The Swine in Old Nordic Religion and Worldview

Lenka Kovárová

Lokaverkefni til MA–gráðu í norrænni trú

Félagsvísindasvið

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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 never- ending 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

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. 3 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. 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. 8 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. 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.

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 Durkheim16 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, multi- scalar 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. 22 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. 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. 32 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. 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. 39 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 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. 56 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. 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. 66 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. 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. 70 See Chapter 6. 71 Wagner 1987, p. 575. 72 Price 2002, p. 390. 73 Jensen 1963, p. 157. 74 See Chapters 3 and 9. 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 Steinsland 2005, p. 37. 76 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. 82Turville-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. 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. 101 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. 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. 121 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. 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 13th 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. 128 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. 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. 138 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. 145- 166, 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. 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. 146 The main manuscripts are Gl.kgl.sml.2845, 4to, called R (early 15th 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). 151Jónas Kristjánsson 2007, pp. 352-353. 152 Raudvere 2007, p. 127. 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. 154 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. 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. 160 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. 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 19th 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 (hilde- svin)” (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 Indo- European 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. 190 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, 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. 206 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. 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. 210 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). 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 (1823- 1900). 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 Sun- God” (1892-6) immediately reflects this idea. Blind proposed that the tradition of eating a boar‟s head on Christmas day at Oxford223 was a survival of pre-Christian tradition. The

218 See Tylor 1903. 219 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 Indo- European 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). 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 Sun- Boar 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. 225 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. 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. 233 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. 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. 243 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 10th 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. 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 260 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 goat- sacrifice 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. 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 (1881- 1967). 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. 270 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. 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. 276 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) 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 Tier- Symbolik (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. 300 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). 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 Indo- European 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. 307 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. 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 Long- Term 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. 320 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). 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 nigouimes334 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 Freyr339 (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 non- European 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. 349 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. 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. 357 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. 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. 369 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. 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. 374 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). 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 hunter- gatherers 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 hunter- gatherers 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. 395 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. 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 17th 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, half- swine 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. 409 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. 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. 418 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. 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. 423 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. 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. 430 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. 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.) 437 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. 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. 443 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. 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 rock- carvings. 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 rock- carvings 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. 453 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. 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 9th 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 10th 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. 470 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 2nd 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. 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. 475 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. 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 7th 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. 483 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. 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. 493 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 8th 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. 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. 502 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. 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. 513 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. 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). 520 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. 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. 539 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 8th 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 Anglo- Norman 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. 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). 551 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). 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. 557 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. 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. 570 (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). 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. 578 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. 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. 585 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. 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. 592 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). 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. 600 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). 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. 609 Guðni Jónsson, Bjarni Vilhjálmsson 1944, vol. II, p. 457. 610 Íslenzk fornrit IX, p. 235 and Íslenzk fornrit VIII, p. 116. 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 calf614 (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. 612 “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. 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. 630 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. 636The 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. 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 dritroði þrór vigrir skunpr Þrándr vaningi. 645

To run over these heiti, Valglitnir (which appears only in the þulur) means “slaughter- shiner” or “pleasant shiner”,646 the first meaning once again pointing towards battle.647

640 Ásgeir Blöndal Magnússon 2008, p. 294. 641 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. 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, 651 although associations to colour also have logic.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 Dritroði657 (“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. 647 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. 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 boar680 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. 676 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. 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. 145- 155. 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. 70- 109. 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. 688 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. 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 Proto- Germanic *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. 705 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). 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 19th 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. 732 In the anonymous Origo gentis

724 Íslenzk fornrit XXVI, p. 52, and Ekrem, Mortensen 2003, p.76. 725 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, far- galt 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. 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. 734 Turville-Petre 1964, p. 72. 735Guðni 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. 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. 740 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. 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. 747 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. 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. 754 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. 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. 763 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). 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. 778 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. 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. 803 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 17th (called Sow-day in Orkney), every family which had a herd of swine used to slaughter one of them: see 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 Saur- sites 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. 818 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 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. 835 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). 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. 846 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. 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 single- combat.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. 208- 212), 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. 879 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 13th 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. 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. 887 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. 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. 894 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). 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. 911 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. 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 húsinu [...]929

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 Hrólfs konungs hrönnum niðr með fádæmum.930

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 shape- changers, 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. 927 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). 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 shape- changers 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 Gull- Þóris 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 mundi verit hafa Busla kerling, því at hún sást aldri síðan.946

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. 945 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. 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 shape- changers of this kind tend to be more anonymous, which means there usually little

948 Cleasby, Vigfusson 1874, p. 639. 949 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. 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 shape- changing 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 10th 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. 967 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. 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 shape- shifter.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 shape- changing.

982 Price 2002, p. 374. 983 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. 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. 992 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. 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. 999 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. 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. 1005 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 19th 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. 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 “boar- warrior”: 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-helmet1020 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. 1039 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 sea- roof‟s fjord when those old hogs grabbed a firm hold on my head‟s bones” (Viðar Hreinsson 1997, pp.131-132). 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. 1045 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 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. 1060 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. 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. 1071 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).

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 North 1997, p. 73; Foster 1977b, pp. 26-28. See also Speake 1980, p. 81. 1075 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 standard- fittings 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 (2nd 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. 1083 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 3rd 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. 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). 1093 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. 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. 1104 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. 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. 1111 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. 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 belt- end 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. 1118 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. 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. 1122 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). 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. 1126 Beck 1965, p. 55. 1127 See Lindqvist 1926, pp. 56-57. 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 shoulder- clasps 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. 1129 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. 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). 1135 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 4th-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. 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. 1147 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. 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 bird- crested 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. 1150 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. 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. 1155 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. 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 Anglo- Saxon 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: gūþ- mōd 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. 1175 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. 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. 1181 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. 182

referring to an “auspicious omen”.1190 According to Chaney, this is a reference to a boar- banner.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 magico- religious 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. 1191 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). 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. 1199 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). 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 1207svínskinn í aflinn ok bað blása 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~~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 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 fyrst ok gulli byrstum.1211~~

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. 1211 Faulkes 1998, vol. I, p. 19. “Battle-skilled Freyr rides in front of Odin‟s son‟s [Baldr‟s] pyre on golden- bristled 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. 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. 1217 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). 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. 1228 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. 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, meðan ek em á þessu þingi“.1236~~

~~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 til blóta væri haft, ok skyldi eigi minna standa en þrjá aura.1237~~

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 Víga- Glúms 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. 1243 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. 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 eigi ráðit. Heiðrekr konungr gerist ok nú inn vinsælasti.1258

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 strengja heit.1260

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. 1260 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. 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. 1264 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. 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. 1280 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). 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. 1286 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. 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. 1300 “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. 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 15th 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 half- sister 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

1332The 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). 1333See 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

1335Bökönyí 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). Íslendingasögur. Nafnaskrá. Reykjavík : Íslendingasagnaútgáfan.~~

~~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 Frederiks- Universitet.~~

~~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 Friis- Jensen, 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 Oldskrift- Selskab.~~

~~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 [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 Norse- Icelandic 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-, Literatur- und 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. 130- 134). Lund : Nordic Academic Press.

Lucas, Gavin. (ed.). (2009). Hofstaðir : Excavations of a Viking Age Feasting Hall in North- Eastern 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). Fornskandinavisk religion. En grundbok. Lund : Studentlitteratur.~~

~~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 Human- Animal 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 Pre- Christian 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, 114- 19~~

~~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. Groenman- van 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 Norse- Icelandic 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 Norse- Icelandic 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://am- dk.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/Kville- guldfyndet/ > [last checked 23.5. 2011].~~

~~Oxford English dictionary. [on-line]. . [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] [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~~