Oldest known reference to Norse god Odin found in Danish treasure trove

[robinjojo]

More interesting news on the archeological front:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/mar/08/oldest-known-reference-to-norse-god-odin-found-in-danish-treasure-trove

[John Conduitt]

Apparently associated with the swastika.

[Ursus]

Some more detailed information (in Danish) can be found here: https://videnskab.dk/forskerzonen/kultur-samfund/verdens-aeldste-odin-fundet-i-vindelev.

Imer and Vasshus, the two scholars cited in the Guardian article, decipher the words hostiōz, iaga, and iz Wōd[a]nas weraz on the bracteate. It has to be noted that they haven't yet published a full transcription and transliteration of the inscription on the bracteate, and these snippets do not constitute the whole text. This makes it harder to assess their translation.

The two authors read hostiōz as a loan word stemming from Latin hostia ("sacrificial animal"), and they propose that iaga might either be a personal name or mean "hunter". The phrase iz Wōd[a]nas weraz , which concludes the inscription, is translated as "he is Odin's man." If this interpretation is correct, the bracteate would indeed be the oldest reference to Odin. A runic inscription on the Nordendorf fibulae (6th century) reading logaþore wodan wigiþonar was considered to be the oldest written source mentioning this deity prior to the discovery of the Vindelev hoard.

While Imer's and Vasshus' interpretation of iaga and the part with the supposed reference to Odin appear sensible to me, I am not as fully convinced by their translation of hostiōz. It might be possible to rather read it as a combination of the adverb/adjective *hauha ("high", etymologically related to Old Saxon hôh, Old High German hoh, Old Icelandic hāla) and, for example, a word derived from the Germanic verb *stautan ("to push, thrust, throw", etymologically related to Old High German stōzan, Old Icelandic stauta, and Gothic stautan). This is all speculation, though. Ultimately, any attempt at a translation will have to be based on a transliteration of the whole inscription.

I'm excited to read more about the inscriptions on the objects in the Vindelev hoard in the future! Already in the 1970s, Karl Hauck has proposed a connection of the iconography of the C-type bracteates to Germanic mythology. His theory has been the subject of much debate, in particular because we have preciously few sources on Germanic religion(s) in the 5th century. The Vindelev bracteate might well confirm Hauck's thesis.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Ursus

[Ursus]

Small update: Imer and Vasshus have now published a full transcription and transliteratioan of the bracteate inscription as well as a number of possible interpretations: Lisbeth Imer/Krister Vasshus, Lost in transition: The runic bracteates from the Vindelev hoard. In: Nowele 76.1 (2023), 60-99.

They are still not certain about how to best interpret the word hostioz and tentatively read it as a loanword from Latin hostia ("sacrifice"). We'll see whether other linguists will chime in with a more convincing interpretation. The rest of their translations of the inscriptions seem very sensible to me. Here are the possible readings they propose:

 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Ursus

[Al Kowsky]

Pictured below is another gold pre-Viking bracteate, circa AD 450-550, in the collection of the Met, NYC. As the link posted by robinjojo cites, these bracteate pendants are plentiful. They depict the head of Odin on the back of his horse Sleipnir, & the bird making eye contact with him is thought to be one of his raven helper-spirits Hugin or Munin. The swastika is thought to symbolize lightning. 

         

            Photo courtesy of the Met, NYC.

 

[Ursus]

1 hour ago, Al Kowsky said:

They depict the head of Odin on the back of his horse Sleipnir, & the bird making eye contact with him is thought to be one of his raven helper-spirits Hugin or Munin.

This is the "old" interpretation established by Hauck, which had been all but discarded by scholarship. In light of the inscription on the Vindelev bracteate, it now deserves reconsideration.

Let me go into some details on why these objects are hard to interpret. Migration period bracteates are usually categorized into seven relatively stabile iconographic groups. The example from the MET that you have shown as well as the Vindelev bracteate are C-bracteates. C-bracteates were made in the 5th/6th centuries and show a male head in profile above a quadruped, usually accompanied by a bird. Most bracteates lack inscriptions or show only a few formulaic characters, which is why the runic legend on the Vindelev specimen is so important.

The older and most cited interpretation draws direct connections to Germanic (or better: Norse) mythology. The problem with this reading is that it heavily relies on written sources that are much younger than the bracteates. Before the discovery of the name Wōd[a]nas on the Vindelev bracteate, which dates to c. 450–490 AD, there was noevidence for the worship of this deity from before the second half of the 6th century. An association of Odin with ravens is first attested for in 10th century skaldic kennings (Hákonardrápa: gagls Hanga – "the gosling of Hangi/Odin"; Búadrápa: svanr Hanga – "the swan of Hangi/Odin"; etc.). The names Hugin and Munin as well as the story of the eight-legged horse Sleipnir come from the Old Icelandic Prose Edda and Poetic Edda, both written down in the 13th century. In order to argue that 5th century Danish bracteates must be read through the lens of 13th century Icelandic texts on Norse mythology, you have to assume (1) that the narrative material told in the two Eddas is some 800 years older than its first written appearance, (2) that pre-Christian religion and mythology were relatively uniform throughout the northern Germanic-speaking regions, and (3) that Germanic mythological stories remained mostly unchanged between the 5th and 13th centuries. These three premises come with different degrees of uncertainty or even unlikelihood. Therefore and despite the fact that the Vindelev bracteate now gives good reason to connect bracteate iconography to the worship of Odin, I am still extremely skeptical when it comes to directly identifying the creatures shown on C-bracteates as mythological figures from the Edda.

An alternative (and in my eyes sounder) interpretation is based on a connection to Roman coins. It is quite clear that migration period bracteates in general borrow much of their design and iconography from 3rd/4th century Roman gold coins, which circulated widely and were imitated as well as used for jewellery among Germanic peoples. (@Tejas is a specialist on this issue, I believe.) It therefore seems reasonable to assume that C-bracteates simply adapt a diademed head in profile, an eagle, and a horse from Roman aurei and solidi. These motifs thus do not necessarily come from or directly reflect Germanic mythology. Yet, as the Vindelev inscription shows, the people who made and used bracteates in the 5th century likely interpreted this iconography, which probably has Roman roots, against the backdrop of their native religion, which we do not know that much about. From this perspective, bracteates appear as a fascinating case of religious and cultural syncretism rather than as "pure" Germanic art.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Ursus

[Rand]

@Ursus 

I understand runic alphabets varied between Germanic people. 

Many early Byzantine coins have graffiti resembling runes, possibly indicating ownership by a person, etc. Could it be possible to link the graffiti to specific runic alphabets attributing them to particular Germanic groups? 

Admittedly, although many late Roman and early Byzantine solidi were found in Scandinavia, not many have such graffiti to support they are runes.

 

Two examples, but I have more.

Bolaffi. Auction 40. 02/12/2021

 

Vcoins. The Ibarra Collection. 2022

Edited July 29, 2023 by Rand

[Ursus]

1 hour ago, Rand said:

Many early Byzantine coins have scratches resembling runes, possibly indicating ownership by a person, etc. Could it be possible to link the scratches to specific runic alphabets attributing them to particular Germanic groups? 

The easy answer: It depends, but in most cases probably no.

The complicated answer: There is a distinction between Elder Futhark (2nd–10th century) and Younger Futhark (9th–12th century, transitional period in the 7th/9th centuries). Elder Futhark has 24 characters, Younger Futhark only 16. Therefore, if any of the "vanished" characters appear in an inscription, is must be Elder Futhark or a transitional alphabet.

Anglo-Frisian runes (also known as futhorc) derives from Elder Futhark and start to be used in the 5th century. Futhorc has a few additional characters for vowels that resulted from the Ingvaeonic split. A few characters are also shaped differently than in Elder Futhark. If any of these characters appear, the inscription should be from Frisia or the Anglo-Saxon world.

Within Younger Futhark, subdivisions can be made according to letter style. Long-branch runes are typically Danish, short-twig runes are Swedish and Norwegian, and staveless runes appear only in Sweden. But since you asked about graffiti on early Byzantine solidi, this is probably not relevant for you.

The main problem with short graffiti inscriptions on objects is that it they often don't have enough characters to be certain whether they are Latin, Greek, runes, or just gibberish. But in a hypothetical case where a graffiti on a coin (a) has enough characters to be certain that we are dealing with runes, and (b) these characters happen to include letters that have either vanished, changed or been added over time and in specific places, it might be possible to draw conclusions about the inscription's date and place of origin from this.

Edited July 29, 2023 by Ursus

[Al Kowsky]

2 hours ago, Ursus said:

This is the "old" interpretation established by Hauck, which had been all but discarded by scholarship. In light of the inscription on the Vindelev bracteate, it now deserves reconsideration.

Let me go into some details on why these objects are hard to interpret. Migration period bracteates are usually categorized into seven relatively stabile iconographic groups. The example from the MET that you have shown as well as the Vindelev bracteate are C-bracteates. C-bracteates were made in the 5th/6th centuries and show a male head in profile above a quadruped, usually accompanied by a bird. Most bracteates lack inscriptions or show only a few formulaic characters, which is why the runic legend on the Vindelev specimen is so important.

The older and most cited interpretation draws direct connections to Germanic (or better: Norse) mythology. The problem with this reading is that it heavily relies on written sources that are much younger than the bracteates. Before the discovery of the name Wōd[a]nas on the Vindelev bracteate, which dates to c. 450–490 AD, there was noevidence for the worship of this deity from before the second half of the 6th century. An association of Odin with ravens is first attested for in 10th century skaldic kennings (Hákonardrápa: gagls Hanga – "the gosling of Hangi/Odin"; Búadrápa: svanr Hanga – "the swan of Hangi/Odin"; etc.). The names Hugin and Munin as well as the story of the eight-legged horse Sleipnir come from the Old Icelandic Prose Edda and Poetic Edda, both written down in the 13th century. In order to argue that 5th century Danish bracteates must be read through the lens of 13th century Icelandic texts on Norse mythology, you have to assume (1) that the narrative material told in the two Eddas is some 800 years older than its first written appearance, (2) that pre-Christian religion and mythology were relatively uniform throughout the northern Germanic-speaking regions, and (3) that Germanic mythological stories remained mostly unchanged between the 5th and 13th centuries. These three premises come with different degrees of uncertainty or even unlikelihood. Therefore and despite the fact that the Vindelev bracteate now gives good reason to connect bracteate iconography to the worship of Odin, I am still extremely skeptical when it comes to directly identifying the creatures shown on C-bracteates as mythological figures from the Edda.

An alternative (and in my eyes sounder) interpretation is based on a connection to Roman coins. It is quite clear that migration period bracteates in general borrow much of their design and iconography from 3rd/4th century Roman gold coins, which circulated widely and were imitated as well as used for jewellery among Germanic peoples. (@Tejas is a specialist on this issue, I believe.) It therefore seems reasonable to assume that C-bracteates simply adapt a diademed head in profile, an eagle, and a horse from Roman aurei and solidi. These motifs thus do not necessarily come from or directly reflect Germanic mythology. Yet, as the Vindelev inscription shows, the people who made and used bracteates in the 5th century likely interpreted this iconography, which probably has Roman roots, against the backdrop of their native religion, which we do not know that much about. From this perspective, bracteates appear as a fascinating case of religious and cultural syncretism rather than as "pure" Germanic art.

To my eyes the similarity of the Norse bracteate pendants to Roman medallions is very minor, & their mythology is quite different. Roman medallions were rarely made to be worn as jewelry unlike the Norse bracteate pendants. The abstract style of the Norse pendants is unlike anything seen in Roman art, & their method of manufacture were totally different. Roman medallions were die-stamped & could be made in quantity, but the Norse pendants were made by the repousse' technique & each one is unique. We certainly have much more to learn about the Norse bracteate pendants 😉.

[Rand]

Thank you, @Ursus

I changed 'scratches' to 'graffiti' in my earlier post. Many were probably test scratches to assess the metal, such as on this Justinian's solidus. 

 

However, the 'scratches' often look like graffiti that may have some meaning. Some 'graffiti' are Latin, such as an apparent 'K' on another tremissis from the above PERP series (not mine). I understand that 'K' did not make it into Elder Futhark.

 

Some 'graffiti' match Elder Futhark. For example, on the Anastasian solidus below, the top symbol matches the runic symbol for ï and the bottom one for s (apologies, I can not find how to type runic letters).

Roma Numismatics Limited. E-SALE 24. 30/01/2016

Of note, this coin is most likely not imperial, possibly Ostrogothic. Its die match was found in Karsibór, an island on the Baltic Sea near Szczecin. Karsibór was a significant seaport of the route to Scandinavia (Karsibór Hoard, now in the National Museum in Szczecin, http://www.mpov.uw.edu.pl/en/thesaurus/artefacts/solidus).

 

However, some 'graffiti', like in the two tremisses I showed earlier, include symbols that do not fit into Elder Futhark, Latin, or Greek. They could be personal 'avatars', but I hoped they could be less recognised variations of Germanic alphabets. I am not too hopeful about this, though.

[JeandAcre]

Wow.  The depth of the linguistic analysis that you guys are getting into is stunning --and completely alien to my prior frame of reference.  I'm needing all of this.  Just amazing.

@Ursus, there's one obvious and correspondingly elementary qualification that could be made to your observation,

 The older and most cited interpretation draws direct connections to Germanic (or better: Norse) mythology. The problem with this reading is that it heavily relies on written sources that are much younger than the bracteates. Before the discovery of the name Wōd[a]nas on the Vindelev bracteate, which dates to c. 450–490 AD, there was noevidence for the worship of this deity from before the second half of the 6th century.

Regarding this, initial context of your discussion, a similar interval of oral transmission is involved in the Vinland Sagas, broadly contemporaneous to, Yep, Snorri Sturlusson and the first written Edda.  For people tuning in late, that's around two to two and a half centuries between the discoveries of Bjarni Herjolfsson and Leif Eriksson, and the first written accounts.  But on that basis, Helge and Anne Ingstad were able to find L'Anse aux Meadows, the first proven Norse archaeological site in North America.  So at least for that kind of interval, the older interpretation is plausible, at any rate.  From both Scandinavian and pre-Classical Greek milieux, among others, one can get the impression that prior to writing, oral transmission was much more sophisticated than it has become since.  (Witness Plato's (edit: Yipes) Socrates' disparagement of writing for that very reason.)

Edited July 29, 2023 by JeandAcre

[Ursus]

19 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

Roman medallions were rarely made to be worn as jewelry unlike the Norse bracteate pendants.

Yes, but Roman medallions were still used as jewellery in the Germanic world. The holed Roman gold coins and local imitations found mostly in what today is Ukraine are probably best known, but similar finds are recorded from the northern Germanic regions. The Vindelev hoard, to stay with the example, included these two Roman medallions that were given a loop and a mounting similar to that of the bracteates they were found with together:

19 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

To my eyes the similarity of the Norse bracteate pendants to Roman medallions is very minor,

Here is an example of an A-bracteate, also from the Vindelev hoard. To my eyes, it is quite obvious that it imitates Roman models like the two coins above. One can see how a few steps of abstraction down the road, we end up with C-bracteates:

19 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

The abstract style of the Norse pendants is unlike anything seen in Roman art

When it comes to the visual style of migration period bracteates, I agree with you. But, for example, the style of Celtic coins is quite different from Roman and Greek coins, too – nonetheless, their iconography in many cases derives from Roman and Greek models.

19 hours ago, Al Kowsky said:

their method of manufacture were totally different. Roman medallions were die-stamped & could be made in quantity, but the Norse pendants were made by the repousse' technique & each one is unique.

Yes. But the different purpose (jewellery, not money) and method of manufacture (repoussé, not die-struck) we see on bracteates does not mean that they are not influenced by Roman iconography.

18 hours ago, Rand said:

Some 'graffiti' match Elder Futhark. For example, on the Anastasian solidus below, the top symbol matches the runic symbol for ï and the bottom one for s (apologies, I can not find how to type runic letters).

That is a good example of why it is so hard to identify graffiti on coins as runes. Yes, the top character could be a Runic Eihwaz (ᛇ) or Sowilo (ᛋ) – but also a Latin S or a Greek ϟ that has the numeric value 90. I can't really recognize a rune in the bottom graffiti – maybe it's a ξ or just a scratch to test the metal? We probably won't find out...

17 hours ago, JeandAcre said:

For people tuning in late, that's around two to two and a half centuries between the discoveries of Bjarni Herjolfsson and Leif Eriksson, and the first written accounts.  But on that basis, Helge and Anne Ingstad were able to find L'Anse aux Meadows, the first proven Norse archaeological site in North America.  So at least for that kind of interval, the older interpretation is plausible, at any rate.  From both Scandinavian and pre-Classical Greek milieux, among others, one can get the impression that prior to writing, oral transmission was much more sophisticated than it has become since.

Good point, and I don't want to argue that there is no continuity at all between Germanic mythology in the 5th century and what was written down in the 13th century. I just want to stress that we do not know how strong this continuity is, and that it is unlikely that no substantial alterations took place.

The Grænlendinga saga and Eiríks saga rauða are a valid point of comparison, but I guess they rather support my argument for orally transmitted storys changing over time. Both sagas report surprisingly accurate details about places, people and events that probably were historical facts, but they also differ greatly from each other. Depending on which text you read, for example, either Leif or Bjarni discovers Vinland. We see two traditions of telling more or less the same story that have changed and evolved into different directions over time.

In relation to the connection between 5h century bracteates an the Eddic stories, a comparison to the two Vinland sagas allows for two arguments:

First, these two sagas tell of events that happened some 200 years before they were written. Between the Vindelev bracteate and the two written Eddas, 700 to 800 years had passed. If one orally transmitted story has obviously undergone a lot of change over the course of 200 years, it seems unlikely that the other remained unchanged over 800 years. If bracteate iconography is related to Eddic mythological stories, it thus relates to much older oral versions that might have differed a lot from the written texts we know.

Secondly, the Icelandic sagas are quite local. They tell stories of Icelanders and were composed for a small and largely isolated Icelandic audience that in many cases would have claimed family connections to the people mentioned in the sagas. To some extent, this explains their narrative stability and accuracy. The mythological stories in the two Eddas, on the other hand, lack such a local foundation. Therefore, if you argue that Danish bracteates from the 5th century directly connect to mythological material recorded in 13th century Iceland, you have to assume not only that the underlying and orally transmitted stories remained unchanged over time but also that they didn't much differ from place to place. That might be a hard case to make.

Edited July 30, 2023 by Ursus

[JeandAcre]

Some more very incisive points, @Ursus, regarding both the Vinland sagas (and Icelandic sagas more generally), and the more fraught questions regarding the likely evolution of Scandinavian mythology /cosmology over eight centuries prior to the written Eddas.

But regarding the latter, I did appreciate the much longer interval involved, and only dared to address your initial context:

 The older and most cited interpretation draws direct connections to Germanic (or better: Norse) mythology. The problem with this reading is that it heavily relies on written sources that are much younger than the bracteates. Before the discovery of the name Wōd[a]nas on the Vindelev bracteate, which dates to c. 450–490 AD, there was noevidence for the worship of this deity from before the second half of the 6th century. 

I have to summarily agree with all the points you make about intervals as long as eight centuries!  Sorry if I was less than forthcoming about how specific I was intending to be.  That's a common hazard when I'm 'thinking out loud.'