From Dróttinn to King the Role of Hnefatafl As a Descriptor of Late Iron Age Scandinavian Culture

From Dróttinn to King The Role of Hnefatafl as a Descriptor of Late Iron Age Scandinavian Culture

BY JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL

Kimball, Justin J. L. 2013. From Dróttinn to King: The Role of Hnefatafl as a Descriptor of Abstract Late Iron Age Scandinavian Culture. Lund Archaeological Review 19 (2013), pp. 61–76. Nothing invigorates nor expresses a culture quite like a national sport or game. These events could be viewed as outlets functioning not only as a means of entertainment, but as a manner through which competitors strive to sculpt their minds and bodies with the mentality, prowess, and raw strength that epitomise the ideals of the associated culture(s). The sports and games of a culture can lead to the creation and reinforcement of gener- alisations – thereby ultimately leading to a fabrication and proliferation of stereotypes. However, through careful observation of the rules, cultural ideas, and messages contained within these games, one may be able to see past the stereotypes and gain a glimpse of the true character of the associated culture. Using the relationship between the game of chess and medieval European culture as a comparison, this paper will examine the Iron Age Scandinavian board game of hnefatafl in order to dispel misconceptions and suggest an alternative, more constructive, means of describing Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture. Justin J. L. Kimball. 2095 Riverdale Road, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7J 1M9. [email protected]

Limitations in knowledge regard- was no emphasis placed on producing written records in Scandinavia. While literacy did ex- ing the Late Iron Age of Scandi- ist, it was not utilised for historical documen- navia tation, as records were kept as part of a rich oral tradition and passed down from one ge- Before any attempt at exploring Late Iron neration to the next (Hedeager 2012, p. 11). Age Scandinavian culture, the limitations of These oral traditions would eventually be set the current knowledge regarding this period down in ink upon parchment, but not until must be made explicit in order to produce as decades and even centuries had passed since transparent a process of analysis as possible. A the events were said to have occurred. This range of sources including literary, historical, transition from oral history to written history and archaeological will be used in this paper would result in the Sagas of the Icelanders. to discuss Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture The problem with these sources is that, al- and the game of hnefatafl. though these sources are highly descriptive Producing descriptive statements regar- and invaluable, they represent pre-Christian ding Scandinavian culture prior to the Med- traditions described from a Christian ieval Period is problematic. This is primarily worldview (Hedeager 2012, p. 11). Further- because prior to the Medieval Period, there more, the sagas are literary interpretations

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 61 and may or may not refer to actual historical will conduct a review of etymological, literary, events and facts (Kellogg 2001, p. 21). The historical, and archaeological sources with the sagas do indeed offer a very valuable source aim of defininghnefatafl . The exact origins of of information, but the limitations men- tafl style games in the Scandinavian tradition tioned above must always be kept in mind are difficult to define. A brief etymological when applying them to an interpretation of study of the words associated with hnefatafl cultural structure. is thus a logical starting point. Ta fl, the root Although the Scandinavians themselves word in hnefatafl, was a Germanic word de- did not record their own history, other cultu- rived from the Latin tabula either in reference res produced records that could be considered to a style of game played on a rigid surface historical documentation. Two such examples or a specific game (Murray 1952, p. 56). This are the Lindisfarne Chronicles and Ahmad word is believed to have been adopted some- ibn Fadlan’s account of the Rus. While both time in the 1st or 2nd centuries CE. Eventu- offer descriptions of the Iron Age Scandina- ally, tafl would be expanded to also include vians, these documentations must be recogni- reference to a type of game that was played sed as produced from third-person historical by moving game pieces over the top of a ta- accounts at best. The authors of these docu- ble-like surface. The further evolution of tafl ments are writing from their own personal as a descriptive word for a table game can be perspective – a perspective that did not be- plainly seen in the Poetic Edda, Völuspá stanza long to that of a Scandinavian worldview. 8: “Teflðo í túni, teitir vóro” (Krause & Slocum This likely created some cultural inaccuracies 2013) which translates to “in their dwellings which must be kept in mind while utilising at peace, they played at tables” (Bellows 1923, these sources. p. 5). The Old Norse word of interest in this Archaeological sources can also be pro- line is teflðo which Krause & Slocum (2013) blematic. Whereas archaeology is able to of- describe as the 3rd person plural past tense fer concrete evidence of material culture, it form of the verb tefla, meaning to “play ta- is limited in its ability to produce detailed bles” or to “play board games”. statements referring to what purpose that Although taflobviously became important material culture may have represented. There- as a descriptor for a type of game and the act fore, archaeological sources cannot produce of playing those games, its etymology also al- answers to questions that deal with the more ludes to the actual origins of the Scandinavi- intangible portions of culture and cultural ac- an-type of taflgame. For tafl to become a part tivities. of the North Germanic lexicon there must By acknowledging these limitations and have been some sort of cultural exchange with by making the analysis process as transparent a Latin-speaking culture. Such exchange did as possible, it is hoped that this paper can de- occur, owing to the Roman Empire’s con- monstrate aspects of Late Iron Age Scandina- quests stretching the Roman borders towards vian culture in the game of hnefatafl. a close proximity with Northern Europe and thus Scandinavia. So influential were the Ro- mans during this period that Scandinavian Defining hnefatafl archaeologists have classified it as the Roman Iron Age of Scandinavia – a period marked by Hnefatafl refers to a type of tafl or table game a blending of Roman-Scandinavian motifs in popular in Scandinavia throughout the ma- artefacts that would last roughly from 1 CE jority of the Iron Age. The following section until around 400 CE (Wilson 1989, p. 16).

62 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL At some point during the Roman Iron Age, tafl became a form of pastime – a fact that is evident through the inclusion of a tafl board within a Roman Iron Age grave site near Fu- nen, Denmark (Murray 1952, p. 58). The Roman game in reference was a military-themed strategy game called Ludus Latrunculorum (here referred to by its other name latrones). A favourite amongst soldiers, latrones would have been one of the cultural staples brought out to the very edges of the Fig. 1. Glass hnefi and hunn pieces from grave Bj empire (Solberg 2007, p. 265). The combi- 750, Björkö, Sweden. Note the decoration of the ned presence of latrones along the Scandina- hnefi and the two colours of hunn pieces. Photo by vian frontier and the establishment of trade the Swedish History Museum, Stockholm. routes likely helped this game to permeate into Scandinavia. Once adopted by Scandi- navian culture, latrones was modified into a game that was definitely unique amongst Iron Age Scandinavian culture (a topic that will be explored more thoroughly later). The theory that latrones was the predecessor of the tafl variants is based on the cultural exchange oc- curring around this time coupled with several similarities shared between the games. For example, latrones and the tafl variants are both military-strategy-themed and are played on latticed boards. Furthermore, the movement Fig. 2. Bone hnefataflpieces found in grave Bj 624, and capture rules of both games are also near- Björkö, Sweden. The hnefi piece is marked by a ly identical (for a set of rules for latrones see cap of bronze. Photo by C. Åhlin, Swedish History Murray 1952; Parlett 1999). Thus it is logi- Museum Stockholm. cal to theorise that latrones was the foundation from which the taflvariants were derived sometime around 400 CE. Tafl was a popular type of game by the Late Iron Age in the Scandinavian world – a fact supported by a variety of archaeological discoveries of hnefatafl paraphernalia in si- tes such as: Sweden at Björkö graves Bj 750 (Fig. 1), & Bj 624 (Fig. 2) (Historiska Museet 2011a; 2011b) and Skamby (Rundkvist & Williams 2008); Norway at Gokstad (Murray 1952, p. 58) and Trondheim (Fig. 3) (Roes- Fig. 3. Wooden hnefatafl board (N29723) from dahl & Wilson 1992, p. 378); Scotland at the Trondheim; the game pieces are made from walrus Brough of Deerness (Orkneyjar 2011); and ivory. Photo by P. Fredriksen, NTNU Vitenskaps- England (Murray 1952, p. 60). The spread museet.

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 63 of this game outside of the Scandinavian pe- entirely separate games (Murray 1952, pp. 55 ninsula likely resulted from taflbeing brought ff.). Although it is neither an authentic nor along as a form of entertainment. Gradually, necessarily complete set of hnefatafl rules, tafl was introduced and adopted by the locals Murray’s reconstruction is an adequate model coming into contact with the Scandinavians. representing this game. Therefore it can be These cultures changedtafl into their own utilised in the exploration of Iron Age Scandi- version (similar to how Scandinavians adap- navian culture. ted latrones), thereby creating several tafl vari- Murray’s reconstruction of hnefatafl is as ants unique to specific col-onies – tawlbwrdd follows. Two players compete against one in Wales (Murray 1952, p. 63), alea evangelii another. The playing field is often a board in England (Murray 1952, p. 61), brandub in latticed 11 × 11 or 13 × 13; however depen- Ireland (Murray 1952, p. 59), and tablut in ding on the region, the lattice may instead be Lapland (Murray 1952, p. 63). 18 × 18, 9 × 9, or 7 × 7. One player plays By 1000 CE, tafl and its variations had the attacking team while the other plays the been well established through the Scandina- evading team. There is a 2:1 ratio of pawn-like vian world. By this period however, foreign playing pieces, referred to as hunn, in favour table games from outside of Scandinavia be- of the attacking team at set-up. The evading gan to gain a following. The issue was that team has an additional piece called the hnefi, these games were also referred to as tafl. Such a sort of king-piece, that starts in the centre an ambiguous naming system for a variety of of the board called the “throne” or konakis. unique games was problematic. Therefore, The evading team then place their hunn pieces around this time an effort was made to dif- around the hnefi in a diamond pattern. The at- ferentiate between the varieties of table games. tacking team’s hunn start in four equal groups This was accomplished by attaching a differ- situated along the perimeter of the board (Fig. entiating prefix to each tafl. Chess, tables, and 4). All game pieces move like the chess rook, fox games (all games of foreign origin to Scan- and captures are made when the two adjacent dinavia) were thereby referred to in Old Norse vertical or horizontal squares around a hunn as skáktafl, kvatrutafl, and halatafl respectively piece are occupied by the opponent. A player (Murray 1952, pp. 56 f.). Scandinavian tafl may choose to move a piece of her/his own was also distinguished, becoming known as between two opposing pieces without penalty hnefatafl(Murray 1952, p. 60). of it being captured. Thehnefi can only be captured after being surrounded on all four sides. If the hnefi is captured, the attacking Rules of hnefatafl team wins. If the hnefi escapes to one of the four corners of the board, the evading team The currently accepted reconstruction of the wins (Murray 1952, pp. 63 f.). rules of hnefatafl comes from Murray (1952). The reconstruction he developed was based on a number of archaeological and historical Describing Late Iron Age Scan- sources that considered all variants of Scandi- dinavian culture navian hnefatafl. His work shows that there is a definite congruence between the variants of Describing the social and cultural structure of hnefatafl. The parallels are so strong in fact, Late Iron Age Scandinavia is a particularly dif- that the hnefatafl variants could more accura- ficult task due to the lack of historical docu- tely be described as regional rules rather than mentation. A plausible hypothesis of this sys-

64 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL Fig 4. Hnefataflset-up on an 11 × 11 board, the hnefi is in the centre. Image by J. J. L. Kimball.

tem is based on apparent kings ruling over a slaves (Brink 2012a, p. 24). group of named people. The specific reference Other scholars appear to argue along these is from Jordanes, who writes that a Norwe- lines as well. Thurston (2001, pp. 115 ff.) pro- gian king named Roduulf ruled over the Ra- vides a more descriptive version of the afore- nii people (Brink 2012a, p. 24). Brink hypo- mentioned hierarchy. According to Thurston thesizes that Scandinavian societal structure (2001, p. 115) the entirety of Scandinavia was was similar to that of Anglo-Saxon England divided into a series of rural bands known in or early Ireland where society was a kind of Old Norse as a drótt. Thesedrótts were based stratified hierarchy with some form of leader not on family or lineages (as is typical of a at the top and a series of societal levels that monarchy), but rather on the bonds between divide the free peoples, semi-free peoples, and warriors and their leaders. Therefore adrótt

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 65 was a form of political hierarchy where the two are easily distinguishable. According to position of a man was determined by his met- Kellogg (2001, p. 31), the social structure of naðr, or social qualities and abilities (Solberg Iceland was characteristically rural in charac- 1985, p. 69). It was then through these same ter. A few powerful men were considered to be qualities that an individual could have the role leaders, referred to in the plural as höfðingjar. of leader bestowed upon him. The leader of a Beneath these men came the free farmers, the drótt was given the Old Norse title of dróttinn bœndur, who were dependent on the höfðing- literally meaning ‘leader’ or ‘lord’ (Slocum & jar. Kellogg (2001, p. 31) mentions that there Krause 2013). In this sense, any warrior was appeared to have been somewhat of a dispa- capable of securing the position of dróttinn rity within the bœndur group: while all bœn- provided that he was elevated to this status dur were able to hire help for their farms and by the consensus of his peers (Thurston 2001, own slaves, it appears that some bœndur ow- pp. 115 f.) and had a suitable degree of econo- ned massive farms with 50–70 men working mic wealth (Solberg 1985, p. 69). for them and over a hundred people residing Below the dróttinn were the intermediate at the farm. Such locations could indeed be elite warriors; a group that would be defined termed small farming villages and clearly des- further in the Early Viking Age as consisting cribe a variation in power between individual of the thegn (older warrior), drengr (younger bœndur. warrior), skipari (captain of a high-status The concept of honour is also an important ship), and himthiki (lowest-ranking elite war- theme in the sagas. In terms of protagonist re- rior) (Thurston 2001, p. 117). Several drótts presentation, honour was the most important could together elect to have one particular because it drove that individual with a “pow- dróttinn represent the collective as an over- erful desire for approbation, good reputation, lord; however it must be stressed that this was [and] distinction” (Kellogg 2001, p. 32). intended as a temporary measure. The title Honour furthermore functioned to encourage for an overlord varied depending on his char- the foundation of bonds between individuals acteristics – for example, a young, ambitious and ensured their continued maintenance. overlord was referred to as dróttinn whereas These bonds ranged from kinship (whether an older, more experienced overlord was re- blood or foster), to marriage, friendship, and ferred to as frea (Thurston 2001, p. 117). It political alliances (Kellogg 2001, p. 32). The is important to recognise that all lower tiers concept of honour closely parallels the rela- – collectively called the folc – were expected tionship between the dróttinn and the folc that to uphold and defend the laws of their culture was discussed previously. In Iron Age Scandi- (Thurston 2001, p. 117). If an overlord or a navia culture, honour is clearly considered as dróttinn was suspected of abusing his position a quality of the warrior class of individuals. and power, the cultural expectation was that Kellogg, however, points out that honour was the folc would forcibly remove that individual also represented in the general social structure from the position of power – a key distinction of Scandinavian society as all members from that separates the drótt system from a mon- warriors to farmers governed their actions arch system. bearing this in mind (Kellogg 2001, p. 33). A somewhat similar social structure was prevalent in the Saga Age of Iceland that prevailed from 870 CE until just after 1000. Although perhaps not as finely defined as the above description, the similarities between the

66 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL Games as descriptions of past understand is that the result was not simply a transformation of appearance and rules, but cultures rather an imbuement of culture and symbolo- gy into the actual game itself. Thus the struc- Before exploring the culture of Late Iron Age ture and appearance of chess are reflections of Scandinavia through the game of hnefatafl, it important cultural values and can therefore be is important to understand how a game can analysed to understand more deeply the med- function as a descriptor of its associated cul- ieval European society that created the game ture. In order to establish this connection and of chess. the role it can play within cultural research, In terms of rules, chess is actually quite si- the game of chess has been selected as an milar to its predecessor from the Middle East, analogue. It must be clarified, however, that as it retains nearly all of the original rules. The hnefatafl and chess are definitely not the same only two exceptions concern the bishop and game – despite a few parallels in game design, queen-type game pieces. Originally the bish- a short chronological overlap, and colloquial op/judge-type piece, while still able to move references that describe hnefatafl as “Viking diagonally, was limited in the number of pos- Chess”. Hnefatafl is a uniquely Scandinavian sible squares it could move (only being allo- game that precedes chess. The important con- wed to jump the diagonally adjacent square cept to recognise is that these games function to land on the following square). The queen- as vessels containing information about their type piece, on the other hand, was even more respective cultures. As a means to an end, limited in that it could only move diagonal- and as the more prolific, well-documented, ly and only by one square per turn (Adams and well-researched of the two games, chess 2006, p. 2). is the logical platform upon which a process These important changes become more ap- of analysis can be conducted on its associated parent when they are paired directly with the culture of origin – a process that can then be alterations in appearance. Originally the bish- applied to hnefatafland Late Iron Age Scandi- op/judge was represented as an elephant and navian culture. the queen as a male counsellor (Yalom 2004, To begin the analysis of medieval Europe- p. xiii; Adams 2006, p. 3). Adams (2006, p. an culture through chess, a brief history of the 3) further notes that the knight piece was origins of the game is necessary. Chess likely also changed, gaining an anthropomorphic descends from a military-strategy game from appearance as either a knight or a horseman India called chaturanga, which may have been (cf. Caldwell et al. 2009, p. 63), but in most introduced to Western Europe as early as the modern pieces today it seems to have reverted 8th century CE (Hooper & Whyld 1992, p. back to being represented simply as a horse’s 173) and by 1000 CE had thoroughly penetra- head. Regardless, these changes definitely re- ted Europe and its culture (Hooper & Whyld flected the social roles of medieval culture in 1992, p. 173; Vale 2001, p. 171; Adams Europe (Adams 2006, p. 3). When coupled 2006, p. 2). What makes chess interesting is with the changes in the rules, something more that its predecessor underwent a process of as- interesting becomes apparent. First, the bish- similation whereby it was transformed from a op/judge piece wields more power by being foreign game into one that would be familiar able to move any number of squares in one within medieval European society (Hooper diagonal direction provided there are no pie- & Whyld 1992, pp. 173 f.; Vale 2001, pp. ces to obstruct the movement (Yalom 2004, 173 f.; Adams 2006, p. 2). What is crucial to p. 17). Second, and most notable, is that

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 67 the queen was allowed to enjoy the greatest who has drawn a considerable amount of at- freedom of movement: all directions and no tention from modern scholars was an Italian restrictions on number of squares in a move, man – Jacobus de Cessolis – who wrote Liber hindered only by obstructing pieces and the de moribus hominum et officiis nobilium ac -po edges of the board (Yalom 2004, p. XIII). pularium super ludo scachorum (The Book of The crucial concept here is that these the Morals of Men and the Duties of Nob- changes are clear indicators of the status that les and Commoners, on the Game of Chess). individuals holding these offices enjoyed. Adams (2006, p. 4) describes the purpose of Bishops and judges obviously occupied pro- the Liber as being a manual used to groom minent positions in medieval society, and as young heirs for ascent to the throne using such these chess pieces were given more pow- chess as an analogy. Cessolis instructs that alt- er by increasing their range on the board. The hough the king piece was the most important queen piece, on the other hand, appears to of all the game pieces, the other pieces moved have been altered the most, changing from independently of the king piece and could the king’s male counsellor/advisor to his life therefore affect the eventual outcome of the companion, the queen. Yalom (2004, pp. game itself. This book therefore uses chess as xiii ff.) points out that the queen’s power on an analogy to teach an important lesson: it is the chessboard reflects the role and status of the combined effort of all pieces on a team, a medieval European queen in four unique rather than just the king, that empowers it for ways: first, the pairing of a king and queen victory over any opposing power. together reflects the Christian concept of mo- This concept, where a cohesive effort resul- nogamous marriage (2004, p. 17); second, the ting from all of the game pieces performing queen was often left in charge of the kingdom their designated roles could be successful in whenever the king was either absent or inca- achieving victory, was Cessolis’ clever analogy pable of ruling (2004, pp. 21 f.); third, the for medieval society in general, whereby each queen actually expected to have some politi- member’s actions could make an impact on cal power, especially considering that she was the success of the society as a whole (Adams often wed in order to obtain power, establish 2006, p. 158). This is significant as it marks a relations between realms, and/or to secure fo- departure from the state-as-body model of go- reign territories (2004, pp. 11 f.); and fourth, vernance which viewed the head of state as ha- the queen was even occasionally expected to ving direct command over the actions of the be present alongside her husband on the field body of subjects under it. In its place was the of battle and even, when necessary, lead her above concept that is viewed as the body pol- king’s men into battle (2004, p. 11). It is fair itic, where each individual must understand to state that the queen piece in chess embo- her/his role in the society and perform that dies these attributes extremely well. role for the benefit and success of that society Of course, changes to the rules and ap- (Adams 2006, pp. 19 f.). Thus, pawns would pearance were not the only way that chess eventually no longer be viewed simply as fod- became deeply ingrained within medieval der on the chessboard, but rather as filling a European culture. Chess was so important specific role in society (Vale 2001, p. 173). In that several allegorists began using it as a tool other words, Cessolis’ Liber worked towards to help indoctrinate members of European helping all members of medieval society, rich society – offering instruction on the roles of and poor, to understand more profoundly each member of a given society from the king their position and value in that society. Cesso- down to the common farmer. One allegorist lis drove this concept further by creating per-

68 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL sonas for the pieces. Book 2 of the Liber des- and their culture metaphorically and figurati- cribes the back row (nobility) pieces whereas vely visualised in the board game of chess and Book 3 describes the front row (commoner) its gaming pieces. Medieval chess, therefore, pieces. The common peoples’ trades are visua- can be used as a tool for exploring and descri- lised in each of the eight pawns from left to bing medieval European culture. right as follows: Thus far, it has been clearly demonstrated that a game belonging to one culture can be First pawn [farmers] used to comment on the important values Second pawn [smiths and carpenters] and norms of that society. Moreover, not only Third pawn [notaries and wool-workers]) are games culturally imbued – a trait that is Fourth pawn [merchants and money exploited by that same culture to teach and changers] reinforce those values and norms – but they Fifth pawn [doctors and apothecaries] are also competitive activities that encourage Sixth pawn [tavern keepers] participants to engage their opponent to the Seventh pawn [toll keepers and custodians best of her/his ability in order to secure the of the city] winner’s prize. Such promotion of skill and Eighth pawn [wastrels, players, and mes- reward for winning is also similar to phy- sengers] (Adams 2006, p. 17) sical sports – another form of gaming that is present in every society. Therefore, games Furthermore, the common pieces are also (whether referring to chess, football, etc.) visually described as being associated with their must be considered as part of a larger sphere specific tools of trade; for example smiths hol- of cultural activities, that in turn can be utili- ding hammers and innkeepers offering food sed in the exploration and understanding of (Adams 2006, p. 36). Cessolis also describes their host culture. It is through this method how the starting positions of all chess pieces that Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture may could be viewed as representative of the actual be viewed through the game of hnefatafl. structure in medieval society. For example, all members of the society are dependent on the farmer (pawn 1) for sustenance. To ensure Discovering Late Iron Age that the crops are distributed where they are Scandinavian culture through needed, the king’s vicar (rook 1) is situated in hnefatafl immediate proximity to the farmer. However, the farmer also requires protection, which is When the same methods used to peer into thus afforded by the knight that is also loca- medieval European cultures are applied to ted in the immediate vicinity. These intercon- hnefatafl, a portrait of Late Iron Age Scandi- nections are continuous and aid in describing navian society can be developed. Disregarding medieval society (for a more detailed descrip- the hnefi piece for a moment, there is absolu- tion of these interconnections, see Adams tely nothing to distinguish between the game 2006, p. 36). It is crucial to understand that pieces in hnefatafl, apart of course from their the purpose behind the changes in rules and respective team colours. This uniformity be- appearance, as well as the visualisation of stra- tween the hunn pieces could be indicative of tified social class structures in the actual chess a specific trait in Iron Age Scandinavian so- pieces themselves, directly results from what cial hierarchy: that all free men were equal Adams states as stemming from a European amongst others within the folc. Thehnefi on desire to see themselves, their social structure, the other hand, seems to hold a very promi-

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 69 nent status amongst the hunn, however. This cant cultural analogy. As explored previously, fact is blatantly obvious considering that the Scandinavia at this time was not characterised hnefi is the easiest piece on the game board by large kingdoms, but instead by smaller lo- to identify owing to some form of distinctive cal chiefdoms. At the centre of the chiefdom feature (e.g. size, colour, ornamentation) that was the dróttinn’s longhouse. In hnefatafl, the sets it apart from the hunn pieces. Instead, hnefi resides on a central spot with his men the hnefi seems to be considerably elevated in surrounding him in a diamond fashion. This status compared to the other game pieces. Al- could be interpreted as the dróttinn and his though this disparity will be further explored men residing within the dróttinn’s longhouse below, it does appear to agree with the strati- with the attacking force on the doorstep. Ac- fied social hierarchy defined above where the cording to the sagas, if a man was convicted hnefi clearly holds some position of power like of a crime and punished by having his land the dróttinn, while the hunn pieces appear to taken from him, it happened occasionally that represent the warrior class as a part of the folc. an individual would gather a group of loyal Not only is the presence of two different so- men and make a last stand from within his cial classes evident in hnefatafl, it also seems longhouse (Kellogg 2001, pp. 559 f.). Hnefa- to echo the societal structure that is apparent tafl certainly could reflect such a scenario ba- in the sagas. sed on the goals and set-up of the game. Despite the apparent difference regarding The final aspect to be examined is what the social status represented in hnefatafl, the hnefi actual act of playing hnefatafl suggests. Like piece is bound by the exact same rules as the chess, hnefatafl is irrefutably a game of tacti- hunn. For example, the hnefi must move just cal and strategic thought. This characteristic like the hunn and is able to assist in the cap- is important as it takes skill to develop and ture of enemy pieces. One could take this a implement military strategy and tactics when step further and state that the hnefi plays a engaging in war. Such matters undeniably major role in determining its own fate, unlike require careful forethought and preparation, the king in chess (for example) which is relati- while at the same time it takes a sharp eye and vely weak and dependent on the other fifteen quick mind to come up with viable reactions pieces in his army. This concept closely mir- to events as the situation changes minute by rors the role of the dróttinn who would have minute and sometimes even second by se- been expected to stand alongside his men in cond. Although the Vikings were popularly battle and thereby contribute toward the fate known for their physical ability in battle, wars of himself and his men (Thurston 2001, p. are not simply won by brute strength alone. 115). Therefore, the fact that thehnefi piece The presence of a game like hnefataflsuggests, is bound by the same rules and laws as the then, that Late Iron Age Scandinavians were hunn pieces (and is largely responsible for de- certainly aware of this fact (Whittaker 2006, fending itself) appears again to be a reference pp. 106 f.). Therefore it is logical to view to the equality of all men – especially while hnefatafl like chess (cf. Whittaker 2006, p. engaged in combat on the battlefield. 106): as a game that celebrated, taught, and Another feature of hnefatafl that is reflec- refined military-relevant methods of strategic tive of Late Iron Age Scandinavian society is and tactical thinking – a set of components the representation of conflict in the game it- that were highly regarded in Late Iron Age self where the central “throne square” (kona- Scandinavian society. kis) functions not only as the simple starting Until now, this analysis has overlooked a point for the hnefi piece, but also as a signifi- seemingly critical inconsistency regarding the

70 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL hnefi in hnefatafl: if the hnefi is based on the ched their strategy and began to encourage in- dróttinn, then why does he dishonour his soci- fighting between the Germanic tribes with the al obligations to his men in favour of attemp- intent of allowing them to kill each other off ting to preserve his life through escape? After (Thurston 2001, p. 118). What is important all, behaviour such as this does not seem to to note is that some tribal leaders were histori- have been characteristic based on the societal cally documented as having allied themselves and cultural description of Iron Age Scandi- with the Roman Empire in order to increase navia. The dróttinn was expected to fight and their power by securing help in killing their die alongside his men if necessary. This code rivals (Thurston 2001, p. 118). of ethics was so incredibly important that it Utilising these two historically documen- was directly written into their mythology and ted events, an explanation can be developed views of the afterlife, ensuring that warriors to explain the seemingly anomalous goal of adhered to their culture’s expectations with the defending team. The scenario that can be utmost ferventness (Thurston 2001, p. 115). painted is one where the hnefi piece repre- Even some convicts described in the sagas, sents a dróttinn that has become corrupt with who amassed their closest friends together to power and has perhaps even sought connec- defend a farm from being divided up as legal tions with the enemy in order to strengthen punishment, seem to conform to this societal his hand against his rivals. The corruption of code of honour (Thorsson 2001, p. 600). power is represented by the overt display of How then can the highly anomalous ob- differentiation between the hnefi piece and all jective of the defending team in hnefatafl be other pieces on the board. The attacking force explained regarding Scandinavian culture? As could then either be a rival group, or mem- mentioned above, hnefatafl owes its develop- bers from within the dróttinn’s group seeking ment to both contact and conflict between to dispose of the dróttinn and his power. The the Roman Empire and Germanic tribes of dróttinn, having his life threatened, then ral- Europe. What is interesting is that, when lies the men still loyal to him and engages examined closely, the overall conflict within in battle alongside them. Unknown to those hnefataflis highly reflective of two events that men however, the corrupt dróttinn continu- were common during this period: regicide and ally seeks an opportunity to slip quickly away exploitation. Germanic tribes were known to from the battle instead of making the honour- commit regicide whenever they felt that their able and socially moral choice of fighting to leader was holding on to power too long, at- the death with the men loyal to him. This mo- tempting to increase it, or began to consider tif can clearly be interpreted from hnefatafl’s himself as being preeminent compared to oth- rules and goals. er warriors. When a leader began to exhibit If this indeed was the intent behind the such characteristics, the culturally acceptable conflict inhnefatafl , then it certainly would course of action was the removal of his po- serve as an important descriptor not only of wer through death (Thurston 2001, p. 118). what was important in Germanic and, later, In addition, during this period the Romans Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture, but also often sought to exploit this cultural behaviour of what was loathed. Hnefatafl, in this role, for their own ends. The Germanic tribes had would function to reinforce the notions of inflicted great casualties on the Roman troops equality amongst warriors through the repre- when Emperor Augustus attempted to press sentation of all attacking pieces being equal. the Roman conquest into Northern Europe. Although a representation of the dróttinn After the failed conquest, the Romans swit- piece is likely included amongst the attack-

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 71 ing pieces, Germanic/Viking culture dictates only help to establish bonds between people, that the leader be considered as an equal with it would effectively work towards integrating the warriors, the folc, under his command all members into society while reinforcing (Thurston 2001, p. 115) and so his game piece Late Iron Age Scandinavia’s most highly cele- is thus left unmarked. At the same time, the brated cultural traits. Hnefatafl consequently conflict in hnefatafl would function as a war- stands as a testament against some of the ster- ning to dissuade the players from falling prey eotypes prevalent today, especially the view to the corruption that power can bring. The that the Late Iron Age Scandinavians were an dróttinn piece is clearly not displayed as an unlawful, bloodthirsty people that randomly equal to the other pieces on his team. Further- pillaged villages for glory, blood, treasure, and more, the corruption has seemingly also cau- slaves. sed him to abandon his cultural obligations to fight alongside his warriors whether or not victory was a possibility. Instead, his goal is to From pagan dróttinn to Chris- avoid death in battle in favour of sneaking off tian king in order to secure self-preservation. In short, the attacking team can thereby be seen as em- Beginning in the 8th century CE, Scandina- bodying everything that is highly regarded in via started to experience an increase in contact Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture, whereas with the Christian world – particularly with the defending team – with particular empha- Europe. This contact marked the beginning of sis on the dróttinn piece – can be seen as the the end for hnefatafl and other unique Scan- embodiment of those traits that are despised. dinavian cultural practices, beliefs, and acti- Therefore, the attacking team’s actions sym- vities. Of these changes in culture, perhaps bolically represent the expulsion of the nega- the most obvious effect was the conversion tive traits from society – either by chasing the of Scandinavians from pagans to Christians; dróttinn piece from the board or, preferably, however, this was only part of a larger collec- completing the culturally sanctioned regicide tion of processes termed “Europeanisation” by capturing it. (Brink 2012b, pp. 622 ff.). In any case, it is Hnefatafl shows that these individuals irrefutable that this process effectively wren- were very much capable of thinking in con- ched Scandinavia out of the Late Iron Age to cise, methodological ways – meaning that then thrust it into the thick of the multicul- they approached war with the intent to win tural European Middle Ages. Of course the and not necessarily to enjoy it purely as a transformation of Scandinavian culture into risky blood-sport. Instead, the overall strategy a European medieval culture did not happen shows that the Late Iron Age Scandinavians immediately. This process instead occurred not only planned attacks designed to limit over several centuries, beginning first with the their opponent’s ability to survive – they were social elites who became Christian kings and, also training in preparation to defend against through a combination of inspiration and co- that very situation should they be unfortunate ercion, further spread the cultural changes to enough to find themselves in it. It is concei- those in their realms (Brink 2012b, pp. 622 ff.). vable, then, as was the case with medieval Eu- This Europeanisation of Scandinavia in- ropean chess, that these skills were so valued disputably contributed to the demise of by the society that the folc and dróttinn classes hnefatafl. This occurred primarily as a result were likely encouraged to partake in a game of of novel cultural activities becoming adopted hnefataflonce in a while. Doing so would not by Scandinavians at this point. The variety of

72 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL new cultural activities became so popular that they were even referenced in Scandinavian cultural history: chess, for example, is mentioned in the sagas and halatafl is even depicted on a runestone (Fig. 5). Of these, chess represented the most allegorical reflection of medieval society and would eventually become the most prolific and highly-praised game of the medieval period. Conversely, the popularity of hnefatafland its variants began to decline – although how quickly the decline in popularity occurred is difficult to determine exactly. Some historical sources describe tafl variants several centuries after the medieval period had begun in Scandinavia – tawlbwrdd in the 1230s and again in 1587, and tablut in 1732 are the notable examples (Murray 1952, p. 63). Unfortunately, there appear to have been no major attempts to document the Scandi- navian tafl games, most likely because people were more preoccupied with chess. Archaeo- logical sources involving hnefatafl also appear to dwindle in number around this period. It is likely that the decline in hnefatafl artefacts resulted in large part from the abandonment of pagan burial rituals. When Scandinavians converted to Christianity, they also adopted Fig 5. Ockelbo runestone showing two individuals its ascetic burial customs which forbade the playing a board game (most likely halatafl). Photo by Berig, Wikimedia Commons. Drawing (inset) inclusion of grave goods alongside the inter- by K. J. J. Havana. red. Outside of burials, a limited number of hnefatafl boards have been found dating into the medieval period (eg. a few stone hnefatafl boards have been found associated with seve- nants of the old Scandinavian culture can ral monasteries and within contexts dating to clearly be seen in chess pieces from this transi- the 13th century CE (Caldwell et al. 2009, p. tional phase – specifically those pieces found 180)). Thus it can at least be stated that there in the Lewis hoard. Discovered on the Isle of is some archaeological evidence for hnefatafl Lewis in the Hebrides in Scotland, the chess- persisting at this time. Nevertheless, it is still men are one of the most stunning examples of difficult to find evidence of hnefatafl in the craftsmanship from the early medieval period transition period between pagan and Chris- in Scandinavia. It is stated that these pieces tian, despite the beginnings of written docu- were probably crafted in Trondheim, Norway mentation in Scandinavia. in the 13th century CE (Caldwell et al. 2009, Fortunately, there is one other way that p. 190) and owned by someone of high sta- archaeology can reveal evidence of hnefatafl tus and with an appreciation for board games. persisting within this transition period. Rem- The Lewis hoard set contains enough chess

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 73 pieces to represent at most four individual sets. Furthermore, some pieces (specifically the cylindrical pieces) may have been used in both chess and hnefatafl. According to Cald- well et al. (2009, p. 179) the concept of duality in board games was actually preferable, especially considering that the transition period between the Iron Age and the Middle Ages spanned at least two hundred years. The concept of duality can be seen el- sewhere in the Lewis chessmen. A few specific pieces from this set have been referred to as depicting the berserker type of warrior from Iron Age pagan Scandinavia. These pieces are linked to the berserker of Scandinavia primarily because they appear to be gnawing on their shields (Fig. 6) – a trait that was unique to this brand of warrior (Price 2002, pp. 374). Caldwell et al. (2009, p. 179) argue however that these pieces are not berserkers because the figures are shown to be clad in mail shirts. The other attribute of the Scandinavian berserker was that they entered battle either naked or at least with no protective armour. Instead Fig. 6. Two “berserker” pieces from the Lewis hoard. Note that both are gnawing on their shields. of referring to them as berserkers, the shield- Photo by J.J.L. Kimball. gnawing is instead suggested to be a reference to the slow pace of chess (Caldwell et al. 2009, p. 179). Although this could indeed be a plausible explanation, there is a clear defence for Middle Ages. Yes, the berserker may be clad in the interpretation as berserkers clad in mail a mail shirt, but his expression gives away his shirts: duality and transition. Caldwell et al. heritage. The berserker pieces may therefore (2009, pp. 178 ff.) have very clearly shown be interpreted as representing the transition that the Lewis chessmen are an example of from Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture into the transitional period between the Iron Age part of a collective Medieval European culture and the Middle Ages. Furthermore, these pie- – a depiction that is captured and visible in ces have been demonstrated to originate from game pieces that are a product of a culture ex- Trondheim, part of the Scandinavian penin- periencing that very same transformation. sula. Therefore, it could be argued that these pieces do in fact depict berserkers – but only that they are in a transition stage themselves. Conclusion Perhaps these berserkers represent a sort of taming of the barbaric pagan Scandinavian Clearly hnefatafl does indeed serve as an in- warrior, a documentation of the process by dicator of what Late Iron Age Scandinavian which he is being refined into the sort of clas- culture was like, just as medieval chess fun- sic rank-and-file foot solider of the European ctions to describe its own associated cultures.

74 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL Although it could benefit from much more References testing, this method has the potential to become an important tool for exploring cultures Adams, J. 2006. Power Play: The Literature and through their material and literary remains. Politics of Chess in the Late Middle Ages. Phi- Through such studies, archaeologists have ladelphia. Bellows, H. A. 1923. The Poetic Edda: Translated the ability to paint a clearer picture that will from Icelandic with an Introduction and Notes undoubtedly help to dispel common miscon- by Henry Adams Bellows. New York. ceptions and negative stereotypes – that are at Brink, S. 2012a. Law and Society: Polities and Le- best erroneous and at worst detrimental – of gal Customs in Viking Scandinavia. In Brink, cultures that were considerably more sophisti- S. & Price, N. (eds.), The Viking World. Lon- don. cated and unique than is commonly believed. – 2012b. Christianisation and the Emergence of Hnefatafl, when analysed with this method, the Early Church in Scandinavia. In Brink, S. arguably illustrates many aspects of Late Iron & Price, N. (eds.), The Viking World. London. Age Scandinavia, including land divisions, so- Caldwell, D. H., Hall, M. A., & Wilkinson, C. M. cietal stratification, military capabilities, and (2009). The Lewis Hoard of Gaming Pieces: championed cultural traits. Most importantly, A Re-examination of their Context, Meanings, Discovery and Manufacture. Medieval Archa- this game stands as an indication that these eology 53. people were highly competent and organised Hedeager, L. 2012. Scandinavia Before the Viking groups of individuals. Therefore, by using the Age. In Brink, S. & Price, N. (eds.), The Viking relationship between cultural activities and World. London. their cultures, archaeologists not only have Historiska Museet 2011a. Föremål 107787. SHM 34000:Bj 750. In Sök i samlingarna the ability to explore and understand an an- (beta). Webpage [online] 2011. Available cient society from a different perspective, but from: http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/fid. also to share this knowledge with the gene- asp?fid=107787&g=1 [Accessed 28 August ral public in a language that requires little or 2013]. no translation. The analysis ofhnefatafl ac- – 2011b. Föremål 364475. SHM 34000:Bj 624. cordingly provides a constructive description In Sök i samlingarna (beta). Webpage [online] 2011. Available from: http://mis.historiska.se/ that can be used as a unique form of insight mis/sok/fid.asp?fid=364475 [Accessed 28 -Au into Late Iron Age Scandinavian culture from gust 2013]. its pagan dróttinn through until its Christian Hooper, D. & Whyld, K. 1992. The Oxford Com- kings, and beyond. panion to Chess. Oxford. Kellogg, R. 2001. Introduction. In Thorsson, Ö. & Scudder, B. (eds.), The Sagas of Icelanders: A Selection. New York. Krause, T. B. & Slocum, J. 2013. Old Norse On- line: Lesson 9. In The University of Texas at Austin: Linguistics Research Center. Webpage [online] 15 February 2013. Available from: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/lrc/eieol/ norol-9-X.html [Accessed 25 August 2013]. Murray, H. J. R. 1952. A History Of Board-Games Other Than Chess. Oxford. Orkneyjar. 2011. Dig Team Find Proof There Were Picts on the Brough of Deerness before the Vikings. In Orkneyjar. Webpage [online] 11 August 2011. Available from: http://www. orkneyjar.com/archaeology/2011/08/11/

FROM DRÓTTINN TO KING 75 dig-team-find-proof-there-were-picts-on-the- Whittaker, H. 2006. Game-boards and Gaming- brough-before-the-vikings/ [Accessed 21 Au- pieces in the Northern European Iron Age. gust 2013]. Nordlit 10 (2). Parlett, D. 1999. The Oxford History of Board Wilson, D. M. 1989. The Vikings and their Games. Oxford. Origins: Scandinavia in the First Millennium. Peterson, N. N. 2009. Hnefatafl: An Experimen- New York. tal Reconstruction. Webpage [online] 23 April Yalom, M. 2004. Birth of the Chess Queen. 2009. Available from: http://www.treheima. London. ca/viking/tafl.htm#draw1 [Accessed 20 May 2013]. Price, N. 2002. The Viking Way: Religion and War in the Later Iron Age of Scandinavia. Oxford. Roesdahl, E. & Wilson, D. M. 1992. From Viking to Crusader: The Scandinavians and Europe 800–1200. New York. Rundkvist, M. & Williams, H. 2008. A Viking Boat Grave with Amber Gaming Pieces Exca- vated at Skamby, Östergötland, Sweden. Med- ieval Archaeology 52. Slocum, J. & Krause, T. B. 2013. Old Norse On- line: Base Form Dictionary. In The University of Texas at Austin: Linguistics Research Center. Webpage [online] 15 February 2013. Availa- ble from: http://www.utexas.edu/cola/centers/ lrc/eieol/norol-BF-X.html [Accessed 21 May 2013]. Solberg, B. 1985. Social Status in the Merovingian and Viking Periods in Norway from Archaeo- logical and Historical Sources. Norwegian Ar- chaeological Review 18. – 2007. Pastimes or serious business? Norwegian graves with gaming objects c. 200–1000 AD. In Hårdh, B., Jennbert, K., & Olausson, D. (eds.), On the Road: Studies in Honour of Lars Larsson. Acta Archaeologica Lundensia in 4o, No. 26. Lund. Thorsson, 2001. Reference Section: Social and Po- litical Structure. In Thorsson, Ö. & Scudder, B. (eds.), The Sagas of Icelanders: A Selection. New York. Thurston, T. L. 2001.Landscapes of power, landscapes of conflict: state formation in the south Scan- dinavian Iron Age. New York. Vale, M. 2001. The Princely Court: Medieval Courts and Culture in North-West Europe, 1270–1380. Oxford. Wawn, A. The Viking Revival. In BBC – History – Ancient History in Depth: The Viking Revival. Webpage [online] 17 February 2011. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/ vikings/revival_01.shtml [Accessed 23 May 2013].

76 JUSTIN J. L. KIMBALL