of domestication (as in
the Torslunda plate) (see Chapter 8.3.). This might, however, be a mistake of an artist, 1336 as
seems to have been the case when we consider that in several medieval images of the boar
hunt, the animal is given a curly tail in spite of clearly being a wild boar. 1337 Because most
images of the boar are connected with battle, and because the other animals appearing in art
1335
Bökönyí mentions that in the Iron Age, the domestic boars still had tusks and might appear with a crested
back (Bökönyí 1991, pp. 431-432).
1336
See Bökönyí 1991, p. 432.
1337
See, for example, the image of the boar in Livre du Roy modus from the 14th century, where the animal is
depicted with a curly tail (LaCroix, Naunton 2004, p. 143, fig. 160).
210
tend to be wild, it seems probable that the boar which appears in symbols must be the wild
one. Similarly, the fact that the Freyr and Freyja‟s boars bear “battle-connected” names marks
them out as being rather wild boars. The statement that this difference of “wild” or “domestic”
boar matters will be summed up in the next section.
12.3. The Boar is not a Symbol of Fertility
As has been noted above (and in Chapter 3), the boar is usually said by scholars to be a
symbol of fertility. 1338 This interpretation is, however, usually based only on indirect
evidence, including comparison with Greek myths, which was popular in earlier scholarship.
Another reason for this interpretation is the obvious link between the boar and Freyr and
Freyja, who are said to be gods of fertility (see Chapter 3). The boar has thus mainly been
interpreted in their shadow, only a few scholars ever paying interest to the boar itself.
Nonetheless, on the basis of evidence which concentrates first and foremost on the boar itself
(as has been attempted in this thesis), it is clear that there is nothing in the context of Old
Nordic religion which connects the animal with fertility. The relevant iconography obviously
shows a boar with a crested back, and never stresses the genitals, if they are depicted at all.
The same applies to myths concerning the boars, none of which points toward a fertility
function. The characteristics which receive most attention are the shine of boar‟s golden
bristles, and its speed. Moreover, as has been noted in Chapter 6.3., other names given to
boars (Hildisvíni and Slíðrugtanni) clearly point to the dangerous characteristic of the boar.1339
Similarly, as has been examined in Chapter 6.0., personal names and the heiti concerning the
boar have no connection to fertility except perhaps for the name Þrór, of which the
significance is not certain. The name Sýr is not a strong argument for the fertility function of
the swine either. As has been stressed in Chapter 6.2., it possibly meant a protectress, and
even with the translation “sow”, there is no evidence to suggest it should be seen it as a name
pointing to fertility, because apart from a few kenningar, there is little to explain the meaning
or understanding of this name. Overall, as has been shown in Chapter 8, the general evidence
1338
It might be added that very little is said in these works about what is actually meant by “fertility”. From the
context, it might be suggested that the fertility concept might include vegetation, agriculture, and the idea of the
fertility of the earth and people. However, fertility might refer to the fertile power of the animal. Polomé, for
example, explains Dumézil‟s third function of fertility as having “correlates of prosperity, health, long life, and
so on” (Polomé 1974, p. 56).
1339
Näsström has already pointed out that the boar Hildisvíni (War Boar) is connected with war rather than
fertility (Näsström 1995, p. 89).
211
seems to indicate that the boar was probably understood first and foremost as a symbol of
kings, and was believed to have protective power in the battle.
12.4. The Totemic Features of the Boar Symbol
The protective function of the boar symbol noted above is not so distant from its other key
feature aspect which, as has been shown in Chapter 11.0., is its possible “totemic” quality. On
the basis of the evidence, it is apparent that the protective function of the boar was only
relevant in certain areas or for certain people who were mostly related to Sweden and/ or to
Freyr and Freyja. Although this relationship cannot be doubted, it must also be stressed the
boar is also mentioned many times without any reference being given to Freyr or Freyja.
Indeed, on the basis of the archaeological evidence given in Chapter 8, it seems that the boar
was also important for its own qualities (of strength and fury), and not only for its relationship
to deities. Moreover, boar artefacts have been found in several places other than Uppland (a
region connected with Freyr and Freyja), and from earlier periods than the Vendel Period,
which might indicate that the “boar cult” might have been older than the time of Freyr and
Freyja (as we know them from Old Norse sources).1340
To sum up, it seems obvious that the swine in Old Nordic Religion and the Old Nordic
worldview had many faces and several meanings, but the meaning of the boar as a noble and
powerful animal which protected people in the battle and could even become part of their
identity seems to be the oldest and the one that was most important.
1340
I am aware of the fact that Tacitus talks of a tribe called the Ingvaeones, which might logically have been
connected to Ingvi Freyr (like the Ynglingar) (see Winterbottom, Ogilvie 1975, p. 38), just as he mentioned a
goddess whose sign is a wild boar (see Chapter 8.1.), but we cannot prove that if these were related to Vanir-like
gods, that they would be the same Freyr and Freyja that we know today from the Eddic poems and Snorra Edda.
212
Bibliography
Sources (Including Translations)
Adam of Bremen. (2002). History of the Archbishops of Hamburg-Bremen (F. J. Tschan,
trans.). New York : Columbia University Press.
Aðalheiður Guðmundsdóttir. (2001). Úlfhams saga. Reykjavík : Stofnun Árna Magnússonar.
Agathias. (1975). The Histories (J. D. Frendo, trans. & ed.). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Ammianus Marcellinus. (1950). Ammianus Marcellinus (vol. 1-3). (John. C. Rolfe, ed. and
trans.). The Loeb Classical Library. London : Heinemann.
Andersen, Hans Christian. (1879). H. C. Andersens Samlede Skrifter. XIII. Eventyr og
Historier. Kjøbenhavn : C. A. Reitzels Forlag.
Ármann Jakobsson & Þórður Ingi Guðjónsson (eds.). (2011). Morkinskinna I. Íslenzk fornrit
XXIII. Reykjavík : Hið Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Bartsch, Karl & Boor, H. de (eds.). (1972). Das Nibelungenlied. Wiesbaden : F. A.
Brockhaus.
Bjarni Aðalbjarnarson (ed.). (1941-1951). Heimskringla I-III. Íslenzk fornrit XXVI-XXVIII.
Reykjavík : Hið Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Bjarni Einarsson (ed.). (1985). Ágrip af Nóregskonunga Sǫgum. Fagrskinna – Nóregs
Konunga Tal. Íslenzk fonrit XXIX. Reykjavík : Hið Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Bjarni Guðnason (ed.). (1982). Danakonunga Sögur. Íslenzk fornrit XXXV. Reykjavík : Hið
Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Björn Sigfússon (ed.). (1940). Ljósvetninga saga. Íslenzk fornrit X. Reykjavík : Hið Íslenzka
fornritafélag.
Björn K. Þórólfsson & Guðni Jónsson (eds.). (1943). Vestfirðinga Sögur. Íslenzk fornrit VI.
Reykjavík: Hið Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Bracciotti, Annalisa (ed.). (1998). Origo Gentis Langobardorum. Roma : Herder.
Bradley, Sid A. J. (ed.). (1982). Anglo-Saxon Poetry: an Anthology of Old English Poems in
Prose Translation. London : Everyman.
Caesar, Julius. (1958). The Gallic War. (H. J. Edwards, ed.). The Loeb Classical Library.
London : Heinemann.
213
Detter, Ferdinand (ed.). (1891). Zwei Fornaldarsögur: Hrólfssaga Gautrekssonar und
Ásmundarsaga kappabana. Halle : Niemeyer.
Dickins, Bruce (ed.). (1915). The Runic and Heroic Poems of the Teutonic people. Cambridge
: University Press.
Einar Ól. Sveinsson & Matthías Þórðarson (eds.). (1935). Eyrbyggja Saga. Íslenzk Fornrit IV.
Reykjavík : Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.
Einar Ól. Sveinsson (ed.). (1934). Laxdæla Saga. Íslenzk fornrit V. Reykjavík : Hið Íslenzka
fornritafélag.
Einar Ól. Sveinsson (ed.). (1939). Vatnsdæla Saga. Íslenzk Fornrit VIII. Reykjavík : Hið
íslenzka fornritafélag.
Einar Ól. Sveinsson (ed.). (1954). Brennu-Njáls saga. Íslenzk fornrit XII. Reykjavík: Hið
Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Ekrem, Inger & Mortensen, Lars Boje (eds.). (2003). Historia Norwegie (Peter Fisher, trans.).
Copenhagen : University of Copenhagen.
Finnur Jónsson (ed.). (1904). Hrólfs saga kraka og Bjarkarímur. København : Samfund til
udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur.
Finnur Jónsson (ed.). (1912). Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedegtning udgiven af Kommisionen
for det Arnamagnæanske legat ve Finnur Jónsson (vol. I). København : Gyldendalske
boghandel. Nordisk Forlag.
Finnur Jónsson (ed.). (1915). Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedegtning udgiven af Kommisionen
for det Arnamagnæanske legat ve Finnur Jónsson (vol. II). København : Gyldendalske
boghandel. Nordisk Forlag.
Finnur Jónsson (ed.). (1931). Edda Snorra Sturlusonar. Udgivet efter Hånskrifterne af
Kommissionen for det Arnamagnæanske Legat ved Finnur Jónsson. København :
Gyldendalske Boghandel – Nordisk Forlag.
Fisher Drew, Katherine (1996) [1973]. The Lombard’s Law. Philadelphia : University of
Pennsylvania Press.
Gardon, P. O. E. (ed.). (1977). Cynewulf’s Elene. Exeter : University of Exeter.
Gísli Brynjúlfsson (ed.). (1878). Saga af Tristram ok Ísönd samt Möttuls saga. Kjøbenhavn :
Kongelige Nordiske Oldskrift-Selskab.
Gottfried von Strassburg. (1967). Tristan. With the Tristan of Thomas (Thomas Hatto, trans.).
London : Penguin books.
214
Gottfried von Strasburg. (2004) [1906]. Tristan. (Karl Marold, Werner Schröder, Friedrich
Ranke, Tomas Tomasek, eds.). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Grundtvig, Svend (ed.). (1967) [1905-1919]. Danmarks Gamle folkeviser VIII-IX.
Romanviser. Sene lyriske viser. Efterslæt I-II. (Olrik, Axel & Grüner-Nielsen, H.,
eds.). København : Universitets-Jubilæets Danske Samfund.
Guðni Jónsson (ed.). (1954). Þiðreks saga af Bern I. Reykjavík : Íslendingasagnaútgafan.
Guðni Jónsson (ed.). (1964). Grettis Saga Ásmundarsonar. Íslenzk Fornrit VII. Reykjavík :
Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.
Guðni
Jónsson
(ed.).
(1968).
Íslendingasagnaútgáfan.
Íslendingasögur.
Nafnaskrá.
Reykjavík
:
Guðni Jónsson & Bjarni Vilhjálmsson (eds.). (1943-44). Fornaldarsögur Norðurlanda I-III.
Reykjavík : Bókaútgáfan Forni.
Gunnar Karlsson, Kristján Sveinsson, Mörður Árnason (eds.). (1992) Grágás. Lagasafn
íslenska þjóðveldisins. Reykjavík : Mál og menning.
Halldór Hermannsson (ed.). (1945). The Saga of Thorgils and Haflidi (Þorgils saga ok
Hafliða). Ithace, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hatto, Arthur Thomas (ed. and trans.) (1969). The Nibelungenlied. London : Penguin
Classics.
Hauksbók (1892-1896). København : Kongelige nordiske oldskrift-selskab.
Heaney, Seamus (ed. and trans.) 2000. Beowulf. Bilingual edition. London; New York : Faber
and Faber.
Hermann Pálsson & Edwards, Paul (trans.). (1972). Hrolf Gautreksson : a Viking Romance.
The New saga library. Edinburgh : Southside.
Heusler, Andreas & Ranisch, Wilhelm (eds.). (1903). Eddica Minora. Dichtungen Eddischer
Art aus den Fornaldarsögur und anderen Prosawerken. Dortmund : Druck und Verlag
von Fr. Wilh. Ruhfus.
The Holy Bible. Containing the Old and New Testaments. (1982) [1978]. (Thomas Nelson
ed.). New King James Version. Nashville, Tennessee : Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Hreinn Benediktsson (ed.). (1972). The First Grammatical Treatise : the Fundamentals of its
Theory of Orthography. Hague : Mouton.
Hägg, Gustav (ed.). (1909). Songs of Sweden. Eighty-Seven Songs Swedish Folk- and Popular
Songs (H. Grafton, trans.). New York : G. S. Chirmer.
215
Jakob Benediktsson (ed.). (1957). Arngrimi Jonae Opera latine Conscripta. Vol. IV.
Introduction and notes. Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana (vol. XII). Copenhagen :
Munksgaard.
Jakob Benediktsson (ed.). (1968). Íslendingabók, Landnámabók. Íslenzk fornrit I. Reykjavík :
Hið Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Johnston, George (trans.). (1963). The saga of Gisli. London : Dent.
Jóhannes Halldórsson (ed.). (1959). Kjalnesinga saga. Íslenzk fornrit XIV. Reykjavík : Hið
Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Jón Helgason (ed.). (1924). Heiðreks saga: Hervarar saga ok Heiðreks konungs. København :
Samfund til udgivelse af gammel nordisk litteratur.
Jón Jóhannesson (ed.). (1950.). Austfirðinga sögur. Íslenzk fornrit XI. Reykjavík : Hið
íslenzka fornritafélag.
Jónas Kristjánsson (ed.). (1956). Eyfirðinga Sögur. Íslenzk fornrit IX. Reykjavík: Hið
Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Jorgensen, Peter Alvin (ed. and trans.). (1999) Tristrams saga ok Ísöndar. In Kalinke,
Marianne E. (ed.). Norse Romance. I., The Tristam Legend (pp. 23-226). Arthurian
Archives III. Cambridge : D.S. Brewer. ISBN 0859915522
Keyser, Rudolph, Munch, P. A., & Unger, C. R. (eds.). (1848). Speculum Regale – Konungs
Skuggsjá. Christiania : Det akademiske Collegium ved det kgl. norske FrederiksUniversitet.
Krapp, G. Phillip, & Van Kirk Dobbie, Eliott (eds.). (1936). The Exeter Book. New York :
Columbia University Press.
Kratz, Dennis M. (1984). Waltharius, and Ruodlieb. New York : Taylor & Francis.
Loth, Agnete (ed.). (1962). Later Medieval Icelandic Romances I. Viktors saga ok Blávus,
Valdimars saga, Ectors saga. Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B (vol. 20).
Copenhagen : Munksgaard.
Loth, Agnete (1964). Late Medieval Icelandic Romances IV. Vilhjálms saga Sjóðs. Vilmundar
saga Viðutan. Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B (vol. 23). Copenhagen :
Munksgaard.
Loth, Agnete (1965). Late Icelandic Romances V. Nitida saga, Sigrgarðs saga Frœkna,
Sigrgarðs saga ok Valbrands, Sigurðar saga Turnara, Hrings saga ok Tryggva.
Editiones Arnamagnæanæ Series B (vol. 24). Copenhagen : Munksgaard.
Lucas, Peter. J. (ed.). (1977). Exodus. London : Methuen.
216
Neckel, Gustav & Kuhn, Hans (eds.). (1983). Edda. Die Lieder des Codex Regius nebst
Verwandten Denkmälern. Heidelberg : Carl Winter.
O‟Connor, Ralph (ed. and trans.). (2006). Icelandic Histories & Romances. Stroud : Tempus.
Olsen, Magnus (ed.). (1906-1908). Völsunga saga ; ok Ragnars saga loðbrókar. København :
S.T.U.A.G.N.L.
Páll Eggert Ólason (ed). (1916). Mágus saga Jarls ásamt þáttum af Hrólfi Skuggafífli,
Vilhjámi Laissyni og Geirarði Vilhjálmssyni. In Riddarasögur (vol. I). Reykjavík :
Fjallkonuútgafan.
Paulus Diaconus. (2009). Geschichte der Langobarden. Historia Langobardorum. Darmstadt
: Wolfgang F. Schwarz.
Peel, Christine (ed. and trans.). (1999). Guta saga: The History of Gotlanders. (General
editors Anthony Faulkes and Richard Perkins.). Viking Society for Northern Research.
Volume XII. London : University College.
Peiper, R. (ed.). (1873). Ekkehardi primi Waltharius. Berolini : Apvd Weidmannos.
Petrus Hispanius (1572). Petri Hispanii Svmmvlae Logicales cvm Versorii Parisiensis
Clarissima Expositione. [s.n.]
Plutarch (1920). Lives 9: Demetrius and Antony / Pyrrhus and Gaius Marius. (Bernadotte
Perrin, trans.). The Loeb Classical Library. London : William Heinemann.
Rafn, Carl Christian (ed.). (1829). Fornaldarsögur nordrlanda eptir gömlum handritum. I.
bindi. Kaupmannahöfn : [s.n.]
Sanders, C. (ed.). (2001). Bevers saga. With the Text of the Anglo-Norman Boeve de
Haumtone. Reykjavík : Stofnum Árna Magnússonar.
Saxo Grammaticus. (2006). The History of the Danes: Books 1-9 (Hilda R. Ellis Davidson,
ed., Peter Fisher, trans.). Cambridge : D. S. Brewer.
Saxo Grammaticus. (2005). Gesta Danorum. Danmarkshistorien. Bind I (Karsten FriisJensen, ed., Peter Zeeberg, trans.). København : Den Danske Sprog &
Litteraturselskab & Gads Forlag.
Sigurður Nordal (ed.). (1933). Egils saga Skalla-Grímssonar. Íslenzk fornrit II. Reykjavík :
Hið Íslenzka fornritafélag.
Sigurður Nordal (ed.). (1944-1945). Flateyjarbók (vol.1- 4). Reykjavík : Flateyjarútgáfan.
Snorri Sturluson. (1987). Edda. (Anthony Faulkes, trans.). London : Everyman.
Snorri Sturluson. (1998). Edda: Skáldskaparmál vol. I-II. (Anthony Faulkes, ed.). London :
Viking Society for Northern Research.
217
Snorri Sturluson. (2005). Edda: Prologue and Gylfaginning. (Anthony Faulkes, ed.). Oxford :
Clarendon Press.
Snorri Sturluson (2007). Edda: Háttatal. (Anthony Faulkes, ed.). London : Viking Society for
Northern Research.
Storm, Gustav (ed.). (1880). Monumenta Historica Norvegiæ, Latinske Kildeskrifter til
Norges Historie i Middelalderen. Kristiania : Trykt hos A.W. Brøgger.
Tacitus, Cornelius. (1970). The Agricola: and the Germania (H. Mattingly & S. A. Handford,
trans.). Harmondsworth : Penguin Books.
Tacitus, Cornelius. (1975). Cornelii Taciti Opera Minora (Michael Winterbottom & Robert
Maxwell Ogilvie, eds.). Oxford classical texts. Oxford : University Press.
Thietmar, von Merseburg (2002). Chronik. (Werner Trillmich, ed. and trans.). Darmstadt :
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Turville-Petre, E. O. G. & Tolkien, Christopher (eds.). (2006) [1956]. Hervarar saga ok
Heiðreks. London : Viking Society for Northern Research.
Viðar Hreinsson, Cook, Robert, Gunnell, Terry, Kunz, Keneva, & Scudder, Bernard (eds.).
(1997). The complete Sagas of Icelanders including 49 Tales II. Reykjavík : Leifur
Eiríksson Publishing.
Unger, C. R. (ed). (1877). Heilagra manna søgur. Chirstiania : [s.n.]
Þórhallur Vilmundarson & Bjarni Vilhjálmsson. (1991). Harðar Saga. Íslenzk Fornrit XIII.
Reykjavík : Hið íslenzka fornritafélag.
Del Zotto Tozzoli, Carla (ed.). (1992) Il Physiologus in Islandia. Pisa : Giardini Editori e
Stampatori.
Literature
Ahlbäck, T. (ed.). (1990). Old Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names: Based
on Papers Read at the Symposium on Encounters between Religions in Old Nordic
Times and on Cultic Place-Names Held at Åbo, Finland, on the 19th-21st of August
1987. Åbo : Donner Institute for Research in Religious and cultural History
Albarella, Umberto, Dobney, Keith, Ervynck, Anton, & Rowley-Conwy, Peter. (2007).
Introduction. In U. Albarella, K. Dobney, A. Ervynck & P. Rowley-Conwy (eds.).
Pigs and humans: 10, 000 years of interaction (pp. 1-12). Oxford : University Press.
218
Aldhouse-Green, Miranda. (2004). An Archaeology of Images: Iconology and Cosmology in
Iron Age and Roman Europe. London : Routledge.
Aldhouse-Green, Miranda & Aldhouse-Green, Stephen. (2005). The Quest for the Shaman:
Shape-shifters, Sorcerers and Spirit Healers of Ancient Europe. London : Thames &
Hudson.
Alexander Jóhannesson. (1956). Isländisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Bern : Francke
Verlag.
Alver, Bente Gullveig. (1989). Concepts of the Soul in Norwegian Tradition. In R. Kvideland
& H. K. Sehmsdorf (eds.). Nordic Folklore: Recent Studies (pp. 110-127).
Bloomington, Indianapolis : Indiana University Press.
Andersson, Magnus. (2004). Stone Age Scania, Significant Places Dug and Read by Contract
Archaeology. (Alan Crozier, trans.). Stockholm : Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Andersson, Theodore Murdock. (1964). The Problem of Icelandic Saga Origins: a Historical
Survey. London : Yale University Press.
Andersson, Theodore Murdock. (2005). King‟s Sagas (Konungasögur). In Carol Clover and
John Lindow (eds.). Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: a Critical Guide (pp. 197-238).
Toronto; Buffalo and London : University of Toronto Press.
Andrén, Anders. (1993). Doors to other Worlds: Scandinavian Death Rituals in Gotlandic
Perspectives. Journal of European Archaeology, 1, 33-55.
Andrén, Anders. (2005). Behind Heathendom: Archaeological Studies of Old Norse Religion.
The Scottish Archaeological Journal, 27, 105-138.
Andrén, Anders. (2006). A World of Stone. Warrior Culture, Hybridity, and Old Norse
Cosmology. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old
Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp.
33-38). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Andrén, Anders, Jennbert, Kristina & Raudvere, Catharina (2006). Old Norse Religion: Some
Problems and Prospects. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere
(eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and
Interactions (pp. 11-15). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Arent, Margaret A. (1969). The Heroic Pattern: Old Germanic Helmets, Beowulf, and Grettis
Saga. In Edgar C. Polomé (ed.). Old Norse Literature and Mythology: a Symposium
(pp. 130-199). Austin : University of Texas Press.
Ármann Jakobsson. (1999). Le Roi chevalier: The Royal Ideology and Genre in Hrólfs Saga
Kraka. Scandinavian Studies, 71(2), 139-166.
219
Arwidsson, Greta. (1977). Valsgärde 7. Die Gräbergunde von Valsgärde 3. Acta Musei
Antiquitatum Septentrionalium Regiae Universitatis Upsaliensis, 5. Uppsala : Uppsala
universitets museum för nordiska fornsaker.
Ásdís R. Magnúsdóttir. (1999). Graisse, sagesse et immortalité: Le verrat merveilleux et le
culte du porc dans la littérature islandaise du moyen Age. In Philippe Walter (ed.).
Mythologies du porc : actes du colloque de Saint-Antoine l’Abbaye (Isère), 4 et 5 avril
1998 (pp. 155-176). Grenoble : Jérôme Millon.
Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon. (2008) [1989]. Íslensk orðsifjabók. Reykjavík : Orðabók
Háskólans.
Bandle, Oskar. (1967). Studien zur Westnordischen Sprachgeographie. Haustierterminologie
im Norwegischen, Isländischen und Färöischen: A Textband. Bibliotheca Arnamagnea
(Vol. XXVIII). Copenhagen : Munksgaard.
Barco, Gutiérrez M. (1999). The Boar in Beowulf and Elene: A Germanic Symbol of
Protection. Selim: Journal of the Spanish Society for Mediaeval English Language and
Literature, 9, 163-71.
Barði Guðmundsson. (1959). Uppruni Íslendinga. Reykjavík : Menningarsjóður.
Barrett, James, Hall, Allan, Johnstone, Cluny, Kenward, Harry, O‟Connor, Terry, & Ashby,
Steve. (2007). Interpreting the Plant and Animal Remains from Viking-Age Kaupang.
In Dagfinm Skre (ed.). Kaupang in Skiringssal (pp. 283-319). Aarhus : Aarhus
University Press.
Beck, Heinrich. (1965). Das Ebersignum im Germanischen: Ein Bettrag zur Germanischen
Tier-Symbolik. Berlin : de Gruyter.
Beck, Heinrich. (1986). Eber. In Johannes Hoops (ed.). Reallexikon der germanischen
Altertumskunde, 6, (pp. 328-336). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Bennett, Merrill. K. (1970). Aspects of the Pig. Agricultural History, 44(2), 223-236.
Bertell, Maths. (2006). Where Does Old Norse Religion End? Reflections on the Term Old
Norse Religion. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.).
Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions
(pp. 298-302). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Biering, Tine Jeanette. (2006). The Concept of Shamanism in Old Norse Religion from a
Sociological Point of View. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina
Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes,
and Interactions (pp. 171-176). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Bing, Just. (1920-1925). Rock Carvings of the Norse Bronze Age. Saga- book, 9, 275-300.
Bjarni Guðnason. (1963). Um Skjöldungasögu. Reykjavík : Menningarsjóður.
220
Blackmore, J. (1996). Outlining a “New” Region: The Rock Art of the Omburo Ost, Namibia.
In Theoretical Archaology Group Conference. Liverpool : University of Liverpool.
Blind, Karl. (1892-1896). Boar‟s Head Dinner at Oxford and a Teutonic Sun-God. Saga-book,
1, 90-105.
Brink, Stefan. (2007). How Uniform Was the Old Norse Religion? In Judy Quinn, Kate
Heslop & Tarrin Willis (eds.). Learning and Understanding in the Old Norse World:
Essays in Honour of Margaret Clunies Ross (pp. 105-136). Medieval texts and
cultures of northern Europe. Vol. 18. Turnhout : Brepols.
Bruce-Mitford, Rupert. (1974). Aspects of Anglo-Saxon Archaeology. Sutton Hoo and other
Discoveries. London : Gollancz.
Buchholz, Peter. (1968). Schamanistische Züge in der altisländischen Überlieferung. Münster
: [s.n.]
Buchholz, Peter. (1971). Shamanism: The Testimony of Old Icelandic Tradition. Mediaeval
Scandinavia, 4, 7-20.
Bökönyí, Sándor. (1991). Agriculture: Animal Husbandry. In Sabatino Moscati (ed.). The
Celts (pp. 429-435). London : Thames and Hudson.
Cardew, Phil. (2000). Hamhleypur in Þorskfirðinga saga: a postclassical ironisation of myth?
In G. Barnes & M. Clunies Ross (eds.). Old Norse Myths, Literature & Society:
Proceedings of the 11th International Saga Conference 2-7 July 2000 (pp. 54-64).
Sidney : University of Sidney.
Chadwick, Nora K. (1968). Dreams in Early European Literature. In J. Charney & D. Greene
(eds.). Celtic Studies: Essays in Memory of Angus Matheson, 1912–1962 (pp. 33-50).
London : Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Chambers, Raymond W. (1932). Beowulf: An Introduction to the Study of the Poem with a
Discussion of the Stories of Offa and Finn. Cambridge : University Press.
Chaney, William A. (1970). The Cult of Kingship in Anglo-Saxon England: The Transition
from Paganism to Christianity. Manchester : University Press.
Chantepie de la Saussaye, Pierre D. ( 1902). The Religion of the Teutons. (B. J. Vos, trans.).
Boston : Ginn & company.
Charpentier, Jarl. (1936). Zu den Namem des Schweines. Namn och bygd, 24, 6-33.
Christensen, Arne Emil. (2000). Ships and Navigation. In W. W. Fitzhugh & E. I. Ward
(eds.). Vikings: The North Atlantic Saga (pp. 86-97). Washington, London :
Smithsonian Institution.
221
Cleasby, Richard & Gudbrand Vigfusson. (1874). An Icelandic-English Dictionary. Oxford :
Clarendon Press.
Clunies Ross, Margaret. (1994). Prolonged Echoes: Old Norse Myths in Medieval Northern
Society (Vol. 1). Odense : Odense University Press.
Clunies Ross, Margaret. (2010). The Cambridge Introduction to the Old Norse-Icelandic
Saga. Cambridge; New York : Cambridge University Press.
Clutton-Brock, Juliet. (1976). The Animal Resources. In David M. Wilson (ed.). The
Archaeology of Anglo-Saxon England (pp. 453-457). London : Methuen & Co Ltd.
Clutton-Brock, Juliet. (1999) [1987]. A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals.
Cambridge : University Press.
Coles, John. (1990). Images of the Past: A Guide to the Rock Carvings and Other Ancient
Monuments of Northern Bohuslän (nr. 32) [Brochure]. Udevalla : Bohusläns museum
och Bohuslän hembygdsförbund.
Coles, John. (1994). Rock Carvings of Uppland : A Guide. Occasional Papers in Archaeology
9. Uppsala : Societas archaeologica.
Coles, John. (2005). Shadows of a Northern Past: Rock Carvings of Bohuslän and Østfold.
Oxford : Oxbow Books.
Cramp, Rosemary J. (1957). Beowulf and Archaeology. Medieval Archaeology, 1, 57-77.
Csapo, Eric. (2005). Theories of Mythology. Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.
Cunliffe, Bradley. (1997). The Ancient Celts. Oxford : University Press.
Dickinson, Tania M. (2005). Symbols of Protection: The Significance of Animal-Ornamented
Shields in Early Anglo-Saxon England. Medieval Archaeology, 49(1), 109-163.
Dorson, Richard M. (1955). The Eclipse of Solar Mythology. The Journal of American
Folklore, Myth: A Symposium, 68(270), 393-416.
Driscoll, Mathew. (2005). Late Prose Fiction (lygisögur). In Rory McTurk (ed.). A
Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture (pp. 190-204). Oxford :
Blackwell Publishing.
Dronke, Ursula. (1997). The Poetic Edda. The Mythological Poems. Oxford : Clarendon
Press.
DuBois, Thomas. A. (1999). Nordic Religions in the Viking Age. Philadelphia : University of
Pennsylvania Press.
DuBois Thomas. A. (2006). Rituals, Witnesses, and Sagas. In Anders Andrén, Kristina
Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term
222
Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp. 74-78). Lund : Nordic
Academic Press.
Dumézil, Georges. (1947). Tarpeia: Essais de philologie comparative indo-européenne.
[Paris] : Gallimard
Dumézil, Georges. (1959). Les Dieux des Germains: Essai sur la formation de la religion
scandinave. Paris : Presses Universitaires de France.
Dumézil, Georges. (1970). Archaic Roman Religion, with an Appendix on the Religion of the
Etruscans. (Philip Krapp, trans., Foreword by Mircea Eliade). Chicago : University of
Chicago Press.
Dumézil, Georges. (1973). Gods of the Ancient Northmen. (Einar Haugen, ed. and trans.).
Berkeley : University of California Press.
Durkheim, Émile. (1964). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. (J. W. Swain, trans.).
London : Allen & Unwin.
Einar Ólafur Sveinsson. (1962). Íslenzkar bókmenntir í fornöld. Reykjavík : Almenna
Bókfélagið.
Ekwall, Eilert (1960). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names. Oxford :
Clarendon Press.
Eliade, Mircea. (1959). The Sacred and the Profane : The Nature of Religion (W. R. Trask,
trans.). New York : Harcourt, Brace.
Eliade, Mircea. (1964). Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstacy (W. R. Trask, trans.).
Bollingen Series LXXVI. New York : Pantheon Books.
Eliade, Mircea. (1996). Patterns in Comparative Religion (R. Sheed, trans.). Nebraska :
University of Nebraska Press.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1962). The Sword in Anglo-Saxon England : Its Archaeology and
Literature. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1964). Gods and Myths of Northern Europe. Harmondsworth :
Penguin Books.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1967). Pagan Scandinavia. London : Thames & Hudson.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1968). Road to Hel; a Study of the Conception of the Dead in Old
Norse Literature. New York : Greenwood Press.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1968b). Archaeology and Beowulf. In Beowulf and its Analogues
(pp. 350-360). London : Dent.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1969). Scandinavian Mythology. London : Hamlyn.
223
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1976). The Viking Road to Byzantium. London : Allen & Unwin.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1978). Shape-Changing in the Old Norse Sagas. In Joshua R. Porter
& William M. S. Russell (eds.). Animals in Folklore (pp. 126-142). Totowa, NJ :
Rowman and Littlefield.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1988). Myths and Symbols in Pagan Europe: Early Scandinavian
and Celtic Religions. Manchester : University Press.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1993). The Lost Beliefs of Northern Europe. London : Routledge.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. (1998). Roles of the Northern Goddess. London : Routledge.
Enright, Michael. J. (2007). Ritual and Technology in the Iron Age: An Initiation Scene on
the Gundestrup Cauldron. In Stephen. O. Glosecki (ed.). Myth in Early Northwest
Europe (pp. 105-120). Tempe, Arizona : ACMRS and Brepols
Falk, Hjalmar (1924). Odensheite. Kristiania : Fridthof Nansens Fond.
Fellows-Jensen, Gillian. (1968). Scandinavian Personal Names in Lincolnshire and
Yorkshire. Copenhagen : Akademisk Forlag.
Finnur Jónsson. (1907). Tilnavne i den islandske old litteratur. Årböger for nordisk
oldkyndighed og historie (pp. 161-381). København : Kongelige Nordiske OldskriftSelskab.
Finnur Jónsson. (1913). Goðafræði Norðmanna og Íslendinga eftir heimildum. Reykjavík :
Bókmenntafélagið.
Finnur Jónsson. (1917). Hamalt. Arkiv für Nordisk filologi, 35, 47-51.
Finnur Jónsson. (1919). Gudernavne-dyrenavne. Arkiv für nordisk filologi, 35, 309-314.
Finnur Magnússon. (1828). Priscae Veterum Borealium Mythologiae Lexicon. Havniæ:
Sumtibus Librariæ Gyldendalianæ.
Fornander, Elin. (2006). Wild Side of the Neolithic: A Study of Pitted Ware Diet and Ideology
through Analysis of Sable Carbon and Nitrogen Isotopes in Skeletal Material from
Korsnäs, Grödinge parish, Södermanland. [on-line]. Stockholm Universitet. Student
thesis. Fulltext <http://su.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:189478> [Last
checked 9. 06. 2011].
Foster, Jennifer. (1977a). A Boar Figurine from Guilden Morden, Cambridgeshire. Medieval
Archaeology, 21, 166-7.
Foster, Jennifer. (1977b). Bronze Boar-Figurines in Iron Age and Roman Britain. Oxford:
BAR 39
224
Frazer, James George. (1936). The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion (vol. X-XI
pt. VII). Balder the Beautiful. The Fire Festivals of Europe and the Doctrine of the
External Soul. London : Macmillan.
Frazer, James George. (1993). The Golden Bough. A Study in Magic and Religion. Ware :
Wordsworth editions.
Friðrik G. Olgeirsson. (2005). Saga svínaræktar á Íslandi: Frá landnámi til okkar daga.
Reykjavík : Svínaræktarfélag Íslands.
Fritzner, Johan. (1886). Ordbog over det gamle norske sprog. (vol. I) Kristiania : Norske
forlagsforening.
Gelling, Peter & Ellis Davidson Hilda R. (1969). The Chariot of the Sun and other Rites and
Symbols of the Northern Bronze Age. New York : Frederick A. Praeger.
Gentry, Francis G., McConnell, Winder, Müller, Ulrich, & Wunderlich, Werner (eds.).
(2002). The Nibelungen Tradition: an Encyclopedia. London : Routledge.
Gimbutas, Marija. (1999). The Living Goddesses (M. Robbins Dexter, ed.). Berkeley :
University of California Press.
Gísli Sigurðsson. (2004). The Medieval Icelandic Saga and Oral Tradition: a Discourse on
Method. (Nicolas Jones, trans.). Cambridge : Milman Parry Collection.
Glosecki, Stephen O. (1989). Shamanism and Old English Poetry. New York : Garland.
Glosecki, Stephen O. (2000). Movable Beasts: The Manifold Implications of Early Germanic
Aanimal Imagery. In Nona C. Flores (ed.). Animal in the Middle Ages (pp. 3-23). New
York : Routledge.
Golther, Wolfgang. (1895). Handbuch der germanischen Mythologie. Liepzieg : S. Hirzel.
Gould, Chester N. (1930) “Blotnaut” In Studies in Honor of Hermann Collitz: Presented by a
Group of His Pupils and Friends on the Occasion of his Seventy-Fifth Birthday,
February 4, 1930 (pp. 141-154). Baltimore : Johns Hopkins Press
Green, Miranda. (1992a). Animals in Celtic Life and Myth. London : Routledge.
Green, Miranda. (1992b). Symbol and Image in Celtic religious Art. London : Routledge.
Grimm, Jacob. (1854). Deutsche Mythologie. Göttingen : Dieterich.
Grimm, Jacob. (2004). Teutonic Mythology (vols. 4). (James Steven Stallybrass, trans.).
Mineola, N.Y. : Dover.
Groves, Colin. (2007). Current Views on Taxonomy and Zoogeography of the Genus Sus. In
Umberto Albarella, Keith Dobney, Anton Ervynck & Peter Rowley-Conwy (eds.).
Pigs and Humans: 10, 000 Years of Interaction (pp. 15-29). Oxford : University Press.
225
Grundtvig, Frederik S. (1882). [1808] Nordens mythologi. København : Schubothe.
Gräslund, Anne-Sofie. (2004). Dogs in Graves – a Question of Symbolism? In B. Santillo
Frizell (ed.). Pecus. Man and Animal in Antiquity. Proceedings of the Conference at
the Swedish Institute in Rome, September 9–12, 2002 (pp. 171- 180). The Swedish
Institute in Rome. Projects and Seminars, 1. Rome : The Swedish Institute.
Gräslund, Anne-Sofie. (2006). Wolves, Serpents, and Birds. Their Symbolic Meaning in Old
Norse Belief. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old
Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp.
124-129). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Gräslund, Anne-Sofie. (2008). The Material Culture of Old Norse Religion. In Stefan Brink
(ed.). The Viking World (pp. 249-256). London : Routledge.
De Gubernatis, Angelo. (2003). [1872]. Zoological Mythology or the Legends of Animals (vol.
2). Whitefish, Montana : Kessinger Publishing.
Guðbrandur Vigfússon (1855). Um tímatal í Íslendingasögum í fornu. In Safn til sögu Íslands
og íslenskra bókmennta að fornu og nýju (pp. 185-502). Kaupmannahöfn :
Bókmenntafélag
Guðrún Kvaran. (2002). Dýr og menn – um dýraheiti í mannanöfnum. In Anfinnur Johansen
et al. (ed.). Eivindarmál: Heiðursrit til Eivind Weyhe á seksti ára degi hansara 25.
Apríl 2002 (pp. 231-240). Tórshavn : Føroya Fróðskaparfelag.
Guðrún Kvaran & Sigurður Jónsson frá Arnarvatni. (1991). Nöfn Íslendinga. Reykjavík :
Heimskringla.
Guðrún Nordal. (2001). Tools of Literacy. The Role of Skaldic Verse in Icelandic Textual
Culture of the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century. Toronto : University of Toronto Press.
Gunnell, Terry. (1995). The Origins of Drama in Scandinavia. Cambridge : D. S. Brewer and
Rochester.
Gunnell, Terry. (2005). Eddic Poetry. In Rory McTurk (ed.). A Companion to Old NorseIcelandic Literature and Culture (pp. 82-100). Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.
Gunnell, Terry (ed.) (2007). Masks and Mumming in the Nordic Area. Uppsala : Kungl.
Gustav Adolfs Akademien för svensk folkkultur.
Hall, John Richard Clark. (1962). A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. Cambridge : University
Press.
Hall, Richard. (1990). Viking Age Archaeology in Britain and Ireland. Aylesbury : Shire.
Halldór Halldórsson. (1975). Old Icelandic heiti in Modern Icelandic. Reykjavík : University
of Iceland.
226
Hamer, Andrew. (1992). Death in a Pig-sty: Snorri‟s Version of the Death of Hákon Jarl
Sigurðarson. In Richard North & Tette Hofstra (eds.). Latin Culture and Medieval
Germanic Europe. Proceeding of the First Germania Latina Conference held at the
University of Groningen, 26 May 1989 (pp. 55-67). Groningen : E. ForstenGroningen.
Haraldur Bessason. (1977). Mythological Overlays. In Einar G. Pétursson & Jónas
Kristjánsson (eds.). Sjötiu ritgerðir helgaðar Jakobi Benediktssyni 20. júli 1977 (Vol.
1) (pp. 233-292). Reykjavík : Stofnun Árna Magnússonar.
Hasselrot, Pehr & Ohlmarks, Åke. (1966). Hällristningar. Stockholm : Nordisk rotogravyr.
Hatto, Arthur Thomas. (1957). Snake-Swords and Boar-Helms in "Beowulf". English Studies.
A Journal of English Language and Literature, 38, 145-160.
Hauck, Karl. (1978). Brakteatenikonologie. In Johannes Hoops (ed.). Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde (Vol. 3) (pp 361-401). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Hauck,
Karl [et al]. (1985-89). Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit.
Ikonographischer Katalog. Bd. 1-7. Münstersche Mittelalterschriften 24, München :
Fink.
Haugen, Einar Ingvald. (1967). The Mythical Structure of the Ancient Scandinavians : Some
Thoughts on Reading Dumézil. In To Honor Roman Jakobson: Essays on the
Occasion of his Seventieth Birthday (pp. 855-868). The Hague : Mouton
Hawkes, Jane. (2003) [1997]. Symbolic lives: The Visual Evidence. In John Hines (ed.). The
Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century. An Ethnographic
perspective (pp. 311-344). Woodbridge : The Boydell Press.
Hedeager, Lotte. (2003). Beyond Mortality : Scandinavian Animal Style AD 400-1200. In
Jane Downes and Anna Ritchie (eds.) Sea Change. Orkney and Northern Europe in
the Later Iron Age AD 300-800 (pp. 127-136). Balgavies : Pinkfoot Press.
Hedeager, Lotte. (2004). Dyr og andre mennesker : Mennesker og andre dyr:
Dyreornamentikkens transcendentale realitet. In A. Andrén, K. Jennbert and C.
Raudvere (eds.). Ordning mot kaos: studier av nordisk förkristen kosmologi (pp. 219 252). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Hedeager, Lotte. (2005). Animal Representations and Animal Iconography. Studien zur
Sachsenforschung, 15, 231-245.
Hellquist, Elof. (1980) [1922]. Svensk etymologisk ordbok. (2 vols). Lund : C. W. K. Gleerups
Förlag.
Herrmann, Paul. (1903). Nordische Mythologie in Gemeinverständlicher Darstellung. Leipzig
: Verlag von Vilhelm Engelmann.
227
Hills, Catherine M. (1997). Beowulf and Archaeology. In R. E. Bjork, J. D. Niles (eds.). A
Beowulf Handbook (pp. 291-310). [Exeter] : University of Exeter.
Hofsten, Nils von. (1957). Eddadikternas djur och växtar. Uppsala : A.B. Lundequistska
Bokhandeln.
Hougen, Bjørn. (1940). Osebergfunnets Billedvev. Viking Tidsskrift for norrøn arkeologi, 4,
85–124.
Hultgård, Anders. (2008). The Religion of the Vikings. In Stefan Brink (ed.). The Viking
World (pp. 212-218). London : Routledge.
Hultkrantz, Åke. (1986). Rock Drawings as Evidence of Religion: Some Principal Points of
View. In Gro Steinsland (ed.). Words and Objects: Towards a Dialogue between
Archaeology and History of Religion (pp. 42-66). Oslo : Norwegian University Press.
Hygen, Anne-Sophie & Bengtsson, Lasse. (2000). Rock Carvings in the Borderlands,
Bohuslän and Østfold. Gothenburg : Warne Förlag.
Höfler, Otto. (1952) Germanisches Sakralkönigtum. Bd. 1. Der Runenstein von Rök und die
germanische Individualweihe. Tübingen : Niemeyer
Ijzereef, Gerard F. (1987). The Animal Remains. In W. Groenman-van Waateringe & L. H.
van Wijngaarden-Bakker (eds.). Farm Life in a Carolingian Village; a Model Based
on Botanical and Zoological Data from an Excavated Site (pp. 39-51). Assen : Van
Gorcum.
Ingstad, Anne Stine. (1995). The Interpretation of the Oseberg-find. In Ole Crumlin-Pedersen
and Birgitte Munch Thye (eds.). The Ship as Symbol in Prehistoric and Medieval
Scandinavia: Papers from an International Research Seminar at the Danish National
Museum, Copenhagen, 5-7 May 1994 (pp. 138-147). Copenhagen : National Museum
of Denmark.
Ingunn Ásdísardóttir. (2007). Frigg og Freyja: Kvenleg goðmögn í heiðnum sið. Reykjavík :
Hið Íslenska bókmenntafélag.
Irving, Jr. Edward B. (1998). Christian and Pagan Elements. In R. E. Bjork, J. D. Niles (eds.).
A Beowulf Handbook (pp 175-192). Exeter : University of Exeter.
Jakob Benediktsson. (1957-9). Icelandic Traditions of Scyldings. Saga-book of Viking
Society, XV, 1957-9, 48-66.
Janson, Sverker, Lundberg, Erik. B. & Bertilsson Ulf. (1989). Hällristningar och
Hällmålningar i Sverige. Helsingborg : Forum.
Janzén, Assar G. (1947). Nordisk Kultur. Personnavne. Stockholm : Albert Bonniers Förlag.
228
Jennbert, Kristina. (2002). Djuren i nordisk förkristen ritual och myt. In Kristina Jennbert,
Anders Andrén and Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Plats och praxis: Studier av nordisk
förkristen ritual (pp. 105-133). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Jennbert, Kristina. (2004a). Människor och djur: Kroppmetaforik och kosmologiska
perspektiv. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert and Catharina Raudvere (eds.).
Ordning mot kaos: Studier av nordisk förkristen kosmologi (pp. 183-217). Lund :
Nordic Academic Press.
Jennbert, Kristina. (2004b). Sheep and Goat in Norse Paganism. In Santillo-Frizell, B. (ed.).
Pecus: Man and Animal in Antiquity: Proceedings of the Conference at the Swedish
Institute in Rome (pp. 160-166). Rome : The Swedish Institute.
Jennbert, Kristina. (2006). The Heroized Dead. People, Animals, and Materiality in
Scandinavian Death Rituals AD 200–1000. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert &
Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins,
Changes, and Interactions (pp. 135-140 ). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Jensen, Adolf J. (1963) [1951]. Myth and Cult among Primitive Peoples. (Mariann Tax
Choldin & Wolfgang Weissleder, trans.). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Jesch, Judith. (2002). Eagles, Ravens and Wolves: Beasts of Battle, Symbols of Victory and
Death. In Judith Jesch (ed.). Scandinavians from the Vendel Period to the Tenth
Century; an Ethnographic Perspective (pp. 251–270). Woodbridge : The Boydell
Press.
Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson. (1997). Blót í norrænum sið: Rýnt í forn trúarbrögð með
þjóðfræðilegri aðferð. Reykjavík : Háskólaútgáfan.
Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson. (1998). A Piece of Horse Liver. Myth, Ritual and Folklore in Old
Iceland Sources (Terry Gunnell & Joan Turville-Petre, trans.). Reykjavík :
Háskólaútgáfan.
Jón Hnefill Aðalsteinsson. (1999). Under the Cloak; A Pagan Ritual Turning Point in the
Conversion of Iceland. 2nd extended ed. (Jakob S. Jónsson, ed. ; appendix translated by
Terry Gunnell). Reykjavík : Háskólaútgáfan.
Jónas Kristjánsson. (2007) [1988]. Eddas and Sagas; Iceland’s Medieval Literature. (Peter
Foote, trans.). Reykjavík : Hið íslenska bókmenntafélag.
Jones, Gwyn. (1972). Kings, Beasts and Heroes. London : Oxford University Press.
Jonsson, Leif. (1986). From Wild Boar to Domestic Pig: a Reassessment of Neolithic Swine
of Northwestern Europe. In L. K. Köningsson (ed.). Nordic Late Quaternary Biology
and Ecology (pp. 125-129). . Striae 24. Uppsala : Societas Upsaliensis pro geologia
quaternaria.
229
Jordan, Peter. (2001). The Materiality of Shamanism as a 'World-view': Praxis, Artefacts and
Landscape In Neil Price (ed.). The Archaeology of Shamanism (pp. 87-104). London :
Routledge.
Jørgensen, Lise Bender. (2002). Rural Economy: Ecology, Hunting, Pastoralism, Agricultural
and Nutritional Aspects. In Judith Jesch (ed.). Scandinavians from the Vendel Period
to the Tenth Century; an Ethnographic Perspective (pp. 129-152). Woodbridge : The
Boydell Press.
Kalinke, Marianne. (1990). Bridal-Quest Romance in Medieval Iceland. London : Cornell
University Press. ISBN 0801423562
Kalinke, Marianne. (2005). Norse Romance (Riddarasögur). In Carol Clover & John Lindow
(eds.). Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: A Critical Guide (pp. 316-363). Toronto :
University of Toronto Press.
Kalkar, Otto. 1976. Ordbog til det ældre danske Sprog. (1300 – 1700) (vol. 1-5). København :
[s.n.]
Kallstenius, Gottfrid. (1929). Nordiska ordspråk hos Saxo. In Studier tillägnade Axel Kock
(pp. 16-31). Lund : Gleerup.
Kelchner, Georgia Dunham. (1935). Dreams in Old Norse Literature and Their Affinities in
Folklore. Cambridge : University Press.
Kellett, Rachel. E. (2008). Single Combat and Warfare in German Literature of the High
Middle Ages. Stricker's Karl der Grosse and Daniel von dem Bluhenden Tal. (MHRA
Texts and Dissertations, 72; Bithell Series of Dissertations, 33) London : Maney.
Keyser, Rudolph. (1854) [1847]. The Religion of the Northmen. (Barclay Pennock, trans.).
New York : Charles B. Norton.
King, Winston L. (1987). Religion. In Mircea Eliade (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol.
12 (pp. 282-293). New York : Macmillan.
King-Smith, Dick. (2005). Babe: The Gallant Pig. New York : Knopf : Distributed by
Random House.
Kipling, Rudyard. (1920) [1893-4]. The Jungle Book. New York : The Century CO.
Krüger, Bruno (ed). (1983). Die Germanen: Geschichte und Kultur der germanischen Stämme
in Mitteleuropa : ein Handbuch. Band II. Berlin : Akademie-Verlag.
Kuhn, Hans. 1978. “Gná und Sýr”, Fremde Namen und Vokabeln in den germanischen
Mythen. In Kleine Schriften. Aufsätze aus den Jahren 1968 – 1976. Aufsatze und
Rezensionen aus den Gebieten der germanischen und nordischen Sprach-, Literaturund Kulturgeschichte. Band IV. (pp. 280-288). Berlin : de Gruyter.
230
Kulonen, Ulla-Maija, Seurujärvi-Kari, Irja, & Pulkkinen, Risto. (2005). The Saami: a
Cultural Encyclopaedia. Vammala : Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura.
Kvideland, Reimund & Sehmsdorf, Henning K. (1991). Scandinavian Folk Belief and
Legend. Oslo : Norwegian University Press.
Köbler, Gerhard. (1989). Gotisches Wörterbuch. Leiden ; New York : E.J. Brill.
Lacroix, Paul, Naunton, Robert. (2004) [1874]. Manners, Customs, and Dress During the
Middle Ages, and During the Renaissance Period. [s. l.]. : Kessinger Publishing, LLC.
Larson, G. [et al]. (2007). Ancient DNA, Pig Domestication, and the Spread of the Neolithic
into Europe. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 104 (39), 15276-15281.
Leem, Knud. (1767). Beskrivelse over Finmarkens Lapper, deres tungemaal, levemaade og
forrige afgudsdyrkelse. Kiøbenhavn : Trykt udi det Kongel. Wæysenhuses
Bogtrykkerie af G.G. Salikath.
Lehmann. Winfred P. (1986). A Gothic Etymological Dictionary. Based on the Third Edition
of Vergleichendes Wörterbuch der Gotischen Sprache by Sigmund Feist. Leiden : E. J.
Brill.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. (1955). The Structural Study of Myth. In T. Sebeok (ed.). Myth: A
symposium, Bibliographic and Special Series of the American Folklore Society (pp.
50-58). Bloomington : Indiana University Press.
Lid, Nils. (1928). Joleband og Vegetasjonsguddom. Oslo : Jacob Dybwad.
Lincoln, Bruce. (1999) Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship Chicago :
University of Chicago Press.
Lind, Erik. H. (1905-1915). Norsk-isländska dopnamn och fingerade namn från medeltiden.
Uppsala : AB Lundequist and Harrasowitz.
Lind, Erik. H. (1920-1921). Norsk-isländska personbinamn från medeltiden. Uppsala:
Lundequistska bokhandeln.
Lindow, John. (1988). Scandinavian Mythology : an Annotated Bibliography. New York :
Garland.
Lindow, John. (2001). Handbook of Norse Mythology. Santa Barbara, Calif . : ABC-CLIO.
Lindow, John. (2005). Mythology and Mythography. In Carol Clover & John Lindow (eds.).
Old Norse-Icelandic Literature: A Critical Guide (pp. 21-67). Toronto : University of
Toronto Press.
231
Lindqvist, Sune. (1926). Vendelkulturens Ålder och Ursprung. Stockholm : På Akademiens
Förlag.
Lindqvist, Sune. (1941). Gotlands bildsteine. 1. Stockholm : Wahlström & Widstrand.
Lindqvist, Sune. (1942). Gotlands Bildsteine. 2. Stockholm : Wahlström & Widstrand.
Littleton, C. Scott. (1981). Dumézil vs. Lévi-Strauss: Some Theoretical Implication of the
New Comparative Mythology. In C. Frantz (ed.). Ideas and Trends in World
Anthropology (pp. 91-99). ICAES Series No.4. New Delhi : Concept Publ.
Loumand, Ulla. (2006). The Horse and its Role in Icelandic Burial Practices, Mythology, and
Society. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse
Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp. 130134). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Lucas, Gavin. (ed.). (2009). Hofstaðir : Excavations of a Viking Age Feasting Hall in NorthEastern Iceland. Reykjavík : Institute of Archaeology.
Luckert, Karl W. (1984) Coyote in Navajo and Hopi Tales : An introductory Essay to
Volumes Eight and Nine of the American Tribal Religions' Series. In Berard Haile,
Irvy W. Goossen, Karl W. Luckert (ed.). Navajo Coyote Tales : The Curly Tó
Aheedíinii Version (pp. 3-19). Lincoln : The University of Nebraska Press.
Lundborg, Maria Domeij. (2006). Bound Animal Bodies. Ornamentation and Skaldic Poetry
in the Process of Christianization. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina
Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes,
and Interactions (pp. 39-44). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
Magnús Magnússon. (1977). Hamar þrumufleygur norðursins. (Dagur Þorleifsson, trans.)
Reykjavík : Örn og Örlygur.
Mannhardt, Wilhelm. (1868). Die Korndämonen. Beitrag zur Germanischen Sittenkunde.
Berlin : Ferd. Dümmler's Verlagsbuchhandlung.
Mannhardt, Wilhelm. (1904). Wald- und Feldkulte. Berlin : Gebrüder Borntraeger
Mattsson, Gisela. (2004). Djuren I det Vikingatida Åhus. In Garðar Guðmundsson (ed.).
Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology. Proceedings of the 21st Conference of Nordic
Archaeologists 6-9 September (2001) Akureyri Iceland (pp. 85-88). Reykjavík :
Society of Icelandic Archaeologists.
Mazer, Anne. (1995). Gordy. New York : Hyperion.
Meaney, Audrey L. (1964). A Gazetteer of Early Anglo-Saxon Burial Sites. London : Allen &
Unwin.
Meynhardt, Heinz. (1983). Mezi divočáky. (translated from German by. S. Hřebíčková). Praha
: Panorama. [Vier Jahre unter Wildschweinen].
232
Mac Cana, Pronsias. (1996) [1970]. Celtic Mythology. London : Chancellor.
MacKillop, James. (1998). Dictionary of Celtic Mythology. Oxford : Oxford University Press.
Malinowski, Bronislaw. (1922). Argonauts of the Western Pacific. London : G. Routledge &
sons, ltd.
McGovern, Thomas H., Perdikaris, S., & Tinsley, Clayton. (2001). The Economy of
Landnám; The Evidence of Zooarchaeology. In Andrew Wawn & Þórunn
Sigurðardóttir (eds.). Approaches to Vínland (pp. 154-165). Reykjavík : Sigurður
Nordal Institute.
McGovern, Thomas H. & Ragnar Edvardsson. (2005). Archaeological Excavations at
Vatnsfjörður 2003-04. Archaeologica Islandica, 4, 16-30.
McKinnell, John. (2002). Þorgerðr Hölgabrúðr and Hyndluljóð. In Rudolf Simek & Wilhelm
Heizmann (eds.). Mythological Women. Studies in Memory of Lotte Motz (1922-1997)
(pp. 265-290). Studia Medievalia Septentrionalia 7. Wien : Fassbaender.
McKinnell, John. (2005). Meeting the Other in Norse Myth and Legend. Cambridge : Boydell
and Brewer
Melefors, Evert. (2002). The Development of Old Nordic Personal Names. In Oskar Bandle
(ed.). The Nordic Language. An International Handbook of the History of the North
Germanic Languages, vol. I. (pp. 963–971). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Meletinskij, Eleazar. (1973-1974). Scandinavian Mythology as a System. Journal of Symbolic
Anthropology, 1 and 2, 43-58 and 57-78.
Milne, Alan, Alexander. (1988) [1926]. Winnie-the-Pooh. London : Methuen & Co.
Motz, Lotte. (1996). The King, the Champion, and the Sorcerer: A Study in Germanic Myth.
Vienna : Faasbaender.
Mundal, Else. (1974). Fylgjemotiva i norrön litteratur: Skrifer for nordisk sprak of literatur
ved universitene i Bergen, Oslo, Trondheim og Tromsö. Oslo : Universitetsforlaget.
Mundal, Else. (1993). Fylgja. In Phillip Pulsiano (ed.). Medieval Scandinavia : an
Encyclopedia (pp. 624–625). New York : Garland.
Mundal, Else. (2006). The Treatment of the Supernatural and the Fantastic in Different Saga
Genres. In John McKinnell, D. Ashurst & D. Kick (eds.). The Fantastic in Old
Norse/Icelandic Literature Sagas and the British Isles. Preprint Papers of the 13th
International Saga Conference. Durham and York, 6th-12th August (2006) volume II
(pp. 718-726). Oxford : The Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies.
233
Müller, Friedrich Max. (1882). Introduction to the Science of Religion. Four Lectures
Delivered at the Royal Institut in February and May 1870. London : Longmans, Green
& co.
Müller, Friedrich Max. (1883). India: What Can it Teach Us? A Course of Lectures delivered
before the University of Cambridge. London : Longmans, Green & co.
Müller, Gunter. (1970). Studien zu den Theriophoren Personennamen der Germanen. Köln :
Böhlau Verlag.
Näsström, Britt-Mari. (1995). Freyja - The Great Goddess of the North: Lund Studies in
History of Religions, 5. Lund : University of Lund.
Näsström, Britt-Mari. (2001). Blot. Tro og offer i det Førkristne Norden. Oslo : Pax Forlag
A/S.
Näsström, Britt-Mari. (2002).
Studentlitteratur.
Fornskandinavisk
religion.
En
grundbok.
Lund
:
Neckel, Gustav. (1918). Hamalt fylkia und svínfylkja. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 34, 284-349.
Ney, Agneta. (2006). The Edges of the Old Norse World-view. A Bestiary Concept? In
Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in
Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp. 63-68). Lund :
Nordic Academic Press.
Ney, Agneta, Lassen, Annette & Ármann Jakobsson. (2003). Fornaldarsagornas struktur och
ideologi : Handlingar från ett symposium i Uppsala 31.8-2.9 (2001). Uppsala :
Uppsala universitet.
Ney, Agneta, Lassen, Annette. & Ármann Jakobsson. (2009). Fornaldarsagaerne: Myter og
virkelighed: studier i de oldislandske fornaldarsögur Norðurlanda. København :
Museum Tusculanums Forlag.
Nielsen, Ann-Lili. (2006). Rituals and Power. About a Small Building and Animal Bones
from the Late Iron Age. In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere
(eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and
Interactions (pp. 243-247). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.
North, Richard. (1991). Pagan Words and Christian Meanings. Costerus new series (vol. 81.)
Amsterdam : Rodopi.
North, Richard. (1997). Heathen Gods in Old English Literature. Cambridge ; New York :
Cambridge University Press.
Nylén, Erik & Lamm, Jan Peder (1988). Stones, Ships and Symbols: the Pictures Stones of
Gotland from the Viking Age and Before. Stockholm : Gidlunds.
234
Ó Dónaill, Niall & De Bhaldraithe, Tomás. (1977). Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla (Irish-English).
Baile Átha Cliath [Dublin] : Oifig an Soláthair.Ohlmarks, Åke. (1963). Asar, vaner
och vidunder. Den fornnordiska gudavärlden - sagor, tro och myt. Stockholm : Alb.
Bonniers Boktryckeri.
Ólafur Briem. (1985) [1945]. Heiðin siður á Íslandi. Reykjavík : Bókaútgáfa Menningarsjóðs.
Ólafur Briem. (1991) [1940]. Norræn Goðafræði. Reykjavík : Iðunn.
Ólafur Halldórsson. (2004). Af Hákoni Hlaðajarli Sigurðarsyni. Gripla, 15, 175-185.
Olrik, Axel. (1915). Svinefylking ednu en gang. Maal og mine 3. 113-44.
Ordbok öfver Svenska Spräket. XXIII. 1898. Lund : Svenska akademien.
Orton, Peter. (2005). Pagan Myth and Religion. In R. McTurk (ed.). A Companion to Old
Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture (pp. 302-319). Oxford : Blackwell Publishing.
Orwell, George. (2000). Animal Farm. Harlow : Longman.
Otto, Rudolf. (1958). The Idea of the Holy : An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the
Idea of the Divine and its Relation to the Rational. (John W. Harvey, trans.). New
York : Oxford University Press.
Oxenstierna, Eric C. G. (1966) The Norsemen. (Catherine Hutter, trans.). London : Studio
Vista.
Owen-Crocker, Gale R. (2000). The Four Funerals in Beowulf : and the Structure of the
Poem. Manchester : Manchester University Press.
Owen-Crocker, Gale R. (2007). Beast Men: Eofor and Wulf and the Mythic Significance of
Names. In Stephen O. Glosecki (ed.). Myth in Early Northwest Europe (pp. 257-280).
Tempe, AZ : Brepols.
Payne, S. & Bull, G. (1988). Components of Variation in Measurements of Pig Bones and
Teeth, and the Use of Measurements to Distinguish Wild from Domestic Pig Remains.
ArchaeoZoologia,II, (1.2), 27–66.
Pearcy, Roy. (2007). Logic and Humour in the Fabliaux: an Essay in Applied Narratology.
Cambridge : D. S. Brewer.
Peterson, Lena. (2002). Development of Personal Names from Ancient Nordic to Old Nordic.
In Oskar Bandle (ed.). The Nordic Language. An International Handbook of the
History of the North Germanic Langu Ages. Vol. I. (pp. 745–753). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Phillips, Sarah. (2007). The Pig in Medieval Iconography. In Umberto Arabarella, Keith
Dobney, Anton Ervynck & Peter Rowley-Conwy (eds.). Pigs and Humans: 10, 000
Years of Interaction (pp. 373-387). Oxford : University Press.
235
Phillpotts, Bertha. (1920). The Elder Edda and Ancient Scandinavian Drama. Cambridge :
Cambridge University Press.
Pluskowski, Aleksander (ed.). (2005). Just Skin and Bones? : New Perspectives on HumanAnimal Relations in the Historical Past. Oxford : Archaeopress.
Pluskowski, Aleksander (2006a). Wolves and the Wilderness in the Middle Ages.
Woodbridge, Eng. ; Rochester, N.Y. : Boydell and Brewer.
Pluskowski, Aleksander. (2006b). Harnessing the Hunger. In Anders Andrén, Kristina
Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in Long-Term
Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp. 119-123). Lund : Nordic
Academic Press.
Polomé, Edgar C. (1969). Some Comments on Vǫluspá, Stanzas 17-18. In Edgar C. Polomé
(ed.). Old Norse Literature and Mythology: A Symposium (pp. 265-290). Austin :
University of Texas Press.
Polomé, Edgar C. (1974). Approaches to Germanic Mythology. In G. J. Larson (ed.). Myth in
Indo-European Antiquity (pp. 51-65). Berkeley, Calif. : University of California Press.
Potter, Beatrix. (2001). The Complete Tales of Peter Rabbit and Other Favorite Stories.
Philadelphia, PA : Courage Books.
Price, Neil S. (2002). The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia.
Uppsala : Uppsala University Department of Archaeology and Ancient History.
Price, Neil S. (2008). Sorcery and Circumpolar Traditions in Old Norse Belief. In Stefan
Brink (ed.). The Viking World (pp. 244-248). London : Routledge.
Rackham, James. (1994). Animal Bones. Berkeley : University of California Press.
Radcliffe-Brown, Alfred Reginald. (1922). The Andaman Islanders: A Study in Social
Anthropology. Cambridge : The University Press.
Ratke, Sarah, Simek, Rudolf. (2006) Guldgubber: Relics of Pre-Christian Law Rituals? In
Anders Andrén, Kristin Jennbert, Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion in
Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp. 259-266). Lund :
Nordic Academic Press.
Raudvere, Catharina. (2007). Myth, Genealogy, and Narration: Some Motifs in Välsunga
Saga from the Perspective of the History of Religions. In P. Hermann, J. P. Schødt &
R. T. Kristensen (eds.). Reflections on Old Norse Myths, Studies in Viking and
Medieval Scandinavia 1 (pp. 119-131). Turnhout : Brepols.
Raudvere, Catharina. (2008). Popular Religion in the Viking Age. In Stefan Brink (ed.). The
Viking World (pp. 235-243). London : Routledge.
236
Reichert, Hermann. (1999). Heilige Tiere. In Johannes Hoops (ed.). Reallexikon der
germanischen Altertumskunde, 14, (pp. 168-183). Berlin : de Gruyter
Richards, Julian D. (1991). Viking Age England. London : Bastfords.
Rohrbach, Lena. (2009). Beitrache zur nordischen Philologie (vol. 43). Der tierische Blick.
Mensch-Tier-Relationen in der Sagaliteratur. Tübingen : A. Francke Verlag.
Rosén, Helge. (1913). Freykult och djurkult. Fornvännen, 8, 213-245.
Ross, Anne. (1967). Pagan Celtic Britain. London : Routledge.
Rosvold, Jørgen, & Andersen, Reidar. (2008). Wild Boar in Norway – Is Climate a Limitating
Factor? Zoologisk rapport, 1, 1-28.
Rowe, Elizabeth Ashman (2005). The Development of Flateyjarbók. Iceland and the
Norwegian Dynastic Crisis of 1389. The Viking collection. Vol. 15. Odense :
Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Rydberg, Viktor. (1886). Undersökningar i germanisk mythologi. Vol. I. Stockholm : Bonnier.
Rydberg, Viktor. (1891). Teutonic Mythology. (Rasmus B. Anderson, trans.). London : S.
Sonnenschein & co.
Rydberg, Viktor. (2004). Investigations into Germanic Mythology, Vol. II, Part 2. Germanic
Mythology. (W. P. Reaves, trans.). New York : iUniverse.
Schjødt, Jens Peter (2006). The Notion of Berserker and the Relation between Óðinn and
Animal Warriors. In John McKinnell, D. Ashurst & D. Kick (eds.). The Fantastic in
Old Norse/Icelandic Literature Sagas and the British Isles : Preprint Papers of the
13th International Saga Conference. Durham and York, 6th-12th August (2006) volume
II (pp. 886-892). Durham : The Centre for Medieval and Renaissance Studies, Durham
University.
Schjødt, Jens Peter. (2007). Contemporary Research into Old Norse Mythology. In Pernille
Hermann, Jens. Peter Schjødt & Rasmus Tranum (eds.). Reflections on Old Norse
Myths, Studies in Viking and Medieval Scandinavia 1 (pp. 1-16). Turnhout : Brepols.
Schjødt, Jens Peter. (2008). Initiation between Two Worlds : Structure and Symbolism in PreChristian Scandinavian Religion. (V. Hansen, trans.). Odense : University Press of
Southern Denmark
Schlauch, Margaret. (1934). Romance in Iceland. London : Allen & Unwin.
Schlaug, Wilhelm. (1962). Altsächsischen Personennamen vor dem Jahre 1000. Lund :
Gleerup.
237
Schlette, Friedrich. (1977). Germanen zwischen Thorsberg und Ravenna. Leipzig; Jena;
Berlin : Urania-Verlag.
Schrodt, Richard. (1979). Der altnordische Beiname Sýr. Arkiv för nordisk filologi, 94, 11419
Schutz, Herbert. (1983). The Prehistory of Germanic Europe. New Haven, CT : Yale
University Press.
Schück, Henrik. (1905). Studier i Ynglingatal. Uppsala : Akademiska Boktryckeriet.
Shetelig, Haakon & Falk, Hjalmar. (1937). Scandinavian Archaeology (E. V. Gordon, trans).
Oxford : The Clarendon Press.
Shetelig, Haakon. (1949). Classical Impulses in Scandinavian Art From The Migration
Period to The Viking Age. Instituttet for Sammenlignende Kulturforskning. Serie A:
Forelesninger; 19. Oslo : H. Aschehoug & CO.
Sievers, Eduard. (1892). Sonargǫltr. Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und
Literatur, 16, 540-544.
Sigvallius, Berit. (1994). Funeral Pyres. Iron Age Cremations in North Spånga. Theses and
Papers in Osteology 1. Stockholm : Stockholm University.
Simek, Rudolf. (1993). Dictionary of Northern Mythology. (Angela Hall, trans.). Cambridge :
D. S. Brewer.
Smith, Christopher. (1992). Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles. London : Routledge.
Speake, George. (1970). A Seventh Century Coin-Pendant from Bacton and its Ornament.
Mediaeval Archaeology, 14, 1-16.
Speake, George. (1980). Anglo-Saxon Animal Art and its Germanic Background. Oxford :
Clarendon Press.
Spears, James. E. (1974). The Boar‟s Head Carol and Folk Tradition. Folklore 85, No. 3
(Autumn, 1974), 194-198.
Starkey, Kathryn. (1999). Imagining an Early Odin. Gold Bracteates as Visual Evidence?
Scandinavian studies, Journal of the Society for the Advancement of Scandinavian
Study 71(4), 373–392.
Steinsland, Gro. (2005). Norrøn religion: Myter, riter, samfunn. Oslo : Pax Forlag A/S.
Stjerna, Knut. (1912). Essays on Questions Connected with the Old English Poem of Beowulf
(John R. Clark Hall, ed. and trans.). Coventry : Curtis & Beamish.
Stock McCartney, Eugene. (2008) [1912]. Figurative Uses of Animal Names in Latin and
Their Application to Military. A Study in Semantics. [s. l.] : Kite Press.
238
Ström, Folke. (1967) [1961]. Nordisk Hedendom. Tro och Sed i förkristen tid. Göteborg :
Akademiförlaget-Gumpert.
Strömbäck, Dag. (1935). Sejd: Textstudier i nordisk religionshistoria. Stockholm : Hugo
Gebers Förlag; Köpenhamn : Levin & Munksgaard.
Strömbäck, Dag. (2000). The Concept of the Soul in Nordic Tradition. In Sejd och andra
studier i nordisk själsuppfattning (pp. 220-236). Hedemora : Gidlunds förlag.
Sundqvist, Olof. (2000). Freyr’s Offspring. Rulers and Religion in Ancient Svea Society.
Uppsala : University Press.
Sundqvist, Olof. & Hultgård, Anders. (2004). The Lycophoric Names of the 6th to 7th
Century Blekinge Runestones and the Problem of Their Ideological Background. In A.
van Nahl et al (eds.). Namenwelten: Orts- und Personennamen in Historischer Sicht
(pp. 583-602). Berlin : de Gruyter.
Sveinbjörn Egilsson, Finnur Jónsson (eds.). (1931). Lexicon Poeticum Antiquæ Linguæ
Septentrionalis. Ordbog Over det Norsk-Islandiske Skjaldesprog. København : S. L.
Møllers Bogtrykkeri
Sverrir Tómasson. (2004). Dauði Hákons jarls. Gripla, 15, 187-194.
Von Sydow, Carl W. (1934). The Mannhardtian Theories about the Last Sheaf and the
Fertility Demons from a Modern Critical Point of View. Folk-Lore, XLV(4), 296-309.
Sørensen, John K. (1990). The Change of Religion and the Names. In Tore Ahlbäck (ed.). Old
Norse and Finnish Religions and Cultic Place-Names (pp. 394–403). Åbo : Donner
Institute for Research in Religious and cultural History.
Tinsley, Clayton M. (2004). The Zooarchaeology of Settlement Period Northern Iceland:
Some Quantitative Questions. In Current Issues in Nordic Archaeology. Proceedings
of the 21st Conference of Nordic Archaeologists 6-9 September (2001) Akureyri
Iceland (pp. 49-53). Reykjavík : Society of Icelandic Archaeologists.
Todd, Malcolm. (1975). The Northern Barbarians. London : Hutchinson.
Tolley, Clive. (1995). Vörðr and Gandr: Helping Spirits in Norse Magic. Arkiv för nordisk
filologi, 110, 57-75.
Tolley, Clive (2006). The Historia Norwegiae as a Shamanic Source. In John McKinnell, D.
Ashurst & D. Kick (eds.). The Fantastic in Old Norse/Icelandic literature. Sagas and
the British Isles : Preprint Papers of the 13th International Saga Conference. Durham
and York, 6th-12th August (2006) volume II. (pp. 951-960). Oxford : The Centre for
Medieval and Renaissance Studies.
Tolley, Clive (2009). Shamanism in Norse Myth and Magic. Helsinki : Academia Scientiarum
Fennica.
239
Torfi Tulinius. (2002). Matter of the North; the Rise of Literary Fiction in Thirteenth-Century
Iceland. (Randi C. Eldevik, trans.). Odense : Odense Universitetsforlag.
Torfi Tulinius. (2005). Sagas of Icelandic Prehistory (fornaldarsögur). In Rory McTurk (ed.).
A Companion to Old Norse-Icelandic Literature and Culture (pp. 447-461). Malden;
Oxford and Victoria : Blackwell Publishing.
Turville-Petre, E.O. G. (1935). The Cult of Freyr in the Evening of Paganism. Proceedings of
the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society, 3(6), 317-322.
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. (1964). Myth and Religion of the North: The Religion of Ancient
Scandinavia. London : Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Turville-Petre, E.O.G. (1969). “Fertility of Beast and Soil in Old Norse Literature” In Edgar
C. Polomé (ed.). Old Norse Literature and Mythology: A Symposium (pp. 244–64).
Austin : University of Texas Press.
Turville-Petre, E. O.G. (1976). Scaldic Poetry. Oxford : Clarendon Press.
Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1903 [1871]. Primitive Culture : Researches into the Development of
Mythology, Philosophy, Religion Language, Art and Custom vol. I. London : John
Murray.
Tylor, Edward Burnett. 1920 [1871]. Primitive Culture : Researches into the Development of
Mythology, Philosophy, Religion Language, Art and Custom vol. II. London : John
Murray.
Underwood, Richard. (1999). Anglo-Saxon Weapons and Warfare. Stroud : Tempus
Publishing.
Urbanczyk, Przemyslav. (1992). Medieval Arctic Norway. Warszawa : Semper.
van Wijngaarden-Bakker, Louise H. (1987). Experimental Zooarchaeology, In W. Groenmanvan Waateringe and L.H.van Wingaarden-Bakker (eds.). Farm Life in a Carolingian
village (pp. 107-117). Studies in Prae-en Protohistorie 1. Assen : Van Gorcum
Vésteinn Ólason. (2006) [1992]. In Vésteinn Ólason, Sverrir Tómason, Guðrún Norðal (eds.).
Íslensk bókmenntasaga I. (pp. 11-262). Reykjavík : Mál og menning.
Vésteinn Ólason. (1998). Dialogues with Viking Age. Narration and Representation in the
Sagas of the Icelanders. (Andrew Wawn, trans.). Reykjavík : Heimskringla. Mál og
Menning Academic Division.
Vésteinn Ólason. (2005). Family Sagas. In Rory McTurk (ed.). A Companion to Old NorseIcelandic Literature and Culture (pp. 101-118). Malden ; Oxford and Victoria :
Blackwell Publishing.
240
Vries, Jan de. (1956). Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte I. Einleitung – Die
Vorgeschichtliche Zeit Religion der Südgermanen. Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter.
Vries, Jan de. (1957). Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte II. Religion der Nordgermanen.
Berlin ; New York : de Gruyter
Vries, Jan de. (1962). Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Leiden : E.J. Brill.
Waardenburg, Jacques. (1999). Classical Approaches to the Study of Religion. Aims, Methods
and Theories of Research. Introduction and Anthology. Berlin : de Gruyter.
Wagner, Roy. (1987). Totemism. In Mircea Eliade (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Religion. Vol.
14. (pp. 573-576). New York. : Macmillan.
Waldau, Paul & Patton, Kinbeley (eds.). (2006). A Communion of Subjects. Animal in
Religion, Science, & Ethics. New York : Columbia University Press.
Watkins, Calvert. (1995). How to Kill a Dragon : Aspects of Indo-European Poetics. New
York : Oxford University Press.
Watt, Margrethe. (1991). Guldgubberne fra Sorte Mulde, Bornholm. Tanker omkring et
muligt hedensk kultcentrum fra yngre jernalder. In Gro Steinsland, Ulf Drobin, Juha
Pentikäinen, Preben Meulengracht Sørensen (eds.). Nordisk Hedendom. Et Symposium
(pp. 373-386). Odense : Odense Universitetsforlag.
Werner, Joachim. (1949). Die Eberzier von Monceau-le-Neuf. Ein Beitrag zur Entstehung der
völkerwanderungszeitlichen Eberhelme. Acta Archaeologica, 20, 248-256.
Wessén, Elias. (1927). Nordiska namnstudier. Uppsala : Lundequistska bokhandeln.
van Wezel, Lars. (2006). Mythology as a Mnemonic and Literary Device in Vatnsdœla Saga.
In Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert & Catharina Raudvere (eds.). Old Norse Religion
in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes, and Interactions (pp. 289-292). Lund :
Nordic Academic Press.
Whaley, Diana. (2005). Skaldic Poetry. In Rory McTurk (ed.). A Companion to Old NorseIcelandic Literature and Culture (pp. 479-502). Oxford ; Malden and Victoria :
Blackwell Publishing.
White, E. B. 1952. Charlotte’s Web. Pictures by Garth Williams. New York : Harper.
Wigh, Bengt. (2001). Animal Husbandry in the Viking Age Town of Birka and its Hinterland :
Excavations in the Black Earth 1990-95. Stockholm : Riksantikvarieämbetet.
Wilson, David. (1992). Anglo-Saxon Paganism. New York : Routledge.
Woolf, Henry Bosley. (1939). The Old Germanic Principles of Name-Giving. Baltimore : The
Johns Hopkins Press.
241
Internet Sources
Bildsten
från
Tängelgårda.
Historiska
Museet,
Stockholm.
[on-line].
<
http://www.historiska.se/template/RelatedImagePopup.aspx?parent=18887&image=18
890 >. [last checked 3.6. 2011].
Fornaldarsögur norðurlanda. A bibliography of manuscripts, editions, translations and
secondary literature compiled by M. J. Driscoll & Silvia Hufnagel. [on-line]. < http://amdk.net/fasnl/bibl/index.php >. [last checked 17.5. 2011]
Guldfyndet från Hög Edsten. Historiska museet, Stockholm. [on-line]. <
http://www.historiska.se/historia/Tema-Guld/Guldskatt/Gotaland/Bohuslan/Kvilleguldfyndet/ > [last checked 23.5. 2011].
Oxford English dictionary. [on-line]. <http://www.oed.com>. [last checked 17. 5. 2011].
Svenskt Hällristnings Forsknings Arkiv. [on-line] < http://www.shfa.se/ > [last checked
5.6.2011]
The islands' names. Orkneyjar: the heritage of the orkney islands. [on-line]
<http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/pl-isle.htm > [last checked 18.5. 2011]
The Origin of "Orkney". Orkneyjar: the heritage of the orkney islands. [on-line] <
http://www.orkneyjar.com/placenames/orkney.htm > [last checked 18.5. 2011].
Yule - The Midwinter Festival: slaughtering the sacred boar? Orkneyjar: the heritage of the
orkney islands. [on-line]. < http://www.orkneyjar.com/tradition/yule/yule4.htm > [last
checked 8.3.2011].
“I Dig Sheffield” [on-line].
< http://www.idigsheffield.org.uk/objectzoom.asp?ref=J93_1189boar > [last checked 5.6.
2011]
242