Western University Western University

Scholarship@Western Scholarship@Western

Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository

1-31-2011 12:00 AM

Re-forging the smith: an interdisciplinary study of smithing motifs Re-forging the smith: an interdisciplinary study of smithing motifs

in Völuspá and Völundarkviða in Völuspá and Völundarkviða

Leif Einarson University of Western Ontario

Supervisor

Russell Poole

The University of Western Ontario

Graduate Program in English

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in Doctor of

Philosophy

© Leif Einarson 2011

Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd

Part of the Medieval Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Einarson, Leif, "Re-forging the smith: an interdisciplinary study of smithing motifs in Völuspá and Völundarkviða" (2011). Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. 88. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/88

This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact wlswadmin@uwo.ca.

RE-FORGINGTHESMITH:ANINTERDISCIPLINARYSTUDYOFSMITHINGMOTIFSINVÕLUSPÁANDVÕLUNDARKVIÑA

(Spine title: Re-Forging the Smith)

(Thesis format: Monograph)

by

Leif Einarson

Graduate Program in English

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies The University of Western Ontario

London, Ontario, Canada

© Leif Einarson 2011

ii

THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN ONTARIO School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies

CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION

Supervisor ______________________________ Dr. Russell Poole Supervisory Committee ______________________________ Dr. Laurence de Looze

Examiners ______________________________ Dr. Melitta Adamson ______________________________ Dr. Craig Davis ______________________________ Dr. Christopher Keep ______________________________ Dr. Richard Moll

The thesis by

Leif Einarson

entitled:

Re-forgingtheSmith:aninterdisciplinarystudyofsmithingmotifsinVõluspáandVõlundarkviña

is accepted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

______________________ _______________________________ Date Chair of the Thesis Examination Board

iii

Abstract InRe-forgingtheSmith,IexaminesmithingmotifsintheOldNorsepoemsVõluspá

andVõlundarkviña.Thepurposeofthisresearchistodevelopanunderstandingofthese

motifsinthecontextsinwhichthesepoemswerecomposedandtransmitted.

ThefirstchapterexaminesstanzasevenofVõluspáandtheroleoftheaflar,

“forges/furnaces”,thattheÆsirestablishaspartoftheirfirstsettlement.Iexaminethe

significanceoftheseaflarfromliterary,linguisticandarchaeologicalperspectivesandin

relationtometallurgicalfunctions,spatialassociations,communalstructuresandpatternsof

trade.IpresentadefinitionofaflandIconcludewithasummaryofthesignificanceofthe

aflarinVõluspástanzaseven.

ThesecondchapterexaminesstanzafortyofVõluspáandtheroleofthetoponym

Járnviñr,“Iron-wood”,inboththemythologicalandsocio-historicallandscape.Ianalyzethe

derivativesofthistoponym,aswellastoponymsthatappeartobemorphologicallyand

semanticallyrelatedtoJárnviñr.Iconcludethatthistoponymexhibitsageographicalconcept

ofresourcesrelatedtobogironsmelting.

ThethirdchapterexaminesartisanalmotifsinVõlundarkviñaincomparisontoearly

Germaniccustomsandpossibleliteraryandhistoricalanalogues.Istudythepoemasa

performanceofspatial,networkedrelationsbetweenartisansandthearistocraticelite.I

examinethesignificanceofVõlundr’sartisanalrevengeasasubversionofearlyGermanic

customs.

Whereassmithingmotifsandsmithingfigureshaveregularlybeenapproached

througharchetypalandcomparativemethodologies,thisthesisattemptstobroadenour

understandingofthesemotifsinrelationtospecificliterary,socialandtechnicalfeaturesof

metalworkinginearlymedievalScandinavia.

Keywords:OldNorse,smith,afl,rauñi,bogiron,Járnviñr,medieval,central-placecomplex,

Võlundr.

iv

DubisteinGastderNatur.Benimmdich!–Hundertwasser(“Youareaguestofnature.Behaveyourself!”)

ÃámælirGangleri:‘Ãettuerumikiltíñindiernúheyriek.

Furñumikilsmíñerãatokhagligagert.Hvernigvarjõrñinháttuñ?–SnorriSturluson

(“ThenGanglerisays:‘TheseareimportanttidingswhichInowhear.Thatisanamazinglylargeconstructionandskillfullymade.

Howwastheearthconstructed?’”)

v

Acknowledgements Tobeginwith,IwouldliketothanktheSocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearch

CouncilofCanada,theOntarioGraduateScholarshipProgram,theMaryRoutledge

Fellowship,theFacultyofArtsandHumanitiesAlumniGraduateAwardsFoundation,the

SchoolofGraduateandPostdoctoralStudiesandtheDepartmentofEnglishattheUniversity

ofWesternOntario.Withoutthefunding,assistanceandgenerosityoftheseorganizations

andindividualsthisresearchwouldnothavebeenpossible.Iamalsothankfulforthe

generoushelpofthelibrariansattheUniversityofWesternOntarioandelsewhere.Servas

InternationalanditswonderfulmembersinCopenhagen,Gjøvik,Odense,Stockholmand

UppsalawerealsoessentialtothisresearchandIcannotthankthemenoughfortheir

hospitality.

Iconsidermyselfluckytohavebeeninfluencedbyanumberofexcellentprofessors

andmentors.FromDouglasCollege,Iwouldliketothankalltheexcellentindividuals

involvedinthecoachingprogram.FromtheUniversityCollegeoftheFraserValley(nowthe

UniversityoftheFraserValley),IwouldliketothankJohnMoffattforhishelpfulcomments

onmanysectionsofthismanuscript,forfirstintroducingmetoMedievalStudiesandfor

encouragingmetodevelopmanyoftheintereststhathaveledtothisproject.Iwouldliketo

thankMiriamNicholsforherconscientiousdirectionandforthepositiveimpressionshe

continuestomakeonmyperspectiveonscholarship.IwouldalsoliketothankSusanFisher,

RhondaSchuller,AndrewGutteridge,JeffreyMorgan,MoiraGutteridgeand,withgreat

respectandadmiration,thelateJimAndersen.

AttheUniversityofWesternOntario,IwouldliketothankLaurencedeLoozeforhis

timelyandhelpfulcommentsonthismanuscript.IthankRichardMollforhisgreatcompany

overseveralcupsofcoffeeandforopenlysharinghispassion,experienceandinsights.My

gratitudealsogoestoJaneTolmieandJaneToswellforsharingtheirpassionforMedieval

Studies.MysinceregratitudeanddeepestappreciationgotoLeanneTrask,VivianFoglton,

TeresaMacDonald,AnneMcFarlandandLauraNotherfortheirexpertiseandfortheirrole

increatingsuchawelcomingandhelpfulatmosphereintheEnglishDepartment.Mygreatest

thanksarereservedforRussellPoole,whoseexpertise,kindness,sincerityandcompanyhave

alwayshadmygreatestgratitudeandappreciation;hissupport,rigourandconsiderationhave

beeninvaluableinmakingthisprojectwhatitis.Takkfyrirallt!

vi

WhenIsignedontostartmydoctorateIpromisedmyselfIwouldalsolivelifefully

throughoutthatprocess.Forthefulfillmentofthispromiseandforhoursoffun,distraction,

help,proof-reading,supportandconversation,IthankJessandNeilBahkle,Kristaand

DarrylandEllaBianco,theFourNorsemenoftheApocalypseandtheOldNorseReading

GroupatUWO(especiallyConradvanDykandSeanHenry),SuzieCoombes,Jackson

Crawford,AkikoHaji,KristjánKristjánsson,GuusKroonen,PaulLangeslagandthe

membersoftheOldEnglishReadingGroupattheUniversityofToronto,EliseLouviot,Kris

Morden,DavidMonteithandElanPaulson,MattPeebles,LaurelRyan,UrsulaSherman,

AliaSomani,JennWatsonandlastbutcertainlynotleastallthemembersoftheFlying

Chaucers.MythanksalsogotoeveryonewhointroducedmetoSettlersofCatan,whichasit

turnsouthasmoretodowiththisprojectthanIexpecteditwould.Forintroducingmeto

manywondersandmuchfun,IthankDr.BrockFenton’sBatLabandallitswonderful

membersandassociatesbothpastandpresent,especiallyJulietNagel,BethClareandRobin

Floyd.ThankyoutothestaffandstudentsatSunnybrookSchool,forbeinggreatneighbours

asIcompletedthisproject.Thankyoutomyfirstcoach,MarekPloch,andmyfellow

paddlersovertheyears,especiallyMatthewMikesandmygoodfriendsCatherineTraskand

GrahamSmith.Formanydarkandnoisynights,andforfascinatingconversationsonanyand

alltopics,IthanktheindustrialarchaeologistsandsmithsoftheCooksRoadsmithy:

ChristopherAndreae,DavidAndreaeandHughFraser–forgeon!Andmymostexcellent

thanksgotoTerryGreen,ErinFraser,JohnstonMillerandeveryoneontheTeaminLondon,

forwelcomingme,forgreatfunandhilarity,andforyourfriendship,hospitalityandforall

yourgeneroussupportovertheyears.ForMichaelKightleyIreservemysincerethanksand

appreciationforagreatamountofhelpandsupportwithcompletingthismanuscript,and

mostofallforbeingsuchagreatfriendandcolleague.

Finally and most importantly, I dedicate this project to my family and loved ones. To

Ava and Ajax, thank you for keeping me sane and for driving me insane. To Ron, thank you

for your excellent company and for your lasagna. To Till, Irene, Veronika, Eric, Gerda and

all the Davys and Hoffs: thank you for welcoming me into your homes and hearts and for all

your love and support. To my parents, Pat and Tracy, to my sister and brother, Jordan and

Stefan, and to my grandma, Aileen: I send to you my deepest thanks for all your love and

support over the years and over the distance. To Christina: I thank you for all your love,

support and understanding. I could not have done this without you.

vii

TableofContents

CERTIFICATE OF EXAMINATION.............................................................................ii

Abstract..........................................................................................................................iii

Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................v

TableofContents ..........................................................................................................vii

List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................xi

Introduction.....................................................................................................................1

WhyVõluspáandVõlundarkviña? ..............................................................................1

TextsandcontextsofVõluspá..............................................................................2

TextsandcontextsofVõlundarkviña ...................................................................5

Surveyofmetallurgicalprocessesassociatedwithforgesandfurnaces......................11

Overviewofarchaeometallurgicalevidenceandcategories................................12

1)Castingandnon-ferrousworking ...................................................................13

2)Ironsmelting .................................................................................................17

3)Blacksmithing ...............................................................................................20

Evidencefortheculturalsignificanceofforges,furnaces,crucibles,etc....................21

Directarchaeologicalevidence...........................................................................21

Forge-stones ......................................................................................................22

Visualdepictionsofsmithing.............................................................................23

Thecriticaltradition:scholarshiponsmithingmotifsandsmith-figures ....................26

Comparativeandcategoricalapproachestotheotherworldlysmith....................27

StructuralistapproachestocraftsmanshipintheOldNorsemyths......................33

Archaeologicalandtextualapproachestosmith-figures .....................................37

Summary ..................................................................................................................41

Chapter1:SmithingmotifsinVõluspástanza7.............................................................44

viii

1.1TextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspáandstanza7 ............................................44

1.2Extantattestationsofthewordafl. ......................................................................46

afl1. ...............................................................................................................47

afl3. ...............................................................................................................48

afl4. ...............................................................................................................48

afl5-6 ...............................................................................................................51

afl7. ...............................................................................................................52

afl8. ...............................................................................................................52

afl9. ...............................................................................................................53

afl10-11. ...........................................................................................................54

afl12. ...............................................................................................................55

afl13. ...............................................................................................................56

afl14-21. ...........................................................................................................57

afl22. ...............................................................................................................59

afl23. ...............................................................................................................62

afl24. ...............................................................................................................63

afl25. ...............................................................................................................64

afl26. ...............................................................................................................65

afl27. ...............................................................................................................65

afl28. ...............................................................................................................66

afl29. ...............................................................................................................67

afl30-31. ...........................................................................................................69

afl32. ...............................................................................................................69

afl33. ...............................................................................................................70

afl34. ...............................................................................................................71

ix

afl35. ...............................................................................................................71

afl36. ...............................................................................................................72

afl37. ...............................................................................................................74

afl38. ...............................................................................................................74

afl39. ...............................................................................................................74

1.3Analysisanddiscussionofaflattestations...........................................................77

Aflarusedwithgold...........................................................................................79

Aflarusedwithiron ...........................................................................................80

Glowingironand/orsparks ................................................................................83

Aflarassociatedwithmetalsingeneral ..............................................................83

Otherkeyissues.................................................................................................84

Alfarindomesticcontexts..................................................................................85

1.4Summary-Whatdoesaflmean?.........................................................................86

1.5Metalworkingsitesinthecontextofcommunalnetworksandstructures .............90

Surveyofsites ...................................................................................................90

Denmark(JutlandandFunen) ............................................................................92

Denmark(Zealand) ............................................................................................99

Denmark(Skåne)............................................................................................. 104

Gotland............................................................................................................ 109

Sweden(LakeMälaren) ................................................................................... 110

Norway............................................................................................................ 115

Iceland ............................................................................................................. 122

NorthAmerica................................................................................................. 124

Summary ......................................................................................................... 125

1.6Discussionofinterpretationsofmetalworkingandworkshopsites .................... 126

x

1.7Võluspá7-Conclusion:interpretingafl2. ........................................................ 143

AshortnoteonGullveig ............................................................................................. 155

1.TextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspá20,21,22................................................ 155

2.ThepossiblemeaningsofGullveig’sname ......................................................... 156

3.PotentialmetallurgicalsignificanceofGullveig .................................................. 158

Chapter2:JárnviñrandVõluspá40 ............................................................................. 163

2.1 TextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspá40 ........................................................ 163

2.2SmithingmotifsinVõluspá40 .......................................................................... 165

2.3TheformsofJárnviñr:literary........................................................................... 165

2.4TheformsofJárnviñr:toponymicandotherparallels........................................ 167

2.5ScholarlyinterpretationsanddefinitionsofJárnviñr.......................................... 177

2.6 Rauñi,“bogiron”:toponymicpatternsandsettlementcontexts ........................ 179

2.7ReturningtoJárnviñr:toponymsandsettlementcontexts .................................. 190

2.8ArchaeologyandgeologyofJarnwith-Isarnho-Jerrishoe ................................... 194

2.9Conclusion........................................................................................................ 201

2.10Excursus:whatdotroll-womenhavetodowithJárnviñr? ............................... 201

Chapter3:SmithingmotifsinVõlundarkviña .............................................................. 214

3.1Broadlyartisanalmotifs .................................................................................... 215

3.2Specificallymetalworkingactions,artefactsandspaces .................................... 216

3.3Võlundr’sindependentcreations ....................................................................... 219

3.3-aInterpretingtherings............................................................................... 221

3.3-bInterpretingthesword ............................................................................. 229

3.4Võlundr’screationsforNíñuñr.......................................................................... 231

3.5ComparativeapproachestoVõlundr’screationsforNíñuñr............................... 240

3.6Performanceofspatial,networkedrelations ...................................................... 250

xi

3.7ThestructuresassociatedwithVõlundr,hisbrothersandtheswan-maidens ...... 251

3.8ThestructuresassociatedwithNíñuñrandhisqueen ......................................... 254

3.9Conclusion:smithingandartisanalmotifsinVõlundarkviña ............................. 257

Conclusion:theroleofsmithingmotifsinVõluspá7,40andVõlundarkviña............... 259

Bibliography ............................................................................................................... 263

Appendix1:Discussionoffenfiõtursfrom24.3and34.7ofVõlundarkviña................ 279

Curriculum Vitae (selected portions): Leif Einarson .................................................... 282

List of Abbreviations COD=CanadianOxfordDictionary

Gylf=Gylfaginning

H=Hauksbók

ÍF=Íslenzkfornrit

LP1860=SveinbjörnEgilsson,1860:LexiconPoeticum

LP1931=FinnurJónsson,1931:LexiconPoeticum,secondedition

OE=OldEnglish

OED=OxfordEnglishDictionary

ON=OldNorse

ONP=OrdbogoverdetNorrøneProsaprog–ADictionaryofOldNorseProse

R=CodexRegius

Skj.=FinnurJónsson,1967-73:DenNorsk-IslandskeSkjaldedigtning

SnE=SnorraEdda

SPSMA=SkaldicPoetryoftheScandinavianMiddleAges

Vkv=Võlundarkviña

Vsp=Võluspá

AllIcelandicauthorsarecitedaccordingtotheirfirstnames.

1

Introduction “Paradoxicalthoughitmightinitiallyseem,”JohnHineswrites,“theseriousstudyof

mythmustalsobeastudyofreality.Mythisnotmerelyfictionandfantasy,theabsolute

antithesisofconcretefact”(2003:19).Rather,Hinessuggests,“boththetruththatis

expressedinmythicform,andthewayitisportrayed,willrepresenttopicsthatwere

particularlysignificantinthemyth’snativecircumstances”(2003:19).Astudyofsmithing

motifsandsmith-figuresinOldNorse1mythsmustthereforeappreciatehowthesemotifsand

figuresfunctionedwithintheir“nativecircumstances”.Manystudieshavepresented

insightfulandfascinatinginterpretationsofthefigureofthesmithandthesignificanceof

smithingmotifs.Fewstudies,however,soundlyandclearlyevaluatetheactualtechnical

featuresandcontextsofsmithingworkinthecommunitiesandculturesduringtheperiodin

whichextantsourcesfortheOldNorsemythswerecomposedandcirculated.Inthis

dissertationIexaminekeysmithingmotifsintheeddicpoemsVõluspáandVõlundarkviñain

relationtothesocio-culturalroleofsmithingtechniquesandsitesinearlymedieval

Scandinavia.

InthisintroductionIprovidegeneralsummariesofVõluspáandVõlundarkviñaas

wellasanoverviewofthemanuscriptcontextforthesepoems.Isurveywhatweknowabout

thesmithingtechniquesusedduringtheearlymedievalperiodinScandinavia.Ibriefly

discussevidencefortheculturalsignificanceoffurnaces,forgesandcrucibles,witha

particularfocusonforge-stonesandpictorialrepresentationsofsmithing.Attheendofthis

introductionIreviewsomeofthescholarshiponthefigureofthesmithandIoutlinethe

objectivesofeachofthechaptersthatfollow.

WhyVõluspáandVõlundarkviña?ForthepurposesofthisstudyIfocusonkeysmithingmotifswithintwopoems,

Võluspá,“TheProphecyoftheSeeress”,andVõlundarkviña,“TheLayofVõlundr”.These

1Foradefinitionof“OldNorse”,seeOrriVésteinsson(2005:7).Asalinguisticterm,OldNorseissomewhatinaccurate:thereisno“MiddleNorse”or“ModernNorse”(Orri2005:7).“Linguistsusetheterm‘Norse’or‘OldNorse’todescribethecommonlanguageofScandinavianpeoples(apartfromtheSami)untiltheemergenceoftheseparatelanguagesofSwedish,DanishandNorwegianinthelateMiddleAges”(Orri2005:7).OldNorsemostgenerallyappliesto“alltheGermanicpeoplesofScandinaviaandtheircoloniesintheBritishIslesandtheNorthAtlantic.InthecontextoftheVikingAgeweoftenfind‘Norse’usedasadescriptionofanyoneofScandinavianorigin”(Orri2005:7;cf.Crumlin-Pedersen1997:16-7).

2

poemsarecontainedwithintheso-calledPoeticEdda.2Ihavechosentofocusonthesetwo

poemsforseveralreasons.MymoregeneralstudiesofsmithingmotifsintheOldNorse

corpusandtheOldEnglishcorpushaveledmetoappreciatethefundamentalimportanceof

howthesemotifsareunderstoodinthesetwopoems.VõluspáandVõlundarkviñaexhibit

someofthemostdetailedandcomprehensiveinformationonsmithingmotifsoutofthe

poemscontainedinthePoeticEdda.Moreover,asIwillnowbrieflyoutline,thesetwo

poemsarearguablyamongsttheoldestandmostcomprehensivenarrativesinthePoetic

Edda.InthefollowingpagesIwillfirstsummarizeVõluspáanddiscusshowthispoemcan

bedated.IwillthensummarizeVõlundarkviñaanddiscusshowthatpoemcanbedated.

TextsandcontextsofVõluspáVõluspáisthefirstpoeminthePoeticEdda.Thispoemrecountsthestoryofthe

Norsecosmosfromcreationthroughtodestructionandre-creation.Theformofthepoemis

amonologue,asequenceofvisionsrecountedbyaprophetesswhoissupposedlybeing

interrogatedbyÓñinn.Thisprophetesstellsoftheproto-giantYmirandthecreationofthe

universebyÓñinnandhistwobrothers.Shetellsoftheorderingoftheuniverseandthe

establishmentoftheÆsir’s(i.e.thegods’)firstbuildingsandforgesandworkshops,along

withtongs,toolsandprecioustreasuresofgold.Theprophetesstellsofthearrivalofthree

powerfulfemalegiantsfromtheJõtunheimar,“Giant-lands”.Sherecountsthecreationof

dwarfsandhumans,andtheappearanceofYggdrasill,theworld-tree,andthethreeNorns.

Theprophetesstellsofthefirstwar,betweentheÆsirandtheVanir,andofthedeathof

Baldr.ShetellsofaplacecalledJárnviñr,“Iron-wood”,inwhichinaldna,“theoldone”,

givesbirthtoorraisescreaturesintheshapeoftrolls.Finally,theprophetessdescribesthe

apocalypticbattlebetweenthegodsandtheirenemiesandtheultimatedestructionofthe

universe.Sheconcludeswithadescriptionofthepost-apocalyptichallatGimléalongwitha

selectgroupofsurvivors.Thepoemcutsoffabruptlywithreferencetoyetanother

impendingapocalypticcycle.

TheextantmanuscriptsshowthatthisformoftheVõluspápoemwasincirculationin

thethirteenthcentury.Usingevidencefromthethreechiefextantmanuscriptsthatcontain

2ThePoeticEddaisalsoknownastheElderEddaorasSæmundarEdda(i.e.TheEddaofSæmundr).Thislasttitlehasitsoriginswiththeseventeenth-centurybishopBrynjólfurSveinssonwhoinaccuratelyattributedthisworktotheearlytwelfth-centurypriestSæmundrSigfússon.BrynjólfuralsocloselyassociatedthePoeticEddawithSnorraEdda,hencetheapplicationofthetermEdda(Gunnell2005:82-3;Lindow2002:12).

3

elementsofVõluspá,however,itispossibletodetermineearlierdatesforgenerallysimilar

formsofthepoem.3First,theCodexRegius(R)vellummanuscriptcontainsthemost

completeandreliableversionofVõluspáanddatestoc.1270.Second,alessreliableand

onlypartialversionofthepoemispreservedintheIcelandicHauksbók(AM3714o).Hhas

beenvariouslydatedfromc.1302-1310(StefánKarlsson1964qtd.inDronke1997:61),and

“hardlylaterthan1330”(Bugge1867:xxii)andtothemid-fourteenthcentury(Sverrir

Tómasson1993:228-31).4Third,asUrsulaDronkepointsout,“[t]wenty-eightstanzasfrom

Võluspáarecited,whollyorinpart,inthetextofGylfaginningintheSnorraEdda”(1997:

61).TheearliestmanuscriptsforSnorraEddadatetoc.1300-1325(Dronke1997:61).

SnorriSturluson,however,wroteGylfaginningc.1221-30(Dronke1997:64;Guñrún2001:

5).ThussomewrittenformofVõluspáwaslikelycirculatingintheearlythirteenthcenturyat

thelatest.DronkealsopointsoutthatR,HandGylfaginninguniformlypreserveinterpolation

errorsinstanza4(ll.4-10)andinstanzas10-16(Dronke1997:63-4;cf.Sigurñur1978:25-

6).5Thisclearlyestablishesanearliersourcefortheseerrorsandmanuscripts.Gylfaginning

3Withregardstothedatingofthesepoems,seeBjarneFidjestøl’smonographonTheDatingofEddicPoetry.Inparticular,FidjestølpointstoKurtSchier’s“usefulsurvey”ofhowonecandelimittheobjecttobedated(Fidjestøl1999:196).Schier’ssurveyidentifiessixkey“objects”: 1.Theageofthepoeminitsextantform. 2.Theageofthepoeminitsextantform,possiblereworkingstakenintoaccount. 3.Theageofthesubjectmatter. 4.Theageofparticularpartsofthepoem,groupsofstanzas,stanzasorpartsofstanzas. 5.Theageofparticulardetails(objectsorinstitutions,words,linguisticforms). 6.Theageofgenres(e.g.senna,heroicelegy).(Schierqtd.inFidjestøl1999:196)4ThevariantsbetweenthesetwomanuscriptsaresubstantialinonlyafewplacesandIwilldiscusstheimplicationsofthesevariantsindetailwhencitingthepertinentstanzas.5Hpresentsamajorseriesofvariantsintheorderingofstanzas.DifferingfromR,Hinsertsstanzas25,26,27,40and41betweenstanzas20and21.Halsoentirelyomitsstanzas28-33.Editorshavesuggestednumerousre-orderingsofthesestanzas(cf.Dronke1997:83-6),butRpersistsasthemorereliablereading.DronkesuggeststhattheauthorofthemanuscriptuponwhichHisbased“mayhavebeenintheunenviablepositionofhavingtoreconstructatextofthepoemfromnomorethanitsbeginningandendsequencesandaboxofunnumberedandincompleteslipsforitscentre”(1997:83).Itisdifficulttodeterminewhetherthis,orsomeothereventuality,contributedtothechangesinstanzaorderinH.Itshouldbeobservedthatthe“omissionofthedeathofBaldrleaveslinesinHwithoutcontext.[...]TheomissionofBaldr’sdeathcannothavebeenanintentionalcharacteristicofanywellestablishedoralversionofthepoem,anditisdifficult,indeed,toimaginetheomissionoccurringeveninacasualoralrecitation”(Dronke1997:83).Ingeneral,theinterpretationofcausalrelationsbetweenmanystanzasinthenarrativeofVõluspáisdifficultbecauseitisunclearwhetherornotthestanzaorderisinfactreliable.Snorri’sinterpretationoftheVõluspánarrativeinGylfaginningcanappearasanattempttopresentthismaterialasonecoherentnarrativethatfollowsaclearsetofsequentialevents.Võluspáis,however,moreaccuratelyacollectionofdifferentandsometimescontradictoryversionsofoneand/ormultiplenarratives(Dronke1997:25-33;McKinnell1993:713-4).SomescholarshavenonethelesssuggestedcausalinterpretationsofcreationandcraftingmotifsacrossthenarrativeofVõluspá(Hedeager2001:500;Hines2003:34-5;Mundal2002:185-95).Thismethodology,however,dependsuponcausalrelationsbetweenactionsinstanzasthatmay,infact,notbepartofthenarrativeofVõluspá(cf.McKinnell1993:714;Sigurñur1978:25-6).Thisisnottosay,forexample,thatthelistofdwarfnames

4

alsogenerallyfollowsHmuchmorecloselythanR,butRappearstopreserveamorereliable

andaccurateversionofVõluspáthanH.ThusDronkesuggeststhattheremusthavealsobeen

anearlierversionofHwhichSnorriused,butthatthisearlierversionofHmustalsoitself

havebeenbaseduponaflawedtranscriptionand/orinterpretationofanearlierversionofR

(1997:65).Inshort,thereisfairlyconclusiveevidencefortwopriormanuscriptsofHand

twoearliermanuscriptsofR.Theearliestofthesehypotheticalmanuscripts(whichwas

presumablyanantecedentformofR)mayreasonablybeassignedtoc.1200.

ArecognizableformofVõluspácanalsobedatedearlierthanc.1200withsome

degreeofconfidence.Itisimportanttonote,however,thatanyargumentbaseduponoral

formsandmodesoftransmissionisspeculativeandfraughtwithdifficulties.6Moreover,as

JosephHarrispointsout,itisdifficulttotakeintoaccountallthepossiblevariablesthatare

involvedinOldNorsecontexts:thePoeticEddaisnotonehomogeneoustext,butratherit

preservesagreatvarietyof“styles,dates,andprovenances”(Harris1983:224;cf.Gunnell

2005:93).InthecenturiesimmediatelyprecedingthecreationoftheCodexRegius

manuscript,thepoemnowknownasVõluspálikelywentthroughseveral“differenttypesof

compositionandtransmission”(Harris1983:233).7Nonetheless,asDronkepointsout,

severalskaldicversesshowsomeknowledgeofthegeneralnarrativeofVõluspá(1997:65

fn.7).8Whilesuchgeneralknowledgeisnotnecessarilydecisiveindeterminingearlierforms

(stanzas10-16)andthecreationoftheraceofdwarfs(stanza9)donotbelong,thematicallyandcontextually,tothegeneralOldNorsemythologicalnarrativeasitispreservedinthecorpus(cf.Hermann1996:65).Itis,however,importanttokeepinmindthatdetailedcausalinterpretationsofthestructureofVõluspáareinmanywaysspeculative.6InhisextensivestudyonTheDatingofEddicPoetry,BjarneFidjestølconcludeshisevaluationofpreviouslypublishedmethodologiesfordatingthesepoemsbyexpressingthefollowingdifficulty:“Ontheonehand,aclear-cutisolationofthecontentfromtheformisproblematic,andontheother,thecomplicationsbroughtaboutbyalonghistoryoforaltraditionraisethequestionofexactlywhatthehistorianofliteraturewantstodate.TothehistorianofliteraturethepostulatedundatabilityoftheEddicpoemsasnon-fixedtextsthusremainsamajorproblem”(Fidjestøl1999:192-3).InthestudiesdonebyFidjestølhimself,hisfindingsare“extremelyinconclusive”andreinforcehisviewthatseveralpreviousstudiesseem“tolackanysolidfoundation”(1999:259,293).7Strictlyspeaking,HarrisisnotreferringtoVõluspáinthisquotation;rather,heisreferringtohisexaminationoftheeddicpoemsHelgakviñaHundingsbanaIandII.His“conclusionsareofferedasapplicableonlytothepoemsactuallydiscussed[...]andaremeanttobenomorethansuggestiveforEddictraditioningeneral”(1983:211).Nonetheless,Harris’sexaminationpresentsamorecomplicatedandaccuratepicturethanisoftenthecaseinscholarshiponthePoeticEdda.Inparticular,itisimportanttoemphasizethediversityofthepoemswithinthePoeticEddaandthediversewaysinwhichpreviousformsofthesepoemsmayhavebeencomposed,memorized,revisedandtransmitted(cf.Gunnell2005:82-5,93-8).8OntheroleofskaldicpoetryintheOldNorsecorpus,andparticularlyitsreliabilityastoearlierperiodsthanthoseoftheextantmanuscripts,seeMagnusMagnussonandHermannPálsson’sintroductiontoSnorri’sKingHarald’ssaga(1966:21),andalsoVésteinnÓlason’sDialogueswiththeVikingAge:NarrationandRepresentationintheSagasoftheIcelanders(1998:9,21,49,124-5).SeealsoFidjestøl’sanalysisoftherole

5

ofVõluspáaswenowknowit,thereisalsomorecompellingevidence.Arnórrjarlaskáld,

whocomposedskaldicversesineleventh-centuryOrkney,appearstohaveknown“some

earlierapocalypticpoetry”(Whaley1998:128).Severalverbalandstylisticsimilaritieshave

beennotedinparticularbetweenVõluspáandstanzas17and22ofArnórr’sÃorfinnsdrápa

(Whaley1998:128,225-6).WhilehealsoincorporatedChristianmotifs,Arnórrclearlymade

preciseuseofOldNorsemythologicalmotifsandheappearstohave“consciouslyimitated”

Võluspáonatleastoneoccasion(Whaley1998:62).Toreiterate,itisclearthatskalds

composedverseswithanawarenessofVõluspáinthecenturiesthatprecedethedateofthe

manuscriptsthatnowpreservetheseverses.Severalscholarshavepointedoutthedifficulty

ofdeterminingtheauthenticityandhistoryoftheseverses,aswellasthecomplexitiesofhow

theywerecomposed,memorized,revised,improvisedandtransmittedinbothliterateand

oralcontexts(Gunnell2005:93-4,95-7;Harris1983:213-4,218,224,232-3;Turville-Petre

1976:lxvi-lxxiv).Withthesedifficultiesinmind,itisconjecturalbutnonethelessreasonably

clearthatsomeearlierandprobablyoralformofVõluspáwasincirculationintheearly

eleventhcenturyatthelatest.

TextsandcontextsofVõlundarkviñaVõlundarkviñaisthetenthpoeminthePoeticEdda.Thispoemisgenerallythought

ofaspartlymythologicalandpartlylegendaryorheroicinthatitappearstoinvolveboth

mythologicalcreatures(elves,swan-maidens)andhumans.9Võlundarkviñaisaninterspersed

proseandversenarrativeaboutthefamouslyskilledsmithVõlundr.Heandhistwobrothers

areprincesoftheFinnar,atermwhichisusedintheOldNorsesourcestorefertotheSámi

(orLapps),anindigenousgroupofpeopleinhabitingareasofcentralandnorthernNorway,

SwedenandFinlandaswellasnorthwesternRussia.Thesethreebrotherstravelonskis,hunt

andestablisharesidencetogethernearalake.Theymeetthreeswan-maidensfromthesouth,

whoareweavingfinelinensontheshore.Eachswan-maidenmarriesabrother.Thethree

coupleslivetogetherforsevenwintersbeforetheswan-maidensbegintolongandachefor

somethingelse:theyspendafinaleighthwintertogether,andintheninthwinter,whilethe

brothersareouthunting,themaidensflyawaytothesouth.Võlundr’stwobrothersleaveto

ofmythologicalkenningsusedbyskaldicpoetsindatingmaterialfromthePoeticEddaandelsewhere(1999:270-93). 9JohnMcKinnell,forinstance,suggeststhatVõlundarkviña“offersabridgebetweenthehighermythologicalworldofthegods,giantsandelves,andthelowerworldofdwarfsandhumans”(2005:87).

6

searchfortheirmates,oneheadingeast,theotherwest.Võlundrremainsalone,huntingbears

andsmithingsevenhundredgoldrings.Heseemstobeanticipatingthereturnofhismate.

FromthispointonintheversesofthepoemVõlundriscalledacountrymanoftheelves.The

SwedishKingNíñuñrdiscoversVõlundr’sabodeandhasVõlundrshackledinhissleepand

broughttohishall.AnxiousaboutVõlundr’sthreateningpresence,thequeenordersthathe

behamstrungandsenttoworkatanisolatedislandworkshop.Võlundrsleeplesslymakes

preciousobjectswithremarkablespeedfortheroyalfamily.Hehashisrevengeintwoparts.

First,Võlundrforgesthreesetsofgruesomegifts:silver-gildedbowlsfromtheskullsofthe

king’stwosons,jewelsfromtheireyes,andbroochesfromtheirteeth.Second,Võlundr

seducesandimpregnatesBƒõñvildr,theking’sonlydaughter.Withtheaidofamagicaldevice

(vél)ofhisowncraftingVõlundrliftshimselfintothesky,declaringthathisrevengeis

completeandappropriatetotheharmsinflicteduponhim.

AsisthecasewithVõluspá,themostcompleteandreliableversionofVõlundarkviña

survivesintheIcelandicCodexRegius(R)manuscriptofthePoeticEdda,datedtoc.1270

(JónHelgason1962:14;Dronke1997:xi).Whiletheversesofthiseditionappeartohavea

muchearlierprovenancethanthemanuscriptdate,theproselikelybelongstoathirteenth-

centuryeditor(McKinnell1990:3).TheonlyotherextantmaterialfromVõlundarkviña

appearsinthefragmentaryAM748I4to,writteninIcelandaround1300-1325.AM748I4to

containsonlyafewlinesoftheproseprologueandthereforepreservesnosubstantial

informationonearliermanuscriptsandformsofthepoemitself(Dronke1997:xi).10

ThelackofextantmanuscriptevidenceforthecirculationofVõlundarkviñabeforec.

1270meansthatwemustlooktobothinternalevidence(thevocabularyandstructure)andto

generalrepresentationsofthepoem(inothertextsandinmaterialculture)anddraw

reasonablebutnonethelessspeculativeconclusionsaboutthepossibleprovenanceofthe

poem.11Elementsofand/orparallelstotheVõlundarkviñanarrativesurviveinseveralother

texts,aswellasafewcarvingsandrunicrepresentationsfromScandinavia,northernEurope, 10AnysignificantvariantsarenotedinmydetailedexaminationofpassagesinChapter3.NeckelandKuhn(1962:116-23)aswellasDronke(1997:243-54)notealternativescholarlyinterpretationsofthetextanditslacunae,andImakenoteofalternativeswherepertinent. 11WhilethereisrelativelyconvincingevidenceofclosestylisticimitationofVõluspábyArnórrjarlaskáld,thereisalsoskaldicevidencesuggestingthatpreviousoralversionsofVõlundarkviñawereincirculationseveralcenturiespriortotherecordingofthepoemintheCodexRegius.InÃjóñólfrofHvinir’searlytenth-centuryHaustlõng,thekenninggrjót-Níñuñr(“rock-Níñuñr”)referstothegiantÃjazi(Faulkes1998:32),whoisalsoknowninthesamepoemasthegodofskis.ThismightsuggestsimilarassociationsofitinerancyandSámihuntingtechniquesasareseeninVõlundarkviña.Thisassociationis,however,notascompellingorstylisticasArnórr’suseofVõluspá.

7

andtheBritishIsles,datingbacktoasearlyastheseventhcentury(Dronke1997:269-75;

Gunnell2005:93;Jón1962:30-52;McKinnell1990:12-3;Nedoma1990:129-39).Asthe

primaryfocusofthisstudyisanexaminationofkeysmithingmotifswithinVõlundarkviña,I

willnotgointogreatdetailonthemanyotherrepresentationsofthenarrativeofthesmith

Võlundr/Weland.Theserepresentationsandparallelsdo,however,helptoanswerthe

questionoftheprovenanceofVõlundarkviñaasweknowit.

EngravingsandcarvingsoftheVõlundrnarrativearedistributedoverboth

ScandinaviaandtheBritishIsles.Theconcentrationoftheserepresentations,however,points

moretowardsNorthumbriathanScandinavia.12JohnMcKinnellpointsoutthatthe

richtraditionofpicturestonesfromScandinaviaincludesonlyoneknownimageofVõlundr(ArdreVIII),[13]whilethesmallerandmoreheavilyChristianizedcorpusofcarvingfromNorthumbriacanboastfiveorsix(oneortwoontheFranksCasket[14]andfourAnglo-NorsecarvingsinWestYorkshire).(McKinnell2001a:333)15

TheOldEnglishpoemDeorreferstoVõlundr’senslavementbyNíñuñr,andBõñvildr’s

abandonmentbyVõlundr(Dronke1997:270-1).Artefactsofiron,steel,goldandsilver

attributedtothelegendaryskillofVõlundralsoappearintheOldEnglishpoemsBeowulf

andWaldere,andintheLatinGermanicepicWalthariuswhichprobablydatestotheninth

century(Dronke1997:270).InbothhisproseandverserenderingsofBoethius’sDe

ConsolationePhilosophiae,KingAlfred(d.899)“withoutanyevidentreason”insertsabrief

contemplationonthelocationofthebonesandskillof“thewiseWeland”,concludingthat

theskillofthissmithmayneverbetakenfromhim(Dronke1997:271;cf.EllisDavidson

1958:145).AnOldEnglishcharterof955locatesWelandessmiññe,“Weland’ssmithy”,in

theremoteBerkshireDowns,bytheruinsofaNeolithiclongbarrowandtombnearthe

UffingtonWhiteHorseinmodernOxfordshire(Dronke1997:259;Kemble1964:v.322,ll.

23).Nearly800yearslater,in1738,OxfordAntiquarianFrancisWisemadethefollowing

observationofthislocation,thenknownas“Wayland’sSmithy”:

12TheprosepreludeandstanzasixofVõlundarkviñalocateNíñuñraskingoftheNiárarinSvíñióñ,“Sweden”(NeckelandKuhn1962:116,118).ArgumentsforsituatingthekingdomofNíñuñrwithinaspecificdistrictinSwedenhave,however,provenuntenable(cf.Dronke1997:309).13ThisstoneisfromGotland,Swedenanddatestothemiddleorlateeighthcentury(Dronke1997:271;Nedoma1988:27-9). 14TheFranksCasketoriginatesfromlateseventh-centuryorearlyeighth-centuryNorthumbria(Dronke1997:271).ForsomedescriptionsandinterpretationsoftheFranksCasket,seeHinton(2003:268-9,281-2)andHowlett(1997:275-84). 15ThesecarvingsfromwestYorkshireareestimatedtobefromthetenthcentury(Dronke1997:271).

8

Alltheaccountwhichthecountrypeopleareabletogiveofitis‘AtthisplacelivedformerlyaninvisibleSmith,andifatraveller’sHorsehadlostaShoeupontheroad,hehadnomoretodothantobringtheHorsetothisplacewithapieceofmoney,andleavingboththereforsomelittletime,hemightcomeagainandfindthemoneygone,buttheHorsenewshod.’(qtd.inEllisDavidson1958:147)16

H.R.EllisDavidsonfurtherobservesthat,when“Weland’sSmithywasexcavatedin1921,

twoironcurrencybarsofIronAgedatewerefoundburiedinsidethechamber”(1958:147).

Theevidencesummarizedinthisparagraphdoesindeedshowaremarkableconcentrationof

representationsoftheWeland/Võlundrfigurewithintheregionaroundmodern-day

OxfordshireandYorkshire.

ThevocabularyofthepoemmayalsosuggestaNorthumbrianconnection.Several

rarewordsareusedtodescribeVõlundr’sartisanalcreations,anditappearsthatthesewords

werenotwellunderstoodinthirteenth-centuryIceland.Weneedtounderstandthesewords

(oratleastappreciatewhytheymighthavebeenmisunderstoodbythescribe)inorderto

understandtherole(andprovenance)ofsmithingmotifsinthepoem.17Focusingonthe

lexicalandmetricalevidencewithinVõlundarkviña,McKinnellnotesstrong

correspondencestoOldEnglish(1990:2-5).Hesuggeststhat

Someofthisevidenceseemsstrong,whileotherpartsofitareextremelyuncertain,buttakenasawholeitamountstoastrongcaseforEnglishinfluenceofsomekindonthevocabularyand(inoneinstance)themetre[18]ofVõlundarkviña.Intheory,thismightbeaccountedforbyanyoneoffourexplanations:

16Thisisfroma“LettertoDr.MeadconcerningAntiquitiesinBerkshire,Oxford”(1738:37). 17IdiscussthesewordsindetailinChapter3.OfparticularimportanceassmithingmotifsarethefollowinghapaxlegomenathatappearonlyinVõludarkviña:lindbaugr,“rings[threadedonabark-fibrerope]”,brjóstkringlar,“brooches”,andiarcnasteinar,“jewels,preciousstones”.Also,thecompoundgimfastandoesnotappearelsewhereintheOldNorsecorpusandhasprovenenigmatictoboththescribe/authoraswellastoscholars.McKinnellsuggestsemendingtogimfastanandinterpretingas“firmly-heldgem”(1990:2).AllthesetermsshowstrongOldEnglishinfluence.Onanothernote,thesetermsrefertospecificobjectsand,inturn,craftingtechniquesthatmayhavebecomecodifiedinspecificcompoundsthatwerenolongerunderstoodproperlyatthetimewhenthecurrentformsofthepoemswerecomposed:

Detailsandpoeticexpressionsthathaveacquiredfixedand/orformulaicstatusmay,however,oftensurviveintact.Thisneedstobeborneinmindwhenconsidering,forexample,referencesintheeddicpoemstoarchaeologicalobjectsthatwouldnotnecessarilyhavebeenknowntothescribes,suchasthebrímkálkr(‘frostedcrystalgoblet’)andthedamascenedswordmentionedinSkírnismál37and23.(Gunnell2005:93-4)

IdiscusstheroleofthesetermsinVõlundarkviñainChapter3below(page214andfollowing).18McKinnelldiscussespotentialconnectionsbetweenVõlundarkviñaandOldEnglishmetreinhisarticle(2001a:333).

9

1. TranslationfromanEnglishsource.2. TheuseofEnglishvocabularybyaScandinavian

poettogiveanimpressionoftheexotic.3. CompositioninadialectareainfluencedbyOld

English.4. CompositioninScandinaviabyanEnglishman.

(McKinnell1990:4-5)

McKinnellconvincinglyrulesoutallpossibilitiesexceptforthethird.Heconcludesthat“the

poemprobablyoriginatesfromaNorse-influencedareaofEngland”(1990:11).The

conclusionthatVõlundarkviñawascomposedinNorthumbriabyanOldNorsepoetwhowas

influencedbyOldEnglishisspeculativebutreasonablysound.

McKinnellalsopointsout,however,thatthepoemshowssubstantialOldSaxon

influence(1990:7-9).WithregardstothisOldSaxoninfluenceitisimportanttomention

brieflythelatethirteenth-centuryNorwegianÃiñrekssagaafBern.Thisnarrativecontainsa

sectionknownasVelentsãáttrwhichdetailsthelifeofVelentthesmith.Here,Velentis

describedasthesonofthegiantVáñifromSjælland(EasternDenmark).Velentapprentices

asasmithwithtwodwarvesinamountainnamedKallava.Afterkillingthesedwarves,

Velentsealshimself,histreasureandtoolsinahollowed-outtreeandendsupwashing

ashoreinJutland(WesternDenmark).Oncethere,Velentworksforsometimewithking

Niñungr,whorulesoveraregioncalledÃjóñ(GuñniJónsson1961:89-90).Thekingandthe

smithultimatelyhaveafalling-out.AshappensinVõlundarkviña,sotooinÃiñrekssagaaf

BernVelentishamstrungandenslavedbytheking,butthesmithenactshisrevengeby

turningtheking’ssons’skullsintodinnerwareandimpregnatingtheking’sdaughter.Velent

escapesbyairwithapairofwingshecreated,andhereturnstoSjælland.

OldSaxonwasspokeninnorthwestGermanyandsouthernDenmarkfromtheeighth

centurythroughtothetwelfthcentury.ThisOldSaxoninfluencethatMcKinnellidentifies

couldcorrespondtothetopographicsituationofNíñungr’skingdomonthe(perhaps

southern,i.e.Saxon)JutlandpeninsulainÃiñrekssagaafBern.Thistopographycorresponds

withtheinformationfromtheprologueofÃiñrekssagaafBern.Hereitissaidthatãessi

sagaereinafãeimstærstumsögumergervarhafaveritiãÿñverskritungu(Guñni1961:3),

“thissagaisoneofthelongeststoriesthathasbeenmadein[the]Germanlanguage.”The

prologueclaimsthattherearemanyvariantsofthestorytoldinsouthernItaly,Lombardy,

Venice,Swabia,Hungary,Poland,Russia,Vinland(NorthAmerica),Denmark,Sweden,um

alltSaxoniam,“inallofSaxony”,andinthelandoftheFranksandinwesternFranceandin

10

Spain(Guñni1961:3;cf.Haymes1988:3).Theprologuealsoclaims,however,that

Norsemenhavecollatedmanypartsofthestory.Butthepropercreditgoestothepeopleof

Saxony:

Ãessisagaersamansetteftirsögnãÿzkramanna,ensumtafãeirrakvæñum,erskemmtaskalríkummönnumokfornortváruãegareftirtíñendum,semsegiríãessarisögu,okãóatãútakireinnmannórhverriborgumalltSaxland,ãámunuãessasögualliráeinaleiñsegja,enãvívaldaãeirainfornukvæñi.(Guñni1961:4)

ThissagaisassembledfromthestoriesofGermanmenandsomeofitcomesfromtheirverses,whichwerecomposedtoentertaingreatmen,andwhichwerecomposedlongago,soonaftertheeventsthataretoldhere.EvenifyouweretotakeonemanfromeachtowninallofSaxony,theywouldalltellthestorythesameway,andthisisbecauseoftheiroldsongs.(Haymes1988:3)

Thecredibilityofthisinformationneedstobescrutinized,particularlyinlightofthe

conventionalmethodsforcreatinganillusionofauthenticityinlatersagas.Eventhough

VésteinnÓlasson’smonographfocusesprimarilyonthestudyofthesagasoftheIcelanders,

hisargumentsstillpertainquitehelpfullytoanalyzingthisprologueaswellastheethos

(particularlyoftheverses)andreliabilityofaNorwegiansagalikeÃiñrekssagaafBern

(Vésteinn1998:9,21,49,124-5).19Whiletheinformationofthisprologuemaybeunreliable

insomedetails,itnonethelesspresentsyetanothersuggestivepieceofevidencethatthe

narrativeofVõlundarkviñamayhavealsobeeninfluencedbysourcesfromsouthernJutland

andbytheOldSaxonlanguage.McKinnellclearlyidentifiesthat

thereisnoreasonwhy[theOldSaxoninfluence]shouldnothavebeenexertedonapoetinEnglandbyanOldSaxonsource.Indeed,thisisoneofthefewexplanationswhichcansatisfactorilyexplainthefactthatthepoemshowsbothOldEnglishandOldSaxonlinguisticfeatures.(1990:9)20

ThecompositionofVõlundarkviñalikelydatesfromc.900attheearliest,andMcKinnell

suggeststenth-centuryoreleventh-centuryYorkshireasatentativeplaceoforiginforthe

19TheprominentroleofSaxonyandOldSaxoninrelationtothesourcematerialforÃiñrekssagaafBernandVõlundarkviñashouldbekeptinmind,particularlyinrelationtopotentialconnectionstotheexaminationofJárnviñrinmysecondchapter.20ItshouldalsobenotedthatOldSaxonmanuscriptsofHeliandandGenesiswerecirculatinginAnglo-SaxonEngland(Doane1991:9,11-2).SomeofthesetextsmayhaveactuallybeenintendedtohavebeenreadinOldSaxon,andthereisevidenceofatleastoneOldSaxonpoet(aswellasaSaxonsword)inKingÆlfred’scourtduringthemid-ninthcentury(Howlett1997:493-7).(MythankstoRichardShawforsharinghisresearchonJohntheOldSaxon.)

11

poem(1990:12-3).21AccordingtoMcKinnell,thisstronginfluencefromOldEnglish

vocabulary“hadledtosomemisunderstandingofthetextbythirteenth-centuryIcelanders”

(McKinnell2001a:332).Iwilldiscussthespecificinterpretationsofthisvocabularyinmy

finalchapter.

Insummary,weknowforcertainthatVõluspáandVõlundarkviñaappearinthe

CodexRegiusc.1270andthatVõluspáwasakeysourceforSnorriwhenhecomposed

Gylfaginningc.1225.Wealsohavereasonablegroundsforspeculatingthatarelatively

similaroralformofVõluspáwasincirculationintheeleventhcenturyand,possibly,during

thelatetenthcentury.WealsohavereasonablegroundsforspeculatingthatVõlundarkviña

wascomposedintenth-centuryNorthumbriabyanOldNorsepoetwhowasinfluencedby

bothOldEnglishandOldSaxon.Itisclearthatseveralkeysmithingmotifs(intheformof

compoundwordsthatappearnowhereelseinOldNorse)inVõlundarviñawereofearlier

originandwerenotunderstoodbythepoet/scribe.Inlightofthisinformationaboutthe

provenanceofthesepoems,itisclearthatthesmithingmotifsinVõluspáandVõlundarkviña

date,atthelatest,tothethirteenth-century.Itisreasonable(ifnotalsonecessary)to

conjecturethatthesemotifswereusedinthecompositionofthepoemsasearlyasc.1000.

SurveyofmetallurgicalprocessesassociatedwithforgesandfurnacesThisprojectfocusesontheforgesandfurnaces22(andassociatedtechniques)usedfor

ferrousandnon-ferrousmetalworkingbeforetheintroductionoftheblastfurnacetonorthern

Europeinc.1200.ThesetechniqueswereusedduringRomantimesandcontinuedtobeused

ineighteenth-centuryandnineteenth-centuryScandinavia(Espelund1997:47-8,52).

Metalworkingpracticesdidevolve,butdrasticchangesinthesepracticesinNorthernEurope

didnotoccuruntilthethirteenthorfourteenthcenturies,withtheintroductionofblast

furnacetechnologyandcastiron(RostokerandBronson1990:101).Thiscontinuityin

metallurgicalmethodsishelpfulinthatitgivesafairlyclear(albeitgeneral)pictureofthe

techniquesanddesignsthatwereemployedinmedievalScandinavia.Italsoestablishesthat

laterprocessesassociatedwiththeblastfurnacedonotpertaintothesmithingmotifsof

VõluspáandVõlundarkviña.

21Severalclosecorrespondencesinvocabularyandcontentbetweenthetenth-centuryOldEnglishpoemDeorandVõlundarkviñahavealsobeennoted(cf.McKinnell2001a:333-4;Dronke1997:276-8). 22Inbrief,aforgeisacharcoalfireinasmallopenpitwithorwithoutbellows.Afurnaceistypicallyashaftofclayandstonerisingfromapitinthegroundorashaftconstructedintoasectionofearth,essentiallyburiedbutwithaccesstothebaseprovidedbyachangeintheelevationofthesurroundingearth.

12

Iwillnowprovideanoverviewofthesmithingtechniquesthatareappropriateto

Scandinaviaand,morebroadly,theareasthathadNorsecoloniesintheearlymedieval

period.Iwillsummarizethearchaeometallurgicalevidenceforthetypesofprocesses,forges

andfurnacesusedimmediatelybefore,duringandimmediatelyaftertheVikingAgein

Scandinavia.23Iwillstartwithaverybriefoverviewofthecategoriesoftechnicalsmithing

processesusedduringtheVikingAgeinScandinavia.Thereadermayfindithelpfultorefer

backtothisbriefoverviewthroughoutthebodyofthisdissertation.Followingthisoverview,

Iwillprovideamoredetailedsurveyofthesesamecategories,includinginformationonthe

maintypesoffurnacesandforgesaswellastheassociatedtechniquesthatwereusedduring

thisperiod.

OverviewofarchaeometallurgicalevidenceandcategoriesMetalworkingcanbecategorizedgenerallyasatwo-foldprocess:

A)Refining:itwasnecessarytorefine24naturallyoccurringores(andsometimes

recycledartefacts)intoanappropriatealloyinorderforthemtobecastinmouldsor

workedintocurrencybars.

B)Working:malleableorrefinedalloysofvariousmetalsrequiredappropriate

methodsofheatingand/orshapinginordertoproducefinishedartefacts.

DuringtheVikingAgeinScandinavia,threechiefcategoriesoftechniqueswereusedto

achievetheabovegoals:

1. Castingandnon-ferrousworking:thesetechniqueswereonlyusedfor

alloysofmetalswithameltingpointlowerthanabout1100oC,i.e.copper

(1084oC),gold(1064oC)andsilver(962oC).Forcasting,acrucibleorsmall

cup(sometimeswithalid)heldthemetalasitliquefied.Thecruciblewas

likelyheatedinasmallopenforgeorperhapsafurnace,poweredbybellows

andcharcoal.Thecrucibleprovidedanenvironmentinwhichtheliquated

metalcouldberefinedintoadesirablealloy.Themoltenmetalwasthen

pouredintoamouldeitherforafinishedartefactorforaningotusedin

23ThereissomediscrepancyinhowtheVikingAgeisdefinedbyscholarsofliterature,linguistics,history,archaeologyandanthropology(Brink2008:5;Byock1990:2;RoesdahlandWilson2003:20).Becausethisprojectincludesresearchfromallthesefields,IusetheVikingAgeinitsmostinclusivesense,referringtotheperiodc.700-1100.24Thisrefiningprocessissometimescalledsmelting(whenitappliestoironusually)orcupellation(whenitappliestotheseparationofnoblemetalsfrombasemetals).

13

trading.Variousothertechniques(suchasgranulation)alsousedthesemetals

intheirmoltenstates(cf.Tylecote1987:85-6).

2. Smelting:thistechniqueusedanenclosedfurnacetocreateanenvironmentin

whichpiecesofmetallicorecouldbereducedandrefinedintoaworkable

alloy.Becauseironhasameltingpointofabout1538oC,itwasgenerally

impossibletomeltinViking-agefurnaces.Therewas,therefore,nocastiron

madeinViking-ageScandinavia.Instead,atwo-stageprocesswasusedto

producewroughtiron.First,asmeltingfurnacewasusedtosmeltmanysmall

piecesofironoreintoasinglelump,calledanironbloom.Athigh

temperaturesthewasteinclusionswithinthisironbloomliquated,leavinga

porousmassofiron,calledspongeiron.Thespongeironwasthenremoved

fromthefurnaceandimmediatelyhammeredathightemperature.Thisforced

outmostoftheremainingslaginclusionsandweldedtogethertheopenpores,

creatingamalleableandsolidpieceofwroughtiron.

3. Blacksmithing:wroughtironwasrepeatedlyheatedandworkedusing

hammer,tongsandananvil-stone.Finishedartefactswereproducedinthis

mannerbyusinganopenforgepoweredbycharcoalandbellows.These

forgescouldreliablyproducetemperaturesabove1100oC,reachingthe

temperaturesnecessarytoweldpiecesofirontogether(DarrellMarkewitz,

pers.comm.).

1)Castingandnon-ferrousworkingGold,silver,copperandleadweretheonlymetalsthatwerecastinearlymedieval

Scandinavia.Thesemetalsarerelativelyrare,non-reactive,ductileandmalleable,especially

inthecaseofgold.Cruciblefragmentsshowevidencethatalloysofallthesemetalswere

refinedandcastusingcrucibles.Itisunlikelythatanyofthesemetalswereextractedfrom

oresinScandinavia.25Theywereallimported(eitherascurrencybarsorasartefacts)and

thenrecycled,reworkedandmodifiedintofinishedartefacts(Callmer2008:446-7;

Ljungkvist2008:189;Valk2008:485-8).

25ForadiscussionoftheearliestevidenceofnativesilveroremininginScandinaviaseeMoseng(1992:45-72;cf.Prescott2000:214).MosengconcludesthatthesinglesentenceofevidencefromtheHistoriaNorwegiæ(c.1200)isnotsoundandthattheearliestreliableevidencedatestothesixteenthcentury.

14

Apartfromevidenceofburningassociatedwithcrucibleshards,thereislittle

evidencetoshowwhatkindofforgethecrucibleswereplacedinduringtheVikingAgein

Scandinavia.Wedoknowthat“burningcharcoalmaintainsatemperatureof800oCwithout

anartificialairsupply.Thetemperatureincreasesto1300oCwhenairissuppliedthrougha

singlepairofbellowsorablow-pipe”(Duczko1985:26).Thusopenforgeswouldhavebeen

suitablefornon-ferrouswork.Archaeologicalevidenceshowsthatshallowpitswereusedas

openforges,e.g.RibeinDenmark(Jensen1991:31)andHurdalPrestegårdinNorway

(Bergstøl2002:77-8).

DuringtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAgeinScandinaviaceramiccrucibleswere

madefromclaydepositsandthenusedinopenforgestosmeltpreciousandothernon-ferrous

metals.Thecruciblesservedasessentialtoolsforthreereasons.First,theykeptthemolten

metalinarelativelyportabledevice,enablingthesmithtodirectlypourthemetalintoa

mouldwhileitwasstillliquid.Second,somecrucibles,particularlythemoreenclosed

designs,controlledtheenvironmentofthemetalquiteprecisely,allowingformoreprecise

reductionreactionstobeachievedintheproductionofspecificalloys.Thereisevidencethat

substantialexperimentationwentintothecreationofalloys(cf.Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:

174-5).Third,amorecontrolledenvironmentwasalso,inmanyways,amoreconservative

environment:cruciblesmeltingtendstoinvolvemuchlesswastethanisthecasewith,for

instance,ironsmelting.Particularlywithlessreactivenoblemetalslikesilverandgold,

whicharealsomoredifficulttoacquirethancopperandiron,thecrucibleprovidedamethod

ofavoidingunwantedlossofthemetalwithinthereactionsofafurnaceorforge.

Likefurnaces,cruciblesarealmostneverrecoveredintactanditisdifficultto

reconstructthemfrompartialfragments(Callmer2002:136-8;Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:

161;Stilborg2003:148;Tylecote1986:97-100).26Crucibleshardsorfragmentsarefoundat

manysites,ranginginquantityfromonlyafewkilogramstoasmuchasseveralhundred

kilogramsasisthecaseatmajorworkshopsiteslikeHelgöandGudme(Hjärthner-Holdaret

al.2002:164-7;Stilborg2003:139,146-51).Basedupontheselectionofclayusedina

crucibleandvitrifiedaccretionsandcolourationontheinteriorsurfaceofcrucibleshards,

archaeologistsaresometimesabletodeterminethetypeofmetalsandtemperatures

associatedwithindividualcrucibleshards(Stilborg2003:142,147-8).Wheremorecomplete

26Formapsofrecentlyexcavatedcentralplacesandworkshopsitesfornon-ferrousmetalworkinginScandinavia,seeHjärthner-Holdaretal.(2002:163)andMyhre(2000:42).

15

cruciblesexistitissometimespossibletodiscernthegeneralshape.Cruciblediametres

appeartorangefrom2-8cmandinsomecasesuptoabout15cm(Bayley1991:124;Stilborg

2003:147).Someappeartobeclosedandpear-shaped,othersareopenandshapedlike

thimbles,andsomehavetriangular-shapedrims(Bayley1991:123-4).Yetothercrucibles

havebeendescribedbyarchaeologistsasclosedegg-shapedoropenbell-shaped(Hjärthner-

Holdaretal.2002:179-80).Mouldsandtuyeres27arealsofound,frequentlyinassociation

withcruciblefragments(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:179-80;Stilborg2003:141).Justas

furnaceswererepairedandre-usedovertime,itwasclearlyanestablishedpracticetore-use

acrucibleseveraltimes.Manycruciblesappeartohavebeenrepairedbytheadditionofclay

toweakeningareas.Thisindicatesthatsomecrucibleswereusedformultiplefirings

(Stilborg2003:148).

Theprocessoftransferringthemoltencontentsofacrucibleintoamouldhadto

happenwithinamatterofsecondsorthemetalwouldsolidify,preventingpouringanda

successfulcasting.Temperaturesgenerallyonlyhadtoreachabout1000oCtomeltthe

contents(highertemperatureswerenecessaryforsomealloys),butitseemsmostlikelythat

thesmithwouldhaveheatedthecontentsbeyondthemeltingpointsothatthemetalwould

notsolidifybeforeitcouldbepouredintoamould(Tylecote1986:99-100).Bytheseventh

centuryinScandinaviaandtheBritishIslesmanycrucibleswereusedwithlidstomakeit

easiertohandlethemquicklywithspecificallydesignedmetaltongs(Tylecote1986:97-

100).InsomeScandinaviancontextscruciblesappeartohaveknobsorhandlesthatwere

probablyalsousedforhandlingwithtongs(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:165;Stilborg2003:

148).Somecrucibleswereapparentlyevenleft-handed,clearlymadebyaspecific

craftspersonforhis/herownuse(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:167).

Iwillnowbrieflysummarizesomeofthegeneralinformationwehaveonhowgold,

silverandcopperwereusedinearlymedievalScandinavia.Goldwascastinsomecases,but

itwasdistinctfromcopperandsilverinthatitcouldbeextensivelyre-shapedandworked

withoutheating.Goldwas,however,alsoveryrare.Itwasoftenusedingilding,in

combinationwithmercury(Ljungkvist2008:189).Objectsofsolidgoldareextremelyrare,

butwhere“theydooccur,thecraftsmanshipisoftenofveryhighquality.Goldwas

especiallyusedforfiligreeandgranulation-decoratedjewellery”(Ljungkvist2008:189).

27Tuyeresarebasicallyceramicpipesusedtoapplytheblastofthebellowstotheinsideofthefurnaceorforge.

16

Silvercouldalsobeworkedandshapedwithoutheat,althoughnotaseasilyasgold.

EvidenceshowsthatArabicsilverinparticularbegantoarriveinScandinaviaintheeighth

century.ThissilvercamebytraderoutesthroughRussia(Ljungkvist2008:189;Yrwing

234).Thissilverwasoftenintheformofcoinsandwasmelteddowntoformpendants,silver

wire,silver-platingandothersmallitemsofjewellery.Silverwasonlyrarelyusedtomake

largerbroochesandbracelets(Ljungkvist2008:189).

Bronze(i.e.copperinalloy,usuallywithtin)“wasthemostcommonmaterialforthe

VikingAgejeweller.ItwasthematerialthattheordinaryScandinavianscouldafford”

(Ljungkvist2008:189).Manybronzebroocheshavebeenrecoveredfromearlymedieval

Scandinavia.Bronzeworkingwasaremarkablycomplexprocessthatdemandedseveral

differentskill-setsandmayhaveregularlyinvolvedcollaborationbetweenmultiple

craftspeople.Inhisdiscussionofnon-ferrousmetalworking(particularlyinbronze)inearly

medievalScandinavia,JohanCallmerpointsoutthat“theproductionofhighqualitymetal

workrequiresawiderangeofdifferentexpertknowledge.FromMigrationPeriodonwardthe

qualityoftheproductswithonlyafewexceptionsisexcellent”(Callmer2003:348).The

productionofaprestigebronzebrooch,forinstance,wouldhaverequiredseveraldifferent

typesofknowledge:

- Knowledgeofseveralveryspecialclaysandtemperingmaterials(toprepare

cruciblesandmoulds).

- Accesstoandknowledgeofmetalalloys.

- Knowledgeofhowtopurifythemetalifnecessary.

- Knowledgeofdifferentsourcesofheatandhowtocontrolthem.

- Knowledgeofhowtocalculatethenecessaryamountofmetalforeachcasting.

- Abilitytocreateanideaforanornamentalbroochandthefunctionalformofthe

brooch.

- Knowledgeofhowtomakeawaxcopyandprepareamould.

- Knowledgeoffinesmithingworkinordertoproduceapinandapplyittothe

backofthebrooch.

- Knowledgeofpost-castingwork,removalofseams,polishing,etc.

- Knowledgeofgildingandhowtohandleandusemercury.28

28ThisinformationhasbeensummarizedfromCallmer’sarticle(2003:348).

17

2)IronsmeltingDuringtheVikingAgeinScandinavia,ironwastheonlyoreextractedfromtheearth,

reduced,refinedandworkedintoartefacts,toolsandweapons(cf.Ljungkvist2008:189).

IronisthemetalmostfrequentlyassociatedwithattestationsoftheOldNorsewordafl,

“forge,furnace”(cf.ONP2010:s.v.afl).InViking-ageScandinaviairon-workingactivityis

foundacrossamuchbroadersocialandgeographicrangethannon-ferrouswork(Hjärthner-

Holdaretal.2002:160).“Thoughitlackedtheprestigeofgoldandsilver,ironwasthemost

importantmetalusedinViking-ageScandinavia,essentialforfarming,construction,

shipbuildingandwarfare”(Haywood2000:104-5).

DuringtheViking-ageironorewasfoundinseveralformsandlocations.29Terrestrial

ironorewasfoundinthesidesofmountains.Meteoricironmayalsohavebeenapotential

sourceofiron(Tylecote1987:99-100).30DuringtheVikingAge,however,the“mainsource

ofironwasbogiron–nodulesofironoxidesanddecayingvegetablematterthatformin

bogsandmarshes”(Haywood2000:105;cf.Smith2005:186-7).Thus,ironwasthemost

readilyavailableandcommonlyusedmetalinmedievalScandinavia.

Withthisrelativeabundanceofsourcesofiron,allthatwasneededwas“the

knowledgeofhowtousethem”(Tylecote1987:47).Themeltingpointofironistoohighfor

anythingbutablastfurnacetomeltironcompletelyandenabletheproductionofcastiron.31

BecauseblastfurnacetechnologywasnotyetavailableduringtheVikingAge,ironhadtobe

smeltedinitssolidstate,whichwasaccomplishedusingacombinationoftheshaftfurnace

andtheopenforge.32

29AsR.F.Tylecotepointsout,“[u]nlikenon-ferrousminerals,ironoresareextremelywidespread,ironbeingthecommonestnon-gaseouselementintheearth’scrustaftersiliconandaluminium”(Tylecote1987:47).30Tylecotepointsoutthatmeteoricironismalleableandthereforeappropriateforbeingforgedintotoolsandartifacts.31Tylecote(1971:53-8)showsinanexperimentthatitispossibleforatwo-metrehighshaftorslag-pitfurnacetoproducecastiron,soitistechnicallypossiblethatironwasaccidentallymeltedpriortotheintroductionoftheblastfurnace.Likewise,Markewitz’sexperimentsshowthatitmayhavebeenpossibleforViking-agefurnacestoproducesomecastiron(Markewitz2009:IronSmeltData–ExperimentalIronSmelts2001toNovember2008).Whetherornotthismighthavebeendoneintentionallyoraspartofaregularpracticeisunclear.Itisclearthatasthecarboncontentofironincreases,themeltingpointdecreases:thus,acarboncontentof1.7to4.5%couldcauseirontomeltattemperaturesofaround1150-1200oC.Itwas,however,generallyundesirabletoproducecastironinthisperiod.Becauseofitshighcarboncontent,castironwouldhaverequiredadditionaldecarburizationinordertobeworkable,whereaswroughtiron(becauseofitslowercarboncontent)couldbeimmediatelyworkedafterthesmeltingprocess(cf.Tylecote1976:66-7;Tylecote1986:192-4;Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:175-7).32TylecotepointsoutthatthefirsttextualdocumentationofablastfurnaceinthewestcomesfromnearGenoa,Italy,around1464(1987:328).ThistechnologyfirstcameintouseinaboutthefifthcenturyB.C.inChina.However,recentarchaeologicalresearchshowsthatblastfurnaceswereoperationalasearlyasthethirteenthcenturyinSweden(Lapphyttan),Switzerland(Dürstel)andGermany(MärkischeSauerland)(Abdinghoffetal.

18

Theshaftfurnace:Theshaftfurnaceisashaftabout25cmto50cmindiametrerisingabout30to60cm

fromtheground,usuallyaboveasmallbowlorpit(Martens1978:30;Tylecote1976:64-5;

Tylecote1987:151-3).33Alternatively,someshaftfurnacesappeartohavebeenconstructed

downintotheground,withaccesstothebaseofthefurnaceprovidedbyachangein

elevation(Espelund1997:52-3;Wallace2006:59-62).Shaftfurnaceshadoneormore

tuyereholesattheirbase,allowingforactiveairintakefrombellowsor,alternatively,only

passiveairintake.34Atitsbaseashaftfurnacemayalsohaveanopeningortappinghole(also

calledatappingarch)fromwhichliquatedwastecouldberemovedintoanexternalslagpit

(Martens1978:33;Tylecote1987:153).35Thismethodoftappingoutslagfromthebaseof

thefurnacewasaninnovativemodificationtoearlier,Roman-eraslag-pitfurnaces(Dieterle

1987:7;Myhre2000:40).36

Theprocessofusingashaftfurnacetypicallyinvolvedplacinglayersoffuel(usually

charcoal)andsmallpiecesofore37intotheshaftandallowingthoselayerstoburndeeperinto

thefurnaceovertimewhilealso“charging”thetopofthefurnacewithnewlayersoffuel.As

2009:n.p.).ThislastsiteinGermanycontainstheoldestknownblastfurnacesinCentralEurope,datedtoc.1205-1300.AsIdiscussinmyfirstchapter,themanuscriptdatesfortheattestationsofaflstartc.1200andproceedtoc.1700,soitisperhapspossiblethatinformationonblastfurnacescouldpertaintosomeofthelaterattestations.However,alloftheseattestationsclearlyhaveearlieroriginsthantheextantmanuscripts,insomecasesbyseveralcenturies.SeveralothertechniquesandfurnaceswerewidelyusedduringtheVikingAgeandconsistentlyintothenineteenthcentury(Espelund1997:47-51).Thefocusofthisprojectis,therefore,ontechnologiespre-datingtheintroductionoftheblastfurnaceandcastirontoScandinavia.33TheheighthereistakenfromDarrellMarkewitz’sreconstructiveexperiments,inwhicharchaeologicalevidenceofshaftfurnacesseemstosuggestanaveragearound60cminheightandsome30cmindiametre(Markewitz2007:Overviewofexperimentalvariables).ThesedimensionscorrespondtothefindsatL’Anse-aux-Meadows(Wallace2006:60-2).34Passiveairintakewouldlikelyhaveprohibitedreachingthetemperaturesattainablewiththehelpofbellows.Thereis,nonetheless,someconsiderationamongstarchaeologistsforpassive-airdesigns.Severalexperimentshavebeendoneusingpassive-airdesignsinassociationwiththeHeltborgMuseuminDenmark(Markewitz2008:IronSmeltingSeminaratThy).35Theslag-pitfurnaceprecededtheshaftfurnaceandwasconceptuallysimilarbutwithafewsubstantialdifferences:theshaftoftheslag-pitfurnacewasmuchtaller(prohibitingtheremovalofthebloomfromabove)andtherewasnotappinghole(theslagaccumulatedinapitatthebaseofthefurnaceinsteadofoutsidethefurnace).Thismeantthatoncetheslag-pitbecamefull,theentireshafthadtoberemoved,relocatedandre-attachedtoanewlydugpitbeforeanothersequenceoforecouldberefined(Tylecote1987:154).Thisprocessseemscumbersomeandinvolvedextensiverepairs.Theslag-pitfurnacedidmigrateintoScandinaviabutitseemstohavebecomeobsolete(infavourofthemorepermanentshaftfurnace)intheRomanandMigrationPeriods(Tylecote1987:155-6).36SeeStenvik(2003:124)foraphotoofaslagpitbelongingtoanearlyandlargeshaftfurnacefromtheRomanIronAgeinNorway.Thisseemstobeatransitionalfurnacebetweentheslag-pitdesignandtheshaftfurnace:itwaspermanent,allowedforemptyingfromthebase,andusedwoodmorethancharcoal.Latershaftfurnacesintheseareasweresmallerandshowevidenceoflowerproduction(Stenvik2003:123-4).37Thepiecesmustbesmallenoughtoallowrelativelyhomogeneousreactionswiththeatmosphereinthefurnacethroughouteachpiece.

19

theoretravelsdownthetemperatureincreases,providingasequentialprocessinwhich

removalsandexchangesmayoccur.First,waterisremovedbyaprocesssometimescalled

roastingtheore.38Thenironcarbonatesaredecomposed.Atabout750oCchemicalreduction

reactionsbegin,firstconvertinghigherironoxides(Fe3O4andFe2O3)tolower(FeO)

(Espelund1997:53-4;Tylecote1987:152;cf.RostokerandBronson1990:89-99).Atabout

900oCcarbonbeginstogointosolutionwiththeiron.Fullequalizationofthecarboncontent

oftheironisdesirablebutrare:usuallytheresultisa“heterogeneousmixtureofhigh-carbon

andlow-carbonareaswithanaveragecarbonlevelwhichislow”(Tylecote1987:152).39

Withanaveragelowcarbonleveltheironitselfissolidat1200oCbuttheslag(i.e.waste

inclusions)“becomesmoltenandrunsawayleavingasolidironbloomwithsomeporosity”

(Tylecote1987:152;cf.Espelund1997:53-4;cf.RostokerandBronson1990:102-3).The

processiscompletewhenthebottomofthefurnaceisfullofslag,bloomandcharcoal.

Becausethisfurnacedesigncanallowforslagtoberemovedfromthebase,appropriately

constructedshaftfurnacescouldhavebeenre-used.40

Whenthereactioniscompleted,thebloomofporousironisremovedfromthebottom

orthetopofthefurnace.Atthispointtheprocessofironsmeltingbeginstooverlapwiththe

processofblacksmithing(i.e.smeltingandworkingcoincidebriefly).Ideally,thebloomis

immediatelyhammeredsoastofusetheporesthatwereoccupiedbyslag,creatingasolid

pieceofmetalcalledwroughtiron.Uponremovalthebloomwouldideallybeata

temperaturesuitableforweldingtheporesratherthanjustcompressingthem(Espelund

1997:55).Theblacksmithmayhavediscernedbycolourwhetherthiswasthecase:modern

38Thisroastingprocesswasprobablyalsodoneinadvanceofpreparingasmelt.39Examinationoffurnaceremainsshowsthatreactionssometimeswentfurtherthanthisandintohighertemperatures,yieldingironcarbide(orhigh-carboniron,i.e.steelyiron)asisthecaseintheuseofblastfurnaces.40Myresearchintomodernexperimentsreconstructingmedievaltechniquesshowsthatmoreoftenthannotafurnacewouldbesubstantiallydamagedafterasingleburn.Thismay,however,bemoreofafunctionofthemodernreconstructivetechniquesandaimsthanofthemedievalsituation.See,forinstance,DarrellMarkewitz’srecent(November2009andJune2010)experimentsfordetailedphotosandcomparisonsoffurnaceremainsafteronefiringtoarchaeologicalsites(Markewitz2009:Vinland3–November7,2009;Markewitz2010:Vinland4–June12,2010).AftertheJune2010experimentMarkewitz,indiscussionwitharchaeologistKevinSmith,seemstohaveconcludedthatarchaeologicalevidencemaynotpreservethefulloriginalthicknessoffurnacewalls:ifthewallsofthesefurnaceswerebuiltthickertheymighthaveprovenmoredurableformultiplefirings,asthearchaeologicalevidenceseemstosuggest(Markewitz2010:Vinland4–June12,2010).Regardless,Markewitzrepeatedlypointsoutinhisexperimentsthatthebaseorbowlofthefurnacethatremainsaftertheexperimentsmaybeusedasaforgeforre-heatingthebloomorbilletandworkingit(e.g.Markewitz2009:Vinland3).The2008experimentsattheHeltborgMuseuminvolvedre-usingfurnacesformultiplefirings(Markewitz2008:IronSmeltingSeminaratThy).KevinSmithandDarrellMarkewitzhavealsodiscussedatlengthexperimentsinvolvingre-usingthesamefurnaceforuptofivefirings(Markewitz2007:SmeltersandArchaeology–SomeQuestions).

20

blacksmithsusuallylookforanintenseyelloworevenwhiteglowwithsomesparkingto

indicatethatapieceisatasuitableweldingtemperature.41Thebloomwasthenhammered,

causingtheporestosealandweldtogether.Thebloomwasoftenshapedintocurrencybars

orbillets:inScandinaviabloomswereshapedintoaxeorhoe-shapedbarswithsocketsfor

easeofshipping(Tylecote1987:253-5).Longflatbarshavealsobeendiscoveredacross

ScandinaviaandEngland.InGotland,someofthesebarswerediscoveredinconnectionwith

theMästermyrtoolchest,andsimilarbarshavebeenfoundinmajorViking-agetradeand

productioncentreslikeHedebyandWinchester(ArwidssonandBerg1983:17,Pl.14;

Tylecote1987:255).42

3)BlacksmithingOnceabloomofspongeironhadbeenproducedandworkedintoasolidbilletthere

wasstilltheneedtohammer,bend,foldandpossiblyweldortemperthemetalintoa

consolidated,standardizedandworkableform.Theworkingoftheseingotsintocurrency

barsonceagaininvolvedheating.However,theenclosedspacesoffurnaceswouldbe

cumbersometotheprocessofrepeatedlyinsertingandremovingsometimesquitelarge

piecesofiron,especiallywhenthesmithwouldonlyhavehadafewsecondstoworkthe

piecebeforeitcooledandlostitsplasticity.Thecontrolledenvironmentofafurnacewasno

longernecessaryduringtheworkingprocessbecausetheironhadalreadybeensmelted.Any

furtherneedforchemicalchangesinthealloyatthispointcouldbeachievedinthe

environmentprovidedbytheburningofcharcoalinanopenforge.43Ironisfairlyplasticat

temperaturesof700-1250oC(Tylecote1987:262).Theaverageopencampfireisnotcapable

41Markewitzreproducesacolourchartonhiswebsite:http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/images/heats.jpg.HansSchlosseralsoreproducesthischartanddiscussessomeofthecharacteristicsofworkingironatvarioustemperatures(Schlosser2001:UsingtheFire).42ThereareseveralpotentialgenericdistinctionsbetweenthetypesoffurnacesthatwereusedinmedievalScandinavia(cf.Martens1978:27-36).Therehavebeensomeattemptstoclarifyarelationbetweenspecifictypesoffurnacesandtotracecertaintypestovariousgeographicaland/orhistoricalpointsoforigin.Catalanfurnaces,forinstance,appeartohavedevelopedincloseassociationwithametalworkingcentreinSpainc.700-800AD(Tylecote1987:152-4;Toma`s1999:225-6).Thesefurnacestendtoproducearatherdistinctball-shapedbloom.IthasbeensuggestedthattheCatalandesignspreadbothnorthandsouthfromSpainortheMediterranean,therebyenteringcentralandnorthernEuropeandAfrica(Tylecote1987:152-4;Toma`̀s1999:225-6).Thereisalso,however,“soundevidence”ofbowlfurnacesandironproductioninSwedenbeforec.1000BC(Stenvik2003:126).Thisevidenceis,asStenviksays,“astonishing”andseveraltheorieshavebeendevelopedtoexplainthis,includingargumentsforlocalandforeignoriginsformetallurgicaltechniques(Stenvik2003:126-7).Laterversionsofso-calledCatalan-stylefurnaceswerestillinuseintheeighteenthcenturyinSweden(Tylecote1987:152-4).43Thechemicalcompositionoftheironcouldbeadjustedslightlybyrepeatedlyheatingandcoolingtotemperaturesatwhichcarbonmaybeexchangedwiththeiron.Theironcouldalsobephysicallychangedbycold-workingthemetalwithahammer(Tylecote1987:247).

21

ofreachingtemperatureshigherthanabout700oC(Tylecote1986:16).However,openforges

fueledbycharcoalandpoweredbybellowsarecapableofreachingtemperaturesinexcessof

1100oC,idealforworkingandweldingironaswellasmeltingcommonnon-ferrousmetals.

Thereareotherreasonswhyanopenforgewasdesirableatthisstageofworkingiron.

Ablacksmithwouldonlybeabletopromptlyworkamaximumsurfaceareaof30-60cm2(or

roughly10cminlengthona3-6cmwidebar)beforethemetalbecametoocoldtobeshaped

orwelded(DarrellMarkewitz,pers.comm.).44Openforgesarecapableofheatingthisarea

sufficientlyforshapingandwelding:heatingagreatersurfaceareawouldnotbeworthwhile,

sinceablacksmithcouldonlyworksomuchatonce.Openforgesalsoprovideaspacein

whichlargerobjects(likeswordsorcauldrons)maybeworkedwithouttheconstraintsof

furnacewallsandchambers(ArwidssonandBerg1983:29).Ironalloysalsorespond

relativelywelltothistypeofworking,whereascopperalloys,forinstance,mustgenerallybe

castbecausetheydonotrespondaswelltosubstantialshapingbyhammerandcannotbe

weldedaseasily(Tylecote1987:247).

Forge-stoneswithholesfortuyereswereusedtoshelterthebellowsfromtheheatof

theforge,andseveralofthesestoneshavebeenfound(Bergstøl2001:79;KjærumandOlsen

1990:180).JohanCallmersuggeststhatfindsoflarger,block-shapedtuyeresseem

unnecessarilylargeforthesmallerforgesassociatedwithnon-ferrousmetalworking:“This

typeoftuyeremuchbettermatchesaforgingmilieu”whereswordsandcauldronsweremade

alongsidesmalleritemslikeknives,tools,wireandnails(Callmer2002:141;cf.Arwidsson

andBerg1983:16;cf.Stilborg2003:141;cf.Tylecote1987:270).

Evidencefortheculturalsignificanceofforges,furnaces,crucibles,etc.

DirectarchaeologicalevidenceItisimportanttonoteherethatwedonothavedirectevidenceofanyornamentation

orotherfeaturesthatmayormaynothaveadornedfurnaces,forgesorcruciblesinthis

periodwithparticularculturalandcommunalsignificance.Itseemspossiblethatsuch

ornamentationmighthaveexisted,giventhatclayandstonewere(inothercontexts)

regularlyadornedandengraved.Italsoseemspossiblethatnosuchornamentationwas

presentonfurnacesandcruciblesusedinViking-ageScandinavia.Wedonothaveanydirect

evidenceonewayortheother.Furnaces,ceramicmouldsandcruciblesarenotwell 44ThemeasurementsherecorrespondtothefiguresgivenbyMarkewitzonhisreconstructionofVikingAgecurrencybars(2010:CurrencyBarfromDARCIron).

22

preservedinthearchaeologicalrecord(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:161;Martens1978:28).

Anadditionalproblemmaybethat“excavationtechniquesfrequentlyleftmuchtobe

desired”,hamperingtheidentificationandpreservationofinformationrelatedtothealready

scantremainsoffurnaces(Martens1978:27).Fromanalysesoffragmentsoffurnacewalls

andcruciblesitisclearthatthesestructureswereoftenrepairedandre-usedtothepointof

collapse.Wastemetalsandvitrifiedaccretionsorburnmarksonceramicfragmentsare

frequentlytheonlyevidencewhichmaybeanalyzedtodeterminewhatkindofmetalswere

workedandwithwhatmethodsandskills(Callmer2002:136-8,141-4).

Forge-stonesThechiefexceptiontothisgenerallackofevidenceforornamentationisthatafew

forge-stones(themostprominentstructuresassociatedwithopenforges)withornamentation

havebeendiscovered(Bergstøl2001:79).Forge-stoneswereusedtoprotectbellowsfrom

theheatofanopenforge.Theseforge-stonescanbehelpfulindicatorstothelocationand

significanceofforgingactivities.AsJosteinBergstølpointsout,two

decoratedforgestoneshave[...]beenfoundinanEarlyIronAgecontextonafarmcalledHovinnorthernNorway.Thenameofthefarm,aswellasthenameoftheplaceofthefind,Lundhaugen,areculticnames.Togetherwiththeforgestoneswereglassbeads,gamingpiecesandslag[...].Fromthiscasestudy,itisapparentthatforgeswereplacedonestablishedculticsites[.](Bergstøl2002:79)

Anotherdecoratedforge-stonewasrecoveredonabeachnearSnaptun,Denmark,aboutfifty

kilometressouthofÅrhusonthewesterncoastofJutland.Noothermedievalremainshave

beenfoundinassociationwiththisstone.TheSnaptunforgestonedatestoc.1000andisby

farthemoststrikingofthesedecoratedstones(KjærumandOlsen1990:180).Theengraving

ontheSnaptunstoneportraysamalefacewithamoustache.Theupperandlowerlipsare

markedwiththreetofiveroughlycorrespondingpairsofscars,asthoughtheyweresewn

shut.ScholarsagreethatthisstonelikelyportraysLokiafterhislipshavebeensewnshutby

thedwarfBrokkrinchapter35ofSkáldskaparmál(Faulkes1998a:43).45Thisaltercation

resultsfromthewagersmadebetweenLokiandthedwarfsBrokkrandEitriwhoforgethe

gods’secondsetofthreemagicalgifts.Thus,althoughthecarvingontheSnaptunstoneitself

45Accordingtothismyth,EitriandhisbrotherBrokkrmakeFreyr’sgoldenboar,thegoldringDraupnir,andÃórr’sfamoushammerMjõllnir.SeeChapter1(afl14-21.onpage57andfollowing)forfurtherdetailsandadiscussionofthismyth.

23

doesnotportrayanysmithingtoolsoractivities,itdoespresentafunctionalconnection

betweensmithingpracticeinbothahistoricallocationandinthemythicalrealm:thisforge-

stonetestifiestoindividualswhousedaforgewithbellowstoworkmetalsandwhowere

consciouslyawareofsomeearlyformofthemythofforgingofthegods’giftsthree

centuriesbeforetheextantmanuscriptsofSnorraEddaweremade.InJosteinBergstøl’s

words,by“picturingLokiontheforgestone,thesmithcreatedalinktothemythicuniverse”

(2002:79).“Thesmithscreatedalinktothecosmologybyintegratingthemythsinthe

productionprocess.Inthisway,magicandreligionwereimportantelementsinlabourand

technology”(Bergstøl2002:77).Thereisnosuchevidenceofanyornamentationthatmay

elucidatetheculturalsignificanceoffurnacesorcrucibles.

VisualdepictionsofsmithingPeriod-specificdepictionsoffurnacescanclarifywhatspecifictypesoffurnacesand

techniqueswerebeingusedandwithwhatculturalsignificance.Thisiscertainlythecase

withadepictionofcruciblesmeltingonanEgyptiantombfromc.1500BC(Tylecote1976:

19),andadepictionofashaftfurnaceintheprocessofironsmeltingonavasefromc.500

BCGreece(Tylecote1976:45).Severalpictorialdepictionsofsmithingtoolsandactivities

existfromViking-ageScandinaviaandtheBritishIsles.Iwillnowbrieflyexaminethese

representations.

Theeighth-centuryNorthumbrianFranksCasketisacarvedpieceofwhalebone

(Dronke1997:283).Onehalfofapanelportraysapartofthenarrativeof

Võlundr/Velent/Welandthesmith.Thesmithappearstohavetongsinhislefthand,with

whichheholdsanitem(whichmaybeaheadorskull46)abovewhatappearstobeananvil.A

bodyappearsbeneaththeanvil.Thesmithisexchangingacuporaringwithafemalefigure

(likelyBõñvildr).47Onehammerappearsataboutathirty-degreeangle,theheadabovethe

anvil,andanotherhammerappearssuspendedverticallyabovetheanvil,headupwards.To

theimmediaterightofthisscene,athirdhumanfigure(perhapsafemale)appearsholding

somethingthatlookslikeabasketorflask,oraflaskinabasket.48Totherightofthisfigurea

fourthhumanfigure(amale)appearswithfourlong-neckedbirds:thismalefigureappearsto

havehishandsaroundthenecksoftwoofthebirds.Theredonotappeartobeanydetailsof

46SeeEllisDavidson(1958:146).47SeeEllisDavidson(1958:146)andDronke(1997:270).48SeeDronke(1997:270).

24

aforge,furnace,fireorbellowsinthisscene,althoughthedomedstructurewithacarved

interiorinfrontofVõlundr’sfaceremainsunexplainedandcouldbesuggestiveofafurnace,

forgeorforge-stone.

TheArdreVIIIstoneinGotlanddatestotheninthcentury(Magnus1976:96;

Nordanskog2007:309).Thisstonedepictsabirdfigureandafemalefigure(presumably

VõlundrandBõñvildr)inassociationwithanenclosedspacewhichappearstocontaintwo

pairsoftongs49inahorizontalpositionandtwohammersthatappeartobesuspendedfrom

theceiling,headsdown.Itseemsmostlikelythatthisspacewouldhavebeenidentifiedasa

smithy(Dronke1997:271)butacurioussuggestionhasbeenmadethatitisparallelto

similarstructuresinotherpicturestonesthatareburialmounds(Stephany2010:16).

Althoughthestructuredoesnotappeartobeamound,itdoesseemtohavesomesortof

symbolicsignificance:thetopappearsasananimalofsomesort,withearsandsnoutatthe

left(overtheopeningtothespace)andprojectionsrunningthelengthofthespine.50A

similarenclosedspaceappearsontheHunningestone,buttheredoesnotappeartobeany

symbolicanimalshapeinthiscase.TheenclosureontheHunningestonecontainstwomen

whoappeartohavebowsandarrows,onecow,andotherunidentifiedshapes.Theenclosed

spaceseemstorepresentsomesortofbuildingorresidence,andthismayindicatethatthe

enclosureontheArdreVIIIstoneismeanttoindicateaworkshopedifice.IntheArdreVIII

stone,twoheadlessbodieslietotherightofthisenclosedspace.Argumentslinkingthis

scenetootherportrayalsandnarrativesofVõlundrsuggestthatthesefiguresarethetwo

decapitatedsonsofkingNíñuñr(Dronke1997:271).Theredoesnotseemtobeany

depictionofaforgeorfurnaceontheArdreVIIIstone.

TheRamsundcarving(Sö101)datestoc.1000Sweden.ItdepictsReginn,

decapitated,withthesmithingtoolswhichhepresumablyusedtoforgeswordsforSigurñr

(Sawyer2000:126).Eachofthedepictionsoftoolsisreadilyrecognizable:thereisananvil,

tongs,ahammerandbellows.51Thereisalsoadepictionofwhatappearstobeafire,with

whichSigurñrroaststhedragonheart.Althoughthetongsareincloseproximitytothefire, 49Dr.ChristopherAndreaehassuggestedtomethatthese“tongs”couldbebilletsofironintheprocessofbeingfolded(pers.comm.).Theappearanceoftong-likeimagesonseveralstones,however,suggeststhatthesearemostlikelytongs.Thealternativeinterpretationofbilletsisnonethelessworthmentioning,particularlysinceitisappropriatetoablacksmithingcontext.50Thisshapecouldsharesomeaffinitieswiththetenth-centurycarvedhogbackstones,whichfrequentlydepictbeastforms.Thesehogbackstonesarenotwellunderstoodbutmayhaveassociationswithchurchyards(Haywood2000:97-8).51DarrellMarkewitzhasbasedapracticalreconstructionofbellowsandforgeupontheRamsundcarvingandtheHylestadportal(2008:BellowsReconstruction2).

25

thebellowsarenotcloselyassociatedwiththefire.Thefireappearstobeusedtoroastthe

dragonFafnir’sheartandisnotassociatedwiththeworkingofmetal.

TheGökstone(Sö327)datesfromaboutthesameperiodastheRamsundcarving

andusesmuchofthesameimagerybutlackstheorganizationoftheRamsundcarving

(LönnrothandDelblanc1993:49).TheGökstoneportraystwohammersandabellows.

Thereisnodepictionofaforgeorfurnace.

ThestavechurchportalfromHylestadinAust-Agder,Norway(c.1200),depicts(in

thebottomrightcorner)ReginforgingaswordforSigurñr(Hoftunetal.2002:194;

Nordanskog2003:393-4).ThefigureontheleftappearstobethesmithReginandheis

clearlydepictedholdingapieceofmetalinapairoftongsoverananvil.Inthissmith’sother

handisahammer,liftedtoaverticalposition.Anotherhammerappearstobelaid

horizontallybesidetheanvil.Themanontherightisworkingapairofbellows(onewith

eacharm)andeachbellowshasadiscernibletuyereinsertedintowhatappearstobeaforge-

stone.OntheHylestadportal,theforgebehindthisstoneappearstobeopen,asopposedto

anenclosedfurnace.TheHylestadportaldoesnotgiveanymoredetailsonthetypeofforge

behindthisstone:thereisperhapsthehintofaflame,butnothingmore.Itappearsthatthe

forgeandtheanvilareincloseproximitytooneanother.

TheVegusdalportal(c.1200)portraysanalmostidenticalsceneastheHylestad

portal.Reginappearstobemakingaswordwithasecondfigureworkingabellowsineach

hand(Hoftunetal.2002:195).ThetwofiguresareintheoppositepositionsastheHylestad

portal.Reginisontheright,withtongsinonehand(holdingapieceofironupontheanvil)

andahammerintheotherhand(raisedinaverticalpositionrightabovetheanvil).Thereis

anotherhammeratthebaseoftheanvil.Detailonthetuyereshasbeenlostduetodamage,

buttheredoesappeartobeaforge-stoneandtheremayhavebeenmoredetailsonflameson

theoppositesideoftheforge-stonethanarepresentintheHylestadportal.Unlikethe

Hylestadportal,ontheVegusdalcarvingtheforgeandflamesappeartobeintheforeground,

withtheanvilinthebackground.Nonetheless,thecarvingdoesnotpreservedetailonthe

forgeitself.

Twoadditionalstavechurchportalsportraythisscenebutwithfarlessdetail.Onthe

Mælportal(c.1300)Reginappearsseatedbyhimselfholdingahammer(Hauglid1969:

195).Thereisalsoananvil,twopairsoftongs,abellows,asecondhammerandacircular

object(Hauglid1969:195).TheLardalportal(c.1200)alsoportraysReginseatedalone.He

26

hasapairoftongsheldverticallyinonehand,withtheendofthehandlesrestingonthe

anvil.Ahammerappearsinhisotherhand,heldabovehisshoulderandbehindhishead

(Hoftunetal.2002:193).Nodetailsofaforge-stoneorforgeappearintheMælorLardal

portals.

Insummary,whilethereareseveralmedievalpictorialrepresentationsofsmithing

processes,thesedonotpresentspecificinformationonthesignificanceofforges,furnacesor

crucibles.Thereisnoevidenceofornamentationonfurnacesorcrucibles.Theonlyevidence

oftheculturalsignificanceofsmithingpracticesfromtheVikingAgeistheSnaptunforge-

stone,whichclearlysuggeststhatsmithingwasunderstoodinrelationtomythological

narrativesofsmithing.

Thecriticaltradition:scholarshiponsmithingmotifsandsmith-figures

Iwillnowprovideabriefreviewofpertinentscholarshiponsmithingmotifsand

smith-figures.Thisbodyofscholarshipcangenerallybeviewedasexhibitingthreedifferent

approaches.52First,thereareseveralstudiesthatcategoricallyinterpretthesmithasan

otherworldlyfigureaccordingtoafairlyuniformsetofcharacteristics,usuallyinassociation

withfolkloricmotifs,societaltaboosandpracticesofmagicorshamanism.Thesestudies

tendtoberemarkablybroadinchronology(e.g.theirfocusrunsfromtheNeolithicperiodto

thenineteenthandeventwentiethcenturies),andtheyareoftenalsobroadlycomparative

(e.g.comparingculturesinnorthernEuropetoculturesinTanzania,Asiaandelsewhere

aroundtheworld).Second,severalspecificstudiesoftheOldNorsecorpusofmythsoffer

interpretationsofgeneralcraftingmotifsandtheroleofcraftsmanshipinearlymedieval

Scandinavia.Thesestudiesfrequentlyadoptastructuralist53approachtothemyths,situating

52Thiscategorizationofdifferentapproachesisnotnecessarilymeantinamutuallyexclusiveway.Asisapparentinthisshortreview,thesedifferentapproachessharemanyfeaturesandmethodologies(genderedorsexualizedinterpretationsofsmithingmotifs,forinstance)andalsodemonstratecertainfundamentaldistinctions.53Themid-twentieth-centuryintellectualschoolofthoughtknownasStructuralismhasinfluencedmanyrecentstudiesofOldNorseandOldEnglishtextsasculturalartefactsthatpreserveinformationaboutthegeneralideologiesandsocialbeliefs,i.e.the“codesofbehaviour”,ofearlyGermaniccultures.StructuralismhasitsbasisintheworkofFerdinanddeSaussureandhistheorythatlanguagestructurescreatemeaningthroughbasicunitsofoppositionalmeaning,i.e.“emes”(Richter1998:809-10).Literaryandanthropologicalformsofstructuralism,ingeneralterms,seektoidentifythemostbasicunitsofoppositionalmeaningwithinanarrative,mythologyorcultureandthenstudyhowthose“-emes”(e.g.“mythemes”or“ideologemes”)functioninthepatternsofbehaviourandthoughtofaparticularculture(cf.Richter1998:812-14).BothliteraryandanthropologicalvarietiesofstructuralistmethodologieshavebeenappliedtoOldNorseandOldEnglishtexts,withvaryingdegreesofrigourandsuccess.MorerecentscholarslikeMargaretCluniesRoss,JohnLindowandJosBazelmansareindebtedtotheworkofMarcelMauss,MaxWeiner,ClaudeLévi-StraussandLouisDumont(Bazelmans1999:1-53;CluniesRoss1994:14-7;Orton2005:314-7).

27

theoppositionalpatternsofthemythswithinthesocialcontextofsettlement-periodIceland

andViking-ageScandinavia.Third,JohnHinesandDavidHintonhavepublishedarticles

thatcomparetheroleofskilledsmithsinpre-ChristianandChristiancontextsinScandinavia

andtheBritishIsles.HinesandHintonattempttointegratearchaeologicalandtextual

materialintotheirstudiesofsmithingmotifsandsmithfiguresintheOldNorsemyths.

Ratherthanstrictlycategorizingthesesmithfiguresaccordingtouniformrubrics,Hinesand

Hintontendtopresentanawarenessofthediversityofrolesinwhichsmithfiguresappear.

Comparativeandcategoricalapproachestotheotherworldlysmith

Thereisanongoingdebateabouthowtointerpretthemagical,supernaturalor

otherworldlyassociationsofsomesmith-figures.Severalfolkloric,mythologicaland

comparativestudiespresentarelativelyconsistentcategoricalinterpretationofsmith-figures

accordingtomost(ifnotall)ofthesefivegeneralcharacteristics:

1)Excludedfromsociety,eventothepointofsolitude

2)Maleingender

3)Subjecttoatabooorrestrictiononsexualactivityandinteractionswithwomen

4)Associatedwithproduction(oftenmagical)ofessentialtoolsand(sometimes

sacral)treasures

5)Associatedwithdemonicortreacherousmagicalpowers,theabilitytotravel

throughspiritualand/orphysicaltransformation,theabilitytomediatebetween

worldsandbetweenlifeanddeath;sometimesconsideredaspecialistindistance54

whomediatesbetweenthesettledheartlandandthedangerousoutsideworld.55

Someofthesecharacteristicsmayseemtoberelatedtowhatcanbededucedaboutthe

historicalrealitiesofcertainsmithfigures,e.g.thehighlyskilleditinerantsmithwhotraveled

54LotteHedeager,forinstance,suggeststhatsmithsregularlyhadtotakepartintradingactivitesandwerethereforeconsidered“specialistsindistance”:“Togetherwithpoets,troubadours,carvers,andmusicians,smithsconstituteagroupofspecialistswhosefrequentlong-distancetravelassociatesthemwithspatialdistanceandforeignplaces”(Hedeager2001:487;Hedeager2002:8).Foramorerecentandalternativeinterpretationofpotentialparallelsbetweensmithsandcourtpoetsorskalds,seeMargaretCluniesRoss(2005:2,90-1).CluniesRosssuggeststhattherewasageneralambivalenceinmedievalScandinaviatowards“thosegroupswhowereamongthemostskilledinthecommunity,whetherinintellectualorinpracticalabilities”(2005:90).Shespeculatesthatthismayhavetodowith“theanxietiesoftheupperclasses”inrelationtocontrollingskaldsandsmiths(2005:91).SeethefollowingdiscussionoftheworkofJohnHinesandDavidHinton(page37andfollowing)formoredetailsonthisambivalence.55Thissummarywasmadebydrawinguponthefollowingsources:Barndon(2006:99-102),Dronke(1997:256-7,266-7),Eliade(1978:79-81),Gansum(2004:53),Grimstad(1983:204),Haaland(2006:83-4),Hedeager(2002:6-10;2001:483-7,490-2),Hinton(2003:270-1,276-7),Motz(1977:47-9,57-8;1993:84),Nedoma(1990:138)andPrescott(2000:221-3).

28

widelyandregularly(Callmer2003:337,343-4).Inothercases,however,theabove

characteristicsareincompatiblewithcertainsmithfiguresorsmithingmotifs.56These

characteristicshavealonghistoryinstudiesoffolkloricandmythologicalsmithfigures.

ShamanicinterpretationsofOldNorsesmithfiguresare,ingeneral,eitherdirectlyor

indirectlyinfluencedbyMirceaEliade’sextensiveworksonshamanism.Eliadeisperhaps

bestknown,amongstmanythings,fordevelopingadefinitionofshamanismandfor

hypothesizingthedistinctionbetweenthesacredandtheprofane(Orton2005:312-3).In

particular,twoofEliade’smonographs(TheForgeandtheCrucibleandShamanism:

ArchaicTechniquesofEcstasy)57includesomecommentaryontheculturalandarchetypal

significanceofsmithingmotifsandsmithfigures.Eliadesuggeststhatthesmith,likethe

shaman,hasmagico-religiouspoweroverfireandtransformation(Eliade1978:79-81).

Thesestudieshaveinfluencedseveralmorerecentscholarsintheirinterpretationsofsmiths

asshamanicfiguresinOldNorsesourcesandcontexts(Dronke1997:256-7,266-7;

Hedeager2001:486,490;Hinton2003:270).Someofthesestudieshavesuggested,for

example,thatVõlundrshouldbeunderstoodasaremarkablyskilledsmithandalsoas

shamanic(Dronke1997:256-7).OtherstudieshavesuggestedthatVõlundarkviñahas

degeneratedfromanarrativeaboutasacredinitiationriteintoamisunderstoodpoemabout

theprofanerevengeofadarkdemonicsmith(Nedoma1990:138;Grimstad1983:204).

Theprecisenatureoftheevidenceforsuchclosecomparisonsbetweenshamanism

andsmithingdeservesmoreattention,58asdoesEliade’smethodologicalapproachtostudies

56InoneofherearlypublicationsLotteMotzclearlydistinguishesbetweenthefolkloricdwarfsmithsandthehumansmithsof,forinstance,theIcelandicsagas:the“humansmiths,however,[...]areincontrasttothedwarfs,settledinthemidstoftheircommunity,andonecouldnotderivefromthesocialfunctionofthevillagesmithafullimageoftheelusivedwellerofthemountain”(1977:50;cf.Dillman2006:352-60).SeemydiscussionofSkalla-Grímr,Rauña-BjõrnandHrolfrhõggvandiinChapter2(page180)formoredetailsonthesesmithfiguresaspoliticallycentral.57TheForgeandtheCruciblewasoriginallypublishedinFrenchasForgeronsetalchimistes(1956).Shamanism:ArchaicTechniquesofEcstasywasoriginallypublishedinFrenchasLeChamanismeetlestechniquesarchaiquesdel’extase(1951).Bothofthesestudiessurveyawiderangeofshamanicpractices,particularlyfromSiberiantribesliketheEvenki/TungusandYakut.58ItispossiblethatsimilartendenciestowardsassociatingshamanismwithsmithinghavealsoinfluencedthereceptionofGíslasaga.Theinfluenceofthesupernaturalandtheactivitiesofskilledcraftspeoplearethematicallyimportantinthissaga.Aninaccurateassumptionhasbeencirculating,however,thattheskillsofthesmithandthesorcererareattributedtooneandthesamemaninthissaga.Thelongerversionofthissagamakesitclear,however,thatÃorgímrgoñi(anaristocraticleader)istheskilledsmith,notthesorcererÃorgrímrnef(Konrad1849:101;cf.Dillman2006:355-8;cf.Hermann2000:104;cf.Lethbridge2006:7-8).TheÍslenzkfornriteditionofthissaga,however,ceasesitssubordinatedsmaller-fontprintingofthelongerversionofthesagashortlybeforethechapterinwhichthisconfusionhappens(ÍF61988:38,fn4).Thus,becausebothmenhavethenameÃorgrímr,itseemsthatseveralscholarshaveassumedthatthesorcererisalsoaskilledsmithinthisinstance:seeAnneHoltsmark(1951:42),GeorgeJohnston(1963:14),andTheodoreM.Andersson(1968:

29

ofshamanismandarchetypesofspiritualtransformationandcontroloverfire(Kehoe2000:

2-6,15,37-9,53-5;Tolley2009:552-6).WhileVõlundr’sescapeflightiscertainly

suggestiveofsomesortofmagicaltransformation,itisinaccuratetosuggestthatheis

shamanicinhisotheractions(cf.Einarson2009:221-4).Inhis2009two-volumestudyof

ShamanisminNorseMythandMagic,CliveTolleycitesEliade,pointingoutthatthe

symbolicandmythologicalsignificanceofbirdsin“magicalflightmotifs”isnotrestrictedto

shamanism(Tolley2009:554).Thus,Tolleysuggestsit“isnotnecessarytoseekashamanic

background[...]forthe(soul)flightideaswhichappeartoinhereintheVõlundrmyth”(2009:

555).Infact,severalotherfiguresinOldNorsemythology(Ãjazi,Loki,Freyr,Skírnirand

Óñinn)demonstratetransformationalflightsthatarenotnecessarilyshamanic.Thus,

Võlundr’stransformationandflighthaveparallelmotifswithintheOldNorsecorpusthat

demandcloserattentionbeforesuchshamaniccomparisonsaremade.

Similarly,theinterpretationsofVõlundraselvishandSámiandthereforeshamanic

and“demonic”needtobepreciselycontextualized(Dronke1997:256-7;Nedoma1990:

138).59Thesetermsmaybeassociatedwithoneanother,butonlyinspecificcontexts.

Tolley’sworkonthetwelfth-centuryHistoriaNorvegiae,forexample,emphasizeshowSámi

shamanismwasunderstoodbyChristianNorwegianmerchantsasademonicanddevilish

superstition(Tolley2006:1-5).Whilesuchinterpretationswereclearlycirculatinginthe

centuriesimmediatelyprecedingthecompositionoftheCodexRegius,itisimportantto

appreciatethattheonlyconnectionbetweenVõlundarviñaandtheSámiisinthethirteenth-

centuryprosepreludetothepoem.IntheolderversesofthepoemVõlundrischaracterized

asaleaderorkinsmanoftheelves(10.3,13.4,32.2;cf.McKinnell1997:331-2).Itis

difficulttopreciselydeterminethemeaningofthiselvishassociation.Whilethiselvish

associationisnotlikelyaslateorasChristianinprovenanceastheproseprelude,theOld

Norseliteraryevidenceondistinctionsbetweendwarfs,giantsandthelightanddarkelvesis

scantandambiguousatbest(Grimstad1983:193-95;Lindow2002:109-10).GroSteinsland

suggests,however,thatverticaldichotomies(likeHeavenandHell,GodandDevil,lightand

dark)mayhavemoretodowithlaterChristianizedinterpretationsofaNorsemythological

realmthatisactuallyportrayedashorizontalinnature(Steinsland2005:141).Thus, 19).TomyknowledgetheonlyinstanceinthesagaswheresmithingskillsareclearlyattributedtoanindividualwhoalsohassomeskillsinsorceryisBósiinBósasagaokHerrauñs.59Nedomasuggeststhathiselvishnessestablishesthat“Võlundisofademoniacnature”(1990:138).Dronkesuggeststhatthe“poetepitomizesas‘elvish’thedemonicnatureofthehumansmith–borninthesamenestastheshaman”(1997:256-7;cf.Einarson2009:223).

30

interpretationsofVõlundrasademonicelfordevilishshamanmayhavemoretodowiththe

later,Christianreceptionofthepoemratherthanwiththeactualcontentandcontextofthe

versesthemselves.Itisalsounclearwhatexactly(ifanything)theseparticularotherworldly

associationshavetodowiththemanydetaileddescriptionsofVõlundr’sactivitiesand

contextsasaskilledsmithwithinthepoem.Theseissuesaredifficulttoresolvewithout

speculation,butseveralscholarshavedoneresearchintheseareas,frequentlycitingEliade’s

workonshamanismandsmithingmotifs.

LotteMotzhaspublishedseveralstudiesofthesignificance,magicalandotherwise,

ofotherworldlysmithfigures.Inparticular,Motzhasextensivelystudiedtheroleofdwarfs

andthecraftingmotifsassociatedwiththemintheOldNorsesources.Theparametersof

Motz’sstudiesare,however,importanttokeepinmind.Sheisparticularlyfocusedonthe

motifofthesubterraneansmithinassociationwithstone(notmetal),sometimesinawaythat

isexclusiveofevidence,motifsandtraditionsthatdonotexhibitthisparticularsetof

associations(1983:16).Motz’sstudiesalsohaveabroadchronologicalrange.Ontheone

handshestudiesthemotifofthe“mountainsmith”asitis,arguably,recordedintheformof

OldNorsedwarfs,andontheotherhandshealsoexaminesmuchmorerecent,frequently

verylocalized,nineteenth-centuryandtwentieth-centurywrittencopiesofGermanicand

broadlyEuropeanfolktales(1983:9,13-5,22-9).Motzobservesthatthesestoriesofthe

subterraneansmithare“encountered,paradoxically,intheirgreatestdensity,inlocations

whichdonotpossessmetallicoreandwheremetalcrafthasnotheldaplaceofhigh

importance”,pointinginparticulartoareasofnorthernWestphalia,lowerSaxonyand

Jutland(1983:15).WhileMotzacknowledgesthatpre-historicmetalworkingdid,infact,

takeplaceinmanyoftheseareas,sheisparticularlyinterestedinareaswherelocalnamesor

storiesofthesubterraneansmithappearinconjunctionwithgenerally“pre-metal”artisanal

activitiesandwiththeearliestevidenceof“anindigenousstyleandthepresenceof

professionalartisans”(1983:6-7,16).60SheusesevidenceofNeolithicpotteryandstone

workintheseareasasthebasisofherargumentthatoriginal,“native”formsofthe

60ThefocusofMotz’sstudiesalsodoesnotcoincidewithevidenceofbogironprocessingintheSchleswig-Holsteinarea(1983:18;cf.Motz1977:51-2).ShefocusesinsteadonthehypothesisthattheHolsteinareawasthelocaloriginofa“native”Neolithictypeofpotterythatappearsinconjunctionwithearlystone“battleaxe”burialrituals(1983:69-71,cf.77-9).TheSchleswig-Holsteinarea,thesmeltingofbogiron,andassociationstobattleaxesandaxesingeneralwillbeamainfocusofmyexaminationofJárnviñrinchaptertwo.ThematerialIexamineis,however,focusedontheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge.

31

subterraneansmithoperatedincloseassociationwithstoneandmegalithicmonuments

(1983:6,78-82).

InhermorespecificstudiesoftheOldNorsedwarfs,Motzsuggeststhatthisall-male

raceofcreaturesislikewiseintimatelyassociatedwithstone(1983:89-92).Motzstatesthat

dwarfsareneverdescribedengaginginsexualintercoursewithwomen,noraretheyseenin

termsoftravelling.61“Wemustview[dwarfs]”,Motzstates,

asthemythicalrepresentativesofaprofession,parallelingthecraftsmen-smithsofearlysociety,whowere,indeed,endowedwithritualimportance.TheirstatusisbestexemplifiedbythepriestsintheserviceofthegodPtahofEgypt:theseborethetitle‘suprememasterofhandicraft’(wr-hrp-hmwt)andsupervisedthebuildingofthepyramids.(1993:84)

Motzconsistentlybasesherworkinthelinguisticstudyofdwarf-namesinOldNorse

sources.Hercomparative,interdisciplinarymethodologiesproduceconclusionsthatspeak

generallytothesignificanceoffolkloricandmythicaltropesfromtheNeolithicPeriod

throughtotheHighMiddleAges.Motzarguesthatthe“folktaleartisan”iscloselyassociated

withthespiritandcraftofstoneandwithareasthathaveancientstonemonuments(1993:

84).

Severalotherinterdisciplinarystudiesofsmith-figuresandsmithingmotifshave

developedpartlyinresponsetoMotz’swork.Forinstance,in“TheMetallurgicalCodeofthe

VõlundarkviñaandItsTheoreticalImport”,RichardDieterletakesissuewithMotz’snotion

ofthesmith,arguingthat“wecannotescapethefeelingthatthepost-Neolithicsmithisthe

spiritofmetalratherthanofrock”(Dieterle1987:4).DieterlesuggeststhatVõlundarkviña

portraysabasiclogicinwhichweencountertwosetsofpairsinmutuallyexclusivepatterns

ofdenialandaffirmation:eitheryouthisdenied(theswanmaidensleave,Võlundrkillsthe

sonsofKingNíñuñr)andmetalisaffirmed(Võlundrproducesthe700rings,orthejewels,

gems,andsilverbowls),orsexualityisaffirmed(swanmaidensarrive,princessBõñvildr

arrives)andmetalproductionisdenied(nothinghappens,ortheonegoldenringisbroken)

(Dieterle1987:8-12).Dieterlearguesthatthesmithidentifiesonaspirituallevelwithhis

materialinthesmeltingandmanufacturingprocesses:“Thesimilarity[betweenthesmithand

61Thiscategoricalinterpretationofthedwarf-smith,whileperhapsvalidwithintheconstraintsofMotz’sstatedaims,mustbeconsideredasincompatiblewiththearchaeological,anthropologicalandliteraryevidenceofhighlyskilledsmithsfromtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge.JohanCallmer,forinstance,makesacompellingcasefortheseprofessionalartisansnecessarilybeingitinerantinordertomaketheirliving(Callmer2003:337,343-4).

32

hismaterialprocesses]isnottobefoundonthesurface[...]butinaspiritualidentity”(1987:

29).Thesmith,Dieterlesuggests,becomes(atleastwhensmelting)acuriouslyasexualbeing

becausesmelting“isfirstandforemostaprocessofseparation,thepartingofmetalfromits

matrix,whichdrainsoffasmoltenslag.Sincethepristineoreisanintimatebondofmetal

andstonecapableofbeingseparated,theirunionisviewedasakindofcopulation”(1987:

12).Thus,accordingtoDieterle’ssymbolicinterpretation,becauseseparatingtheorefromits

matrixisadenialorruptureofsexualunion,sotoothesmithmustabstainfromsexual

activitywhileattemptingtopurifytheore.Dieterlearguesthatthemovementoftheswan

maidens,thepatternofflightsandentrapmentsthroughoutthepoem,andseveralofthemore

enigmaticfeaturesofthepoem(e.g.Võlundr’swebbedfeetattheend),operateasabstract

representationsoftheprocessbywhichimpuritiesareseparatedfromthepreciousmetal.

ThisisDieterle’sargumentforthespiritualimmersionofthesmithinhismoltenmedium.

Thistypeofhighlyabstractanalysiscanseemtoexplainfeaturesthatareotherwise

enigmaticandwithoutexplanation.Itis,however,fundamentallyproblematicforatleast

threereasons.First,itassumesthatthepoemanditstraditioncanbeexplainedthroughone

modeofhighlyabstractandsymbolicinterpretation.Second,iteitherassumesthataudiences

ofthepoem(orthepoem’ssupposedmetallurgicalarchitect)wouldhaveunderstoodthe

patternsofthepoeminthissexualized,symbolicwayoritdisregardsthesignificanceofthe

socio-historicalcontextoftheoriginalaudiencesandthesignificanceofsmithswithinthat

context.Atthesametime,however,itassumesaclosecorrelationbetweentheinterpretation

ofthepoemandaparticularmetallurgicalpractice,i.e.smelting.Thereis,infact,noexplicit

mentionofanysmeltingorfurnaceorcrucibleinVõlundarkviñaanditisarguablewhetheror

notsuchassociationsareimpliedorunderstoodinthewaythatDieterlesuggests.Third,it

disregardsthefactthatthepoemdescribesanuancedrelationshipbetweenthesmithandhis

socio-culturalenvironment.

SimilarlysexualizedapproachestosmithingmotifsinOldNorsesourcesalsoappear

inmorerecentarticles.AsIdiscussabove,thereisaremarkablelackofevidenceforany

ornamentationorevenrepresentationsoffurnacesandforgesinearlymedievalScandinavia.

Itappearsthattheinspirationforthissexualizedmodeofinterpretationcomesfromstudies

ofsexualizedsmithingritualsinAfricaandelsewhere.AnthropologicalstudiesoftheFipa

andPangwatribesinTanzania,forinstance,havedocumentedhighlysexualizedfurnace

structures(forexample,furnaceswithpronouncedbreasts)andhighlysexualizedritualsas

33

partofthepurificationoforeintoworkablemetal.Whiletheanthropologicalstudiesofthe

FipaandPangwaareremarkablecontributionstoscholarship,theanalogiesthathavebeen

drawntoexplainvariousenigmaticfiguresandfeaturesofOldNorsemythologyarevery

speculative.Forexample,Motz’sconclusionsaboutthesexualrepressionoftheraceof

dwarfs,andtheircloseassociationwiththeinteriorspacesofmountainsandstones,have

beenusedtoexplainhowconceptsofcontainmentandsexualintercoursemightbeinvolved

inritualsmeltingpracticesinpre-historicScandinavia(Barndon2006:101;cf.Barndon

1996,2001,2004a,2004b;Haaland2004,2006).Insimilarspeculativecomparisons,in

aldna,“theoldone”,inJárnviñr,“Iron-woods”(Vsp40),hasbeenexplainedasanancient

giantessmetaphoricallyrepresentinganoldsmeltingfurnacethatis,despiteherage,un-

naturallygivingbirthtorefinediron(Gansum2004:46).Thesecomparativeexplanations

offersomeinsightfulcontributionsbuttheyarehighlyspeculativeandoperatewithoutany

comparableevidencefromtheNorsetradition.

StructuralistapproachestocraftsmanshipintheOldNorsemyths

MorebalancedandextensivestudieshaveappliedastructuralistapproachtotheOld

Norsemythsinawaythattakesintoaccountthehypotheticaloriginalaudiencesofthese

mythsaswellasthemoregeneralsocio-culturalandliterarysignificanceofcraftingand

smithingmotifs.AlthoughtheworkofMargaretCluniesRossandJohnLindowfocuses

uponcraftingandtradingmotifsingeneral,theirapproachesandconclusionsarenonetheless

importanttointerpretationsofspecificsmithingmotifsandsmithfigures.

Inhertwo-volumestudyProlongedEchoes,MargaretCluniesRossoffersoneofthe

mostextensiveanalysesoftheentirecorpusofOldNorsemyths.Inthefirstofthese

volumes,CluniesRossdrawsonherstudiesinanthropologytoexaminethekinship

structuresinthemythsinrelationtoparallelstructuresinsettlement-periodIceland.She

closelystudiestheself-creationoftheÆsirandtherestofthemythiccosmos.CluniesRoss

arguesthatinthisandothermythologicalnarratives“[k]inshiprelationsofindividualsmay

[...]beusedparadigmaticallytoexpressrelationshipsbetweengroupsandmetaphoricallyto

expresswhatthosegroupsstandforintermsofabstractoppositions”(1994:47).62Clunies

62CluniesRosssuggeststhat,although“itwouldbemuchtoofaciletosuggestthatthesystemofOldNorsemythasawholewasexclusivelypro-godandanti-giant”,“wemustalsobuildtheobservablebiasofaudiencepointofviewintoouranalysis.IrefertothefactthattheOldNorsemythswehaveonthewholetakethesideofthe[...]Æsir”(1994:49).

34

RossexaminesthegenealogicaloriginsoftheÆsir,positingthattheformulationthat

identifiesÓñinnandhisbrothersasthefirstoftheÆsir,

immediatelyplacesasocialconstructionuponnaturalrelationshipsofkinshipbygivinglesservaluetothegeneticcontributionofthematrikin.Further,itdistinguishesthedifferencebetweengiantsandÆsirasoriginatinginthemaleline.[...]Ifthematrikinhadbeenequallyvalued,itwouldnothavebeenpossibletoconstructasystemofsocialinequalityinwhichtheÆsirwerejustifiedinwithholdingtheirwomenfromthegiantsasmarriagepartnersontheimplicitgroundsoftheirlowerstatus.(CluniesRoss1994:57)

ToemphasizethepowerfullydivisiveideologysetinmotionbythefirstÆsir,CluniesRoss

pointsoutthat“[i]fwegroupclassesofmythicbeingsaccordingtotheirbiologicalkinship

withoneanother,thenthegodsandthegiantsformasingleclasswhosekinshipoveratleast

threegenerationsismorecloselyrelatedthantheoppositionalideologymanyOldNorse

mythssuggest”(1994:59).

CluniesRossgoesontopointoutthatthechiefmethodofmaintainingthese

distinctionsbetweenthegodsandthegiantsisthroughÃórrandhishammer,Mjõllnir.This

hammeristhereforeusedasavitalculturaltooltoreinforcetheoppositionalstructuresthat,

asCluniesRossargues,arethebasisforthecreationofthecosmosbytheÆsir.Inher

analysisoftheseabstractoppositions,CluniesRossarguesthatthemythsseemtoportraythe

giantsasalignedwithdisordered“natural”resourcesandthedestructivelychaoticpowersof

thechthonicfemale;conversely,theÆsirthemselvesrepresentordered,patrilineal,“cultural”

crafting.Thisisnottosaythatthenaturalresourcesofthegiantsaredevalued.Indeed,itis

quitethecontraryinmanycases.Theresourcesofthegiantsaresometimes(butnotalways)

thoughtofaslessrefinedthantheskillsandpossessionsofthegods,andquiteoftenthe

giantsdonotevenseemawareofhowtouseaculturaltoolorcraftproperlyevenwhenthey

havethesethingsintheirpossession:themeadofpoetryisagoodexample,asisHrungnir’s

errantuseofawhetstone,orrathertheoriginalwhetstone,asaweaponratherthanasatool

withwhichonesharpensweapons.63ThusCluniesRossidentifiesseveraloppositionaland

hierarchicalpairings:godsabovegiants,maleabovefemale,culturalcraftsaboveraw

63Lindowpointsoutthat,“[l]ikethesupernaturalbeingsofmostmythologies,Hrungnirisculturallyclueless.Foronereasonoranother,hecannotproperlyusetheculture’stools,anymorethanhecanadheretoitsothernorms”(1996:7).Morespecifically,thisnarrativeportraysHrungnirasusingasaweaponatoolthatismeanttosharpenweapons:theironyhereisspecificallypointingatHrungnir’slackofskillandknowledgeincrafting.Forfurtherdiscussionofthesignificanceofbothskillandknowledge,seemyanalysisofVõlundarkviñastanza18inChapter3(page230below).

35

resources,orderabovechaos,andcreationabovedestruction.AsCluniesRossacknowledges

anddiscussesingreatdetail,thingsdonotalwayslineupneatlyuponeachsideofthese

binaries.Forexample,CluniesRossanalyzesthesignificanceofthepowerfulgiantÃjaziand

hisdaughterSkañi,whobehaveveryexceptionallyindeed(CluniesRoss1994:115-9).To

thisanalysis,IwouldalsoaddabriefnoteaboutthegiantÃrymr.Accordingtotheeddic

poemÃrymskviña,ÃrymrstealsÃórr’shammerandthefirstdescriptionofthispowerfulgiant

inthepoemisasaskilledcraftsmanwhositsonamound(likelyasacralplace)inhis

settlementcomplexandmakestwistedgoldcollarsforhisdogs:Ãrymrsatáhaugi,ãursa

dróttinn,/greyiomsínomgullbõndsnøri(6.1-4),“Ãrymrsatonaburialmound,lordof

giants,forhisdogs[he]twistedgoldbands.”Ãrymskviñaisaparodicandburlesquepoemin

manyways,64butthisisnonethelessasignificantdescriptionofaleaderofhispeople

(Ãrymr)workinggoldintoornatecollarswhilesittingonasacralmound.Thisdescription

couldproveafruitfulsubjectforfurtherfocusedresearch.65

WhileCluniesRossfocusesontheabstractoppositionalframeworkbetween

JõtunheimarandÁsgarñr,JohnLindowpresentsseveralsimilarlystructuralistanalysesof

Ãórr’sroleinmaintainingdistinctionsbetweenJõtunheimarandÁsgarñr.Lindowarguesthat

Ãórrandhishammerembodythepowerofcraftsmanshipinestablishingandmaintaining

sacralandsocialorder.Inhisanalysisof“Thor’sVisittoÚtgarñaloki,”Lindowarguesthat

ÃórrandhishammerembodyacreativepowerthatisparalleltothatoftheoriginalÆsirand

theircreationofthecosmos.Inthisnarrative,Ãórrshapesthephysicallandscapewithhis

hammer,andhecreateschronologicalorderthroughhisproductionoftheebbtide.Thus,as

Lindowargues,“Thorhasavalidclaimtoparticipationinbothaspectsofcreation,the

orderingofthecosmosandoftheprincipleoftime-reckoning”(2000:182).Lindowalso

suggeststhatMjõllnirresoundswiththeoriginalcreationofthecosmosfromtherawpartsof

Ymir’scorpse:“Thecreationofthecosmosthroughtheslayingofagiantsetsanarchetype

formythicactivityinwhicheveryslayingofagiantrecapitulatestheproto-slayingandthus

isacreativeactivity,andThorservesnoblyinthisarenathroughhisfrequentgiantslaying”

(2000:181-2).66Thus,Lindow’sappreciationofthecreativeaspectsofÃórrandhishammer

64AsCluniesRosspointsout,the“comedyofÃrymskviñaturnsonaninversionofthepatternofexpectedsocialrelationshipsbetweengodsandgiants”(1994:109).65Cf.http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=110010,http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=12058366Inadiscussionof“Thor’shamarr”,LindowlikewisearguesthatthekillingofYmirbythesonsofBur“wasthefirstslayingofagiant,anditallowedtheæsirtofashionthecosmos,withitscentralportion,Midgard,markedoffassafeformenandprotected,aswehaveseen,byThorandhishammer.Whenever,then,agiantis

36

presentsthismemberoftheÆsirasaforceofsacredcreation,order,andprotection,

somethingthatisreflectedinthesagasthroughÃórr’sassociationswiththeboundariesof

sacredspacesandwithhigh-seatpillarsinland-takingpractices.67AsLindowalsonotes,the

archaeologicalrecordshowsthatsmallamuletsintheshapeofÃórr’shammerwerethought

toofferprotectionfromdestructivenaturalforces.68Thus,Lindow,likeCluniesRoss,

concludesthat“[c]raftsmanshipispowerful,anditseparatesthebearersofculturefromall

thoseoutsideculturewhothreatenit.Thor’shamarr,whetherwieldedbythegodorworn

abouttheneck,invokedthisdistinctionandgatheredunderitthosewhosoughtitsshelter”

(Lindow1994b:503).

WhileLindowandCluniesRossusethesestructuralistmethodologiestostudy

generaloppositionalpatternsintheprosenarrativesofSnorraEddaandthecorpusofOld

Norsemythsingeneral,similarapproacheshavebeenusedtoexplainthesometimes

enigmaticnarrativeofVõluspá.Inher2002articleon“Giantessesandfemalepowerin

Võluspá”,ElseMundalarguesforastructural,gendered,oppositionalpatternacrossthe

narrativeofVõluspá.69Shesuggeststhateachencounterbetweenthemalegodsandthe

femalegiantsinVõluspáispartofarepeatingcycleinwhichtheÆsirdivestsomeoftheir

creativepowerinresponsetothedisruptiveintroductionofpotentfemalepowersofcreation

(Mundal2002:185-95).TheapproachofRagnarõkisthereforeexplained,accordingto

Mundal,bythesequentialweakeningofthecreativepowersofthemasculineÆsirandthe

comparativestrengtheningoftheforcesoffemininecreation(ordestruction).Thefirstsuch

event,accordingtoMundal’sinterpretation,isthecreationoftheaflar,“forges/furnaces”,in

stanzaseven,whichsomehowcausesthedisruptiveinsurgenceofthethreefemalegiantsin

stanzaeight.70Similarly,MundalsuggeststhatGullveiginstanza21,andtheenigmatic

slain,theuniverseismythologicallyrecreated,andtheportionmarkedoffassafefromthepowersofchaosisreaffirmed”(1994b:502).67See,forexample,chapters3-10ofEyrbyggjasaga:ÃórólfrMostrarskeggisintroducedasanástvinr,“closepersonalfriend”,ofÃórr’s(ÍF41985:7).68SeealsoH.R.EllisDavidson’searlierdiscussionof“Thor’sHammer”(1965:1-15).69MundaldrawsuponCluniesRoss’sapproachinProlongedEchoes(CluniesRoss1994:198-211;cf.Mundal2002:191-2).MundalalsodrawsuponGroSteinsland’sdoctoralthesisontheroleofHierogamyintheOldNorsepoemsSkírnismál,Ynglingatal,HáleygjatalandHyndluljóñ(Steinsland1991).Inparticular,Mundalcites(withoutanypagereference)Steinsland’ssuggestionthatintheOldNorsemythsthecreationofnewspecieshappensthroughdiametricalopposites(Mundal2002:189).70SeealsoHines,whomakesthefollowingstatementsimmediatelyfollowinghisdiscussionoftheestablishmentoftheÆsir’ssettlementandaflar:“InVõluspá,thedisruptiveeffectofsexualityinthegods’livesisfirstimpliedbythesexualelementinthearrivalofthethreeãursameyiar,‘maidensofthegiants’(st.8.5-6),andthenechoedintheantagonisticrolesactedoutbetweenthegodsandthenextcharactersappearingto

37

femalefigureinaldna,“theoldone”,instanza40arealsopartofthispatternofgendered

encountersthatsomehowforcethemalegodstodivestthemselvesoftheircreativepowers

(2002:185-7,191-3).WhileMundal’sinterpretationisinsightfulinsomeways,itdepends

uponseveralveryclosecausalrelationshipsbetweeneventsandstanzasinthepoem.AsI

havealreadynoted,itisproblematictoassumethatthestanzaorderingandthegeneral

compositionofVõluspácansupportsuchcausalinterpretations(McKinnell1993:714;

Sigurñur1978:25-6).Mundal’sargumentalsodependsuponamoreabstract,symbolicand

genderedunderstandingofcreationmotifsthatare,inbothVõluspáandtheentireNorse

corpus,notnecessarilysoconsistentlygenderedorabstractlyunderstood.

Archaeologicalandtextualapproachestosmith-figures

StructuralapproachestotheentirecorpusofOldNorsemyths,likethoseofClunies

RossandLindow,highlightthegeneralculturalsignificanceofcraftsmanshipandhow

literaryandmythologicalsmithfiguresmightbeinterpretedwithinthisgeneralscope.By

drawinguponavarietyofOldNorseandOldEnglishtexts,severalarchaeologicalscholars

haveattemptedtoformulatemorespecificconclusionsaboutthehistoricalroleofsmithsin

medievalScandinaviaandAnglo-SaxonEngland.71Thesescholars,however,tendtopresent

evidenceinamuchmoreequivocalwaythansomeofthecategoricalandcomparative

approachesoutlinedabove.Thesmithseemstobeafigurecaughtbetweenextremes:heisa

marginal,liminal,threatening,solitaryfigure,yetalsoacentral,communicative,integral

figure(e.g.Hinton2003:271).Althoughthiscanseemconfusing,itisimportanttokeepin

mindthatthesmithisnotjustonehomogeneoussingularperson.Rather,thefigureofthe

smithmaycontainmanyvalidbutheterogeneousaspects,andsmithslikelyfunctionedin

disparatewaysduringtheVikingAge.Itisperhapsmoreaccuratetotalkofdifferentsmith

figures,ratherthanthefigureofthesmith.

BothJohnHinesandDavidHintonhave,forexample,attemptedtodiscerncontrasts

betweenthemultiplerolesofsmithsinpre-Christianandpost-conversionsocietyin bereferredtousingthefemininepronounshónandhana,GullveigandHeiñr”(2003:33).Similarly,HedeageralsosuggeststhatthegoldenageoftheÆsirinVsp7is“thehappyfirstageoftheworld,beforethearrivalofwomenfromthedangerousoutsideworldofUtgard,whichmeantthatthegodslosttheirskillsasartisans,andtheircontroloverthepreciousmetals.[...]Asaremedy,themythsexplain,thegodscreatedthedwarfs,whowerenowtobecometheskilledartisansinchargeofironandpreciousmetals”(2001:500).71AlsoworthconsiderationhereistheworkofJohanCallmeronlateMigration-periodandearlyViking-agecraftspeopleandtheircommunitiesandCallmer’sbriefcommentsonliterarysmithingmotifs(2003:357-8).However,becausehisworkismoreexclusivelyarchaeological,Idonotincludeitinthisreviewofscholarshiponliterarysmithfigures.Instead,IdiscussCallmer’sworkinmoredetailinthefollowingchapters.

38

ScandinaviaandAnglo-SaxonEngland.Inhis2003articleHinesusesseveralsummary

explorationsofarchaeologicalfindsandtextualsourcestosuggestthatthesmithandhiscraft

seemtohavebeensourcesoffarlessanxietywithinChristianScandinaviathanwasthecase

inpre-ChristianScandinavia.Thefirstoftheseexplorationsisoftheroughlyeleventh-

centuryHørningrunic-stoneinscriptionfromJutlandbyTokithesmith.Inthisinscriptiona

Christiancrossisprominentlysituatedattheendofthefollowingrunicstatement:“Toki

smithraised[the]stoneafterÃorgilsGuñmundarson,whogavehimgoldandfreedom”

(Hines2003:22).Hinesnotesthattwosimilarinscriptionsseemtohavebeenmadebythis

smithnamedToki(2003:24).Hinessuggeststhatinthesestonesthesmithmemorializesfour

things:

1. ThepowerandstatusofToki’sformermaster,whohasjustfreedhim.

2. Toki’sidentityandoccupationasasmith.

3. Anassertionofstatusassociatedwiththeoccupationofthesmith,ofwhich

thebearercanbeproud.

4. Toki’sChristiancapacitytoprayfortheconfermentofthefreedomof

salvationforpeople’ssoulsdespitewhateversocialsubordinationhe

himselfmighthavebeensubjectto.(SummarizedfromHines2003:22-3)

Throughanexplorationoftooldepositsinso-called“smiths’graves”,72Hinesalsosuggests

thattheseservedasubstantialculturalfunction,andthat“thehierarchicalorderingamongst

thesmiths’gravesimpliesboththatsmithscouldaspiretoarelativelyhighsocialstatusand

thatmenofhighsocialrankdidnotregarditasbeneaththemtodisplaysuchskills”(2003:

30).Acaseinpointhere,Hinessuggests,isSkalla-Grímrbeingburiedwithhissmithing

toolsinEgilssaga(Hines2003:29).

72Inregardstotheso-called“smiths’graves”phenomenon,itisworthconsideringthatthedepositionoftoolsinagravedoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheindividualwasaskilledcraftsperson(Hinton2003:280-1).Forexample,HeinrichHärke’sexaminationofthesymbolicpracticeofweapondepositionsinAnglo-Saxongraveseffectivelyproblematizestheassumptionthatsuchburialsare“warriorgraves”(Härke1990:22-43).Byusingavarietyofdatasetsfromgravefinds,Härkedemonstratesthatweaponburialpracticesare,infact,notconsistentlycorrelatedwithwarrioractivity,butratherwithwealth,physicalstatureanddescent(1990:42-4).Alldataconsistentlyshows“theAnglo-Saxonweaponburialritetohavebeenasymbolicact:weaponburialwasnotthereflectionofarealwarriorfunction,buttheritualexpressionofanethnically,sociallyandperhapsideologicallybased‘warriorstatus’”(1990:43).Suchstudiesbringintoquestiontheassumptionthattoolsinaparticularburialdefinetheindividualasaskilledcraftsperson.Seealsore-investigationsofthecover-allterm“hoard”byJulieLund(2005:109-36)andJohnHines(1989:193-206).

39

Inafinalsectiontohisarticle,Hinesinvestigatesthepre-Christian,pagansocial

situationofthesmithinaconceptualrealminwhichdivinityisinterpretedinhumanistrather

thantranscendentalterms(2003:34).Hinesdependsmostlyontextualmeanshere,viathe

poemsVõlundarkviña,VõluspáandRígsãula.73Heobservesthatthesepoemsare

“fundamentallydirectedlessbyconcernswithreligiousdogma(bethatpaganorChristian)

thanbyhumansocialissuestowhichtheintroductionofChristianitywasonlyindirectly

relevant”(2003:32).Hinessuggeststhatinthesepoemsthesmithseemstoberelativelyfree

ofpejorativecommentary(exceptperhapsbybeingassignedtothemiddle-classinthe

aristocraticframeworkofRígsãula)74andhisskillsandproductsrarelyreceivequalitative

epithets,positiveornegative(2003:31-4).Hinesobservesthatthesmithdoes,however,

seemtohaveakeyroleinsociety,onethatofteniscoupledwithambiguoussourcesof

powerandtheratherdisturbingorthreateningpotentialforaristocraticinsurgence(2003:33-

4).HinesconcludesthatalthoughtheChristianguildsseemtohavehadlittleproblem

adaptingthesmithandhistraditiontocontrolledpurposes,earliersocio-religious

perspectivesseemtohavedemonstratedmuchmoreanxietyabouttheambiguousroleofthe

smithasproducerandsocialagent(2003:35-7).

UnlikeHines’smorepan-Scandinavianapproach,whichisalsoinclusiveoffindsin

theBritishIsles,DavidHinton’s2003articleon“Anglo-SaxonSmithsandMyths”focuses

ratherpredominantlyontheevidencewithintheAnglo-Saxontradition.LikeHines,

however,HintonalsosuggeststhatChristianityhadanintegralpartinchangingtheportrayal

androleofthesmithinsocietyasthistypeofcraftspersonwasbroughtintotheserviceofthe

church.Hinton’sobservationsandconclusionsare,insomecases,muchmorespeculative

thanHines’s,andhisapproachiscertainlymorebroadinitschronologicalaspect.Hinton

observestextualandmaterialevidenceofsmithingfromthefifthcenturythroughtothe

eleventhcentury,pursuingafewtangentsintotheearlyfifteenthandsixteenthcenturies.

DrawinguponthelawcodesofKingIne,KingÆãelberhtofKent,KingAlfred,aswellas

Ælfric’sColloquyontheOccupations(2003:263-8,276),Hintonobservesthatdifferent

73Hinesnotesthe“uncertaintyandevencontroversyoverthedatingofeddicpoems”,butsuggeststhat“oneoftheparticularadvantagesofarchaeologyisthatitwritesahistoryofthelongduréemuchmorereadilythanapunctuatedchronicleofevents;andahistoricalperspectiveconcernedprincipallywithlong-termprocessesofdevelopmentrendersaspecificpointofcomposition(ifanysuchthingcanreallybeconceivedofinthecaseofmosteddicpoems)farlesssignificantanissue”(2003:36).74WithrespecttoHines’sobservationshere,seemyexaminationofthequeen’sspeechesinVõlundarkviña(page238below),whichshowadistinctlypejorativeinterpretationofthesmith.

40

typesofsmithswereclearlyunderstoodasspecialistsinavarietyofmetalsandcrafts;some

smithswerealsohighlyvaluedascontrolledsourcesofelitecraftsbyroyaltyandaristocrats

inchurchandmanorialcompounds(Hinton2003:266-76).Theslavesmithwasvaluedin

wergildasequaltoafreeman,andthesmithcouldalsobeafreeagentinsociety.Citing

RobertFossier’sstudyofPeasantLifeintheMedievalWest,Hintonalsosuggeststhatthe

smithmayhavehadauniqueversatilityasacommunicatorbetweentheeliteland-owners

andtheslavesoftenth-centuryAnglo-Saxonsociety:

KingIne’slawstatesthataWessexgesithcouldtakehisreeve,children’snurse,andhissmithwithhimifhemoved–“thesmithseemstohavebeeninnopositiontorefusetogo,butthebondwasclearlylikelytobeaclosepersonalone–smithsmayhavebeenuniquelyableto‘communicate’withtheirlords,actingasintermediariesbetweenaristocratandpeasant.(Hinton2003:267)75

Hintonalsosuggeststhatmaterialevidencedemonstratesthatthesmith’stoolsandmethods

notonlyenabledotherstodisplaytheirstatusandidentity,butalsoservedtocreatethe

smith’sownidentity.Fromtheeighthcenturyonwards,forexample,moneyerstendedto

inscribetheirnamesoncoins.Hintonsuggeststhatthispracticemayhavebeenconnectedto

smithsengravingtheirnamesonbladesorhilts:“Theyhadpersonalreputations–orwanted

them”(2003:275).Thefirstexampleofthis,andthefirstAnglo-Saxonsmithtowhomwe

cangiveaname,is“Ludda”whoinscribedhisnameonaseventh-centurycointhathe

repaired(Hinton2003:280).Somesmithsclearlyhadthecapacity,anddesire,toestablish

theirownreputations.

HintondemonstratesthatfromtheearlyGermanicIronAgethroughtothetenthand

eleventhcenturies,thereiscontinuityinhowthesmithwasassociatedwithavarietyof

stigmaandsocialcriticisms:amongstthepanoplyofthechurchcompoundinÆlfric’s

Colloquy,“unsurprisingly,itisonlytheblacksmithwhoisderided”(2003:276).Hintonalso

pointsoutthatatleasttwo“smiths’graves”seemtogivetheimpressionofthespatial

marginalizationofthesmithfromthecentralcommunityorurbancentre:thegravesare

solitary,outsideofchurchgraveyardsandindeedoutsidecommunitycentresentirely.Hinton

alsonotes,however,thatanotherroughlycontemporarygraveplacesthe“smith”figure

decidedlyinsidethecommunityarrangementofthechurchgraveyard(2003:271).Again,it

isimportanttokeepinmindthatthesmithisnotahomogeneouslycharacterizedfigure,and

75HintonquotesherefromRobertFossier(1988:55).

41

weshouldnotexpectsuchtobethecase.Hintondoes,nonetheless,speculateastothe

implicationsoftheliminalgeographicalspaceallottedforthesmithinthosetwogravesand

inVõlundarkviña(2003:271).76Hintonalsosuggeststhatpermanentsmithyfacilitiesmay

havebeenalmostentirelyenclosededifices(becausethesmithneededtoworkinlowlight

conditionstodiscernthetemperatureofthemetalbyitscolour)onthemarginsof

communitiesforthepragmaticreasonsofbeingclosertofuel(forests)andkeepingafire

hazardawayfromotherbuildings(2003:271,279).77Hinton’sre-constructivespeculation

aboutthesmithisundecided,buthisarticleinvestigatesmoreoftheratherpejorativeor

marginalizingaspectsofthesmithinthematerialandtextualrecords.

SummaryCraftsmanshipisindeedpowerful,asLindowpointsout(1994b:503),andthe

smithingmotifsandsmith-figuresofOldNorsemythologypresentacomplicatedand

integratedpictureofthecommunitiesandculturesofViking-ageScandinavia.Smithingis

captivatingasascience,anartandaliterarymotif.Thereisacompellingdrivetoexplain

enigmaticsmithfiguresandriddlingallusionstosmithinginliteratureandarchaeology.

Manyofthesesmithingmotifswerenotunderstoodevenbythescribesandpoetswho

composed,transmittedandrecordedthesepoems.Thedrivetoexplainthesemotifscan,

however,leadtodistractingovergeneralizationsandinaccuratecategorizations.Toreturn

againtoJohnHinesandhisperspectiveonbalancedandintegratedinterdisciplinarystudies,

itisimportanttokeepinmindthat“[e]xplaining,oratleastseekingsomewayof

comprehendingdiversity,isquitedifferentfromreducingdiversephenomenatoasingle

explanation”(1989:195).ItiswiththisdistinctioninmindthatIcontributetothe

76cf.discussionsofthearchaeologicalevidenceforcraftingcommunitieslocatedonshoresthroughoutsouthernScandinavia(Callmer2002:125-157;Callmer2003:356;Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:161;Zachrisson2004:165-167).77InrelationtoHinton’sspeculationshereandthebroadchronologicalrangeofhisevidence,Iwouldaddabriefnoteaboutthepossibilityofsmithsworkingwellintothenight(totakeadvantageofthedarkness)andmakingagreatamountofnoise.Consider,forinstance,thec.1425MiddleEnglishpoemthathaseditoriallybeentitled“TheBlacksmiths”(Sisam1955:169-70).Asthefirstthreelinesillustrate(andtheexuberantonomatopoeiainlines15and19-20),thispoemisacomplaintaboutthenoisy,late-nightactivitiesofblacksmiths:Swartesmekydsmeãessmaterydwythsmoke/Dryuemetodethwythdenofheredyntes./Swechnoysonnyghtesneherdmenneuer(Sisam1955:169-70),“Blackenedwithsmokesmithsmadesootywithsmokedrivemetodeathwithnoiseoftheirstrokes.Suchnoiseduringnightsnomanhaseverheard.”Similarly,inChaucer’s“TheMiller’sTale”Gerveysthesmith(whoevidentlylivesnearJohnthecarpenter)ishardatworkandhasanirenhoot,“hotiron”,whenAbsolonshowsupinthedarknessofearlymorning:Derkwasthenyghtaspich,orasthecole,“Thenightwasdarkaspitch,orascharcoal”(Benson1987:75-6;ll.3731,3761,3809).Consideralsothenight-timeactivitiesofApellenthesmith(seeafl25inChapter1,page64;cf.page209).

42

understandingofsmithingmotifsandsmithfiguresinOldNorsemyths.Idothisthroughthe

followingthreeexaminationsofmythologicalsmithingmotifsandoneshortnote.

Chapter One - overview TheobjectiveofthischapteristodeterminethemeaningoftheaflarthattheÆsir

establishaspartoftheirfirstsettlementinstanzasevenofVõluspá.Thischapterincludesan

extensiveexaminationoftheliteraryandarchaeologicalattestationsforforges,furnacesand

workshopspacesinOldNorsecontexts.IexaminetheextantattestationsoftheOldNorse

wordafl.Ialsostudythearchaeologicalinformationontheroleofforges,furnaces,aswell

asworkshopspacesmoregenerallyinrelationtosettlementpatterns.Thisfirstchapter

containssubstantialsurveysofbothliteraryandarchaeologicalmaterial.Isummarizeand

discussthismaterialtowardstheendofthechapter,butthereadermayfindithelpfulto

returnperiodicallytocertainattestationsorsummariesofparticularsettlementsites.To

facilitatethis,boththeattestationsandthesettlementsitesareclearlytitledandpage

numbersforeachattestationofaflareidentifiedinthetableofcontentsandincross-

referencesthroughoutthisdissertation.

A short note on Gullveig - overview BetweenthefirstandsecondchapterIincludeabriefnoteaboutaparticularly

enigmaticfigurenamedGullveig.Gullveigappearsonlyinstanza21ofVõluspá:sheis

mentionednowhereelseintheentireNorsecorpus,norinrelatedGermanicmythsand

legends.SeveralspeculativeinterpretationsofGullveighavebeenmade.Onepersistenttrait

inmanyoftheseinterpretationsisthesuggestion,oftennomorethanahint,thatGullveig

mightsomehowberepresentativeofthemetallurgicalprocessingofgold.Ibrieflyoutline

scholarlyinterpretationsofthenameGullveig78andtracethecriticalhistoryofthis

metallurgicalinterpretationandpresentmyownevaluationofGullveig.

78AsIbrieflynoteatseveralpointsinthisdissertation,Germanicdithematicpersonalnamesoperateonadifferentlogicthantwo-elementtoponyms.Inthecaseoftheformer,thetwoelementsaresimplycollocated,eachcarryingitsownmeaningbutneitheronequalifyingtheother.Intoponyms,however,thetwoelementsaremeaningfullyconnected.Hence,awomannamedÃórdísisnotunderstoodas“lady/goddessofÃórr”.Rather,sheisunderstoodinindependentassociationwithdís,“lady,goddess”,andÃórr(i.e.sheisassociatedwithbothlady-likequalitiesand,independently,Ãórr-likequalities)(cf.Motz1981:498).Therearesomeexceptionstothisrule,suchastoponymsandthenamesformythologicalbeings,likegiantessesortroll-womenforinstance,whichcanoperateastruecompounds(cf.Motz1981:498).

43

Chapter two - overview InthesecondchapterIcontinuemyexaminationofsmithingmotifsinVõluspáby

evaluatingtheroleofthemythologicaltoponymJárnviñr,“Iron-wood”,asitappearsin

stanza40.Ianalyzethistoponyminrelationtoevidencefortheroleofsmithingresources

likebogironandcharcoalthroughoutearlymedievalScandinavia.Iexaminetheattestations

andderivativeformsofJárnviñr,bothinmythologicaltextsandinhistoricalcontexts.Ina

briefexcursusIalsodiscussthecloseassociationbetweenthemythologicalJárnviñranda

certaingroupoffemalegiants.

Chapter three - overview InthethirdandfinalchapterIexaminetheroleofsmithingmotifsoverthenarrative

ofVõlundarkviña.Ianalyzethevocabularyandcontextofsmithingandcraftingthroughout

thepoem.Istudythemaster-smithVõlundrasanindependentartisanwithgreatskillandasa

commissionedorenslavedartisanproducingcustom-madeartefactsexclusivelyforone

aristocraticandroyalfamily.IexaminethesocialsignificanceofVõlundr’sproductionsin

relationtoearlyGermaniccustomsandpossibleanaloguesforthepoem.Ialsoanalyzethe

informationpresentedinVõlundarkviñaaboutsettlementcomplexesandspatialrelations.

44

Chapter1:SmithingmotifsinVõluspástanza7Thischapterexaminestheliterary,linguisticandarchaeologicalroleoftheaflar,

“forges,furnaces”,thatareestablishedaspartoftheÆsir’sfirstsettlement.Thischapterhas

foursections.First,IdiscussthetextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspá7andexaminethe

extantattestationsofthewordafl.Second,Ianalyzetheattestationsforaflandprovidea

definitionofafl.Third,Iexamineinformationonmetalworkingsitesinrelationtocommunal

structuresandpatternsoftradefromarchaeologicalsitesinmedievalScandinavia.Finally,I

concludethechapterwithanoverviewofthisevidenceandwhatitsaysabouttheroleofthe

aflarinVõluspá7.

1.1TextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspáandstanza7Võluspástanza7appearsasfollowsintheCodexRegius:79

HittuzæsiráIñavelli, ãeirerhõrgochofhátimbroño; aflalõgño,auñsmíñoño, tangirscópooctólgorño.(7.1-8)

TheÆsirassembledatIñavõll,thosewhobuilttallwithwoodanaltarandatemple;theyestablishedforges,smithedpreciousthings,formedtongsandmadetools.(Lindow2002:197-8withmodifications)80

Stanza7inHauksbókreadsasfollows:

HittuzæsiráIñavelli; aflskostoño,allzfreistoño, tangirscópooctólgorño.(7.1-6)

TheÆsirassembledatIñavõll;theyexerted[their]strength,madeatrialofeverything,formedtongsandmadetools.

Ascanbeseenabove,stanza7hassubstantialvariantsbetweentheCodexRegius(R)MS

andtheHauksbók(H)MS.AsDronkepointsout,“thisistheonlyinstanceinstanzas

commontobothtexts,whereHhaswordingtotallydifferentfromR”(1997:87).Thehalf-

lines3and4fromRareomittedinH.ThestanzaappearsmuchshorterinH,andthisis

inconsistentwiththeotherstanzasofthepoem.Also,whereRreadsaflalõgñoauñsmíñoño,

Hhasaflskostoño,allzfreistoño.

79Unlessotherwisenoted,allquotationsfromVõluspáandotherpoemsfromthePoeticEddacomefromtheeditionpreparedbyGustavNeckelandHansKuhn(1962).Alltranslationsaremyownunlessotherwisenoted.80HermannPálssonpointsoutthattimbratranslatesmostliterallyas“tobuildatallstructurewithwood”(1996:63).

45

Akeyissueinevaluatingthesevariantsisunderstandingthatafl,ifmasculine,can

refertoa“forge,furnace”81or,ifneuter,to“strength,vigour.”82TheformaflsinHis

definitelygenitivesingular,andcould(inisolation)beeithermasculineorneuter.AflainR

could(inisolation)beinterpretedaseithertheplural,neutergenitiveof“strength,vigour”or

themasculine,genitivepluralormasculine,accusativepluralof“forge,furnace.”Theverbs

ineithermanuscript(kosta“exert,try,tempt,strive”inHandleggja“lay,place,found,

build”inR)83determinethataflainRisaccusativeplural,“forges,furnaces”,andinHaflsis

genitive(kostaisconstruedwiththegen.)singularneuter,“strength,vigour.”84Itisdifficult

todeterminewhatcausedthisvariant.Itislikelythatatsomepointinthetransmission

leadingtoHsomefeatureoftheselinesbecamecorruptorconfusedandaflawasinterpreted

asmeaning“strength.”ThetextofR,theearliermanuscript,clearlypresentsaflaas“forges,

furnaces.”

Theprimary,andonly,pointinfavouroftheHtextisthatthesubstitutedlineabout

thegodstestingtheirstrengthsandmakingtrialofeverythingseemstooperateeffectivelyas

apreludetotheirencounterwiththepowerfulandadversarialthreefemalegiantsin8.5-8.

Dronkesuggeststhatthissubstitutionimpliesthat“theÆsirwerefindingthemselvesin

difficulties”already(1997:88).Inotherwords,itmaybethattheÆsirarealready

demonstratingtheirpropensitytowardstestingtheirstrengthsbygettingthemselvesinto

compromisingpositionswiththegiants:theyare,orsothisreadingoftheHtextwould

suggest,alreadyaskingfortroubleinstanza7.Thisreadinghastheadvantageofexplaining

whatmayotherwiseseemtobeanunexplainedinsurrectionbythefemalegiantsinstanza8.

ThisreadingalsobuildsuponthecharacterizationoftheÆsiraspowerfulbuttrouble-making

gods.Astherearenoexplicitexplanationsforthesuddenappearanceofthethreefemale

giantsin8.5-8,thisinterpretationcouldsharesomeconnectionswithothersectionsofthe

narrativedespitethefactthatitisincongruouswiththebuildingmotifsofH7.5-6andR7.3-

8.85AnotherissueworthconsideringisthatthetextofVõluspáincludesseveraldistinct

81Thedefinitionofaflm.willbediscussedindetailinthischapter.Translationsofaflthatareusedhereandelsewherearebasedupontheevidencethatisdocumentedandanalyzedinthischapter. 82Aflm.andafln.appearincloseproximitytooneanotherintheattestationcitedbelow(cf.afl23and34).Althoughatleastonetranslatorhasconfusedthesenouns,theoriginalmanuscriptspreserveacleardistinctionbetweenthemeaningofeachnoun.83cf.Fritzner(1954:s.v.kosta,leggja),Cleasby-Vigfusson(1957:s.v.kosta,leggja). 84LaFargeandTuckerpointoutthatthesimilarphrasekostamagnsorkostamegins,“toexertone’sstrength”,appearsinRigsãula9.2andGrottasõngr23.2(1992:s.v.kosta).85OnthedifficultiesofinterpretingnarrativesequencesofVõluspáseefootnote5onpage3above.

46

narrativesthatareoftencontradictory:thisconfusingrenderingofstanza7inHcouldbean

instanceinwhichdistinctnarrativesareintegratedside-by-side.

TheproblemswiththevariantsinVsp7,however,havetodoprimarilywiththeH

textandtheyclearlypointto7.3-4asaflawedsubstitutioninH;asDronkeputsit,thisisan

“inept”substitution(1997:87).InHtheomissionofthelinesabouttheÆsirbuildingaltars

andtemples(R7.3-4),forinstance,seversaclearconnectioninbothcontentandthemewith

theestablishmentofforgesandthebuildingoftoolsandpreciousitemsinthelasthalfofthe

stanza.Withtheselinesomitted,thefinalstatements(tangirscópooctólgorño)arewithout

contextandincongruouswiththeprecedingstatementsaccordingtoH(aflskostoño,allz

freistoño).ThissubstitutedlineinH7.3-4aboutthegodstestingtheirstrengthandmaking

trialsofeverythingisoutofplacebetweenthereferencestobuildingmotifsthatdominatethe

finalhalflinesofthestanzainH.ItisthereforelikelythattherenderinginRismorevalid.

Furthermore,itappearsthatthescribeofRcorrectedforanerrorbyscratchingout“au”in

favourof“af”tospellafla.NeckelandKuhnsuggestthatthisisaninstanceofeye-skip,

linkedtoauñin7.6(1962:2).Thismightsuggestthattherewasatendencytowardsmis-

transcribingormis-interpretingthisstanza,and/orthattherewereseveralmanuscripts

responsiblefortransmittingerrorsbeforeRand/orbetweenRandH.Sucherrorscouldhave

beenbehindthesubstitutionsmadeinlinesfromstanza7ofH.

WhetherweaccepttheRtext,whichonthewholeismorereliable,ortheHtext,the

narrativesequencesofVõluspáareenigmaticandconflicting.ItismostlikelythattheRtext,

beingfromanearlierMS.andportrayingamoreconsistentbuildingmotifandstanzalength,

isthemorereliablereading.Aswillbediscussedinmoredetailshortly(seeafl13belowon

page56),Gylfaginningchapter14alsoclearlyparaphrasesR,notH.

1.2Extantattestationsofthewordafl.AccordingtoStanza7inR,theÆsirmakeaflar(masculine,plural,“forges,

furnaces”)aspartoftheinitialestablishmentoftheircivilization.Therearetwokey

questionstoconsiderinrelationtotheroleofaflarinstanza7ofVõluspá.First,whatdoes

aflmeanexactly?Second,whatistheroleoftheseaflarinthesettlementthattheÆsir

establishinthisstanza?86

86Athirdquestionalsoappliestotheusageofaflhere:whatistheroleoftheseaflarand,moregenerally,metalworkingmotifsacrosstheentirenarrativeofVõluspá?Someaspectsofthisthirdquestionwillbebriefly

47

TheDictionaryofOldNorseProse(ONP)citesthirtyusagesofaflsb.m.rangingin

manuscriptdatefrom1200to1725.Inotehereanadditionalnineattestations.These

additionsaremostlyfrompoetictexts,butseveralappearincloseassociationwith

attestationsthatONPhasalreadynoted.Countingalltheseattestationsindividually,and

includingVsp7,makesforatotalofthirty-nineattestationsforafl.Followingisthislist

organizedaccordingtochronology,baseduponmanuscriptdate.Boldfontisusedto

highlighttheattestationsofthewordaflinboththeoriginallanguageandthetranslation.The

secondattestationofafl(afl2.)appearsinthecontextintroducedandcitedabove,from

Võluspá7intheCodexRegiusmanuscript.Becausetheobjectiveofthischapteristo

determinethemeaningofthisattestation,Iwillnotexaminethisattestationuntiltheendof

thischapter.Thereforethefollowingexaminationofattestationsjumpsfromafl1.toafl3.

Afl2.isdiscussedattheconclusionofthischapter.

afl1.ThefirstattestationcomesfromtheIcelandicHomilyBook(c.1200).Thisstory

relatestheexileofJohntheApostlebyEmperorDomitianus.Accordingtothisstory,

Domitianuswaslaterkilledbyhavingmoltengoldpouredintohismouth:

Ãeirstéypãogolliléicandanytecnoórafli.imunnhonomocdéyãdohannsva.Kvañustætlaatãaskyldihannæriñhafagollit.(deLeeuwvanWeenen1993:138withmodifications)

Forjesttheypouredgold,freshlyremovedfromtheforge,intohismouthandkilledhimso.Theysaidthattheybelieveheshouldhaveenoughgold.

Thisattestationofaflspecificallyrelatestothemeltingorsmeltingofsolidgoldintoaliquid

state.Italsodescribestheaflassomethingfromwhichmoltengoldisremovedandpromptly

poured.Thissuggeststhattheafliseitheranenclosedspace(afurnacewithawalledinterior

spaceintowhichcrucibleswouldbeplaced)oradefinedbutrelativelyopenspace(likethe

hotcoalsofaforgeintowhichacruciblewouldbeplaced)withsufficientheattomeltgold.

Theverbsteypatakesthedativehereandrefersspecificallytogold.Thismakesitclearthat

thesecondarymeaningfortheverbsteypa(“tocast”,“tofound”,specificallyofmetals)is

beingused(Fritzner1954:s.v.steypa).Thisverbcanalsoappearasanoun,steypari,

discussedinthenoteonGullveig,intheexcursusattheendofChapter2,andintheoverallconclusiontothisproject.Thefocusofthecurrentchapteris,however,primarilyupontheroleoftheseaflarinstanza7ofVõluspá.

48

referringtosomeonewhocastsmetal,abrass-founderforinstance(Cleasby-Vigfusson1974:

s.v.steypari).Inmoregeneralusages,theverbsteypacanmean“tocastdown”,“overthrow”

(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.steypa).Thismoregeneralsensemayhavecontributed

overtonesofmeaningalso,particularlygiventhepoliticalimplicationsinthiscontext.

afl3.InKonungsskuggsjá(c.1275)thenorthernlightsofGreenlandarecomparedtoa

pieceofhotironfreshlyremovedfromanafl:oksemãatkvóftekratãynna,ãátekrãatljós

annatsinniatbirtask,okãatkannatverñastundumatmõnnumsÿnisksvá,semãarskjótiaf

stórumgneistum,svásemafsindrandajárniãvíernÿtekitverñrorafli(Keyseretal.1848:

47),“Andwhenthatsmokebeginstogrowthinner,thenthatlightbeginstobrightenagain,

andthatcanattimeshappenthatitseemstopeoplethattheyseelargesparksshootingoutof

it,justasfromglowingironwhenitisfreshlyremovedfromafurnace.”Hereaflclearly

referstoaforgeorfurnaceusedtoheatirontoglowing-hottemperatures.Becausethefocus

ofthepassageisacomparisonbetweenthenorthernlightsandglowingiron,bothofwhich

appeartohavesparkscomingoffthem,thereislittlefurtherdetailtobegleanedfromtheuse

ofafl.Itcanbesaid,however,thatthisusageofaflisnottobeconfusedwithadomestic

fireplaceusedforcooking.Thetemperaturesofthissortoffirewouldlikelybeinsufficientto

producesparksfromglowingiron,aphenomenonwhichindicatestemperaturessufficientfor

metalworkingandwelding(Tylecote1986:16).Thesparkscomingoffoftheglowingiron

suggestaforgeorfurnacepoweredbybellowsandusedprimarilyformetalworking

purposes.Itisalsoworthnotingthattheironisnÿtekit,“freshlyremoved”,fromtheforgeor

furnace,whichmayindicateanawarenessthatthemetalremainsatmalleabletemperatures

onlyforashortwhilebeforecoolingandlosingitsmalleableproperties:hencetheidiomatic

saying“strikewhiletheironishot”andtheimportanceofworkingironwhenitisfreshly

removedfromtheforge.

afl4. ThefourthattestationisfromtheaccountofthefamoussmithVelentrepetitivelyre-

creatingaseriesofsuperiorswordsbyfilingdownandre-workingpreviousattempts.Inthe

caseofthisattestation,Velentisproducingthefinalandmostsuperiorblade.Themetal

filingsoftheextantswordarerefinedbypassingthroughthedigestivetractsofgeese.This

49

accountappearsinalatethirteenth-centurymanuscriptofÃiñrekssagaafBern(Homperg4

fol,c.1275-1300):

Velentferrnvtilsmiñiooctecreinaãelocãelarãettasverñaltisvndrisvarfeitt.Nvtekrhannsvarfitocblandarviñmiol.ocãatecrhannalifvglaocsveltirãriadagaocãatecrhannmioletocgefrfvglonvmateta.ãatecrhannsavrfvglanaoclætrcomaiaflocfellirocvellrnvoriarninoaltãaterdeigtvari.Ocãarafgerirhanneittsverñocerãettaminnaenhitfyra.(Bertelsen1905-11:98-9)

Velentgoesintothesmithyandtakesafileandfilesthatswordentirelytopiecesintoone[pileof]filedust.Nowhetakesthefiledustandmixesitwithmeal.Andthenhetakesdomesticatedbirdsandstarvesthemforthreedaysandthenhetakesthemealandgivesittothebirdstoeat.Thenhetakestheexcrementofthebirdsandhasitplacedintothefurnaceandworksoutandmakesmoltennowoutfromwithintheironallthatwhichwassoftinside.Andfromthathemakesaswordandthatissmallerthantheonebeforeit.87

Whentheadjectivedeigrmodifiesmetalsitmeans“soft”(ONP2010:s.v.deigr).Inother

contexts,deigrmeans“blunt,dull”(ofaweapon)and“sluggish,faint-hearted,cowardly”(of

aperson)(ONP2010:s.v.deigr).Itispossiblethatsimilarlynegativeovertonespertainto

theuseofdeigrtodescribemetals,i.e.“soft”maybeanundesirablequalityofametal,just

asabluntweaponandacowardlypersonarenotasdesirableasasharpweaponandabrave

person.Unfortunately,theaboveexcerptfromÃiñrekssagaafBernistheonlyattestationof

deigrmodifyingmetal,sotherearenoparallelexamplestocompare.

Thedescriptionis,however,preciseenoughtomakeaclearassessmentofwhatis

happeningmetallurgically.Deigtisclearlythesingular,neuter,accusativeformandmust

agreewiththesingularãat,“that”.Thispronounreferstoasubstancethatisbeingextracted

(fella=“bringsomethingintooroutofacertainconnectionwithsomethingelse”)andmade

molten(vella=“tomakemolten”)fromwithintheiron(Fritzner1954:s.v.fella,vella).88

Thesetwoverbs,fellaandvella,clearlyreinforcethattheaflinthisdescriptionisan

environmentinsidewhich(lætrcomaiafl,“hasitplacedintoafurnace”)somethingthatis

87CitingTylecote’sdiscussionofthispassage,MarkHallpointsoutthat,“[a]rchaeometallurgistshavebeentryingforyearstofigureoutwhatisgoingonintheforgingof[thissword]Mímungr.Ithasbeensuggestedthatnitrogenorphosphorus,comingfromtheanimaldung,couldhavebeenalloyedwiththeironduringsmelting.Experimentalevidenceshowsthatthisdoesnothappen”(Hall1995:200;cf.Tylecote1986:192-3).Whiletheuseofgoosedungremainsenigmatic,thegeneralprocessofworkingtheironhereappearsfairlyclear.88Inparticular,FritznersuggeststhattheverbfellameansbringenogetindiellerudafenvisForbindelsemednogetandet(1954:s.v.fella6),“tobringsomethingintooroutofacertainconnectionwithsomethingelse”.

50

withintheironismadesoftandbroughtoutfromwithintheiron(whichremainshard)and

mademolten.Thisdescription,withthisparticularpairingofverbs,preciselycorrespondsto

theprocessesassociatedwithasmeltingfurnacethatisusedtomakebloomeryironand

spongeiron.Becausetheunwantedimpurities(whichcanmakeirondifficulttowork,or

causeabladetobeeasilybluntedorchipped)meltatalowertemperaturethantheiron,these

impurities(alsocalledslag)areseparatedfromtheironwithinthefurnace.Attheconclusion

ofthisprocess,ahotlumpofporousspongeiron(theporesbeingspacesthatwereoccupied

byslag)isremovedfromwithinthefurnaceandimmediatelypoundedwithahammer.This

hammeringforcesoutanyremainingimpuritiesthatarestillinsidetheiron.Thedistinction

betweenthatwhichisdeigr,“soft”,withintheiron,andthatwhichisnotsoft(i.e.theiron

itself)clearlycorrespondstothedistinctionbetweentheundesirableslag(whichisextracted)

andthedesirablerefinediron(whichismadeintothesword).ThisalsoexplainsVelent’s

processforproducingasequenceofswords,eachonewithabettercuttingedgethantheone

beforeit.Noneoftheseswordsareblunt,buteachsuccessiveattemptproducesaswordthat

isevensharper(i.e.lesssoft,deigr)thanthelast.Thisispresumablybecausemoreofthe

impuritiesthatcauseaswordtobeblunthavebeenremoved.89

Therefore,inthiscaseaflexplicitlyreferstoaniron-smeltingfurnace.However,

someextensiveblacksmithingisalsoimpliedinthisattestation,soanopenforgemustalso

beinvolved.Whiletheverbvellarefersonlytotheactionofmakingsomethingmolten

(whichinthiscaseismostlikelyaccomplishedinafurnace),fellainthiscontextimpliesa

combinationofsmelting(i.e.usingafurnace)andblacksmithing(i.e.usinganopenforge).It

ispossiblethatVelentusesthefurnacetosmelttheironfilingsandthenusesthedemolished

baseofthisfurnacetoheatandhammerrepeatedlytheporousspongeironuntiltheporesare

completelyweldedshutandalloftheslagimpuritieshavebeenexcised.Thisprocessis

necessaryinordertoproduceawrought-ironingot,fromwhichVelentthenmakesthe

sword.DarrellMarkewitzsuggeststhatthebaseofsmeltingfurnaces,aftertheuppershaft

hasbeendestroyed,couldmakeidealforgesforsuchblacksmithingactivities.90Itisalso

89Metallurgically,anotherfactortoconsideristheamountofcarbonthatgoesintosolutionwiththeironduringthesesmeltingprocesses.Thiscarbonhasadirecteffectontheabilityoftheirontoholdasharpcuttingedge:themorecarbon,themoresharpandbrittletheblade.Thecarbontransfer,however,isnotasreadilyobservableastheliquatingoftheslagoutofthesprongeironasitissmeltedandthenhammered.90Markewitzcommentsuponthe“remainsofthestillhotfurnace”afteranexperimentalironsmeltingprocedure:“Itwouldbepossibletochargefreshcharcoaltousethefurnacebaselikeagiantforge.Intruththeworkingteamdecidedtheyweretootiredtoproceedwiththis”(2009:“SmeltReport–Vinland3/November7,2009”).

51

possiblethatVelenthasaseparateopenforge,poweredbycharcoalandbellows,whichhe

usestoheatandhammerrepeatedlytheporousspongeironuntilithasbeenmadeinto

wroughtiron.Hewouldcertainlyneedanopenforgeforthemanyhoursofworknecessary

toshapeandtemperawrought-ironingotintoafinishedswordofthequalitythissaga

describes.91

Insummary,aflexplicitlyreferstoasmeltingfurnaceinthisattestation.Ongoing

blacksmithingactivities(e.g.hammering,shaping,tempering)arealsoimpliedthatwould

makeuseofanopenforge.Althoughaworkshop(withafileandseveralothertools)is

clearlyimplied,aflrefersmorespecificallytothefurnaceassociatedwiththisspace.Itis

possiblysignificantthatVelenthasaccesstodomesticatedbirdsandmeal:thesefeaturesmay

suggestthathisworkshopisassociatedwithanagrariancomplex.

afl5-6 Inthesamelatethirteenth-centurymanuscriptofÃiñrekssagaafBern,themaster-

smithMimirtriestoteachyoungSigurñralessoninthesmithy:

NvsæztMimirfiriraflennoctecræittmikitiarn.oclætriælldocæinaãyngstvslægiv.ocselldiSigurñi.eneriarnitvarheittorñitbregñrhanãvioralfinumocasteñianocbiñrSigurñnutilleosta.Sigurñrlystretfyrstahogsuafastatsteñiasteinenklofnañiensteñingengrniñrallttilhausenseniarnitrytribrottentonginbrestrisundrviñslegivskaptitockemrfeariniñr.(Bertelsen1905-11:307-8)

NowMimirplacedhimselfbeforetheforgeandtookoutonelargepieceofironandplaceditinthefireandtooktheheaviesthammerandgaveittoSigurñr.AndwhentheironhadbecomehothedrewitoutoftheforgeandontotheanvilandtoldSigurñrnowtostrikeit.Sigurñrstruckthefirststrokesohardthattheanvilstonewassplitandtheanvilwentdown[intotheground]toitsheadandtheironflewawayandthetongsbrokeapartagainstthehammershaftandwentfardown[intotheground].

Inthesetwoattestationsaflreferstoaforgeusedtoworkhotiron.Theaflhereisassociated

withtongs,ananvilstoneandalargebarofironthatapparentlyneedstobehammered.

Thereisnomention,however,oftheneedtorefinesmallpiecesofimpureironintoingots,

asVelentdoesinafl4.Instead,itseemsthatlarge,preparedingotsarestoredonsite.This

91JimHrisoulas,forinstance,suggeststhattheNorse“weresomeofthegreatestswordsmithsandmetalcraftsmentheworldhaseverseen”andthattheirmethodswereveryeffective(Hrisoulas1987:143-4,146).Hrisoulassuggeststhatthesesmithswouldspendupwardsof100-125hoursforgingasingleswordblade.

52

appearstobeablacksmithingoperation,andtheforgeisclearlyclosetotheanvil-stonesoas

toenablethesmithtoquicklyworkthemetalbeforeitcools.

afl7.TheseventhattestationisfromkingRáñbarñr’sdream-vision,inKnÿtlingaSaga(c.

1300):

Ãatvareinanótt,erkonungrsvafádrekasínumílyptingu,athonumsÿndisksemdrekimikillflygiútanafhafinuokãóttilitrhanssemgulleittoksindraafhonumuppáhimininn,semsíurflygiórafli,oklÿsiráõlllõndinnæstuafhonum.(ÍF351982:53-4)

Thatwasonenight,whenthekingwassleepingontheraiseddeckofhisship,thattohimitseemedasthoughagreatdragonflewinfromtheharbour,andhethoughtthecolourwaslikesheergoldandsparksfromitflewupintotheskylikemoltenmetalfromaforge,and[it]litupallthelandsnearhim.

Thisattestationsuggestsanexplosivedisplayofsparks,lightandheatassociatedwithanafl.

Síarefersto“anyglowingsubstance”andespeciallymoltenmetalsinafurnace(Fritzner

1954:s.v.sía;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.sía).Thecomparisonoftheeffectsofthis

dragontosparksandmoltenmetalexudingfromanafldemonstratesthattheaflis

understoodasaforgeorfurnacethatisusedspecificallyforheatingmetalstotemperaturesat

whichtheymelt.Thereferencetogulleitt,“sheergold”,92suggeststhatsomeassociation

withpurifyinggoldmayalsobeunderstood,inwhichcaseanopenforge(withcrucible)

wouldbetheprimarysenseofafl.

afl8.SagaSverrisKonungswasprobablywrittenduringthelatetwelfthcenturyand

finishedbeforeSnorriSturlusonbegancomposingHeimskringlainthe1220s.Theearliest

manuscriptthatsurvives,however,isfromc.1300.Thecontextforthisattestationisadream

thatGunnhildrhasbeforeshegivesbirthtoSverri.Inthisdream,Gunnhildrseeshernewly-

bornchildasawhite-hotstone:hennisyndistsemãatværieinnsteinnvelmikillocsniohvitr

atlit.Enhanngloañesvamiok,atallavegagneistañiafhonomsemafgloandaiarniãvier

akafligaerblasitiafli(Indrebø1920:2withmodifications),“itseemedtoherthatitwasa

92Cleasby-Vigfussonnotesthatwheneinnappearsfollowinganounitoperateswithsenseslike“only”and“sheer”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.einn).Inthisattestation,therefore,gulleittrefersto“sheergold”or“puregold.”

53

stone,verylargeandsnow-whiteincolour:anditglowedsogreatly,sothatinalldirections

sparksshotoffofit,justasfromglowingironwhichisblownvigorouslyintheforge.”93In

thisinstanceafldenotesaforgeorfurnaceusedtoheatirontowhite-hottemperatures.The

associationwithbellows(akafliga...blasit)isclearandmakessenseinrelationtothe

necessityforsuchairflowtoproducehightemperatures(indicatedbywhitecolourationof

themetal)atwhichpiecesofironmightbeweldedtogether.Asenseoftheinteriorityofa

walledfurnacemightbeimplied,particularlyinthecontextofthebirthingscene:thechildis

producedfromthewombinthisdreamjustasapieceofhotironmightbeproducedfroma

furnace.Thereis,however,noexplicitsenseofaninteriorspacehereanditremainsunclear

whetheranenclosedfurnaceoranopenforgeisbeingreferredto.Thecomparisonsuggests

thatanappealisbeingmadetotheexperienceofwitnessingaglowingpieceofironinsidean

afl.Thus,itislogicalthatalineofsightshouldbepossibletotheironinsidetheafl.This

indicatesanopenforgewithbellowsasthemostlikelyoption,sinceaclearlineofsightto

theironingotinafurnaceislessplausible.

afl9. HaraldrSigurñson’slastwordsbeforehisdeathreadasfollowsaccordingtoHemings

ãáttrÁslákssonar(c.1302-1310):Tostigeckatkonvngiokspvrñihvarthannvarsar.

Konvngrsvararlitiñjarnvarmersentenãersventiekatãathafieigitilenkiserindisórafli

veriñboriñ(Fellows-Jensen1962:52),“Tostiwenttothekingandaskedwhetherhewas

wounded.Thekinganswers“alittle[pieceof]ironwassenttomebuttherewhere94I

expectedthat[it]hasnotbeenbroughtoutoftheforgewithoutanypurpose.”Hereaflis

understoodasaforgethatisusedtocreateironarrowheads,thelitiñjarnthatHaraldrfatally

receives.Thisattestationisunique:nootheraflattestationsreferexplicitlytotheproduction

ofarrowheads.Theaflhereisaspaceoutofwhichthefinishedarrowheadisbrought:this

couldrefertoaforgedirectly,butitisalsopossiblethatthisattestationrefersmoregenerally

toaworkshopspaceoredificeinwhichmetalsareworkedusingforgesandfurnacesaswell

asothertools.

93Cleasby-Vigfussonsuggestsonly“red-hot”asameaningfortheadjectivalformofglóa(1957:s.v.glóa).Inthiscontext,wherethesubjectofthedescriptionisobviouslywhiteandhotitisclearthat“red-hot”isinappropriate.Thecolourofmetalsvariesaccordingtothetemperaturetheyareat.Inthiscaseitseemsthatthetemperaturebeingreferredtointhecomparisonisfarhotterthan“red-hot.” 94i.e.thearrowheadisarelativelysmalldeliveryfromtheforge,butitisfatalbecauseofwhereexactlyithasbeendelivered.

54

afl10-11.ThetenthandeleventhattestationsarefromthefollowingpassageintheOldNorse

translationofElucidarius(c.1290-1334).Here,theMasterexplainstotheDisciplewhyGod

madethedevilasmithinthefallenworldasapunishment:

Ãviathannfirirleitatveraænglahofñingiahimniãagerñegvñhannstarfsamansmiñiheimiathannãio[-]nadinavñigrmennillverviñiãaerhannvilldieigiærviñislavstãio[-]nagvñiihimnvmvppisemrititerGeramanekhannãereilifanãrelÃessarsmiñsaflareroqvalarheimsSmiñbælgirhansablastarfræstnihamrarhansoktænggreroofriñarmennokqveliañrarãælar95hansoksag[-]ñererobolvenñrokbakmalogartvngvrJãessoafleokmeñãessomto[-]lvmhræinsazcgvllkerhimnakonongssãaterohælgirmennenvanñerpinazidvflizvhansãeirermotigerahimnakonongeaãessalvndãionkardiavvvllgvñi.(Firchow1992:56withmodifications)

Becausethedevilabandonedhisleadershipoftheangelsinheaven,Godmadehimanindustrioussmithintheworldsothatheunwillinglyservedpeoplewithevilwork,sincehedidnotwanttoserveGodinheavenwithoutwork,asiswritten:Ishallmakehimyourservantforever(Job40:23/41:4).Thissmith’sforgesarethetormentsoftheworld.Hisbellowsaretheinspirationsoftemptation.Hishammersandtongsarehisenemiesandhistormentors.Hisfilesandhissawsareswearingandback-talkingtongues.InthisforgeandwiththesetoolsthegoldenvesseloftheKingofHeaveniscleansed–thatisthesaints.Thewicked–thatisthosewhoworkagainsttheKingofHeaven–aretormentedinhisdungeon.InthiswaythedevilservesGod.(Firchow1992:57,59withmodifications)

Inthefirstattestationhere(afl10),theOldNorsetranslatorselectssmiñsaflarasa

translationoftheLatinCujusfabricaminus(FirchowandGrimstad1989:93).Theaflis

associatedwithspecificmetal-smithingtools,suchasbellows,hammersandtongs.Itis

somewhatunclearwhetheraflarreferstospecificforgesand/orfurnaces,orwhetherthis

referstoaworkshopspaceingeneral.Thisdescriptionoperatesasalistofsmithing

equipmentanditisthereforeplausiblethataflarreferstoadditionalequipment(e.g.specific

furnacesorforges)withintheworkshopareathatcontainsthesestructuresandtheassociated

tools.Thedescriptionisnot,however,clearenoughtoruleoutthepossibilitythataflarmay

95TheOldNorsetexthereactuallyreadsãrælar,“slaves”,notãælar,“files”(Firchow1992:56).Firchownotes,however,thatthe“Latintextreadslimaeetserrae(filesandsaws)whichisalsothereadingprovidedbyAM685b,4to,fol.1r,7-8”(1992:109).IemendtheOldNorseinkeepingwiththis.

55

refertotheworkshopareaitself.Itisclearthattherearemultipleaflarreferredtohere,and

thisisararepluralreferencetoaflarintheNorsecorpus,theonlyothersuchexamplesbeing

inGylf14andVsp7(cf.afl2andafl13below).Thesecondattestation(afl11)isconsistent

withthecontextofthefirst(afl10):itisclearthatthesamesmithingsceneisreferredto.But

afl11isinthesingularandthereforemaysuggestthataflinthiscasereferstotheworkshop

areathatencompassesthemultipleaflar,“furnaces/forges”,referredtoearlierinthispassage.

Onceagain,itremainsunclearwhetherafl11ismeanttorefertoanindividualforgeor

furnaceortotheentireworkshoparea.Themetaphoricalnatureoftheseattestationsmayalso

bringsuchspecificdistinctionsbetweenthesingularandpluralintoquestion:thedescription,

withitsdominantinterestinspiritualsymbolism,maynotbeconsistentinsuchdetailed

distinctions.InthiseleventhattestationthetranslatorusesaflasatranslationoftheLatin

caminus(FirchowandGrimstad1989:93).

afl12.ONPcitesasaseparateattestationaslightlylatermanuscriptvariant96ofSverris

saga:allauegagneistañiafhonum(ɔ:steininum)semafiarniãuierrenrfiriafli(Finnur1916:256),“inalldirectionssparksshotoffofit,justasfromironwhichmeltsbeforea

forge.”Asintheearliermanuscript(cf.afl8above),thisattestationalsoassociatesaflwith

heatingirontothewhite-hottemperaturesatwhichsparksshootoffofitreadily.By

comparisonwithafl8,thisattestationpresentslittlefurtherinformationabouttheafl,with

oneimportantexception.Thedescriptionoftheironinassociationwiththeverbrennais

significant.Inusageswithwaterorbodiesofwater,rennatendstomean“flow”(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.renna;Fritzner1954:s.v.renna).Inusageswithmetals,however,the

verbtendstomean“run,melt,dissolve”.Clearlythisisadescriptionofmoltenmetal

“running”infrontofanafl,andthissuggeststhattheaflismeanttorefertoafurnace

capableofreachinghighertemperaturesthananopenforge.Thisalsosuggeststhatthe

moltenmetalisslag,nottheironitselfbecausethefurnacesofthisperiodwerenotgenerally

capableofmeltingiron.

96Eirspennill,AM47fol,c.1300-1325.

56

afl13.AtleasttenattestationsofaflappearinSnorraEdda,whichwasarguablyfirst

composedbySnorriSturlusonintheearlythirteenthcentury.Theoldestextantmanuscriptis

fromc.1300-1350.ThefirstattestationsinSnEappearinaparaphraseofVsp7inchapter14

ofGylfaginning:

ÃatvarãarsemheitirIñavõllrímiñriborginni.Varãathitfyrstaãeiraverkatgerahofãatersætiãeirastandaí,tólfõnnurenhásætitãaterAlfõñrá.Ãathúserbeztgertájõrñuokmest.Allterãatútanokinnansvásemgulleitt.ÍãeimstañkallamennGlañsheim.Annansalgerñuãeir,ãatvarhõrgrergyñjurnaráttu,okvarhannallfagr.ÃathúskallamenVingólf.Ãarnæstgerñuãeirãatatãeirlõgñuaflaokãartilgerñuãeirhamaroktõngoksteñjaokãañanafõlltólõnnur.(Faulkes2000:15)

‘ThiswasintheplacecalledIñavõllinthecentreofthecity.Itwastheirfirstworktobuildthetemplethattheirthronesstandin,twelveinadditiontothethronethatbelongstoAll-father.Thisbuildingisthebestthatisbuiltonearthandthebiggest.Outsideandinsideseemslikenothingbutgold.TheplaceiscalledGlañsheimr.Theybuiltanotherhall,thiswasthesanctuarythatbelongedtothegoddesses,anditwasverybeautiful.ThisbuildingiscalledVingólf.Thenextthingtheydidwasestablishforgesandforthemtheymadehammerandtongsandanvil,andwiththesetheymadeallothertools.’(Faulkes2001a:16withmodifications)

ThisparaphraseissimilarinitsusageofaflartoVsp7(cf.afl2below)andfollowsRrather

thanH.97Thereare,however,severaldifferencesbetweenthisproseparaphraseandthetext

ofVsp7asitappearsinR.WhereasVsp7mentionstheambiguousauñ,“preciousthings”as

productsassociatedwiththeaflar,Gylf14doesnotmentionauñ.Gylf14insteadrefersto

aflarinrelationtotheproductionanduseofhammers,tongsandanvils,aswellasthe

capacitytomakeallothertools.Thislatterremarkaboutmakingallothertoolsemphasizes

thefoundationalroleoftheseaflarinestablishingthecivilizationoftheÆsir.Gylf14makes

itclearthattheaflarrefertoforges(andperhapsfurnaces)thataredistinctfrombutessential

toworkshops.Fromtheforgescomethehammers,tongsandanvilsthatareusedina

metalworkingworkshop,andwiththesetools(andtheforges)allothertoolscanbemade,

likelyfrommetalsandfromothermaterialsusingmetaltools.

97Seethediscussionatthebeginningofthischapter(startingonpage44)ofthevariantsinVsp7inRandH.

57

afl14-21.ONPidentifiesfourseparateattestationsofaflfromoneshortprosesectionofSnE,in

thiscasefromSkáldskaparmálchapter35.Thereare,infact,twiceasmanyattestationsin

thispassage.Thecontextmaybeparaphrasedasfollows.LokicutsoffSif’s(Ãórr’swife)

hair.TosavehimselffromÃórr’sanger,Lokiagreestoenlistthedwarfsknownasthesonsof

ÍvalditomakeanewheadofhairforSifentirelyoutofgold.Thedwarfsdothis,andin

additiontheymakethemagicshipSkíñblañnirandÓñinn’sspear,Gungnir.Lokithenwagers

hisheadwithadwarfnamedBrokkr,challengingBrokkrthathisbrotherEitricouldnot

makethreethingsasgoodasthethingsthesonsofÍvaldihadmade.Thenarrationthen

proceedstodetailtheprocessbywhichEitriandhisbrotherBrokkrforgethegods’second

setofthreemagicalgifts.

Duringthispassagethewordaflisusedeighttimesinjustninesentencesortwo

hundredandonewords:

Enerãeirkómutilsmiñju,ãálagñiEitrisvínskinníaflinnokbañblásaBrokkokléttaeigifyrrenattœkiãatóraflinumerhannlagñií.Enãegarerhanngekkórsmiñjunnienhinnblés,ãásettiskflugaeináhõndhonumokkroppañi,enhannbléssemáñrãartilsmiñrinntókóraflinum,okvarãatgõltrokvarburstinórgulli.Ãvínæstlagñihanníaflinngullokbañhannblásaokhættaeigifyrrblæstrinumenhannkvæmiaptr.Gekkábraut.Enãákomfluganoksettiskáhálshonumokkroppañinúhálfufastara,enhannblésãartilersmiñrinntókóraflinumgullhringãannerDraupnirheitir.Ãálagñihannjárníaflinnokbañhannblásaoksagñiatónÿttmundiverñaefblástrinnfelli.Ãásettiskflugannmilliaugnahonumokkroppañihvarmana,enerblóñitfellíaugunsváathannsáekki,ãágreiphanntilhendinnisemskjótastmeñanbelgrinnlagñiskniñroksveiptiafsérflugunni.Okãákomãarsmiñrinnat,sagñiatnúlagñinærataltmundiónÿtaskeríaflinumvar.Ãátókhannóraflinumhamar.(Faulkes1998a:42)

Andwhentheycametotheworkshop,Eitriputapig’shideintheforgeandtoldBrokkrtoblowandnottostopuntilhetookoutoftheforgewhathehadputin.Andassoonashe[Eitri]lefttheworkshopandhe[Brokkr]blew,thenaflysettleditselfonhis[Brokkr’s]armandnibbled,butheblewasbeforeuntilthesmithtookhisworkoutoftheforge,anditwasaboaranditsbristlesweremadeofgold.Thennexthe[Eitri]putgoldintotheforgeandtoldhim[Brokkr]toblowandnotstoptheblowingbeforehecameback;he[Eitri]wentout.Andthentheflycameandsettleditselfonhis[Brokkr’s]neckandnibbled

58

twiceashard,butheblewuntilthesmithtookfromtheforgeagoldringcalledDraupnir.Thenhe[Eitri]putironintheforgeandtoldhim[Brokkr]toblowandsaiditwouldturnoutnotgoodiftheblowingceased.Thentheflysettleditselfbetweenhis[Brokkr’s]eyesandnibbledhiseyelids,andwhentheblooddrippedintotheeyessothathecouldnotsee,thenhestruckatitquicklywithhishandwhilethebellowswasonitswaydownandswepttheflyaway.Andthenthesmithcameback,sayingitnowlayonthebrinkofeverythingintheforgebeingruined.Thenhetookoutoftheforgeahammer.(Faulkes2001a:96withmodifications)

Thispassageisratherliteraryorfolkloricinnature,anditrefersgenerallytomultiple,

distinctsmithingprocesses(i.e.bothferrousandnon-ferrous)aspartofoneandthesamesort

ofincubationconcept.98Nonetheless,inthiscaseaflrepetitivelyandconsistentlyreferstothe

interiorspaceofaforgeorfurnace,heatedbybellows,inwhichthesemetallicgiftsaremade.

Thisisclearlyafurnaceorforgeformetalworking,andsincefinishedartefactsaremade(i.e.

asopposedtorefinedbutunfinishedmetalingots)itseemsmostlikelythataforgeisbeing

used.Furnacesinthisperiodarepredominantlyassociatedwithironsmelting,whileforges

areassociatedwithblacksmithingandnon-ferrousmetalworkthatyieldsfinishedartefacts.

DuringthisrepeatedprocessthesmithEitriinsertsapig’shidetocreatethegoldenboar

Gullinborsti,apieceofgoldtocreatethegoldenringDraupnir,andapieceofirontocreate

Ãórr’shammer,Mjõllnir.Inallthreeinstancesitisclearthattheaflisbeingusedto

transformmaterials(usuallymetals)inordertoproduceapreciousitem(eithermadeof

metalorcloselyassociatedwithmetal).

Itisalsoclearthatthisaflhasadistinctandlikelyhiddeninteriorspaceintowhich

materialsareplacedandfromwhichproductsareremoved.Thepassagegivestheimpression

thatitisnotknownwhattransformationhastakenplaceuntilEitrireturnsandremovesthe

productfromtheafl.Thusitispossible,thoughnotnecessarilythecase,thatsomesortof

structureimpedesalineofsitetothemetalinsidetheafl.Thisaflcouldbeunderstoodasan

enclosedfurnaceratherthananopenforge,orasanopenforgewithsomesortofimplied

structureorperhapscharcoalpartlyobscuringthemetal.Thispassagealsoclearly

demonstratesadistinctionbetweentheaflasadefinedstructurewithitsowninteriorspace

andtheworkshopspaceoredificeinitself:therepeatedentrancesandexitsclearlyestablish

98Asnotedinthe“Surveyofmetallurgicalprocessesassociatedwithforgesandfurnaces”inthe“Introduction”tothisdissertation,thetoolsandmechanismsinvolvedinrefiningandproducinggold(non-ferrous)andiron(ferrous)artefactsaredistinctinmanyways.

59

adistinctionbetweenEitrienteringandexitingtheworkshoparea(whileBrokkrremains

inside)andEitriinsertingandremovingitemsfromtheaflitself.Thereisaninsidespaceto

thisafljustasthereisaninsidespacetotheworkshopareaoredifice.Thisdistinctionis

important:inthiscontextitisclearthatthetermaflismeanttoreferspecificallytothe

furnaceorforgeanditsinteriorspaceratherthanreferringeitherdirectlyormetonymicallyto

theworkshopspacethatcontainstheforgeand/orfurnace.99Althoughthebellowsare

identifiedasacrucialaspectofsuccessfulsmithinghere,thereisnomentionoftongs,anvils

orothertools.InthisinstancefromSnEaflreferstoaforgewithadistinctinteriorspaceand

thereisaclearrelationbetweenthemaintenanceoftheairflowtothefireandthesuccessof

thetransformationthatisachievedinsidethefurnace.100

Itisimportantinrelationtootherevidence,particularlytheSnaptunforgestone(see

page22above),tonotehowthisnarrativeconcludesaccordingtoSkáldskaparmál.This

secondsetofthreegiftsarejudgedasbetterthanthefirstsetthatweremadebythesonsof

Ívaldi.ThereforeBrokkrseekstoclaimLoki’sheadasperthetermsoftheoriginalwager.

Oncecaughtandundertheknife,Lokisaveshisheadbystatingthatthedwarfhasevery

righttohisheadbutnonewhatsoevertohisneck:Lokisagñiathannáttihõfuñeneigi

hálsinn(Faulkes1998a:43),“Lokisaidthathehadtheheadbutnottheneck.”Inhisrage,

Brokkrsummonsanalr“awl”,whichpiercesLoki’slipsandsewsthemshut:ãávarãar

alrinnokbeithannvarrarnar.Rifañihannsamanvarrarnarokreifóræsunum.Sáãvengrer

muñrinnLokavarsamanrifañrheitirVartari(Faulkes1998a:43),“thentheawlwasthere,

anditpiercedthelips.Hestitchedthelipstogether,andittoretheedgesoff.Thethongthat

Loki’smouthwasstitchedupwithiscalledVartari”(Faulkes2001a:97withmodifications).

afl22.InadditiontoVsp7,therearetwomorepoeticattestations101ofafl.Thefirstofthese

appearsinSnorraEdda,instanzafifteenofEilífrGoñrúnarson’sÃórsdrápa:

99Amodernanalogywouldbetodistinguishclearlybetweenthekitchenversustheovenitselfwithinthatkitchen. 100ThereisalsoacleardistinctionbetweentheactionsattributedtoEitriandBrokkr:BrokkrseemssubordinatetoEitriinthattheformertakesordersfromthelater.Eitriseemstoberesponsiblefortheselectionofmaterialandthetimingoftheincubationwithinthefurnace.Brokkrisresponsiblefortheworkingofthebellows.Forfurtherinformationondistinctionsbetweenskilledsmithsandtheworkforcestheymanageinthesmithy,seethediscussionofSkalla-GrímrandsimilarfiguresinChapter2(page180andfollowing). 101Otherpoeticattestationshavebeensuggestedbutaremistaken.LPsuggeststhatafl“furnace,forge”appearsinalausavísaattributedtoÃjóñólfrArnorson(1931:s.vaflm.).TheusageinÃjóñólfr’sstanzaisactuallythe

60

Fátíñanamfrœñi,(fjarñeplis)konJarñar(Mœrarlegsnemÿgñumennõlteiti)kenna.ÁlmtaugarlaustœgirangrãjófsegatangarÓñinsaflisoñnumáttruñríginSuñra.(Faulkes1998a:29)

Jõrñ’ssonbegantodisplayunusualknowledge[skill],andthemen[giants]ofthefjord-apple-[rock-]moor-lair[mountaincave]didnotsuppresstheirale-joy.Thebow-string-troubler[warrior,Geirrøñr],relativeofSuñri,struckwithforge-cookedtongs-morsel[glowinglumpofmetal]atthemouthofÓñin’ssorrow-stealer[helper,Ãórr].(Faulkes2001a:85withmodifications)

WithinthisstanzaofEilífr’sÃórsdrápa,aflisadevicecloselyassociatedwithtongs,heat

andglowingmetal.Itisnot,however,exclusivelyassociatedwithmetalworkinginthis

context.Theverbsóñna,“tobecomesodden,cooked,boiled”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

sóñna),introducesa(perhapsironic)metaphorofpreparingfoodbyuseofacookingfire.

Eilífrdevelopsthesmithingimageryalongsidethiscookingandfeastingmetaphorinboth

stanzasfifteenandsixteen.AsthoughÃórrweregivingatoastwithacupraisedinhishand,

Ãórr,“thespeedy-hastenerofbattle,swallowedinthequickbiteofhishandstheraiseddrink

ofmoltenmetalintheair”(Faulkes2001a:85withmodifications),Sváathrañskyndirhanda

/hrapmunnumsvalggunnar/lyptisylgálopti/langvinrsíu(Faulkes1998a:29).Instanza

eighteenanotherkeypieceofvocabularyentersthepicture.Here,Ãórrisreferredtowiththe

kenningsalvaniñ-Synjararinbauti.Faulkesinterpretsthisasa“doubletmesis,orperhaps

adverbialformofafln.,meaning“strongly,powerfully”.ThecontexthereisconsciouslyplayingoffofEilífr’sÃórsdrápa,anditcontainsseveralsmithingmotifs:

VarpórãrætuãorpiÃórrsmiñbelgjastórrahváptseldingumhõldnumhafrakjõtsatjõtni.HljóñgreipumtókhúñahrøkkviskaflsafafliglañrviñgaldrasmiñjuGeirrøñrsíuãeiri.[...]TheÃórr<god>ofhugeforge-bellows[SMITH]flungjaw-lightnings[INSULTS]fromhisquarrelhamlet[MOUTH]attheproudgiantofgoats’flesh[TANNER].ThecheerfulGeirrøñr<giant>ofthecurvingscraperofhides[TANNER]tookinwithhissound-grabbers[EARS]thatmoltensubstanceofthesmithyofspells[MOUTH>INSULTS],powerfully.(SPSMA22009:169-70)

61

ratherasinterchangeoftheelementsofthekenning”,whichshouldbeinterpretedas

salvaniñbautiarin-Synjar,“Thebeater[Ãórr]ofthefrequenter[giant]ofhearth-Syn’s

[giantess’s]dwelling”(Faulkes1998a:29176;Faulkes2001a:85withmodifications).The

arinninthiskenningclearlyreferstoadomestichearthorfireplace,anditcaninsomecases

refermetonymicallytoaplaceofresidenceorhome(ONP2010:s.v.arinn).Arinnappearsin

closeassociationwithsalvaniñr,anadjectiveforapersonwhois“hall-accustomed,hall-

frequenting,hall-visiting”(Faulkes1998a:381).Thereisclearlyadistinctionbetweenthe

usageofarinninrelationtothedomesticdenotationsoftheadjectivesalvaniñrandtheusage

ofaflinrelationtothesmithingmotifsandallusionsofthesestanzas.

ItisworthaskinghowitisthatGeirrøñracquiresaglowing-hotpieceofironinside

hisownhall.Itispossiblethataforgeislocatedinsidethehall(Wallace2006:38-40),or

thatthisisareferencetoadomestictool,ahotironpokerorfire-iron(ONarinsjárn)

associatedwiththedomestichearthorcookingfire(ONP2010:s.v.arins-járn;Fritzner

1954:s.v.arinsjárn;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.arinsjárn).Atanyrate,thecouplingof

thesmithingandcookingallusionsmaycreatetheimpressionthatthisantagonistictossing

backandforthofahotironingotislikethepassingofcookedfoodordrinkingcupsata

feast(orperhapstheexchangeofprojectilesinbattle).102Moregenerally,theeffectmaybea

parodyofgiftexchangemotifs,withÃórrbeingaguestinGeirrøñr’shall.Itremainsclear,

however,thatwhatisinfactbeingexchangedisaglowingpieceofiron.Althoughthe

cookingmetaphorispresenthere,smithingmotifsarecertainlyalsooperativeelsewherein

Eilífr’spoem.Whilecrossingariver,Ãórrisdescribedasusingahlÿmãél,“banging-file”,

andtherocksoftheriverbedaredescribedassteñjar,“anvils”(Faulkes1998a:27).The

kenninghallland,“landofthe(whet)stone”,isalsousedtorefertoasword(Faulkes1998a:

27).Althoughinsomestanzasofthispoemthecookingoffoodandtheheating/workingof

metalappearincloseparallel,theskillsandtoolsofcookingandsmithingareclearly

understoodasdistinct.Aflherehasaprimarymeaningofafurnaceorforgethatheatsiron

piecestoglowing-hottemperatures,butthechoiceoftheverbsjóñasituatesthisattestation

102RobertaFrankinterpretsthisasa“digestivemetaphor”operatinginthebasewordsofthesekennings,whilethedeterminantssituateGeirrøñrinasettingsimilartoaworkshopwith“hisblacksmithtongs[...]fire,sparks,andfurnace”(Frank1986:98).SeealsoMargaretCluniesRoss’s“AninterpretationofthemythofÃórr’sencounterwithGeirrøñrandhisdaughters”(1981:370-91),andCluniesRossandMartin,“NarrativestructuresandintertextualityinSnorraEdda:theexampleofÃórr’sencounterwithGeirrøñr”(1986:56-72).

62

withinacontextthatcloselyparallels(inabstractpoeticterms)cookingandsmithingwhile

maintainingthateachisdistinctfromtheother.103

afl23.ThereisasingleattestationintheIslandskeAnnaler(c.1362-1380),whichalso

appearsinacorrespondingaccountinalatermanuscriptofLaurentiussagabiskups(c.

1530).104Theaccountfortheyear1300relatesthattherewereseveralmomentous

earthquakesandthataneruptionsplitopenthepeakofHeklaonthethirteenthofJuly:

ElldzvppkuamajHeklufellemedsuamikluafleatfiallitrifnadesuaatsiazmunmeghamedal(!)Islanderbygdt.Jãeimelldelekulausbiorghstorsemkolaaaflesuaatafãeirasamkuomuvrdubrestirsuastoriratheyrdenordrvmlandokvidaannarsstadar.(Storm1888:262)

AnupsurgeoffirewithinMountHeklawithsuchgreatforcethatthemountainsplitopensothatitwillbeseenaslongasIcelandisinhabited.Withinthatfiregreat,loosebouldersbangedlikeembersinafurnacesuchthatattheirimpactsuchgreatcrashesoccurredthattheywereheardnorthaboutthelandandwidelyinotherplaces.

Thisattestationsituatesaflm.“furnace,forge”incloseproximitytoafln.“strength,power.”

Inthesecondsentenceitisgrammaticallypossiblethataflecouldrefertoeithertheneuteror

masculinenouns,butthesemanticsdonotpermitthesecondinstanceofafltobeunderstood

as“strength,power,force.”OliverEltonelectstotranslatethissecondsentenceasfollows:

“Inthisfiregreatstoneswhirledwildlyaboutlikecoalinhardness”(Elton1890:23-4).

“Hardness”wouldproperlybeharkaorharñindi,nottheneuternounafl.Therefore,asthe

ONPestablishes,inthiscontextaflrefersto“furnace,forge.”

TheabovepassagecomparestheactivityofanafltothevolcanicactivityofHekla.

Thiscomparisonisnotverypreciseinregardstoanunderstandingofafl.Thegiantboulders

withintheclovenpeakofHeklaarecomparedtothehotemberswithinanafl:thus,theaflis

understoodascontaininghotembersandthereforeafl,inthesecircumstances,likelyrefersto

afurnaceorforge(thespacesthatcontainhotembers)ratherthantoaworkshopspacewhich

103SeealsoCluniesRoss’sdiscussionofÃórsdrápainrelationtocraftingmotifsandthepossibilitythata“historicalevent”(i.e.aquarrelbetweenablacksmithandatanner)mayhaveinspiredKingHaraldrharñráñitoaskhisskaldÃjóñólfrArnórssontomakeapoemaboutasimilarfightbetweenmythologicalcraftsmen(CluniesRoss2005:115-7).CluniesRosspointsoutthatthemythÃjóñólfrused“asthebasisforthiscomparison”istheencounterbetweenÃórrandGeirrøñr(seefootnote54onpage27above).104Seebelow,afl34(page71).

63

moregenerallycontainsorisassociatedwithforgesandfurnaces.Inthiscaseitisnot

immediatelyclearwhetherornotaflcanrefertoamoredomestictypeoffire:theessential

qualityinthisinstanceseemstobethatglowingcoalsareinvolved,notnecessarilymetalsor

tools.Itmaybe,however,thatthispassagealsoimpliesacomparisonbetweenthevolcanic

activityandtheviolence,energy,heatandperhapseventhenoiseofanafl:ifthisisthecase,

thenthisusageofaflwouldbemorecloselyorexclusivelyassociatedwithsmithing

workshopsandactivities.Butthedescriptionofthisviolenceandnoiseisprimarilyin

relationtothevolcanicevent;nodirectcomparisonismadebetweenthesetermsandtheafl.

ItmaybethattheinteriorityandelevatedstructureofHeklaarealsounderstoodasanalogous

totheinteriorityandelevatedstructureoftheaflinthisusage.Ifthisisthecase,itwould

suggestaraisedshaft-furnaceratherthananopenforge.Butthistooisatbestanimpliedand

indirectcomparison.Inthispassage,theconceptoftheaflissecondarytotheaimof

describingthevolcanicevent.Theprimaryanalogyisbetweenthehotbouldersofthe

volcanoandtheglowingembersoftheafl.

afl24. Thelatefourteenth-centuryDíalógarGregorspáfa(c.1350-1400)usesaflto

emphasizethequalitiesofnewlyforgedgoldcoins:oksaãarliggia.xii.gullpenningasva

biarta,semnyteknirveriurafli(Unger1877:194),“andsotherelaytwelvegoldencoinsso

brightitseemedtheywerefreshlytakenoutofaforge.”Thisattestationdemonstratesthat

aflarwereunderstoodasasourceofgoldcoins.Thelevelofprecisioninthisattestationis

questionable:thephraseisperhapsmorecolloquialthanliteral.Coinsweremadeusingdies

orstamps,andtheywerebeststampedwhenhotbutnotmolten.Thissentenceisnottobe

interpretedas“likecoinsfreshlytakenoutofadie(afl).”Aflisclearlynottobeconfused

withtheOldIcelandicwordmót,“stamp,mark”(Fritzner1954:s.v.mót;Cleasby-Vigfusson

1957:s.v.mót).Thisattestationreferstocoinsthathavebeenfreshlymade.Thus,itis

possiblybutnotnecessarilythecasethatthisattestationmoregenerallyreferstothe

workshoparea(asopposedtotheforgespecifically)outofwhichnewlymadecoinscome.It

isalsopossiblethatthisattestationdemonstratesaninaccurateunderstandingofhowcoins

aremadeorthatthephraseshouldonlybetakenidiomatically.

64

afl25.Inthec.1400VitæPatrumthereisastoryaboutholyApellen,virduliganprest[...]

rádvandanokrettlatan(Unger1877:437),“avenerablepriest[...]honestandjust.”Apellen

isalsoaskilledsmithandheusestheseskillstodefendhimselfagainsttheseductiveartsof

thedevil:

hannvariarnsmidroksmidadiãalute,erãurftbrædrabeiddi.Nockurntimanærmidnættisnerifiandinnasikfurduligrifegrdeinnarungrarkonu,sottisidanafundgudsmannzApellen,ãarerhannvaktiatsmidiuverkesinu,svasembidiandesmidar.HeilagrApellengreipãegargloandaiarnitoraflinumberrihendeokrakframanakvefit[105]ãessenykomnukonu.Enhonflydeãegaribrottylandeokemiande,svaatallirbrædrerumhverfissbiõgguheyrñuhennaraumligaopokemian.ÃadanafhafdiheilagrApellenalldritõng,helldrhelltiveniumedberrihendeathalldaágloandaiarne,oksakadehannecki.(Unger1877:437)

He[Apellen]wasaniron-smithandworkedwithmetalthenbentover,as[the]needof[the]brothersdemanded.Acertaintimeclosetomidnightthedevilturnedhimselfintoamarvelousbeautyofoneyoungwoman,[thedevil]soughtafterwardstomeetApellenmanofgod,therewhereheawoketohissmithy-work,justasawooerof[the]smith.HolyApellenseizedatoncetheglowingironoutoftheforgewithabarehandandthrust[theglowingiron]onthefrontpartofthenoseofthisrecentlyarrivedwoman.Andshefledawayfromthereyellingandhowling,suchthatall[the]brotherswhodweltallaroundheardherwretchedcryingandhowling.FromthattimeonwardsholyApellenneverhad[apairof]tongs,rather[he]graspedinhabitwithabarehandtoholdontoglowingiron,andhewasnotharmedbyit.

Inthiscase,aflisatranslationoftheLatinfornax(cf.Unger1877:437).Hereaflis

understoodasaspacefromwhichglowing-hotironisremoved,usuallyusingtongs.Inthe

caseofholyApellen,however,hismiraculousqualitiesenablehimtousehisbarehandsto

handletheglowingiron.Theaflinthiscontextisalsounderstoodasdistinctfromthesmith’s

workshop:thedevil/womanenterstheworkshopandholyApellenremovestheglowingiron

fromtheaflwhichiswithinthatworkshopspace.Thiscausesthedevil/womantoonceagain

exittheworkshopspacethatcontainstheafl.Thisworkshopalsoappearstobepartofthe

105FritznerpointsoutthatkvefappearstobeahapaxlegomenonbutisalsoclearlyatranslationoftheLatinfaciem,“face”(1954:s.v.kvef).RussellPoolesuggeststheOldIcelandictextshouldreadnefit,“thenose”,ratherthankvefit(pers.comm.).

65

communalstructurewithinthemonastery,andApellenappearstoberesponsiblefor

fabricatingmetaltoolstosatisfytheneedsoftheotherpriests.

afl26. ThefinalpoeticattestationforaflisintheanonymousGátur2(c.1400).Inthis

riddleeachline(orinsomecasesmorethanoneline)ismeanttorefertothenameofabird:

Ennsákfljúgaõñrusinni:skorinnlínskautaokskipÃráins,járnórafli,útleiddasál,konukjõtnefndafyrkviñneñan.(SPSMA2001-2010:AnonGát2)

AndIsawflyasecondtime:thecutofalinen-sheet[=akerchief]106andÃráin’sship[namedGammr=vulture],107ironoutofaforge,108soulof[the]outwardcourse[=adepartedsoul],109awomanmeat-namedafter[theanatomicalfeature,i.e.vulva]below[the]belly.110

Inthisinstance,afliscloselyassociatedwithironandappearstobeunderstoodaseithera

forgeorfurnacefromwithinwhichironistaken(járnórafli).Itseemspossiblebutunlikely

thataflreferstotheworkshopspaceingeneral,butthereislittledefinitiveinformationtobe

gleanedfromthecontext.

afl27.NikolaussagaErkibyskups(c.1425-1445)openswiththedescriptionofadevastated

volcaniclandscape:

106Abird,asail(ofaship),anapkinandalapallappeartobepotentialinterpretationsofskorinnlínskauta.LPandSkj.suggestatypeofbird,Limosamelanura(Black-tailedGodwit)(LP1931:s.v.línskauti,jañrakárn;Skj.1973:BII248;Jardine1866:192-3).Thebirdinterpretationseemsmostlikely,giventhethemeofbirdsinthisriddle.107cf.Skj.(1973:BII248)108TheonlysuggestedsolutionIamawareofforthebird-nameriddlejárnórafliisãeistikofa,a“sea-pigeon”,“blackguillemot”orpossiblyotherbirdsfromtheaukfamily(UriagrylleorColymbusgrylle)(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.ãeist;Skj.1973:BII248).Someofthesespecieshavebrilliantredfeet,whichmightbeapotentialconnectiontoglowing-redironfromaforge.Thisis,however,purelyspeculative.109cf.LP(1931:s.v.útleiña).Also,asKristjánKristjánsonhaspointedouttome(pers.comm.),ONöndf.canmeanboth“duck”and“breath,life”,andisapotentialsolutionforthislineoftheriddle(Finnur1954:s.v.önd).“Souloftheoutwardcourse”suggestsadepartingsoul,i.e.death.Önd,“life”,isinthislinealsodeparting.Andönd,“duck”,isanaquaticbird,whichisappropriategiventhenauticalovertonesofthephraseútleiddasálandtheprecedinglines.110BothSkj.andLPsuggestthatkjõtnefdrkonaisacollocationfora“woman’sgoose”(LP1931:s.v.kjõtnefndr;Skj.1973:BII248).LPinterpretsthisasthevulvaofawoman.

66

NicholasvarensgöfgaztakynsorborgãeirierPateraheitir,sueriãanntimavarfiolmennokagæt,ennuermiögsvaeydd.Enãarskamtfraborginniervöllr,saerslitnarsemklædifornt,okleggrorãeimrifumsvartanreykumdagaenelldumnætrsemurafli.(Unger1877:21)

NicholaswasofthemostnoblekindredoftheircitythatiscalledPatera,whichwasinthattimewellpopulatedandexcellent,butnowitisasgreatlyemptied.Andashortdistancefromthecitythereisafield,whichistornlikeoldclothing,andoutofthosefissuresblacksmokedischargesduringdaysandfireduringnightslikeoutofaforge.

Thisattestationclearlyassociatesanaflwithdischargesoffireandsmoke.Itisalsoclearthat

theprocessesassociatedwiththeaflarelikenedtovolcanicphenomena.Itisunclearinthis

instancewhetheraflisunderstoodprimarilyasafurnace,aforgeorasaworkshopproducing

smokeandfirelightatalltimesofdayandnight.Itismorelikelythatitisthefurnaceor

forgethatisreferredtospecificallyasthesourceofthefireandsmoke,butitispossiblethe

workshopisreferredtoinsteadoraswell.

afl28. Adóníasssaga(c.1450-1500)describesabattlebetweenConstantinusandAdonias

usingaflaspartofacomparativedescription:

Ãarnæstbrvgdvãeirsinvmsverdum.hoggrãáhuorrtilannarsbædi<stort>ogtidvmsovarlamáttiaugvàfestaennelldurenngeisladiogglæddiumãasemvraflistædeafsamkomustalannaogeing<i>madurãottizthafasiédógurligravigtveggiamanna.(Loth1964:204)

Therenexttheydrewtheirswords.Eachstrikesattheotherbothgreatlyandfrequentlysothatscarcelycouldeyesbefixeduponthatandthefireshedraysoflightandsparkledaroundthen,asifitaroseoutofaforge,from[the]meetingplaceofthebladesandnomanthoughttohaveseenamoreawfulbattlebetweentwomen.

Thisusageassociatesaflwithsparksandfiresobrightthatitisdifficulttodirectlylookat

them.Ratherthanreferringtotheworkshopgenerally,aflinthiscasemostlikelyrefers

specificallytothefurnaceorforgethatproducesbrightlightsandemitssparksfromcoals

andflames.

67

afl29. InKróka-Refssaga(c.1450-1500),theanti-heroRefrdemonstratesmanydifferent

skills.Inchapterfour,RefrgoestostaywithamannamedGestr.GestrasksRefrefhann

værinockuríãrottamadr.Refrkuadãadfiarrefara(Pálmi1883:8),“ifhewereaskilled

man.Refrsaidfarfromit.”ButGestrisdeterminedtorevealRefr’sinnateskills.Aftersome

timeobservinghim,GestrconcludesthatRefrisaãiodsmidr,“mastercraftsman.”Refr

admitsthathecanprovidenoevidencetoconfirmordenythis:‘Veramaãad’,segerRefr,

‘ãuiateghefialldrismidat’(Pálmi1883:9),“‘Itmaybe’,saysRefr,‘becauseIhavenever

workedinwoodormetals.’”Gestrputsthistheorytothetest,askingRefrtomakeforhima

sela-bát,“seal-huntingboat.”GestrquicklygathersthematerialsandtoolsforRefr:

Gestrlætrnubuahrófeittmikidogdragaãangadvidumikla.KnöreinnhafdibrotidáfiörumGestz;hafdihannkeyptuppskipviduna;ãessaallavidulætrGestrfæratilhrófsRefsogsuosauminnallann.GestráttiogiarnósmidadoglæztRefrãadvilldutilsintaka;kueztsialfrvilldusaumsla.SmidartóláallavegalétGestrãangadbera,suoogaflogkol.(Pálmi1883:9)

Gestrnowhadalargeshedpreparedanddraggedthenceagreatamountoftimber.AshiphadwreckedonGestr’sbeach;hehadboughtalloftheship-timbers;GestrhadallofthesetimbersmovedtoRefr’sshedandalsoallthenails.Gestralsohadun-workedironandRefrhimselfexpressedthathewouldliketotakethatforhimself;hesaidhewouldliketoforgenails.Gestrhadallsortsofsmithingtoolscarriedthence,alsoaforgeandcharcoal.

Hereaflisassociatedwiththeforgingofironnailsfrom“un-worked”ironbyusingtoolsand

charcoal.Thereareatleastthreegeneralpossibilitiesforwhat“un-worked”ironcouldrefer

to.First,“un-worked”ironcouldrefertounrefined(butcollected)ironore.InthiscaseRefr

wouldfirsthavetosmelttheorebeforehewouldhaveworkableiron.Second,itcouldrefer

toanewironingotinthesensethatitisfreshlyrefinedfromoreandhasnotbeenrecycled

fromoldartefacts.Third,itcouldrefertocurrencybarsofiron,perhapsmadelocallyor

perhapsacquiredthroughtrade.ItmayseemunrealisticthatsomeonelikeRefr,whois

entirelywithoutexperienceinmetalworkingandsmelting,would(withoutinstruction)be

abletosmeltironore.Refris,however,atricksterfigureofsortswho,althoughnotatall

associatedwiththesupernatural,demonstratesremarkableaptitudesandskillsthroughoutthe

68

sagawithoutanyapparenttrainingorappliedexperience.111Itwouldnotbeexceptionalin

thiscontextifRefrwereunderstoodtohavesmeltedironorehimselfandthenshapednails

outofit.ThisistheonlyinstancethatIamawareofinwhichtheadjectiveósmíñañrisused

todescribeiron.Theadjectivessmíñañrandósmíñañrareusedtogetherinthesamesentence

inseverallawcodes,alwaysofgoldandsilvertogether:efmañrselarguleñabrentsylfar,

huartsemãatersmiñateñavsmiñat,ãaterskirtskaluera(Flom1925:170;c.f.ONP2010:

s.v.ósmíñañr),“ifamansellsgoldorpuresilver,whetheritisworkedorun-worked,that

whichispuremustbe[pure].”Thesecontextsmayprecludethepossibilitythatósmíñañr

referstorawore,forinthatcasethegoldorsilverwouldnotnecessarilybepure.So

ósmíñañr,whendescribingmetals,likelyreferstotheingotproducedimmediatelyafter

refiningtheoreortosomeformofcurrencybarorringthathasbeenrefinedbuthasyettobe

“worked”intoafinishedartefact,e.g.anitemofjewellery,atool,orthelike.Itcantherefore

beruledoutthatRefrprocessesoreinthisinstance:heis,rather,workingwithaningotof

refinediron,orperhapsacurrencybarofiron,andheismakingnailsfromthispreviously

“un-worked”ironwhilealsore-usingoldnailsfromthewreckedship.

Insummary,theaflinthisinstanceisclearlyusedtomakenailsfrompreviously

refinedironingotsorcurrencybars.Therefore,inthisinstanceaflreferstoaforge,nota

furnace.Thisactivityofproducingnailsisclearlyassociatedwithship-buildingandseveral

otherunidentifiedtoolsaswellasalargehrófor“shed”asacoveredworkshopareathatis

commonlyassociatedeitherwithstoringorbuildingboats(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

hróf;ONP2010:s.v.hróf).ItisalsoworthnotingthatRefrisusingrecycledshiptimbersas

wellasrecyclednails.112

Theparallelismofthefinalclause,suoogaflogkol,mayseemtosuggestthata

“furnace”or“forge”isequallyasportableascoalandtools.Itisprobablymoreaccurateto

understandthatthefurnaceorforgeisbeingestablished,i.e.built,inassociationwiththe

shed,justasthesheditselfisbuiltonsiteratherthancarriedthereasoneunit.

111KendraWillsoneffectivelycontextualizestheroleoftechnologyinthissaga:

InKróka-Refssaga,thesupernaturalisconspicuousinitsabsence.Inlieuofsupernaturalintrusions,thetextpresentsaseriesofepisodesfeaturingtechnologicalaccomplishmentswhichwouldprobablyhavestrucktheoriginalaudienceaslessplausiblethanmanyofthelegend-likesupernaturaloccurrencesfoundinotherSagasofIcelanders.[...][T]heexaggeratedfeatsinKróka-Refssagamayreflectshadesofparodyortalltale.[...]Króka-Refrisatricksterheroandanti-herowitha[...]masteryoftechnology.(Willson2006:n.p.)

112Forfurtherinformationontheroleofrecycledandun-workediron,seethediscussionoftheMästermyrtoolchest(page109below).

69

afl30-31. StjõrnisacollectionofseveralOldTestamenthistoriesandtheoldestextant

manuscriptdatesfromthefifteenthcentury.Thesetwoattestationscomefromthestoryof

AaronmakingtheGoldenCalfoutofgoldenearrings(Exodus32).Scholarlyconsensusis

thatthepartofStjõrninwhichtheseattestationsappeardatestothefirsthalfofofthe

thirteenthcentury:113

Aaronletãatgullielldbera,okætladisuoatlemiafirirãeimskurgodssmidina.Ennergulltokatbrennaiaflinum,ãasneriztãatinautzlikneski.Vaxitsemkalfrennlittsemeir.EnerGydingarsaãettaundreruorditvar.Okãatuarlikneskierorditvariaflinum.(Unger1862:311-2)

Aaronhadthatgoldcarriedtoafire,andheintendedsotobeatthem[i.e.theearrings]downintoacarvedimagewiththesmith’swork.Andwhenthegoldtooktoburninginsidetheforge,thenthatchangedintotheshapeofacow.[It]grewlikeacalfandlookedlikebrass.AndthentheJewssawthatwonderwhichhadhappened.Andthatwas[the]shapewhichhadbeenmadeintheforge.

Inthesecasesaflappearstorefertoafurnaceorforgeusedtosmeltgold,buttheremaybe

someconfusionorconflationwithacrucibleaswell.Theprocessoftransformationis,in

general,moremysterious(ormagicalandspontaneous)thanpreciseortechnical.Thisafl

clearlyhasaninteriorspaceinwhichthegoldmeltsandtransforms.Thephrasingseemsto

suggestthatAarondoesthecastinghimself,althoughitmayalsoleaveopenthepossibility

thathearrangesforcraftspeopletodoitforhim.StjõrncloselyfollowsthetextofExodus

32:4accordingtotheVulgate:Quascumilleaccepisset,formavitoperefusorio,&fecitex

eisvitulumconflatilein:dixeruntque:HisuntdiituiIsrael,quiteeduxeruntdeterraÆgypti

(VulgateBible1987:199),“Andwhenhehadreceivedthem,hefashionedthembyfounders'

work,andmadeofthemamoltencalf.Andtheysaid:Thesearethygods,OIsrael,thathave

broughttheeoutofthelandofEgypt”(Douay-RheimsBible1941:82).

afl32. Anotherattestationappearsintheearlysixteenth-centurymanuscriptofHektorssaga:

fukugimsteinarurãeirrahialmumokskiolldumsemgneistarurafle(Loth1962:181),

“preciousstonesshonefromtheirhelmetsandshieldslikesparksoutofaforge.”Inthis

113Svanhildur(2005:344-5)

70

attestationtheaflisunderstoodasaspaceoutofwhichbrightsparksfly.Afl,inthiscase,

appearstoreferspecificallytoafurnaceorforge.Thereare,however,nospecificreferences

tometalworkingtools,resourcesorproducts.Thiscomparisonhastodoprimarilywith

sparksemittedfromafireanditisthereforepossible(ifunlikely)thataflinthiscaserefers

moregenerallytoafireplacethanspecificallytoaforgeorfurnace.Itisclear,however,that

thecomparisonseekstoestablishtheabundanceandbrillianceofthegimsteinaranditis

consistentwiththiscontexttounderstandaflasametalworkingfurnaceorforgethat

producesmoreintenseheat,lightandsparksaswellasagreaterspectrumofcoloursthana

lesspowerfuldomesticfire.

afl33.AnotherattestationappearsinalatermanuscriptoftheOldNorsetranslationofthe

LatinElucidarius114(c.1500-1550).Inadescriptionofsinnersandtheirtormentsitissaid

thatsvosemãeirgloavtanafelldi.semiarnjafle.svogloaãeiroginnanaffrostisemsvell

àvetrvm(Firchow1992:80),“justastheyglowoutwardlyfromfire,likeironinaforge,so

theyglowalsoinwardlyfromfrost,likeiceinwinter”(Firchow1992:81with

modifications).Inthisinstance,thetranslatorusesaflasatranslationoftheLatinfornax

(FirchowandGrimstad1989:93).Theanalogydrawninthepassageemphasizestheaflasa

spacewithinwhichironglows(járníafli).Itisunclearexactlyhowaflistobeunderstoodas

aspaceorstructureinthiscontext:itcouldbeanenclosedfurnacewithoutaclearlineof

sighttotheglowingironinside,oritcouldbearelativelyopenforgewitharelativelyclear

lineofsighttotheglowingiron.Thelatterseemsmorelikelyifitisassumedthatthe

glowingironismeanttobeobservable.Thecomparisonisnotclearlydelineatedintermsof

whatpreciselyaflmeans:isthereabodymetaphororcontainmentmetaphoroperatinghere

thatwouldsuggestthatthesinsglowingwithinthebodyofapersonareliketheironglowing

withintheenclosureofafurnace?Sincetheicecomparisonfocusesmoreoninteriority(or

possiblytransparency?)itisperhapsmoreaccuratetoassociatethefiremetaphorwiththe

moreexternalglowofahotironingot(asopposedtotheinternalrefractionoflightinice)

thanwiththeinteriorityofafurnace.Becausetheprimaryfocusisontheglowingironingot,

aflinthiscaseisrathersecondaryininterestandvagueinusage.Itdefinitelyreferstoa

114Seeafl10-11(page54above).

71

furnaceorforgeusedforheatingmetal,butanymoredetailedimplicationsremain

conjecturalandunclear.

afl34.ThereisasingleattestationinLaurentiussagabiksups(c.1530),theyoungestofthe

originalIcelandicBiskupasögurwrittensometimeinthefourteenthcenturybutsurviving

onlyinsixteenth-centurymanuscripts.Inamannerthatisalmostidenticaltotheaccountin

theIslandskeAnnaler(seeafl23,onpage62above),thissagadescribesseveralmomentous

earthquakesandaneruptionthatsplitopenthepeakofHeklaonthethirteenthofJulyinthe

year1300:elldurkomvppvrHeklu[...]jãeimelldiliekulausbiorghstórsemkolàafli

(ÁrniBjörnsson1969:20),“FireroseupfromwithinHekla...Withinthisfiregreat,loose

bouldersbangedlikeembersinaforge.”Theanalogyisnotverypreciseinregardstoan

understandingofafl.ThegiantboulderswithintheclovenpeakofHeklaaresetinparallelto

thehotemberswithinanafl:thisappearstoprimarilyrefertotheglowingoftheembersin

anafl,butmayalsoimplyacomparisonbetweentheviolenceandenergyofthevolcanic

activityandtheheatandenergyinanafl.ItmaybethattheinteriorityandstructureofHekla

arealsocomparedtotheinteriorityandstructureoftheaflinthisusage,buttheconceptand

structureoftheaflissecondarytotheprimarycomparisonbetweenthehotbouldersandthe

glowingembers.

afl35. Reykjahólabók(c.1530-1540)isanIcelandiccollectionofseveralsaints’lives.These

saints’liveshavebeentranslatedandassembledfromfourteenth-andfifteenth-centuryLow

Germansources(Sverrir2006:173;cf.PulsianoandWolf1993:527).Thelifeofsaint

Lazarusappearstohavebeentranslatedfroman“unidentifiedGermanproselegend”

(Kalinke1996:50).AlthoughthisnarrativedrawsheavilyupontheNewTestament(St.John

11;cf.Kalinke1996:114),italsoincludesmaterialnotfoundintheBible.Thefollowing

excerpt,forexample,comesfromadetailedaccountofLazarus’visionofthehorrorsof

purgatoryduringthefourdaysthathewasinthegrave:

enãavorvãarogadrarsalersierjlagesemvorvbikesvartara.oglogvdvbædevtanseminnansemannatgloandajarniable.oghafdegloandaormaogpavddrkringhvmmhalsenaasier.(Loth1969:173)

72

Andtherewerealsoothersoulslaidbythemselveswhichwerepitchblack.And[they]burnedbothwithoutaswellaswithinlikeanyotherglowingironinaforge.And[thesesouls]hadglowingwormsandlizardsstrungaroundtheirnecks.

Thisattestationdemonstratesthataflisassociatedwithglowingiron,andthattheseingots

aredescribedasglowingbothoutwardlyandinwardly.Inthiscase,aflreferstoafurnaceor

forgeusedforheatingandworkingmetal,specificallyiron.Aflheremostlikelyreferstoa

furnaceorforgeratherthantoaworkshopmoregenerally.

afl36.BósasagaokHerrauñswaslikelycomposedduringthethirteenthcentury,butthe

earliestsurvivingmanuscriptisfromthesixteenthcentury(c.1550).Inchapter7youngBósi

speaksfigurativelyofhardeninghispenisinsidetheafl,“forge”,ofafarmer’sdaughter’s

vagina:

Enerfólkvarsofnat,stóñBósiuppokgekktilsængrbóndadótturoklyftiklæñumafhenni.

Hvíferrãúhingat,sagñihún.

Ãvímérvareigihægtãar,semummikvarbúit,okkveñztãvíviljaundirklæñinhjáhenni.

Hvatviltuhérgjöra,sagñihún.

Ekvilherñajarlminnhjáãér,segirBõgu-Bósi.

Hvatjarlierãat,sagñihún.

Hannerungrokhefiraldriíaflinnkomitfyrri,enunganskaljarlinnherña. (Jiriczek1893:23)115

Andwhenallthepeoplewereasleep,Bósistoodupandwenttotheyoungwoman'sbedandliftedtheblanketsoffofher.

“Whyhaveyoucomehere?”shesaid.

“Becauseitwasnotcomfortableformeoverthere,asthingswereestablishedaboutme,”andheaskedifhecouldgetundertheblanketswithher.

“Whatdoyouwanttodohere?”shesaid.

“Iwanttohardenmyearlwithyou,”saidBõgu-Bósi.

“Whatearlisthat?”shesaid.

115ThereareseveralvariantsinthemanuscriptsofBósasagaokHerrauñs,butthesedonotobscuretheinterpretationofaflinthisquotation.Jiriczeknotesallthevariants(1893:23).IhaveemendedherefollowingJiriczek,andIfurtheremendmytranslationtoincludequotationsfordialogueandquestionmarks.

73

“Heisyoungandhehasnevercomeintotheforgebefore,buttheearlshouldbehardenedyoung.”

Thisattestation,astheanalogytothevaginaand/orwombindicates,maybesuggestiveof

theconceptoftheaflasastructurewithadistinctinteriority.Beyondthissuggestiveness,

however,theinnuendoofBósasagaokHerrauñsisastockmotifcomparabletothatofthe

dialogueandversesthatappearinGrettissagachapter75.116AlthoughBosi’sdialoguedoes

demonstrateanunderstandingoftheprocessofhardening(i.e.tempering)metalbyheatingit

inaforge,itdoesnotnecessarilydemonstratethattherewasaNorsetraditionofgenderedor

sexualizedsmithingrituals.Characterizedasasmithofsomeskillhimself,Bósiislikely

understoodasbeingfamiliarwithtechniquesofhardeningmetalsdespitehissupposedlack

ofexperienceinotherhardeningtechniquesatthisearlystageinthenarrative.Therefore,this

attestationofaflissuggestive(butnotconclusivelyso)ofastructurewithanenclosed

interiorspace.Thisattestationdefinitelyassociatestheuseofaforgewiththeprocessof

hardeningortemperingironblades.

116FromGrettissaga:

Váskeyttesfarflõsu;fárkannsvernníháriœskiruñrfyrõñrumõrveñrsséagõrva;veñjakhins,athreñjarhafitãeirenvérmeiri,ãóttéldraugareigiatgeirasinmeiri.[...]Sverñlítinnkvañsæta,saumskorña,mikorñinn;Hristhefirhreñjakvistahœlinsattatmæla;allengimáungum,eyleggjarbíñFreyja,lágrílæraskógi,lotu,faximérvaxa.(ÍF1936:240-1)

Acautionisthescatterbrain’sbehaviour.Arrow-winddesiringbushes[warriors]cannotusuallyseetheswordinanotherone’shairproperly.ThisIbet,theydonothavebiggerballsthanIevenifthespear-stormtrunks[warriors]havelargercocks.[...]Seam-propspinstersaidIhadgotsmallinthesword.Theboastfulballs-branchHrist[servant-girl]istellingthetruth.Mylowmanned-horsecangrowquitelonginmyyoungman’sthighforest,island-boneFreyja[servant-girl];waitamoment.(Faulkes2001b:235withmodifications)

74

afl37.Aflappearsinaseventeenth-centuryvariant(AM178folxc.1600-1700)ofÃiñriks

sagaafBern:

FerrVelentheimmeñkonusinatilbuasinnaokviñãeimãeirrasonViñgaokdvelzheimaumhriñañrenfleiraerfrahonumsagt.OkeigiãurftikonungsdottirnuatleitavapnannaãarerVelenthafñitilvisat.ãviathanntoknusialfr.erhannhafñiãauniñrgrafitundirsinaaflhellu.okãarsagñihannutfaravindeninnvatn.Okãatvarãaerhannkœldiaflsinn.(Unger1853:95)

Velentgoeshomewithhiswifetohisdwellingandwiththem[went]theirsonViñgaand[he]dwellsathomeforawhilebeforemoreabouthimissaid.Anditwasnotnecessaryfortheking’sdaughternowtosearchfortheweaponstherewhereVelenthadindicated.Becausehenowtook[them]himself[outfrom]wherehehadburiedthemunderhisforge-stone.Andtherehesaid“gooutwindandinwater.”Andthatwaswhenhecooledhisforge.

Inthiscontexttheforgeisassociatedwiththemaster-smithVelent.Somesortofslabof

stone(aflhella)isafoundationalaspectoftheforgeinthisinstance(Fritzner1954:s.v.

aflhella).Itislikelythataflrefersspecificallytotheforgeorfurnaceitself,ratherthanthe

workshopasawhole.Theforge-stonesuggeststhecontextisfocusingspecificallyonthe

forgeratherthantheworkshopmoregenerally.Velentalsocoolsthefireofhisforge

specifically.

afl38.AnotherattestationappearsinthislatemanuscriptofÃiñrikssagaafBern,thisonein

adescriptionoftheblademadebyAlfriggthedwarf:hannheitirEkkisaxogekkisverder

betravrafliborid(Bertelsen1908-11:180),“itiscalledEkkisaxandthereisnotabetter

swordcarriedoutofaforge.”Here,aflclearlyrelatestothecreationofqualityblades.Itis

unclearwhetherthisattestationreferstotheworkshopingeneralorspecificallytoaforgeor

furnace.

afl39.Thelatestattestationforaflappearsinanearlyeighteenth-centurymanuscript

(BjarkExYaxc.1700-1725)ofthelawcodesthatarenowpreservedinNorgesGamleLove

indtil1387.ThisusageappearsspecificallyintheBjarkörettentaxationlaws:Svoskal

75

bœargialldgiallda,efij.menneiguafleinn,gialldibáñireitbœargialld(Storm41885:93),

“Inthismannermustatown-ratebepaid,iftwomenownoneforge/fireplace[?],together

[they]payonetown-rate.”Inthiscontextitisdifficulttodeterminetheexactmeaningofafl.

Thetextsurroundingthisonesentenceabouttheownershipandtaxationofanaflincludes

lawsrelatingtothepropertyrightsofthieves,unlawfulmarriages,andtheprotocolsfor

attendanceatmass-daysprecedingandduringChristmas.WhileFritznersuggeststhatthe

primarymeaningofaflisaforgeorfurnaceusedformetalworking,heliststhisattestationas

moregenerallyreferringtoadomesticfireplace,andheincludesthisastheonlysuch

exampleofasupposedsecondarymeaningforafl(1954:s.v.afl).Asevidenceforthis

secondarymeaning,Fritznercitestwoadditionallawcodes.Thesecodesareassociatedwith

Schleswig(c.1200-1250)andFlensburg(c.1300),117areasofnorthernGermanythatwere

historicallypartofDenmark(Fritzner1954:s.v.afl;cf.SandvikandJónViñar2005:229).

Fritzneralsoinsertsaquestionmarkintothissuggestionforasecondarysenseofafl,

suggestingsomedegreeofuncertaintyinthisassociationbetweenafl39andthesecodes.The

chiefsourceofFritzner’suncertaintyheremaybethefactthattheFlensburgandSchleswig

codesthemselvesdonotusethetermafl,butratherusethetermarnægyaldorarngiald

(Kroman1951:8,124).ThefirstpartofthistermcorrespondstotheModernDanisharne,

andtheOldNorsemasculinenounarinnreferringtoa“fireplace”or“hearth”(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.arinn;FalkandTorp1910:s.v.arne;Fritzner1954:s.v.arinn;ONP

2010:s.v.arinn;deVries1977:s.v.arinn).ThesecondcomponentcorrespondstotheOld

Norseneuternoungjald,referringtoa“payment”or“tribute”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

gjald;Fritzner1954:s.v.gjald;ONP2010:s.v.gjald).Thusthecompoundarinn-gjald

translatesliterallyas“fireplace-payment”or“hearth-tribute.”AsInoteabove(pages60-61)

thenounarinnprimarilyreferstoadomesticfireplace,butitisusedinseveralinstancesto

metonymicallyrefertotheentirehousehold(ONP2010:s.v.arinn).Thusthetermarinn-

gjaldreferstothedomesticfireplaceasametonymicrepresentationofthedomestic

household,whichisunderstoodinthesecodesasabasicunitforearlyurbantaxation

systems.AsIhavealsopointedoutabove(pages60-61)thedomesticcontextsassociated

witharinnandeldstóarenotreadilyconfusedorconflatedwiththeprimarilymetalworking 117ForthespecificexcerptsthatFritznernotes,seethe1951editionofDanmarksGamleKøbstadlovgivning(Vol.1),editedbyErikKroman.TheexcerptfromtheSchleswigcodeisnumber29(TextII37-38)andisfoundonthebottomofpage8.TheexcerptfromtheFlensburgcodeisnumber66(TextI37,III64,IV69,Thorsen63)andisfoundonthetopofpage124.

76

contextsofafl(ONP2010:s.v.arinn,eld(s)-stó).Thetermarinn-gjaldisclearlydomesticin

itssenseanddoesnotappeartoshareanyassociationwithmetalworking.Thus,Fritzner’s

uncertaintyisvalidinregardstothepossibilitythatafl39functionsasarinn-gjalddoesin

theSchleswigandFlensburglawcodes.Ifaflistobeunderstoodasreferringtoadomestic

fireplaceandresidenceinthisattestation,thenitisanunusualusagewithoutanysupporting

evidencefromsimilarusages.

Asidefromthisfundamentaldifficulty,thereareseveraladditionaldifferences

betweentheBjarkörettencodeandthecodesfromSchleswigandFlensburg.TheSchleswig

andFlensburgcodesoutlinethepenaltiesinvolvedifanindividualcitizen(Latinciuis)ora

farmerormerchantwhoownshisownfarmstead(byman=“burgher”)118doesnotpaythe

arinn-gjaldinatimelymanner.119TheBjarkörettenlawcode,ontheotherhand,outlinesthe

protocolfortaxationwhentwomenshareownershipofoneafl.Theselegalstatementsare

similaronlyintwoways.First,theyuseaterm(aflorarinn)torefertoastructureassociated

withfire.Second,theyidentifythisstructureasabasisfortaxation.Unliketheequivocal

statementintheBjarkörettencode,theSchleswigandFlensburgcodesareclearly

disciplinaryinfocus,andtheyapplyonlytotheindividualownerofapieceofland.

Cleasby-VigfussonfollowsFritzner,suggestingthatthisusageofaflinBjarköretten

likewiseappliesmoregenerallytoadomesticfireplaceratherthanametalworkingfurnaceor

forgespecifically(1957:s.v.afl).ONPalsonotesFritzner’ssuggestion(ONP2010:s.v.

afl).120Accordingtothesedictionaries,then,thisattestationfromtheBjarkörettenlawcode

shouldbeunderstoodasreferringthedomesticfireplaceasarepresentationofashared

domestichouseholdforthelegalpurposesoftaxation.

TheBjarköretten,however,isaspecifictypeofearlylawcodethatdevelopedoutof

themanagementofmerchanttownsandsignificanttradinglocations.Theseareamongstthe

earliestknownlawcodesinScandinavia(Haywood2000:33;cf.Lecheetal.1905:548-9).

ItislikelythatthefirstsuchlawcodewasmadeinAD832bykingBjörnatHaugeforthe

merchanttownBirkainSwedenandthatthenameBjarkörettencomesfromthisorigin

(Haywood2000:32-3;Lecheetal.1905:548-9).Theearliestsurvivingversionappearsto

havebeendevelopedforthemerchanttownNiñaros,whichistodaycalledTrondheimonthe

118cf.Fritzner(1954:s.v.búmañr)119Westerbergh(1968:s.v.ciuis).120OnemustclickonthelinkassociatedwiththisattestationtoviewtheONP’scitationofFritzner.

77

westerncoastofNorway(Haywood2000:33).Thisversionwasincludedintherevisedlaws

ofMagnusIVofNorway(AD1238-1280)(Lecheetal.1905:548-9).Alaterversionwas

createdforthemerchanttownofBergenandratifiedataÃingthereinAD1276(Lecheetal.

1905:548-9).SimilarcodeswerecreatedandtransmittedthroughoutScandinavia,andthe

termBjarkörettenappearstohavebeenusedwidelyandoverseveralcenturies.

GiventhattheBjarkörettenoriginatedinregionalcodesforindividualtradingcentres

andmerchanttowns,furtherresearchisneededinordertodeterminewhetherornotaflin

thisattestationreferstotheroleofsmithingworkshopswithinthesecommunities.Smithing

workshopswererecognizedaskeyfoundationsintradeandproduction.121Moreresearchis

neededtodeterminewhetherornotworkshopswerecollaborativelyownedandwhetheror

notownershipoftheseworkshopswasabasisfortaxationinmerchanttowns.Forthetime

being,theexactmeaningofafl39isunclear.Thismaybeanunusualattestationreferringto

adomesticfireplaceratherthanametalworkingsite.

1.3AnalysisanddiscussionofaflattestationsOutoftheaboveofthirty-eightattestations,thirty-tworefertoaflinexplicit

associationwiththeworkingofmetals(1-21,24-26,29-31,33,35-38).Thirty-one

attestationsdirectlyrefertoeitheraforgeorafurnace(asopposedtoaworkshopspacemore

generally)usedforheatingandworkingmetals:1,3-8,10,12,14-23,25,26,28-37.Seven

(9,11,13,24,28,38,39)areambiguousastowhethertheaflisunderstoodasdirectly

referringtoafurnaceorforge,orwhethertheaflismeanttorefermoregenerallytoa

workshopsitewhichcontainsfurnacesandforgesinadditiontoothertoolsand,perhaps,

othertypesofcrafting(suchascarpentry,forinstance).Twentyattestationsareassociated

witheitheroneormultipleindividualswhoseemtobe,attheleast,competentsmithsand,at

themost,highlyskilledsmiths(4,5-6,10-11,14-21,25,29,30-31,36-38).Seventeenrefer

eitherexplicitlyorimplicitlytoiron(3-6,8,9,12,19-21,25,26,29,33,35,36,38).Atleast

121Consider,forinstance,theroleofsmithingworkshops(blacksmithing,coin-makingandnon-ferrouscasting)inHedeby,amajorViking-agetownthatwasknownatthetimeasakeytradingandproductioncentre(Armbruster2002:208,246-75;Capelle1968:91-2;Crumlin-Pedersen1997:187;Radtke1999:376;Wiechmann2007:29,32,34,41-3).Sigtunaalsoshowsevidenceofakeyproductionsitewherelatetenth-centurycoins(bearingtheinsigniaofKingOlafErikssonskötkunung,whosenicknamemaytranslateas“tributaryking”or“treasureking”)weremintedinaworkshopthatwaslikelyownedbythecrown.ThesewerethefirstcoinstobestampedwiththeinsigniaofaSwedishking.Thesecoinsweremadebycraftsmenwholikely“belongedtoorwereemployedbytheking”(Ros2002:165,167,174;cf.Hall2007:196).ItwouldmakesensethatthesharedownershipofsmithingworkshopsinViking-ageScandinaviawasamatterofpoliticalinterestandcontrol.

78

sixreferexplicitlytotheworkingorproductionofgull,“gold”(1,16-18,24,30-31),andafl

7alsostronglyimpliesthatpreciousmetalsofsomesortareunderstoodasproductsofanafl.

Threeattestations(1,3,24)describehot,moltenorbrilliantmetalasnÿtekit,“freshly

removed”,fromtheafl.Anotherattestation(6)clearlyimpliesthathotironishammeredon

ananvilimmediatelyafterbeingremovedfromaforge:theseusages(1,3,6,24)seemto

refertothebehaviourofmetalwhenitismostreadilyobservedatitshighesttemperatures

(i.e.whenitisfreshlyremovedfromtheforgeorfurnace).Theseattestationsalsorefertoa

commonprincipleofmetalworking,thatmetals(bothferrousandnon-ferrous)mustbe

workedimmediatelyuponremovalfromthefurnaceorforge:onceaparticularmetalcoolsto

acertainpointitlosesmalleabilityandmaynotbewelded,pouredorshapedaseffectively.

Thekeyverbsassociatedwitheachattestationgenerallyfallintooneofeight

categories:

1)Phenomenaassociatedwithmetalormetalworking:blása“toblowthe

bellows”(14-21),herña“toharden”(36),rena“torun,melt,dissolve”(12),

steypa“topour,cast,found”(1),vella“tomakemolten”(4),ãela“tofile”(4).

2)Visualphenomena:fjúka“toshine”(32),glóa“toglow,shine,glitter”(8,33,

34),gneista“toemitsparks”(12),glæña“tosparkle”(28),lÿsa“tolighten,

illumine”(7),sindra“toglow,sparkle”(3).

3)Creation:gøra“tomake,build,work”(4,13,31).

4)Metalworkingandcraftingmoregenerally:fella“tobringsomethingintoor

outofacertainconnectionwithsomethingelse”(4),lemja“tobeatdown”(of

goldpieces,30),ljósta“tohit,strike”(hotiron,6),slá“tohammer,forge”(of

nails,29).

5)Phenomenaassociatedwithfire:brenna“toburn”(ofgold,30),geisa“torage”

(28),leggja“todischarge”(27),loga“toburnwithaflame”(35).

6)Transformation:snerra“tochange”(30).

7)Cooking:sóñna“tobecomesodden,cooked,boiled”(22).

8)Termsofownershipandtaxation:gjalda“topay”(atown-rate,39),eiga“to

own”(anafl,39).

79

Aflarusedwithgold Atleastsixattestations(1,17-18,24,30-31)refertotheworkingofgull,“gold”,or

preciousmetalsinrelationtotheafl.1and30-31relatespecificallytothesmeltingor

meltingofsolidgoldintoaliquidstateandpouringitorotherwiseremovingitfromtheafl.

Inafl1itisclearthatthemoltengoldisremovedfromtheaflandthenpouredintoEmperor

Domitianus’smouth:itseemsinthiscasethataflmustrefertotheforgeorfurnaceusedto

heatthecruciblecontainingthegold.Thiscrucibleisthenusedtoimmediatelypourmolten

goldnytecnoórafli(deLeeuwvanWeenen1993:138),“freshlyremovedfromtheforge”,

intoDomitianus’smouth(cf.Tylecote1986:99-100).

30and31fromStjõrnalsodescribetheproductionofafinishedartefact,inthiscase

anidolintheformofacalf.Intheseattestationsitislessclearwhataflmeans:the

transformationoftheearringsintoacalftakesplaceinsidetheaflanditappearstobemore

fantasticormiraculousthanrealisticorintentional.Itisperhapsimpliedthataflhererefersto

aforgeorfurnacewhichisusedtoheatacruciblefullofgold.Thereis,however,nomention

ofpouringthegoldintoamouldtoformthecalf.Thedescriptionhererefersnotsomuchto

aprecisemetallurgicalprocessastoaspectaculartransformation.Thereisalackofdetail

andtheremaybesomeconfusionofcruciblesmeltingwithcastingprocesses.122

Attestations17and18refertotheinsertionofgoldintoanaflandtheremovalofthe

goldringDraupnir.Neitheroftheseattestationsmentionsthemeltingofthegoldinsidethe

afl,althoughitisperhapssuggestivethatDraupnirhasthemagicalabilitytoreplicateitself

by“dripping.”123Aswith30and31,thedescriptionhererefersnotsomuchtoa

metallurgicalprocessastoaspectaculartransformation:thereisalackofdetailandperhaps

aconfusionoffurnaceandforgeprocesses.

Attestation24referstotheaflasthesourcefornewlymadegoldencoins.Newly

madegoldencoinswouldhavefirstbeenseenafterremovalfromadieorstamp,notfroma

furnaceorforge.Nomentionismadehereofpouring,castingorthestampingofdies.Inthis

caseitseemslikelythataflrefersonlytoaverygeneralconceptoftheforgeorfurnaceasthe

sourceofmoltenmetalandnewlymademetalobjects.Itisalsopossiblethataflhererefers

generallytotheworkshopareaoredificeasthesourceofnewlymadecoins.

122Thereappearstobeageneralpossibilityinmanyattestationsthatauthors,translatorsandscribesdidnotunderstandbasicsmithingprocedures.123Eightidenticalringsdrjúpa“drip”fromDraupnireveryninthnight(Faulkes2000:47).

80

5-6and14-21aretheonlyattestationswhichexplicitlymentionaskilledsmithand

anassistant.Theotherattestationsmayimplytheworkofoneskilledsmithorseveral,but

thisisnotexplicitlymadeclear.

AflarusedwithironFifteenattestations(3,4,5,6,8,9,12,19-21,25,26,29,33,35)referexplicitlyto

járn“iron”inassociationwithaflar.Tothislistmaybeaddedanadditionaltwoimplicit

referencestoiron.38referstoasword,whichisimplicitlyunderstoodasbeingmadeofiron.

36referstoahardeningprocessthatislikelyunderstoodasapplyingtosword-makingand,

hence,iron.

Oftheseiron-associatedattestations,four(4,5-6,28)clearlyrefertothework

involvedinrefiningandworkingironintoafinishedpieceusinganafl.Themostdetailed

descriptioncomesfromafl4.ThisattestationappearsintheaccountfromÃiñrekssagaaf

BernthatdetailsVelentreducingaswordtoironfilingsandfeedingthemtodomesticbirds,

thenusinganafltoextracttheironfromtheirexcrementandre-forgeabetterbutsmaller

swordfromtherefinediron.Idiscussindetailabovethekeydeterminationsthatcanbemade

aboutthisusageofafl.Insummary,afl4doesnotrefertotheworkshopspaceoredifice

generally(whichcontainsafileandimplicitlyothertoolsalso),butratherpreciselytothe

furnaceassociatedwiththisspace.Second,theaflinthiscontextisasmeltingfurnace.The

verbvellaclearlyreferstomakingtheslagmoltenwithinthesolidironbloom(vellirnvor

iarninoaltãaterdeigtvari).Sometimeafterplacingtheexcrementintotheafl,Velent

works(i.e.hammers)theconsolidatedpieceofspongeiron,bringingout(fella)theslag

impurities(whicharesofter,hencedeigr,thantheiron)thatwerepreviouslyheldinsidethe

spongeiron.Third,theprocesswhichproducesthefinishedswordrequiresanopenforge,

notafurnace.Aflisnotdirectlyassociatedwiththissecondprocess,soitremainsunclear

whetherthetermis,inthiscase,meanttoexclusivelyrefertoafurnace,orwhetheritmay

alsorefertoablacksmithingforge.124Asisthecasewithironworking,theprocessesofiron

smeltingandblacksmithingseemtobeunderstoodasinter-relatedandtheseskillsare

attributedtooneindividualandoneworkshop.

124Seealsomynoteabove,inafl4(page48),aboutthepossibilitythattheremnantsofasmeltingfurnacemightbeusedasaforge.

81

Thedetailandimpressionofthedescriptioninafl4areofadifferentorderthan,for

instance,thedescriptionofthecreationofthegods’giftsfromSnorraEdda(afl14-21).In

bothcasesitisclearthataflreferstoafurnaceor,perhaps,aforgewithinaworkshoparea,

andinbothcasesthereisaskilledsmithmanagingtheproductionofmetalartefacts.Both

instancesalsorefertoarepeatedcycleofproduction.IntheinstanceinÃiñrekssagaafBern,

aflisassociatedwithacycleinseveralstages(fromanartefactmadeofwroughtirontoa

pileofironfilings,toironinamixtureandthenbacktowroughtironandafinishedartefact)

andtheverbsvella,fella,andgöraarepreciselyassociatedwithdistinctstagesofthiscycle.

Incontrast,inSkáldskaparmál35(afl14-21)threeseparateartefactsarecreatedbyrepeating

thesameactionsthreetimes.Buttheprocesslacksalldetailsandanysenseofworkonthe

partofthesmithEitri,exceptfortheconstantworkingofabellowsbyBrokkr.Eitrisimply

repeatedlyinsertsarawmaterial(apig’shide,gold,andiron)intotheafland,aftersome

timehaspassed,hereturnsandremovesacompletelyfinishedartefactfromtheafl.The

verbsblása,“toblow”(thebellows),leggja“toput,place”(therawmaterialsinsidetheafl),

andtaka“toremove”(thefinishedproductfromtheafl)areusedrepetitivelyinthe

productionofeachofthethreeartefacts.Inthesesequencesfromafl14-21thereisnosense

ofthedetaileddistinctionsbetweenmetallurgicalprocessesandsmithingtechniquesthatare

madeclearinafl4,i.e.thecreationofabloomofironandslagimpurities,theliquationof

theimpuritiesfromtheiron,andtheworkingofafinishedbilletaswellasthecreationofa

finishedsword.Althoughbothusagesclearlyrefertoafurnaceorforge,thedetailofthe

descriptionassociatedwithafl4reinforcesthatthisusagereferspreciselytoaniron-smelting

furnaceandthattheprocessbeingdescribedisironsmelting.

Asisoftenthecase,severalblacksmithingtechniquesareassociatedwithiron

smeltinginafl4.Inadditiontotheexplicitlymentionedfile,thepresenceofseveral

unmentionedtools(hammer,tongs,anvil)islikelyimplied.Filesappearinassociationwith

aflarinattestations10and11.Fileshavealsobeenfoundincloseassociationwith

metalworkingtoolsandmaterials,particularlyintheMästermyrtoolchest(Arwidssonand

Berg1983:Pl.7).Furthermore,thereareconsistentassociationsbetweenrepresentations

(pictorialandotherwise)ofthenarrativeoftheNibelungs,narrativesofVõlundr/Velentand

representationsofsmithingtoolsandspecificiron-smeltingandsword-makingprocesses.

ThisbodyofinterconnectedrepresentationssuggeststhatthisattestationfromÃiñrekssaga

afBernmayconfidentlybeassociatedwithsmithingtoolsandsword-forgingprocessesas

82

aredepicted,forinstance,ontwelfth-andthirteenth-centurystavechurchportalsfrom

Norway(Hauglid1969:195;Hoftunetal.2002:193-5;Nordanskog2003:393-4).Afl4

seemstobemeanttoreferdirectlytoafurnaceusedtosmeltandrefineanimpuremixtureof

iron.Itisalsocloselyassociatedwiththeworkshopofanindividualsmithskilledand

equippedforbothironsmeltingandblacksmithing.Inthesecircumstancesitmaybeassumed

thatablacksmithingforgeisalsopresentandinthesecontextsthetermaflmaybeclosely

associatedwithboththesmeltingfurnaceandtheforge.

Afl5-6,fromthesamemanuscriptasafl4,presentaparallelsituationinthathotiron

isbeingworkedinassociationwithanafl.Inthecaseofafl5-6,however,thereisnoclear

impressionofwhatfinalproductissoughtanditisclearaflreferstoaforgefor

blacksmithingratherthanafurnaceforiron-smelting.

Afl12alsoclearlyreferstoafurnacecapableofreachingtemperaturessufficientto

liquateslagfromironblooms.Becausefurnacesofthisperiodwerenotgenerallycapableof

meltingiron,theverbrennalikelyindicatesthatthemoltenmetalflowinginfrontofthe

furnaceisslag.Thisattestationthereforenotonlyreferstoaniron-smeltingfurnace,butalso

toaspecificphenomenonassociatedwithsmeltingiron:therunningofliquatedslagfromthe

baseofthefurnace.

Afl29atteststotheuseof“un-workediron”(iarnósmidad)intheproductionofnails

inassociationwithmultipletypesofunspecifiedtools(smidartóláallavega)andcharcoal

(kol).Inthiscasetheun-workednatureoftheironlikelyreferstoarefinedbilletorcurrency

barthatstillrequiressubstantialblacksmithingworkinordertobemadeintonails.Thus,afl

likelyreferstoanopenforgeusedforblacksmithing.

Inafl29smithingtools(smidartól)andun-workediron(iarnósmidad)areclearly

understoodasportable.TheMästermyrtoolchestclearlydemonstratesthatthisdescriptionis

accurate:itshowsthattheirontoolsinvolvedinthefabricationofnails(particularlyanail-

makingiron,severalanvils,tongsandhammers)weretransportedinawoodenchestalong

withun-workedironcurrencybars.125

125SeeArwidssonandBerg1983forplatesoftheseartefacts:Pl.1showsthechest,Pl.6severalhammerheadsandtongs,Pl.7moretongs,Pl.8morehammers,ananvil,Pl.9moreanvils,Pl.12anail-makingironwithnail,Pl.14showstwoironcurrencybars.Pl.23showsthecompleteremainsofonelongernail(107)andtheremainsoftwoshorternails(108-9),aswellasonenailthatappearstobeintheprocessofbeingforgedtoapoint(82).Oneofthenailsfitsintotheholesinthenail-anvil,showingthatthistoolwasusedtomakeatleastsomeofthesenails.

83

Theaboveattestationsclearlyuseafltorefertoafurnaceand/oraforgeusedinthe

refinementofimpureironpiecesandthecreationofwroughtironbilletsandfinished

artefacts,especiallyswordsandnails.

Glowingironand/orsparksSixoftheseiron-associatedattestations(3,8,12,25,33,35)linkaflarwithbrilliant

light,hot(oftenglowing)ironand/orsparks.Mostoftheseattestationsreferspecificallyto

hotironeitherwithinorfreshlyremovedfromaforgeorfurnaceandeitherglowingor

producingsparks.Theaflintheseattestationsiseitheraforgeorfurnace.Attestations8and

12aretheonlyonesinwhichaspecificcolourismentioned:thecolourwhitedescribesthe

ironand,inthecaseof8,theironisbeingblastedvigorously(akafliga...blasitiafli).This

attestation(8)clarifieswhattheothersinthiscategoryseemtoimply:thattheaflarinthese

casesarefurnacesorforges,likelywithbellows,capableofreachingthetemperatures

necessarytomakeironbehaveintheseways.

AflarassociatedwithmetalsingeneralOtherattestationsdescribesimilarsparkingeffectsbutareambiguousinregardsto

whattypeofmetalisinvolved.7,forinstance,comparesthesparksfromagold-coloured

dragontoglowingandlikelymoltenmetal(sía)fromanafl.Síareferstoanyglowing

substanceandmostoftenmoltenmetal(Fritzner1954:s.v.sía;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

sía).Becausecastironwasnotmadeduringthisperiod,itislikelythatthemoltenmetal

referredtohereiseithermoltenslagpouringoutofasmeltingfurnaceormoltennon-ferrous

metalfromacruciblethatwasheatedinaforgeorfurnace.

Attestation28(thefightbetweenConstantinusandAdonias)comparesthebrilliant

fire-likelightemittedbythemeetingofbladesinbattletothelightemittedbyanafl.No

clearreferenceismadetoapieceofmetalbeingtakenoutoftheaflinthisinstance,although

themeetingpointoftwoswordbladesinbattleisthesourceofthisenergyandmaysuggest

somesortofmetallicconnectiontotheafl.Itisnonethelessclear,however,thattheextreme

brillianceofthefire-lightismeanttorefertotheenergyandtemperaturesachievedina

furnaceorforgepoweredbybellowsandusedformetalworking.

Attestation32comparespreciousstonesuponhelmetsandshieldstothesparksthat

flyoutofanafl.Thereisnodirectreferencetometalsinassociationwiththeafl,anditis

unclearfromthiscontextwhetheraflreferstoametalworkingforgeorfurnace.Thehelmets

84

andshieldslikelycontainmetalliccomponentssotheremaybesomemetallicconnectionto

theaflinthiscomparison.Theprimarybasisforthecomparisontopreciousstonesin32is

thebrillianceandperhapsdiversityoflightandcoloursbeingproducedfromtheafl,inwhich

caseitshouldbepointedoutthatthespectrumoflightemittedbyametalworkingforgeor

furnaceismorediversethanthatofacoolerfire.Theremaybeanimpliedassociation

betweentheaflandtheextravagancyandexcessofpreciousstonesandmetals.Theseare

speculations.Thecontextofattestation32iscompatiblewithaflreferringtoametalworking

forgeorfurnacebutitdoesnotclearlydescribeametalworkingforgeorfurnace.

OtherkeyissuesManyoftheattestationseitherstronglysuggestorclearlyimplythattheaflhasa

distinctinterior(i.e.enclosed,notopen)space,andthismaysuggestthattheword,inthese

cases,ismeanttoreferpreciselytoawalledfurnaceratherthananopenforge.Thefollowing

attestationsaresuggestiveoftheaflashavinganenclosedinteriorspace:1,8,12,23,30-31,

33,34.Thefollowingattestationsmakeitreasonablyclearthattheaflhasanenclosed

interiorspace:14-21,36.

Threeattestationsintegratetheactivitiesassociatedwithanaflintoacomparisonto

volcanicphenomena.23and34bothrefertotheeruptionofHeklainAD1300.Theenergy

issogreatthatitsplitsthemountainopenandinsideonecanseebouldersmovingabout

freelyandloudlylikeembersinaforge.Attestation27referstoadevastatedlandscapetorn

byfissuresthatdischargesmokeandfirelikeanafl.ThetworeferencestoHekla(23and34)

obviouslyrefertoalargevolcano,whereastheattestationfromNikolaussagaErkibyskups

(27)seemstofocusmoreonaflattopography,afieldorvõllr.Theparallelbetweenvolcanic

activityandsmithingprocessesseemstomakesenseingeneral.Bothphenomenamay

includemoltenmaterialsandextremeheat.Also,theroughlyconicalshapeandpartially

hollowfeaturesofavolcanomightbeconsideredsomewhatparalleltoafurnace.Thiscould

suggestthatattestations23and34(associatedwithHekla)refertoafurnaceratherthanan

openforgeorasmithingworkshopingeneral.Attestation27,however,clearlyreferstoan

openplainorfieldandthecomparisontoanaflisbasedupontheemissionsofsmokeand

firefromfissuresintheplain:thetopographyheredoesnotsupportthecaseforassociations

betweenmountainsandfurnaces,butratherdependsdirectlyuponaquiteliteralcomparison

ofthesmokeandfireassociatedwithsmithingandvolcanicactivity(withoutamountainous

85

topography).Thefissuresinthelandscapemaybesuggestivelyparalleltocracksinthewalls

ofafurnace,butthedescriptionistoogeneraltoconfirmanythingsoprecise.Inconclusion,

itseemslikelythat23and34refertoafurnace,whereas27ismuchmoregeneralandmay

refertoafurnace,forgeorworkshopingeneral.

Manyattestationsrefertotheaflinthecontextofseveralothertoolsthatare

specificallyusedformetal-smithing,includinganvils,bellows,tongs,files,hammersand

toolsingeneral:4,5-6,8,10-11,12,13,14-21,22,25,29.

Onlytwoattestationsrefertoaflarintheplural:10and13.Iwilldiscussthe

significanceofthisinmoredetailfollowinganexaminationofthearchaeologicalevidence.

Fornow,however,acoupleofgeneralpossibilitiescanbeacknowledged.First,itispossible

thatthesepluralreferencesrefertomultipleforgesand/orfurnaceswithinoneworkshop

space.Second,itisalsopossiblethatthesepluralreferencesrefertomultipleforgesand/or

furnacesatseveraldistinctworkshopsites.Additionally,itmaybethataflarinthesecontexts

referstomultipleworkshopsites,ratherthandirectlyreferringtotheforgesand/orfurnaces

themselves.

WhenincontextswhereadirectLatintranslationisclear,aflisusedasatranslation

fortheLatincaminustwice(10,11),andfornaxtwice(25,33).

Aflisusedaspartofacomparisontohellortothesufferingofsinnersin10-11,33,

35.Asacontrasttotheseattestations,25depictstheaflasablacksmithingforgewithinthe

workshop(whichisitselfapparentlywithinamonastery)oftheholyApellen,anhonest

priestwhousesaglowingpieceofirontothwartthetemptationsofthedevil.

AlfarindomesticcontextsTwoattestations(22and39)mayseemtobedifferentfromalltheothersinthatafl

appearsinacontextthatiseitherassociatedwithdomesticcookingorhasbeensuggestedas

referringtoadomesticfireplaceratherthanametalworkingforgeorfurnace.Itisperhaps

obviousthatsmithingandcookingsharecertainparallels:bothinvolvesomesortof

infrastructureforbuildingafireanddirectingitsheatpurposefullytowardsobjectsaspartof

aprocedurethattransformsthoseobjectsintosomethingdesirable,evenconsumable.

Smithingandcookingmayalsohavebeenassociatedwiththesamespacesatsome

archaeologicalsites.Forexample,thearchaeologicalevidencefromBorgI,thoughdifficult

tointerpret,suggeststhatcookingandblacksmithingactivitiesmighthavetakenplaceinthe

86

samespaceinRoomA(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:65;Holand2003:138).The

analysisofthesocio-cultural,structural,symbolicandmetaphoricalparallelsbetween

cookingandsmithingisbeyondthescopeofthisstudy.Whatisclearlyatissue,however,is

whetherornottheaflshouldbeunderstoodasdistinctfromtheeldstóorarinn,“domestic

fireplace”or“hearth”,usedforcookingandheating.

Thefirstoftheaflattestationsthatpertainstothisdiscussionisafl22fromEilífr

Goñrúnarson’sÃórsdrápa.Thispoemdevelopsabstractandcomplicatedlayersofallusions,

includingcomplexthemesofbothsmithingandcookingwhichoperatesidebyside.Bothof

thesethemesappearinthestanzainwhichthisattestationislocated.Thecookingthemeand

vocabularythatappearinthepoemdointeractcloselywiththisparticularusageofafl.But

thisdoesnotconfusethefactthataflreferstoametalworkingfurnaceorforgeinthiscase.

Onthecontrary,thisstanzasimultaneouslyanddistinctlydevelopsthethemeofsmithingthat

runsthroughoutthepoem,andaflclearlyreferstoametalworkingforgeorfurnace,onethat

isparticularlyassociatedwithironworking.Ifanything,thisattestationclearlydemonstrates

thataflisaforgeorfurnacedistinctfromaneldstóorarinn.126

Thesecondoftheaflattestationsthatpertainstothisdiscussionisafl39fromthe

Bjarkörettenlawcode.Ihavediscussedtheissuessurroundingthisattestationinsomedetail

aboveandIwillnotrepeatthesedetailshere.BothFritznerandCleasby-Vigfussonsuggest

thatthisistheonlyattestationthatreferstoadomesticfireplaceratherthanametalworking

site(Fritzner1954:s.vafl;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.afl).However,theexactmeaningof

thisattestationremainssomewhatunclearandfurtherresearchisnecessarytoprovide

evidencethatdirectlypertainstotheinterpretationofthisattestationanditscontext.Further

researchisalsonecessarytodeterminewhetherornotsmithingworkshopswereunderstood

intermsofsharedownershipandasabasisfortaxation.

1.4Summary-Whatdoesaflmean?Severalscholarshaveoffereddefinitionsofafl.CitingVsp7ashisfirstexample,

Fritznersuggeststhattheprimarymeaningforaflisafurnaceinasmithy,afireplacewhere

metalisheatedtoglowingtemperaturesormelted(1954:s.v.afl).127Although“fireplace”

126InthenextsectiononarchaeologicalevidenceforsmithingworkshopsIalsobrieflydiscussscholarlyinterpretationsofparallelsbetweencookingsitesandsmithingsites(pages137-139).127EsseiSmedje,IldstedhvorMetalgløbesellersmeltes(Fritzner1954:s.v.afl).

87

canhaveproblematicallydomesticconnotations,thisdefinitionseemslargelyaccurateinthat

itidentifiesaflasreferringtoadeviceusedforheatingandworkingmetals.

Cleasby-Vigfussonoffersashortdefinitionforafl,“hearthofaforge”(1957:7)that

clearlydefinesthewordinrelationtometalworkingactivities(i.e.“ofaforge”)ratherthan

domesticfireplaceactivitiesingeneral(i.e.afireplaceforcooking).Theiruseoftheword

“hearth”howeverseemsawkward.TheOldNorsewordfor“hearth”isarinnandthistermis

notassociatedwithanyoftheattestationsforafl(Fritzner1954:s.v.arinn;Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.arinn).Inlatenineteenth-centuryusage,whenCleasby-Vigfussonwrote

theirdictionary,“hearth”denotedthefloororsurfaceuponwhichanytypeofdomesticfireis

located(OED:s.v.hearth1.a.).“Hearth”couldalso,however,morespecificallydenotethe

hollowwithinwhichasmith’sfurnaceislocated(OED:s.v.hearth3).Thisdefinition

correspondswitharchaeologicalevidenceforperiod-appropriatefurnaceandforgedesigns

(Tylecote1976:54-65).

Morerecently,BeatriceLaFargeandJohnTuckerhavesuggestedthat,inthis

specificinstanceinVõluspá7,aflreferstothe“hearth,fireplaceorchimneyofaforge”

(1992:s.v.afl).Byuniformlyattributingthestructures“hearth”,“fireplace”or“chimney”to

“aforge”(ratherthanafireplaceorhearthwithdomesticconnotations)LaFargeandTucker

clearlyreinforcethatthisaflstructureisassociatedprimarilywithmetalworkingofsome

kind.Thesemanticrangeof“forge”inModernEnglishis,insomeways,complementaryto

therangeofafl.“Forge”canreferspecificallytoanopenforgeusedforworkingmetals

(OED:s.v.forgen.3.).TheOEDalsosuggeststhat“forge”mayreferto“ahearthorfurnace

formeltingorrefiningmetals”(s.v.forgen.4.).Thus“forge”doesappeartobeafairly

accuratetranslationofaflinusagesthatapplytoanopenforgeortoasmeltingfurnace.

“Furnace”is,nonetheless,amoreprecisetranslationincaseswhenaflclearlyreferstoa

smeltingfurnaceratherthananopenforge.Sincethefourteenthcentury“forge”has

generallybeenusedtoreferto“asmithy”,oraworkshopspaceinwhichmetalwork,amongst

otheractivities,takesplace(OED:s.v.forgen.2.).AsIhavepointedout,severalofthe

attestationsofaflclearlydemonstratethatthistermreferstospecificfurnaceorforge

structuresratherthantotheworkshopspaceingeneral.Afewoftheattestationsare

ambiguous,butnoneexplicitlyuseafltorefertoaworkshopspace.Thissuggeststhatthe

semanticrangeoftheword“forge”maybesomewhatbroaderthantherangeofafl.

88

TheothertermsthatLaFargeandTuckeruse(“hearth”,“fireplace”and“chimney”)

seemtosuggestthataflreferstospecificstructuralaspectsoftheforge.LaFargeandTucker

seemtoalsosuggestthatthereiseithersomevariationoruncertaintyastowhatspecific

structuralaspectoftheforgeisbeingreferredtoinanyparticularcontext.AsIhavealready

discussed,“hearth”and“fireplace”canrefertothesurfaceorspaceupon/inwhichafireis

situatedandthesetranslationsareconceptuallyappropriatetotheperiod(i.e.withregardsto

thearchaeologicalevidence)butalsopotentiallymisleadingintheirdomesticconnotations.

“Chimney”mayalsobeamisleadingtranslation.InOldNorse,arinshornwasusedtorefer

toachimney(ONP2010:s.v.arinshorn),andthefirstelementofthiscompound(arinn,

“hearth,fireplace”)clearlyreinforcesthedomesticsituationofthisstructure(ONP2010:s.v.

arinn).InModernEnglishusage“chimney”predominantlyreferstoanexhauststructure

distinctfromthemainchamberofafireplaceorsmithingfurnace:“Thepassageorflueby

whichthesmokefromafireorfurnaceascendsandescapes”(OED:chimney4.a.;cf.COD:

chimney).Suchadistinctionbetweentheexhaustflueandthefirechambermaynotapplyto

thefurnacesbeingreferredtoinVsp7.Manymedievalfurnacedesignscouldbedescribed

entirelyas“chimneys”orentirelyas“fireplaces.”Evidencefortheshaftandbowlfurnace

typesandtechniquesthatareassociatedwiththeRomanIronAge,MigrationPeriodand

VikingAgeinScandinaviashowseitherpitsorbowlswithshaftsrisingfromthegroundor

descendingintoapitinthegroundwithoneormoreholesatthebottom:themainshaft

wouldberepetitivelyfilledwithlayersoffuelandoreandburningwouldoccurovermostof

theshaft’slengthordepth(Tylecote1976:54-65).“Chimney”maypertainprimarilytothe

upperportionofafurnace(theexhaustflue)asdistinctfromthebottomportion,oritmaybe

thatthismoderntermisinaccurateinrelationtosomeofthefurnacedesignsoperativein

medievalScandinavia.Twoattestationsinvolvecomparisonstovolcaniceruptionsthat

featureimagesofcracksorfissuresrevealingenergyandheatinside(cf.afl23,34).Itis

possiblethatiftheseattestationsaremeanttorefertoafurnaceforsmeltingironorethatthey

mayrefertocracksintheshaftofthefurnacethatcoulddevelopduringsmelting,perhaps

evenreleasingmoltenslaginawaythatwouldreadilycomparetoavolcanicevent.128A

128Thisisspeculative,butDarrellMarkewitz,inassociationwitharchaeologistKevinSmith,hasdocumentedandvideo-recordedanumberofexperimentalreconstructionsofiron-smeltingfurnacesfromtheVikingAge.Theexperimentsduplicatedtheevidenceofslagatarchaeologicalsitesanddemonstratedthissortofcrackinginthefurnacewalls,aswellasthereleaseofmoltenslag(e.g.Markewitz2009:VinlandIronSmelt;cf.Markewitz2010:ExperimentalIronSmelting).

89

slightlylargergroupofeightattestationsrefertodischargesofsparks,lightandsmoke(afl3,

7,8,12,25,28,33,35).Ofthese,fiverefertometalingotsthemselvesemittingsparksas

opposedtotheafl(afl3,8,25,33,35).Onlythree(afl7,12,28)refertomoltenmetal(afl7,

12)and/orsparks,smoke,lightbeingemittedfromanafl.Afl12veryclearlyreferstomolten

ironslagmeltingfromaniron-smeltingfurnace,andafl7referstoanunspecifiedmolten

metaldischargefromanafl.Oftheseattestations,onlytworeferexplicitlytotheworkingof

iron(afl3,12).Thisevidenceisnotdecisiveorparticularlyattractive,butitremainspossible

thatsomeoftheattestationsdorefertosuchphenomenaincloserelationtothechimney-like

shaftofaniron-smeltingfurnace.

LaFargeandTucker,FritznerandCleasby-Vigfussonallofferfairlyaccurateprimary

definitionsforaflinasmuchastheyallstatethatthisfeaturehastodowithheatingand

meltingmetals.Thevarietyoftermstheysuggestanduseintheirdefinitions,however,can

easilybemisunderstoodassuggestingthatthesemanticrangeofaflismoregeneraland

moredomesticinconnotationthantheextantattestationsdemonstrate.Incontrasttothis,the

ONPdefinesaflas“forge”(ONP2010:s.v.aflm.).Thesimplicityofthisdefinitionis

appealinginthatitcanavoidsomeoftheconfusionassociatedwithagreatervarietyof

terms.AsIhavealsonotedabove,however,“forge”maybesomewhatmoregeneralinits

semanticrangethanafl:itisnotclearthataflreferssoexplicitlyandregularlytoworkshop

spaces.

Finally,asnotedabove,accordingtoFritzneraswellasCleasby-Vigfusson,

attestation39(fromthelawcodeBjarköretten)maybethesoleattestationtoasecondary

definitionofafl,meaningmoregenerallyadomesticfireplace(Fritzner1954:s.vafl;

Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.afl).Moreresearchisnecessaryinordertoconfirmorrefute

thispossibility.

Inconclusion,aflmaybedefinedasfollows:

1. aforgeorfurnaceusedforheatingandworkingmetals

2. aforgeorfurnaceusedforworkingand/orproducingiron.

3. aforgeorfurnaceusedforworkingand/orproducinggoldorothernon-

ferrousmetals

4. aworkshopareaoredificecontainingaforgeorfurnaceusedforheating,

workingandproducingmetals.

90

5. (rareanduncertain?)afireplace;metonymicallyrepresentingadomestic

residencethatisnotnecessarilyassociatedwithworkingorproducingmetals

(afl39only).

1.5MetalworkingsitesinthecontextofcommunalnetworksandstructuresTounderstandmanyoftheattestationsforaflandtheroleofsmithingpracticesitis

necessarytounderstandthebroadercontextofcommunalstructuresandtradingpatternsin

Viking-ageScandinavia.Becausedirectevidenceoffurnacesandforgesisoftenlacking,

muchofthefollowingdiscussionmayseembackwardsinthatitisnecessarytoexamine

remainsofmetalworkingactivities(wastemetals,cruciblefragments,andtools)inorderto

getasenseoftherelativelocationsofthe(oftennotapparent)furnaces,forgesandworkshop

spaceswithinthecommunity.Insomecasestheinformationfromarchaeologicalsitessuffers

fromalackofprecisedetailsabouttherelativelocationsof,forinstance,hallsandworkshop

areas.TheimportanceofthisinformationtoourunderstandingofmedievalScandinavian

communalstructureshasonlyrecentlycometothefore,particularlybecauseofStefan

Brink’sworkon“spatialhistory”(Brink2008:57),central-placecomplexesandnodaltheory

(Brink1996:235-81;Brink1999:423-40;Brink2008:57-66).Manyearlierpublicationsdo

notrigorouslydocumentsuchspatialrelations,andatsomesitestheinformationis

irretrievablebecauseofdisruptionfromlateractivitieslikeploughingandconstruction.

Nonetheless,manyMigration-periodandViking-ageworkshopand/ortradingsiteshave

beenidentifiedfromarchaeologicalremains,andtheseregularlyincludeevidenceof

metalworking.Ofparticularimportancetothisstudyarethelocationsofworkshopspaces

andmetalworkingactivitiesinrelationtoaristocratic/monumentalhalls,sacralspaces,

burials/moundsandtraderoutes.

SurveyofsitesThissurveyisorganizedroughlyfromsoutherntonorthernDenmarkandtheneast

throughtoSweden,thenfromsouthtonorthinNorway,andfinallytoIcelandandNorth

America.Thissurveyisalsoorganizedaccordingtowhatisknownofearlymedieval

territorialboundaries.Thus,DenmarkincludedsomeofwhatisnownorthernGermany

(particularlytheSchleswig-Holsteinregion)andSkåne(alsoknownasScania),anareathat

91

istodaypartofsouthwesternSweden(Roesdahl2008:652-5;SandvikandJónViñar2005:

229).129Thissurveyanddiscussioniscomprisedofthefollowinggroupsofsitesinthisorder:

Denmark(JutlandandFunen):Hedeby(southernJutland),Ribe(southernJutland),

Bejsebakken(northernJutland,nearAalborg),Gudme(Funen).

Denmark(Zealand):Tissø,Lejre,Toftegård.

Denmark(Skåne):VikhögsvägenatLöddeköpinge,Uppåkra,twosmallsettlementsin

theenvironsofTrelleborg,Järrestad,andÅhusII.

Gotland:MästermyrchestandRidanæsatFröjel

Sweden(LakeMälaren):Helgö,Birka,Sigtuna

Norway:Kolnes(SolainRogaland),AuglendavStoreSvela(Bjerkreimin

Rogaland),Storrsheia(BjerkreiminRogaland),KnutstadnorthofListafjord

(FarsundinVest-Agder),Sostelid(ÅseralinVest-Agder),

Kaupang/‘Skíringssalr’(Vestfold),HurdalPrestegård(Åkershus),Åker

(VanginHedmark),Modvo(HaflsoinSognandFjordane),BorgI

(Vestvågøy)

Iceland:Háls(Borgarfjarñarsÿsla)

NorthAmerica:L’Anse-aux-Meadows

Thisisnotmeanttobeanexhaustiveorcomprehensivelist.Thiscompilationattemptsto

presentageographicalsurveyandarepresentativebalanceofvarioustypesofmetalworking

atvarioustypesofsettlementsfromtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge.Thisselectionis

influencedbyLarsJørgensen’scategorizationofmetalworkingsites(2003:175-6).Because

oftheapparentcombinationofsacral,centralaristocraticspacesandworkshopspacesinVsp

7,Ihaveattemptedtoincludeasurveyofevidenceformostlypre-Christiandistinctions

between,ontheonehand,relativelytemporarycommunitiescomposedofoftenitinerant

craftspeoplethatdonotappeartohavesacralspacesorfunctionsand,ontheotherhand,

morepermanentcommunitiesthat,alongwithworkshopspaces,wereassociatedwith

powerfulmagnatesandcentralstructuresorsacralspaceslikevariouslargehalls,temples,

hillsand,insomecases,agrarianactivities(Callmer2002:125-57;Hjärthner-Holdaretal.

2002:161;Zachrisson2004:165-7).Itisalsoworthnotingherethattheevidencerelatingto

HedebyisofkeyimportanceinthediscussionofJárnviñrinVõluspá40,whichisthefocus

129Technically,DenmarkduringtheVikingAgealsoincludedKaupang,insoutheasternNorway(Roesdahl2008:652-4;SandvikandJónViñar2005:229).

92

ofthesecondchapterofthisdissertation.Iwillnowbeginwithasurveyofevidencefromthe

listedsettlementsites.Thiswillbefollowedbyanoverviewanddiscussionofscholarly

interpretationsofthesesitesinrelationtoVsp7.

Denmark(JutlandandFunen)Situatedasakeyhuboftradeandproduction,Hedebyisoneofthemostsouthern

andmostinfluentialViking-agesettlementsinScandinavia.130Theearliestsignsofsettlement

atHedebydatetotheseventhcentury.AtthistimeHedebywasasmallsettlementlocatedon

theSchleswigisthmus,southofmodern-daySchleswig.Hedebydevelopedintoamajorport

townintheeighthcentury.Therewasahillforttothenorthandamainareaofsettlement,

productionandtradetothesouthofthehillfortonthewaterfront.AtitspeakHedebymay

havehadapopulationofabout1000andevidencefortheregionshowsthenecessary

“agriculturalcatchmentareaofapproximately600km2”wouldhavebeenviable(Wiechmann

2007:34).

Duringthe“remarkableeconomicdevelopment”inNorthernEuropeintheeighth

centuryHedebywentthroughaperiodof“tremendouschangeand[...]development”

(Wiechmann2007:29).Hedebyserved

asthepointoftrans-shipmentsourgentlyrequiredforthemovementofgoodsbothnorthandsouth,andeastandwest.Itstopographicallocationwasespeciallywell-suitedforthispurpose.Traderscomingfromtheeastcouldreachthetowndirectly,althoughsituatedinaprotectedpositionfarinland,bymeansoftheSchlei,ariverextending40kminland.Towardsthewest,itwasseparatedfromthenavigableriversTreeneandEiderbyonlya16km-widelandbridge.Thenorth-southconnectionismarkedbytheso-calledArmyRoad,whichpassesbyHedebyonlyafewkilometrestoitswest.(Wiechmann2007:29)

ThislocationwasthenarrowestpointoflandonthesouthernJutlandpeninsula.Underthe

protectionoftheDanevirkerampart,Hedebybecameanimportanthubforforeigntradingas

wellaslocalproduction,mostlyinsupportoftrading,i.e.coinminting,shipfabrication,

textiles(Müller-Wille1993:275).Thetownismentionedinseveraltextualsourcesfromthe

130HedebyisalsoknownasHaithabuinModernGerman(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:32).Crumlin-PedersenpointsoutthatHedeby/Haithabumeans“settlementattheheath”andthatthe“oldestreferencetoanameofthiskindforthissiteisfoundintheNorwegianOttar’sreporttokingAlfredofEnglandaround890AD,describinghisvoyagetothetradingtownætHæãum,situatedamongWends,SaxonsandAnglesandbelongingtotheDanes”(1997:32).

93

ninthcenturythathighlightitscharacterasatradingportwithmanyforeignconnections.Itis

describedbyArchbishopRimbertofBremen(b.830d.888)asa“meetingpointforthe

tradesmenfromallovertheworld”(Radtke1999:376).AccordingtotheChronicleof

Æthelweard,c.960,the“countryoftheAnglesliesbetweentheSaxonsandthepeopleof

Jutland;itscapitaliscalled‘Schleswig’inthelanguageoftheSaxons,but‘Hedeby’bythe

Danish”(Elsner1992:13).Theninth-centuryArabmerchantAt-TartuschidescribesHedeby

asa“verylargetownattheextremeendoftheocean”(Elsner1992:16).Theoldestdates

fromtheDanevirkerampartsuggestthateleventotwelvekilometresofitoriginateinthe

periodc.650-750andthatanumberofadditionsweremadethroughto737(Crumlin-

Pedersen1997:44).Frankishannalsfortheyears804and808describethelocationofa

tradingharbouratSliesthorpwithtradingconnectionsestablishedbytheDanishKing

Göttrick(Gudfred)tothesouthalongtheBalticcoast(Stark1988:148).Intheseannalsitis

saidthatthetradingroutesaresecuredbyGöttrickswall,whichisotherwiseknownasthe

Danevirke(Stark1988:148).Atitspeak,theDanevirkerampartextendednearlyfifteen

kilometreswestfromHedeby(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:34-5).Apartofitalsoconnectedtoa

semi-circularrampartaroundHedeby,connectingtothehillfortwallsthatdatetotheninth

orpossiblytenthcentury(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:42;Stark1988:149).

SignsofmetalworkinginHedebyareconcentratedinthenorthernpartsofthe

settlementandharbourarea.Thisareaislocatedsouthofthehillfort.Thetownrampartand

thechangeinelevationclearlyseparatetheharbourareafromthehillfort.Burialactivity

appearstobeconcentratedaroundthehillfortandinthesouthoftheharbourarea(Stark

1988:187,189).Thereisnoevidenceoftheprocessing(i.e.smelting)ofironoreorbogiron

atHedeby(Westphalen2002:312-14).Ironbarsand/oringotswereimportedtothelocation

ingreatquantitiesandthesewereusedparticularlyfortherepairandproductionofships.

Forge-stones,slagfromforgingandironingotshavebeenfoundinthetownareaitself,near

thewaterfront(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:187).Becauseofthesheervolumeofironneededto

makethenails,spikesandrivetsfortheshipsassociatedwithHedeby,OleCrumlin-Pedersen

estimatesthatsome136to153kilogramsofiron,respectively,wouldbeneededtofabricate

thelongshipandcargoshipfoundatHedeby.Thisamountstoroughly130to300ofthe

importedironingotsthathavebeenfound,invaryingsizes,atHedeby:

Soasmithyandasteadysupplyofironforprocessingwerenecessaryforthisjobtobedone,aswellasfortheproductionofsomeofthenewtoolsforthejob.Asmithyforthe

94

productionofironanchors,thelargestobjectsmadeofironintheVikingAge,mustalsohaveexisted,anditisreasonabletoassumethatsuchspecializedactivitytookplaceintheportswhereskippersmetfromfarafield,suchasHedeby/Schleswig.(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:187)

Non-ferrousmetalswerealsoworkedinHedeby.Evidenceofcastinginbronzeandleadas

wellasgildingandfiligreeworkhasbeenfoundinanareaofsixtybyeightymetresonthe

northwesternedgeofthemarketareasouthofthehillfort(Capelle1968:91).Activityatthis

sitespansaperiodofmorethanonehundredandfiftyyears.TorstenCapelleconcludesthat

thisperiodofactivitylikelydatestotheninthandtenthcenturies(Capelle1968:92).151

coinshavealsobeenfoundatHedebyandonly19oftheseareassociatedwithgraves

(Wiechmann2007:34).Therestareso-calledinsituor“truesettlementfinds”thatwerein

circulationandtrade(Wiechmann2007:34).Forty-sevenpercentofthecoinsfoundat

Hedebyweremadeonsiteduringtheninthandtenthcenturies(Wiechmann2007:41).“The

earliestfirmlyattributablecoinsintheScandinavianregionwereobviouslymintedhere,

althoughearliermintinghasbeensuggestedattheDanishtownofRibe”(Wiechmann2007:

29).RalfWiechmannspeculatesthat,“presumably,itwasaroyalmint,butthemerchants

settledinthetownhavealsobeenconsideredasinitiators”(2007:32).Severalofthecoins

madeatHedebyfeatureships(Wiechmann2007:32).Wiechmannsuggeststhatthe“effects

ofadeliberatecoinagepolicycanberecognizedintheHedebyarea.Thenewtypeofcoin

wascertainlyissuedforeconomicreasons,whichwereofadvantagetothecoinlordorlords

inHedeby.[...]ThesefindsareveryclearlyconnectedwiththelocalmarkettradeinHedeby,

theplaceoftrans-shipment”(Wiechmann2007:42-3).

Thetoolkitofagoldsmithhasalsobeendiscoveredinthismarketareasouthofthe

hillfort.Itcontainsforty-onedies.BarbaraRegineArmbrusternoteshowexceptionalthisis,

consideringthatonlysixty-sevendies“areknownfromtheVikingNorth”(Armbruster2002:

208).Armbrusteralsodocumentsmanyofthebroochesandamuletsofbronze,silverand

goldthathavebeenfoundintheharbourareaofHedeby,whichcorrespondtothesediesand

werelikelycreatedhere(Armbruster2002:246-75).

Insummary,thisevidenceofmetalworkingsuggeststhattheharbourareaofHedeby,

southofthehillfort,wasassociatedwiththeproductionofmetalartefactsfromimported

metal.TherearenosignsofsmeltingatHedeby.PetraWestphalen’sanalysisofthetypesand

functionsofirontoolsfoundatHedebysuggestsintensiveblacksmithingandevenmore

intensiveworkinnon-ferrousandpreciousmetals(Westphalen2002:309).Westphalen

95

suggeststhatintheharbourareaatHedebytherewereatleastsixspecificareasassociated

withhighlyspecializednon-ferrousmetalworking,nineareasassociatedwithgeneralworkin

non-ferrousmetals,oneareaassociatedwithhighlyspecializedblacksmithing,andfourareas

associatedwithgeneralworkiniron(Westphalen2002:310).

ThesettlementknownasRibeissituatedonthewesterncoastofJutland,aboutone

hundredkilometresnorth-northwestofHedeby.Thissettlementislocatedonthenorthside

oftheRiberiver“atthepointwhereitceasedtobetidal”(Haywood2000:156).Ribeis

“probablytheoldesttowntodevelopinScandinavia”(Haywood2000:156).Thetownwas

firstfoundedasasmallsiteoftradeandcraftsinthelateseventhorveryearlyeighthcentury

(Jensen1991:5).A“smallseasonalmarketcentredevelopedhere,north-westoftheriver,at

thebeginningofthe8thcentury,withwoodenbooths(datedtoc.710)inwhichcraftsmenin

leather,antler,glass,amberandbronzemadeandsoldtheirgoods”(Haywood2000:156-7).

Thestructureofthesettlementc.725isregular,withoutanyclearevidenceofacentralhall

orspace(Jensen1991:7).Thereisevidenceofearlyworkshopactivitiesextendingforover

onehundredandfiftymetresonbothsidesofacentralstreet(Bencardetal.1990:141).

Thereisalsoevidenceofcattle(perhapsasmanyas400)onthesite(Bencardetal.1990:

132).Duringtheninthandtenthcenturiesapermanentsettlementdeveloped,mostlikely

becauseoftheideallocationofRibeasatradingsite.“Around1000thesettlementshiftedto

thesouthsideoftheriver,wherethemoderntowncentreliestoday”(Haywood2000:157).

Theremainsofamedievalfurnacewerefoundinoneoftheplots.Itwasconstructed

ofbricks,fire-markedrocksandmortar(Bencardetal.1990:45).Thewallsandfloorhad

beenrebuiltseveraltimes(Bencardetal.1990:46).Thefurnacemeasuresroughly2.45m

fromfronttoback.Theintensityofthefurnacemusthavebeenquitehigh,asevidencedby

theeffectsontherock,brickandclay.“Thefunctionofthefurnacewasnotdeterminable.

[...]Theoccurrenceofthemusselshellsinthedemolitionlayerofthefurnacemayindicate

thatitservedasalimekilnforproducinglimefromcommonmussels.Thebindingmortarin

thesidesofthefurnaceisindeedshell-lime”(Bencardetal.1990:46).Noslagormetal

productsareassociatedwiththisfurnace.Severalpossibleforgeshavebeenidentified,

however,atothersitesinthesettlement.Thesestructuresappearinassociationwithcharcoal,

piecesofiron,ironslag,silverwire,tuyerefragments,burntclayandburntstonesthatshow

treatmentattemperaturesaround900-1000oC(Bencardetal.1990:30-43;Jensen1991:29).

Severalofthesesitesalsoshowevidenceofbead-workandhavebeeninterpretedas

96

beadmakers’workshops(Bencardetal.1990:99).Therearealsonumerousfindsofship

rivets,keys,nailsandknives,andithasbeensuggestedthatshiprepairswereoften

undertakenatRibe(Jensen1991:29).Highqualityironcurrencybarswerealsofound,likely

importsfromthesouth(Jensen1991:29).Localironmayhavebeenextractedfrombogs,but

thereisnoclearevidenceofthisactivityonsite.

Anotherofthesettlementplotsalsoshowsclearevidenceofsmeltingactivitiesin

non-ferrousmetals(Jensen1991:31).Thesmeltingappearstohavetakenplaceintheopen,

nexttoasmallhutofafewsquaremetres.Mouldsaswellascrucibles(withevidenceof

smeltingbronze,brass,lead,silverandgold)werefoundhere,alongwithbronzeandsilver

currencybars.Oneforgeandonefireplacewerefoundhere.Theforgewasdugintothe

groundandpoweredbyasetofbellows,intendedforthesmeltingofmetalsincrucibles.The

fireplacewasframedbystonesandusedtoheatmouldssothatthemoltenmetalcould

completelypenetratethemouldbeforecooling(Jensen1991:31).Manypiecesofmoulds

andartefactswerefoundatthissite.

Bejsebakken,nearAalborginnorthernJutland,isabouttwohundredkilometres

north-northeastofRibe.LikeHedeby’slocationontheSchleiinlet,Bejsebakkenissituated

neartheLimfjordenwaterway,akeyinlandwaterwayfortrade(Nielsen2002:198).This

areawason“afinelocalandinternationaltravelroute”(Nielsen2002:211).Archaeological

excavationshavefoundtheremainsofatleastforty-twolonghousesandthreehundredand

fiftypithouses131thatdatetoc.400-800ADwithevidencesuggesting“thesettlement

flourishedintheLateGermanicIronAge”(Nielsen2002:197,200).Thetopography

containsseveralprominenthillsandissurroundedbyextensivemeadowswithafewminor

tributariesaswell(Nielsen2002:198,208).“Thecentralpartofthesettlementisalmost

completelywithoutstructuralremains.[...]Thesiteisinterpretedasasmallpermanent

settlement,periodicallyvisitedbycraftsmenandtraders”(Nielsen2002:197).Manymetal

itemshavebeenfoundonthesiteandmetalwasclearlyworkedinspecificlocations:

Onepithousediffersconsiderablyfromtheothersinhavingarectangularclaylayerinthemiddle,withtracesofwoodalongthelongsides.Charcoalandlargeamountsofscaleironfromforgingwerefoundateachendofthehouse.Nodoubt,thiswasasmithy.One“posthole”withscaleironmayhaveheld

131Apithouseisastructureinwhich“thefloor-levelisbelowthatofthesurroundingground-level.Thehousehasbeenmadebydiggingapitinthesandandequippingitwithsomesortofsuperstructure”(Ohlsson1976:71).

97

thesupportforananvil(Fig.6).Recently,asimilarpithousewasexcavatedinCentralJutland,butwithnodatingfinds(HerningMuseum3840).TwopithouseswereusedassmithiesintheLateIronAgecentralsiteofStentinget,northoftheLimfjorden(Nilsson1990:127).Notonlyiron,butalsobronzeseemstohavebeenprocessedatthesethreesites.(Nielsen2002:204)

Inadditiontothisspecificsmithy,“morethanonehundredironkniveswerefound”,many

fibulasofvarioustypes,alargeamountofironslag,ironscale,ironcurrencybars,somepig

iron(high-qualityhigh-carboniron),afileandacrucibleinadditiontomanyothermetal

artefactsandtools(Nielsen2002:206-7).ThesiteatBejsebakkenseemstohavespecialized

toanexceptionaldegreeintextilemanufacturing(Jørgensen2003:179).Thereisa

“markedlysmalleramountofpreciousmetals”thanisthecaseinmoresouthernDanish

centralsiteslikeGudme(Nielsen2002:212).

LocatedinthesoutheasterncornerofFunen,132Gudmeisaboutonehundredandfifty

kilometreseastofRibe.Thissiteisremarkableforseveralreasons:itisanexceptionally

earlyandprestigioussettlementthatisassociatedwithanextraordinaryvolumeofhigh-

qualityworkinpreciousmetalsoveralongperiodoftime.ThetoponymGudmehasbeen

interpretedasmeaning“homeofthegods”(Hall1995:15;Hedeager2002:5).Gudmealso

appearstobeassociatedwithkeytradingnetworksandseveralsacralspaces.

TheimmediatesiteofGudmeconsistsofsomefiftyfencedfarmsteadsinonesquare

kilometre(Jørgensen1995:205-7;Jørgensen2003:176).Gudmewasparticularlyactive

fromc.200toc.700,whichmakesitoneoftheearliestlargesettlementsinScandinavia,

perhapseventhefirst(Hedeager2002:3).ActivitycontinuedatGudmethroughtothe

eleventhandearlytwelfthcenturies(Jørgensen1995:207-8).Threetypesofbuildingshave

beenfoundatGudme:longhouses,medium-sizedhousesandsmallerhouses(VangPetersen

1994:37).PeterVangPetersenobservesthat“pithouseshaveneverbeenfoundatGudme”

(1994:38).Severalofthehouseswerere-builtasmanyaseighttimes,usuallyonthe

immediatelocationofthepreviousfoundation.Archaeologistshavealsofoundtheremains

ofan“imposinghallofalmost500sq.m.[47mby10m],thelargestsofarfoundfromthis

periodinScandinavia[thirdtosixthcenturies]”(Jørgensen2003:177;cf.Hedeager2001:

471;cf.Hall2007:15;cf.Sørensen1994:28-30).Thiswasclearlyamonumentalhall,

establishedinanelevatedlocation.Thishallwasconstructedinawaynotseenelsewherein

132FunenisalsoknownasFyn(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:32).

98

Scandinaviabeforeorafterthisperiod(Hedeager2001:471;Sørensen1994:31,39).The

findsassociatedwiththishallsuggestthatitwas“pulleddown”inthemiddleofthefourth

century,atwhichtimeithad“beeninexistenceforaboutahundredyears”(Sørensen1994:

33,39).Severalsmallerhalls(22-25mby9-10.5m)ofsimilarconstructiontechniquewere

foundimmediatelysouthofthismonumentalhall.Atleasttwoofthesesmallerhallswere

contemporarywiththemonumentalhall,andoneoftheseappearstostandindirectrelation

tothemonumentalhallwithlargeentrancesfacingeachother(Sørensen1994:32-3).Athird

smallerhallwasactiveduringthesecondhalfofthefourthcentury,immediatelyafterthe

monumentalhallhadbeenpulleddown(Sørensen1994:39).Similarhallstructuresappearin

thisimmediateareauntilthebeginningofthesixthcentury.Fromthistimeonwardshallsof

amorebroadlytestifiedconstructiontechniqueandofmoremodestproportionscontinuedto

beerectedaspartoffencedfarmsteadenclosureswithassociatedsmalleroutbuildings

(Jørgensen1995:205,207;Sørensen1994:39).

EvidenceatGudmedemonstratesthatthesettlementwasofparticularsignificance

notonlyinrelationtoreligiousandpoliticalpowerbutalsoasalocationwith“overwhelming

evidenceofintensivecraftingactivities,especiallythoseofjewellersandblacksmiths”

(Hedeager2002:7).Over“7000metalobjectshavebeenfoundinthelargesettlementarea

datingtotheperiod200-1100”(Jørgensen2003:176).Thefindsareofremarkablequality

andquantity,includingoneofthelargestMigration-periodgoldhoardsfromDenmark

(Hedeager2001:472).Extensiveforgingandcastingisindicatedbyscrapmetalanddropsof

meltednon-ferrousmetalsaswellasironslag(Hedeager2001:472).Duringthefifthand

sixthcenturiesinparticulartherewascontinuoushigh-volumeandhigh-qualityartisanal

productioninpreciousmetalsatGudme(Jørgensen1995:217).Jørgensennotesthat,“while

therewasadeclinefromthecloseofthesixthcentury,importantlythetradingandworkshop

activitiescontinueduptoandincludingtheVikingAge”(2003:177;cf.Hedeager2002:3).

ThesitesatGudmesuggestthatmetalworkingwasdoneatworkshopsassociatedwith

smallerfarmsteads.EvidenceovertheentiresettlementatGudmeshowsthat“alargenumber

ofthefarmsbelongedtocraftsmen,onwhichgoldsmithsandsilversmithsworkedandat

whichbronzecastingwascarriedout”(Jørgensen2003:177).Jørgensenalsoobservesthat

“[s]everalfarmshaveworkshopsattachedtothem,whichisafeaturethatclearly

distinguishesGudmefromthemajorityofruralsettlementsinDenmark”(1995:205).From

VangPetersen’sfiguresdetailingthelayoutoftheGudmeVsiteitappearsthatcruciblesand

99

associatedmetalworkingandblacksmithingfindswerelocatedinsideonehallatthenorth-

westerncorneroftheexcavationarea(VangPetersen1994:37,39).Thishallisthoughtto

havebeenpartofafencedfarmstead.Thehallitselfmeasuresroughlytwenty-fivemetresby

fivemetresandtherearebothsmallerandlargerhallsintheimmediatevicinity.

GudmewasassociatedwiththecontemporarycoastalsettlementofLundeborg:the

twoappeartohaveoperatedincloseconnectiontooneanother.Lundeborgwasa“trading

place”atthemouthoftheTangeåriverwhichactedasamajortransportationrouteinland

somefourorfivekilometrestothe“greatcentralsiteatGudme”(Jørgensen2003:176;cf.

Sindbæk2009:99).EvidenceatLundeborgsuggeststhat“[a]llknownIron-agecraftsare

representedbytheirtools:thoseofcarpenters,bronze-,silver-andgoldsmiths,blacksmithsas

wellascraftsmenworkingwithamber,bone,antler”(Hedeager2001:473).Thereisalso

evidenceof“extensiveshipbuildingandshiprepairs”(Hedeager2001:473).Onlyabout10%

ofthesiteatLundeborghasbeenexcavated,andnotracesofthetypesofresidences

associatedwithGudmehavebeenfound.“Thereareonlytracesofsmallstructures(c.4by5

metres),interpretedashutsforseasonaluse”(Hedeager2001:473).Theareabetween

GudmeandLundeborgalsoshowssignsofseveralsacralspaces.Thereisevidenceofsome

2200graveswithinseveralprominentburialgroundslocatedbetweenLundeborgandGudme

(Sindbæk2009:99).Thereareseveralhillsnearbywiththeophoricnames,whichwere

probablysacrallocations;theselocationsareconnectedtotraderoutesbyinlandwaterways

(Hedeager2002:4-5,14;Hedeager2001:474-6).Severallargegoldandsilverhoardshave

alsobeenfoundinthevicinityofGudmeandLundeborg(VangPetersen1994:31-3).133

Denmark(Zealand)LikeHedebyandBejsebakken,Tissøislocatedina“highlystrategicposition”seven

kilometresfromthecoastontheshoreoflakeTissøinthenorthwesternregionofZealandin

Denmark(Jørgensen2003:183).Wide,navigablewaterwaysenterthelakefromseveral

directionsandaViking-agebridgewasbuiltovertheHallebyåriverimmediatelysouthof

thesettlement(Jørgensen2003:183).LocatedaboutseventykilometresnortheastofGudme,

acrosstheStorebæltstrait,Tissøisalargesettlementdatingfromthesixththroughthe

eleventhcenturies.Thelakebesidewhichthesettlementissituatedisitselfnamedafterthe

133JørgensenisdoubtfulthatthegoldhoardsatGumdecanbeinterpretedassacral.InsteadhesuggeststhatthesehoardsdemonstratethewealthoftheindividualslivinginGudme(1995:217-8).

100

NorsegodTyr(Tissø=“Tyr’slake”)(Jørgensen2003:183).134Thelakeisthesiteofmany

weaponsacrificesdatingto“around600,closetothetimeofthefoundationofthe

settlement”andtheearliestactivityinthemarketandworkshopareas(Jørgensen2003:183).

Amanorcomplexislocatedontheshoreofthelakeaboutonekilometrenorthofthe

bridgeovertheHallebyåriver.Thequalityofthemetalfinds(includinga“veryhigh

percentageoftin-platedandgildedbronzeandsilverobjects,comparedwithother

contemporaryDanishmetal-richsites”)makesitclearthatthemanorcomplexwasoccupied

byaristocraticfigures(Jørgensen2003:188-9).Prestigeweapons(includinghilts,pommels

andotherfittingsinlaidwithsilverandbronze)andcavalryequipmentarealsoconcentrated

inthemanorcomplex(Jørgensen2003:189).Earlycoins(“sceattas,andCarolingianand

Hedebytypes”aswellasninth-andtenth-centuryArabissues)arealsoconcentratedinthe

manorcomplexandincludesomeoftheearliestNorsecoins,datingtothefirsthalfofthe

eighthcenturyanddisplayingaVikinghouseandshipmotif(Jørgensen2003:190-1).The

volumeofcoinsandothertradingactivity(weights,fragmentsofsilverand,inparticular,

Arabcoins)isnotasgreatasatother“town-likeemporiasuchasRibe,Hedeby,Kaupang

andBirka”(Jørgensen2003:203).Thismaysuggesteitherlessoveralltradingactivityor,

morelikely,thattradingwasfocusedinto“short,intense,periodsofactivity”(Jørgensen

2003:203).

Jørgensen’ssummaryofthelayersofhistoryatTissøisremarkablydetailedand

clearlyoutlineshowsettlementslikeTissømayhavedevelopedthroughthreegeneralphases.

Inthefirstphaseofthemanordevelopment,duringtheseventhcentury,therewasahall

(36mby11.2m)andasecondbuilding(6mby5m)incloseproximitytooneanotherwithina

fencedarea(Jørgensen2003:191).Aforgeandworkshopwaslocatedjustinside“thefence

atthenorthernedgeofthemanor”,somefiftymetresnorthofthehall(Jørgensen2003:191-

3).Thereseemstohavebeenacultareafocusedaroundthesecondbuildingjustsouthofthe

hall.Inasecondgeneralphaseduringthefollowingthreecenturiesthecomplexwas

expandedinseveralways:thehallwasmadelargerandseveraladditionalbuildingswere

establishedalongthewesternedgeofthefence.Inthecultareathesmallbuildingwasalso

expandedandafencewasestablishedsurroundingthisspace:insidethisareaandthehall

thereisaparticularconcentrationof“heathenamuletsandjewellery,withmotifstakenfrom

134ForamapshowingthedistributionoftoponymscontainingthenameofthegodTÿrinScandinaviaseeBrink(2008:64).ThereisclearlyaremarkableconcentrationofthesetoponymsthroughoutJutlandandZealand.

101

Norsemythology”(Jørgensen2003:197).Thesmithywasre-builtandmaintainedatthe

samelocationforsomethreehundredandfiftyyearsduringwhichtherestofthesettlement

alsodemonstratedrelativelyconservativedevelopment.Onlyinathirdandfinalphaseduring

theeleventhcenturydidradicalchangetakeplace.Anewtypeofhallwaserectedinplaceof

theoldtypeandinthecultareaalargerhousewasbuiltagain,butthistimeatrightanglesto

thehall(Jørgensen2003:199).Asmallerlonghousewaserectedalongthesouthernedgeof

thefence,someseventy-fivemetressouthofthemainhall.

LarsJørgensennotesthat“althoughgreatchangescanbenotedinthestructureofthe

housecomplexoverits400-yearhistory,thereisonethingthatneveraltered–itwasnevera

productionunit”(2003:199).Thatsaid,Jørgensenalsonotesthat“severalmodelsformaking

moldshavebeenfound”inthelargehallitself,suggestingthat“jewellersappearalsotohave

worked”atornearthehall(2003:202-3).Almostallthebuildingsinallphases“mustbe

describedasspecial,andmanyhaveneverbeenseenbeforeinDanishfarmcomplexes”

(Jørgensen2003:199-200).Furthermore,“thehorsesfromTissøweregenerallylargerthan

thoseknownfromordinaryDanishfarmcomplexes,whichmightsuggesttrainedwarhorses.

Thearistocraticaspectisreiteratedbythepresenceoflarge,slenderdogsinthebonematerial

–probablyhuntinghounds”(Jørgensen2003:204).Thehallsare“decidedlymonumental”

ratherthanresidential(asisthecaseatLejre)andthesehallsandtheareaaroundthemwas

“keptcleancomparedtotheotherpartsofthecomplex”(Jørgensen2003:200).

Over10000metalfindshavebeenmappedonthesite,showinganextensiveand

intensiveworkshopandtradingspace:

Theworkshopareastretchedalongthewholecoasttothemanorinusebetweentheseventhandtheeleventhcenturies,adistanceofabout700m,coveringanareaofabout150,000sq.m.Tothenorthofthemanoramarketareacontinuedsome600mfurthernorthalongthecoast.Heretootherearecleartracesofworkshopactivities,albeitnottothesameextentassouthofthemanor.(Jørgensen2003:185)

Three-quartersofthefindsareiron,includingnailsandrivets,andbroocheswerealso

manufacturedonsiteshowingstylisticchangesthatcorrespondtothedatingofactivityatthe

sitefromthesixthcenturythroughtotheeleventhcentury(Jørgensen2003:185-6).The

limiteddistributionofevidencerelatedtothefabricationofthesixth-andseventh-century

broochesshowsthatmetalworkingactivitybeganintheareaimmediatelysurroundingthe

mainmanorcomplexandpromptlyspreadoutfromthereduringtheseventhcentury.Over

102

fourhundredyearsthemetalworkingspacesexpandedsouthwardsandamorepronounced

distinctionisobservedbetweenthesespacesandthecentralmanorcomplex(Jørgensen2003:

186-8).

Theworkshopareassufferfromploughdamage,soevidenceisoftenpartialand

difficulttointerpret.Forinstance,thousandsofpost-holeshavebeenexcavatedbutitisoften

difficult“tofindanysystem”tothesestructures(Jørgensen2003:201).Thereisclear

evidenceofsomeseventypithousesbutJørgensensuggeststhattheremusthavebeen

severalhundredsuchhousesonthesite(2003:201).Therealsoappeartohavebeenmany

othertypesofsmallboothsandhousesonsiteusedforbothproductionandtrade.Althoughit

seemssomeofthesestructureswererepairedandre-usedoverseveralseasons,“thereareno

tracesofpermanentdwellingsinthesemarketandworkshopareas”(Jørgensen2003:201).

Ironforgingandbronzecastingwerethedominantactivitiesinthesouthernworkshoparea

(Jørgensen2003:202).Duetotheploughdamagenoremainsofforgesorfurnaceshavebeen

found,sothedepositsofslag,mouldsandincompleteormiscastartefactsaretheprimary

evidenceofmetalworkingactivity(Jørgensen2003:200-2).Toolssuchasburinsandsmall

chiselsformetalworkhavebeenfoundatthesouthernworkshoparea,inadditionto“semi-

finishedmaterialforstrike-a-lights,shears,knivesandarrowheads”aswellas“miscastkeys,

broochesandThor’shammers”(Jørgensen2003:202).Therearealso“indicationsamongthe

findsthatthesamecrafttypeswerepracticedyearafteryear,probablybythesame

craftsmen”(Jørgensen2003:203).Finally,Jørgensennotesthatamid-ninth-century

Byzantineleadsealwasfoundinthissouthernworkshoparea,bearingthenameof

Theodosius,theheadofthearmouryandrecruitingoffice.“Identicalsealshavebeenfound

atHedebyandRibe”andithasbeensuggestedthatarecruitingofficermayhavebeenin

Tissø(Jørgensen2003:203).Thisinturnwouldsuggestthat“therewereplentyofpeople

there,andconnectionsandhigh-levelagreementscouldbeestablished”(2003:204).

Lejrewasaprominentroyalandsacralcomplexlocatedaboutfiftykilometreseastof

TissøandonlytenkilometressouthwestofthelateViking-ageportatRoskilde(Christensen

2008:121;Haywood2000:120).FromabouttheseventhcenturytothetenthcenturyLejre

wasa“heathenroyalcomplexwithgreathalls”(Jørgensen2003:181-2).135IntheThietmari

MerseburgensisepiscopiChronicon,whichwaswrittenbetween1012-18,“Lejreis

135TomChristensennotesthatthereisevidenceofsettlementatLejredatingbackasearlyasthesixthcentury(2008:121).

103

mentionedascaputregni,wherethepopulacegatherregularlyeveryninthyearatthewinter

solstice(yule),andperformsacrificialritualsonalargescale”(Christensen2008:123).

Severalmoundsofburntstonesreinforcethatlarge-scaleritualstookplacehereuntiltheend

ofthetenthcentury(Christensen2008:121-3).IntheeleventhcenturyLejre“changedits

status[...]toaMedievalmagnate’sseat”(Jørgensen2003:181-2;cf.Christensen2008:123).

Thewholesettlementextendsoverc.200000m2,andthec.15000m2thathasbeenexcavated

canbedividedintotwo“functionalareas,oneforworkshops,theotherresidential”

(Jørgensen2003:181).Therearefourlargehalls(48mby11.5m)andfoursmallerhalls

(42mby6m).The“monumentalarchitecture”ofthegreathallsatLejreis“anactivesignal

ofpowerandstatus”(Jørgensen2003:181-2).Aboutsixtymetrestotheeastofthe

residentialareaandhallcomplex,aworkshopareahasbeendiscovered(Jørgensen2003:

181).Thisworkshopareaisonaplateauatalowerelevationthanthemainhallcomplex,

whichisplacednearthetopofthehill“soastobevisibleinitssurroundings”(Christensen

2008:123;cf.Christensen1994:18).Jørgensensummarizesthefindsfromthesettlement:

Approximately4000smallfindshavebeenrecovered,includinghighqualityobjectswhichwereclearlyreservedfortheelite,suchasgiltjewellery,casketfittings,coins,weights,barsofsilverandbronze,molds,ridingequipment,importedjewellery,mountingsandglassofCarolingianandAnglo-Saxonorigin.Totheseprestigeitemscanbeaddedmanytoolsandimplements.(Jørgensen2003:181)

In2009asmallcastsilverfigurinewasdiscovered,nowknownasthe“OdinfromLejre”,

whichdatestoc.900(Lauritsen2009:n.p.).Alockablechestwasalsofound(Haywood

2000:121).Although,asJohnHaywoodpointsout,

excavationshavenotrevealedanytracesofatemple,[...]itislikelythatthegodswereworshipedintheopenair.An80-metre-longshipsettingmayhavebeenusedforreligiousceremonies.Therichnessofotherarchaeologicalremains,includingalargebow-sidedhall,richlyfurnishedgravesandevidenceofcraftactivitiesunderlinesLejre’simportanceintheVikingAge.Lejrewassupplantedinthe11thcenturybythenearbyChristiancentreatRoskilde.(Haywood2000:120-1)

ThestoneshipsettingmentionedbyHaywoodisimmediatelybesideaburialmoundknown

asGrydehøj,andthissiteislocatedabouttwohundredmetreseastofthehallandworkshop

excavationsites(Christensen1994:18).Grydehøjwasplunderedbygrave-robbers;ithas

beendeterminedthatitcontainstheremainsofalargefuneralpyre.Thefireitselfhada

diameternolessthantwenty-twometresandtheburningleftmoltenbronzeandgold,burnt

104

iron,andburntbonesfromcattle,birds,dogs,pigs,goats,deerandhorses(LejreHistoriske

Forening2010:“Grydehøj”).Themoundisbuiltuponafieldwithtracesofploughing,and

themoundappearstodatefromc.550A.D.(LejreHistoriskeForening2010́:“Grydehøj”).

WhiletheLejrehallcomplexisonthewesternshoreoftheLejreRiver,theshipsettingison

thewesternshoreoftheKornerupRiver.

ToftegårdisaresidentialcomplexlocatedaboutthirtykilometresnorthofLejre,up

theeasternsideoftheRoskildefjord.Thecomplexappearstohavebeen

establishedatthebeginningoftheseventhcenturyandwasabandonedinthetenthcentury.Itcanbedividedintoamagnate’scentralresidencecoveringc.10,000sq.m.,withfivelargehallbuildings(c.10X37-40m)adjacenttowhichisanenclosedspecialareacontainingasequenceofthreesmallerhouses.Outsidethehallareaamorescattered,ordinaryfarmcomplexwasfound,consistingoftwotothreecontemporaryfarmswithsmallfarmhouses,outhousesandpit-houses.About3000findswererecovered,includingmanygildedsilverandbronzemountingsandjewellery,inadditiontocoins,weights,barsofsilverandbronze,molds,ridingequipment,importedjewellery,mountingsandglassofCarolingianandAnglo-Saxonorigin.(Jørgensen2003:179-81)

ThefindsatToftegårdareparticularlystrikingintheirdistribution:“allthehigh-

statusobjectswereconcentratedinthehallareaofthemainresidence”butthefewfindsin

the“fenced-inspecialarea”nexttothemagnate’sresidenceshowthatthisarea“waskept

clean,unliketherestofthecomplex”(Jørgensen2003:180-1).Althoughthesedistinctionsin

distributionhighlightaristocraticandpossiblysacredareas,“workshopactivities(bronze

castingandforging)havebeendemonstratedintheToftegårdhallarea”(Jørgensen2003:

181).

Denmark(Skåne)LocatedsixtykilometresdueeastfromToftegård,acrosstheØresundstraitinwhatis

todayknownasSkåneinsouthernSweden,theVikhögsvägensettlementatLöddeköpinge

isanearlyViking-agesiteonthenorthernbankoftheLöddeRiver.Vikhögsvägenisabout

fourkilometresfromthecoastandjustnorthofLund(Hill2001:108;Ohlsson1976:59).

Thesiteappearstohavenocemeteriestoindicatepermanentsettlement.Ithasgenerallybeen

interpretedasanon-urbanmarketcentre(Hill2001:108)anda“seasonallyinhabitedtrading

place”datingfromtheeighthcenturythroughtotheeleventh(Ohlsson1976:59).Thesite

hasaboutthirty-eightpithousesranginginsizefrom2.8m2to18.8m2(Ohlsson1976:95).

105

ManyofthepithousesatVikhögsvägenareunusuallysmallforhabitations,buttheydo

nonethelessappeartofulfillthecriteriaforahabitation(Ohlsson1976:71).Thepithouses

“lieinabandofsome250metresalongthebackofthesandyridgethatwasusedforthe

settlement.Withinthisbandthehousestendtobenucleatedtosomeextent,withafew

housesineachgroup”(Ohlsson1976:93).Systematicsearchesweremadeforevidenceof

anyothertypesofstructures(particularlyanylargerhousesorhalls).Althoughlargerhall-

likestructureshavebeenfoundonothersiteswithsimilargroupingsofpithouses,nosuch

evidencewasfoundatthissite(Ohlsson1976:93).

Ohlssonconfirmsfromseveralsourcesthatthesepithouseswereusedonsomesites

forworkshopactivities(1976:94-5).Loom-weightsareregularlyassociatedwiththese

houses(Ohlsson1976:95-6).Toolsofseveraltypesappearonthesite,includingchiselsfor

woodworking.Therearealsosubstantialamountsofbronzeandirononsite,including

currencybars,artefacts,knives,nails,rivetsandwashers,suggestingthattherewas

substantialship-repairand/orship-buildingdoneon-site(Ohlsson1976:108-10).Noneof

thisevidenceisconcentratedinanyoneparticularareaofthesettlement.Evidenceof

fireplacesappearsatonlytwoofthesepithousestructures.Ohlssonpointsoutthatinother

majorpithouseexcavationsitistypicaltofindfireplacesin25-50%ofthehouses(Ohlsson

1976:82-3).Ohlssonalsocommentsthat“burntstonewasfoundonmostofthefloor-levels

andthefloorsoftenhavelargequantitiesofsootandcharcoal”,suggestingthattheevidence

offireplaceshasbeendispersedsothat“theycannolongerbeclearlyidentified”(1976:83-

4).Sometwentyfireplaceswerealsofoundinthesouthernpartofthesettlement,butthese

appeartohavebeenoutdoorsandcannotbeassignedtoanyoftheknownhouseplots

(Ohlsson1976:84).Alsofoundinthesouthernendofthesettlementisaconcentrationof

slag:atthenorthernpartofthemostsoutherngroupingofpithouses,2000gramsofslag

werefoundinsixofthepithouses(Ohlsson1976:112).Thissuggeststhatironorewas

smeltedinthisareaofthesettlement.Anadditionalthirteenofthepithousescontainedslag

depositsweighingbetweententoseventygrams(Ohlsson1976:112).Intotal2700gramsof

slagwererecoveredfromthesite,andtheslagwasmostlyfoundinwastepileswithinthepit

houses.Asinglecruciblewasrecoveredfromthesite,anditappearstohavebeenun-used

(1976:139).Ohlssonsuggeststhesmallsizeofthecrucible(2.4cmwide,3.0cmdeep)means

thatitwasintendedforworkingwithpreciousmetals(1976:139).Itwasfoundinamedium-

sizedpithouse(9.9m2)inthecentralareaofthesettlement.Ohlssonconcludesthatalthough

106

thefindsdosuggestthatcraftingofseveraltypeshappenedatthesite,they“donotprovidea

completepictureofalltheactivitiesthatwenton”anddonot“suggestthatthehouseswere

workshops”(Ohlsson1976:112).

WhileUppåkraisonlyaboutfifteenkilometressoutheastofVikhögsvägen(just

southofmodern-dayLund),thetwosettlementsareremarkablydifferentintermsof

evidenceforcraftproduction.Uppåkraisthelargest,richest(intermsofartefactsand

production)andlongest-standingmedievalsettlementinsouthernSweden(Hårdh2002:41-

2).ItappearstohavebeenestablishedinthefirstcenturyB.C.anditwasactiveuntilc.1000

AD.Aroadintersectsthesettlement,connectingittoTrelleborgtothesouthand

Helsingborgtothenorth.BurialmoundsappearonsiteatUppåkra(Laweniusetal.2007:

n.p.).Whatappearstobeapre-Christiansacredhousehasalsobeenfoundonsite,inthe

centralareawherethelargesthallsseemtohavebeen.Themajorityofthemetalobjects

foundarebronze,butsilver,goldandironhavealsobeenfound.115gold-foilfigures

(guldgubber)withfivepatricesordieswerealsodiscovered(Watt2004:167).Evidence

showsthatseveralquiteadvancedmetalworkingprocedureswererepetitivelydonesome50-

150metressouthofthemainhallsandsacralspaces.Theseactivitiesinclude

depletiongilding(byheatinggolditemswithsalts),cupellation(extracting/refiningpreciousmetalsbyusinglead),indirectbronzesmeltingbyaddingcassiteritetomoltencopper,andsolderingwitheithersilver-copperorcopper-tinalloys.Severalmetalbarsidenticalorcloselyrelatedincompositiontowastefromcastingorevenproductswerealsofound.ThealloysatUppåkraindicateaconsiderablevariationinthecompositionofmelts,ingotsandartefacts.Themixingofalloysseemstohavebeenhighlydevelopedandpointstoadvancedexperimentation.[...]ThemetalsusedatUppåkraderivedfromtheHarzMountains,theRhinevalleyandpossiblyalsotheAlpsandCornwall.(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:174)

Evidenceofbronzecasting(includingmouldsandmeltedmetal),someironmetalandslag,

pottery,crucibleshards(usedforgoldandothermetals)andburntclaywasfoundinthree

keyspatialconcentrationsinthesouthernareaoftheUppåkrasite(Stilborg2003:157).One

siteappearstohavebeenmoretemporarythantheothertwo.Thetwomorepermanentsites

appeartohavebeensituatedinareaswhichhadpreviouslybeeneitheruninhabitedfor

severalcenturiesorusedforfarmingforseveralcenturies(Stilborg2003:157-60).Anexpert

jewellery-makerworkedatthethirdworkshopsite.Incontrasttothetwosmallpithouses

usedforweavingworkshopswhichwerelocatedimmediatelyoutsidetwoofthehousesin

107

thenorthofthesettlement(Laweniusetal.2007:n.p.),thesemetalworkshopsallappear

withinanareasome50to160metressouthofthemainhallsandotherbuildings(Stilborg

2003:140).

Trelleborgislocatednearthesouthcoast,aboutfortykilometresduesouthof

Uppåkraandmodern-dayLund.TrelleborgisalargeViking-agecircularfortthatwasbuilt

towardstheendofthetenthcentury(Haywood2000:93).Thefortseemstohavebeenpart

ofatransitiontowardsthecentralizationoftheroyaladministrationofthesurroundingareas

(Haywood2000:93-4).Trelleborgonlyappearstohavebeenoccupiedforsometwentyto

thirtyyears(Haywood2000:94).TheareasurroundingTrelleborg,however,hasalong

settlementhistory.TheareahasbeenstudiedbyBengtJacobssonanditisclearthatcoastal

settlementswereactiveforseveralcenturiespriortoandaftertheestablishmentofthefortat

Trelleborg.Severalofthesesettlementsshowevidenceofmetalworking.Forinstance,in

LillaIsieParish,twelvekilometreseastofTrelleborg,therearetheremainsofa“large

numberofsunken-floorhutswhereevidenceofbronzecastingwasdocumented”(Jacobsson

2002:204).TenkilometrestothewestofTrelleborgisanotherViking-agesettlementsite,

thisonewithsimilarpithousesandonepitinparticularthathasclearlybeenusedasa

smithy(Jacobsson2002:199,201).

OntheeasterncoastofSkåne,aboutninetykilometreseastofTrelleborg,twokey

settlementareashavebeenstudiedatJärrestadandÅhus.BengtSöderberg’srecentanalysis

ofanarchaeologicalsitenearJärrestadshowsthatalargesettlement(likelyamagnate’s

farm)waspresentwithafunctionalhallfromroughlytheseventhcenturythroughtothe

eleventhcentury(Söderberg2003:283-4).Inadditiontothishall,themajorfeaturesonthe

siteincludemegalithicburialsfromtheBronzeAge,aholymountain,andseveralgrave-

fields(2003:303).ThereisalsoanotherhillthatissuggestivelynamedGalgabacken,“the

gallowshill”,andwhichislocatedataconvergenceofstreamsandparishborders,

suggestingitwasameetingplaceandthesiteofaãingassembly(2003:302).Asmith’s

hammerandanaxe,alongwitha“widerangeofrefusefromsmithing”(includingslag,

vitrifiedclay,hammerscale,andiron)werefoundinthehouselocatedabouttenmetres

southwestofthehall(Söderberg2003:295-8).Evidenceofcookinginthehallisfoundinthe

westernendprimarily,andthereissomeevidencethatmayindicatecookingorritualburning

wherefire-crackedstonesandanimalremainshavebeenfound,aboutfiftymetrestothewest

ofthehallwhereawellislocated(Söderberg2003:296-9).

108

SomefiftykilometresduenorthofJärrestad,nearthe“formermouthoftheHelgeå

river”(Hill2001:104),aretwosettlementsitesknownasÅhusIandÅhusII.Thereisa

“structuraldifferencebetweenthesetwosettlements.Theearlier[ÅhusII]136seemstohave

beenaseasonallyoccupiedmarketcentre,whereasthelater[ÅhusI]wasapermanent

settlementeventhoughitseemsalsotohavebeenamarketcentre”(Hill2001:105).Rather

thanhavinganaristocratichallorlargereligiousspaceatitscentre,thegridsatÅhusIIare

regular,withhabitationplotssuitabletofamiliesoffivetotenpeople(Callmer2002:126).

Thereisnoevidenceofextensivelivestockorfarminginassociationwiththesite.Onthis

siteJohanCallmerhasfoundevidenceofseveraldifferentcrafts,including“amber-working,

antler-working,bronze-andsilver-casting,glass-working,specializedforging

[blacksmithing],finetextile-working”(2002:125).Therearemanyremainsofcrucible

fragments,mouldfragments,tuyerefragmentsandbothscrapmetalandcurrencybars

(Callmer2002:137-8).Therearealso“distinctpiecesofwalls”offurnacesorforges,butno

bellows,forgesorfurnaceshavebeenfound(2002:141).Thereisevidenceofbothnon-

ferrousandferrousmetalworkingacrossmostofthesitewithoutanyparticular

concentrations:“Thespatialdistributionoffindsrelatedtobronze-castingisnotrestrictedto

asinglesectororzone”and“alackof[metalworking]findsatasingleplot”canonlyrarely

beobserved(2002:138).Thesametypesofartefacts(likebrooches,forinstance)were

fabricatedatseverallocationsinthesettlement,notjustatonesite.Besidesthisevidencefor

bronzeandsilvercasting,Callmeralsonotesthata“strongargumentforintensiveforgingat

thesiteisprovidedbyfrequentfindsofpiecesofrod-shapedironbars(witharectangular

section)”(2002:141).Slagfromironsmeltingandworkinghasbeenfound“alloverthesite,

sometimesinconsiderablequantities”(2002:141).Concentrationsofslagseemtoindicate

“rubbish-heaps”(2002:141).CallmersuggeststhatactivitiesatÅhusII,suchascomb-

makingandbrooch-making,requiredclosecollaborationbetweendifferentcrafts(e.g.for

fabricationoffinerivetsandpins)(2002:142).Thereisevidenceonsiteoftheproductionof

chests,withchainsandlocks,aswellasknives(2002:144).Severalpiecesofoffensive

weaponshavealsobeenfound,afragmentofmail,and“numerousfindsofsheet-ironriveted

together”(likelyforrepairingcauldrons)andmorethan2400unitsofrivets(2002:144).All

thisislikelyindicativeofspecializedsmithing(Callmer2002:144).

136ThedatingforactivityatÅhusIIisapproximately750-850+(Callmer2002:127).

109

GotlandGotlandisalargeislandintheBaltic,locatedabouteightykilometresofftheeastern

coastofSwedenandabout175kilometressouthofStockholm.Intermsoftradeand

transportation,thisislandfunctionedasa“naturalstepping-stonebetweenScandinavia,the

BalticseaboardandRussia”(Hall2007:56).Gotlandwasan“internationalmarketplace,the

baseofmanyverysuccessfulmerchantswhoexploitedtheirhomeland’slocation,makingita

keypointontheeast-westaxisfromScandinaviatoIslamiclands”(Hall2007:56).As

RichardHallpointsout,“over145,000coinshavebeendiscoveredonGotland,ofwhich

about65,000areIslamicdirhamsandtheremainderaremainlyEnglishandGermanpennies.

Silverjewellery,hack-silverandingotsarealsofoundinprofusion”(Hall2007:56).Over

700hoardsofsilverhavebeenfoundontheisland,includingthetwolargestViking-age

silverhoardseverfound(weighingover65kgtogether),whichdatetoc.867(Hall2007:56-

7).

BecauseofthelonghistoryofagrarianactivityonGotlandmanyofthe

archaeologicallayershavebeendisturbed,makingitdifficulttoassembleclearevidenceof

specificsmithingsitesinrelationtosettlementcontexts.Thisisparticularlyunfortunate,

sinceGotlandwasclearlyanimportantsiteofproductionandtrade.TheMästermyrtool

chestpresentsoneofthemostdetailedsetoffindsandinformationofmetalworkingfrom

Viking-ageGotland.Itwasfoundinassociationwiththeremnantsofseveralcopper

cauldrons,butthecontentsofthechestitselfseemtobemostlyrelatedtoiron,iron-working

andsomewood-working:

Thecompositionofthefindandtheproportionsoftooltypesseemtosupporttheinterpretationthatthiswasthetool-chestofafarmwhichneededagoodsupplyofequipmentforblacksmithsandcarpentersorboat-builders.Thepresenceofrawiron,damagedobjectsandscrapsuggeststhattherawmaterialusedforironworkwaspartlyrawironingots[...]andpartlyre-usedscrap.(ArwidssonandBerg1983:5)

GustafTrotzighasalsosuggestedthatplateshears,aswellastwoofthehammersmayhave

beenusedforworkingwithsheet-metal,perhapsironorcopperalloys(Trotzig1991:145).

Sheetironandrepairedcauldronsofironandcopperwerefoundinassociationwiththechest

(Trotzig1991:145-6).Thechestwaslikely“tooheavytocarry”butseemstohavebeen

meantfortransport,perhapsbyboatorcart(ArwidssonandBerg1983:6).Ithadironhinges

110

andachainwrappedaroundit,aswellasalock(ArwidssonandBerg1983:7-9).The

securityofthechestsuggeststhatitscontentswereconsideredbothportableandvaluable.

ThereisalsoevidenceofaViking-ageemporiumatRidanæs,betweentheFröjel

churchandthemoderncoastlineofwesternGotland(Carlsson2008:131).Excavationsare

stillpreliminary,butshowthattherewasaportherewhereactivitiesintradeand

manufacturetookplacefromthelatesixthcenturythroughtoc.1180(Carlsson2008:131-

2).Thereisevidenceofcemeteriesaswellasa“largenumberofartefactsconnectedwith

tradeandmanufacturing”,including“animalbone,burntclay,slag,flintandcharcoal”

(Carlsson2008:132).Ship-buildingwasalsoclearlypracticedhere(Carlsson2008:133).

Additionally,excavationshavefoundimportsof“semi-preciousstones[...]fromtheArabian

peninsulaandtheareaaroundtheBlackSea,importedrawglassmaterialfromItaly(for

makingglassbeads)andironfromeithertheSwedishmainlandorfromtheislandof

SaaremaainEstonia”(Carlsson2008:132).Morethan150coinshavealsobeenfound,from

England,Denmark,CaliphateandGermany,mostdatingtotheearlyeleventhcentury

(Carlsson2008:132-3).

Sweden(LakeMälaren)Threekeysettlementsintheareaimmediatelywestofmodern-dayStockholmshowa

closehistoricalsequenceofdevelopmentsanddeclines.First,Helgöwasakeyproduction

andtradingcentrefromthefifthcenturytotheeighthcentury.ThenBirkatookoverthisrole

fromthelateeighthcenturythroughtotheendofthetenthcentury.Finally,Sigtunatook

overfromBirkainthelatetenthcentury.Allthesesettlementsareconnectedbytheinland

waterwaysofLakeMälaren.Thesewaterwaysservedaskeytransportationroutesbetween

southernandnorthernSweden,andalsototheBalticintheeast.

HelgöisanislandinLakeMälaren,abouttwenty-fivekilometreswestofmodern-day

Stockholm.Helgöwasamajortradingandproductionsitefromc.400-800(Haywood2000:

96).Therearesevenbuildinggroupsandsixmajorcemeteriesontheisland,mostofthem

concentratedina500m2areaattheeasternendoftheisland,closertothenorthernshorethan

thesouthern.Severalofthesefeaturesoverlaponeanother:forinstance,alatercemetery

(116)isseentooverlapanearlierlayerofsettlementfindsatBuildingGroup7.Withinthis

500m2areathereisevidenceofahill-fortattheeasternendoftheisland(Lamm1988:95-6).

BuildingGroup3isthemosteasternsettlementandisknownasthe“productionarea”

(Lamm1988:89).Onthissite,abuildingof3mby7.5mhasbeenidentifiedasanintensely

111

productiveandprestigiousworkshop.Relativetothemainhallonthissite,thisworkshopis

located“immediatelybelowtothenorthandtowardstheshore”(Kyhlberg1988:87).The

workshopatBuildingGroup3containstheremainsofironworkandglasswork(Kyhlberg

1988:84-5).Thisworkshopisalsothefocalpointofover94%oftheBronze-castingmoulds

foundatHelgö(Zachrisson2004:155).Acruciblewasalsofoundherethatwasusedtomelt

downgoldcoins,“soitisconceivablethatthefragmentsofgoldbracteatefoundinthehall

[...]weremadeatHelgö”(Zachrisson2004:155).Mostofthe“prestigeobjectsdecorated

withStyleIanimalornament”wereproducedatthisworkshop(Zachrisson2004:156).

FoundationVIIIinBuildingGroup2alsoshowsevidenceofablacksmithingand

castingworkshop(Bergman2005:16).BuildingGroup2islocatedjusttothewestof

BuildingGroup3,slightlyclosertothehallandthemountain(Zachrisson2004:156),and

bothsitesarethemosteasternsettlementsontheisland.Atbothworkshops,mouldsfor

sword-pommelswerefound,alongwithrichamountsofslag,and“hewnoffpiecesofiron

bars”,indicatingthat“alotofforging[was]carriedoutthroughtheyears”(Bergman2005:

16).Evidenceclearlypointstothefabricationofnailsandrivets,butitisunclearwhether

largeritemsofiron(e.g.swords)werefabricatedonsiteorwhethertheywereimportedand

finishedonsite(Bergman2005:16).Severaldifferentqualitiesofironwereusedonsite

(rangingfrommildsteeltosoftiron)andseveraldifferenttechniqueshadbeenusedto

manipulatetheiron(introductionofphosphorus,carbon,compositetechniqueslikepattern-

welding,andcoldworking)(Bergman2005:16-7).Thereisastrongassociationbetween

high-qualityweaponsandFoundationVIIIinBuildingGroup2(BergmanandArrhenius

2005:79).Thisindicatesan“advancedirontechnologyduringtheexistenceoftheHelgö

site”(Bergman2005:17).Thereisalsoastrongassociationbetweentheproductionof

“highlydecorativeobjectssuchasoversizedsquare-headedbrooches”andtheFoundation

VIIIbuildingatBuildingGroup2(Zachrisson2004:156).

Thereis,however,noevidenceofsmeltingironoreatHelgö:“alltheironfoundin

thesitemusthavebeenimported”andtheslagsfoundonsiteoccurasaresultoffurther

refiningoftheironandmodificationofdifferentsteels(BergmanandArrhenius2005:79).

Thereisalsoatimediscrepancyintheactivities:themouldsforswordbuttonsandpommels,

forinstance,tendtodatetothefifthandsixthcenturies,whiletheironweaponsthemselves

appeartodatefromtheeighthtothetenthcenturies(BergmanandArrhenius2005:79).

112

AtBuildingGroup6anareaof300m2wasexcavated,inwhichtheremainsofa

sunken-featuredbuildingwerefound(Sander1997:84-5).Manyofthefeaturesofthis

settlementweredisturbedbyacemeterythatwaslaterestablishedoverit.Thebuildingthat

wasfoundmeasured2.2mby2.4m(Sander1997:85).Thedepthvaried(becauseoftheslope

intowhichitwasdug)from0.45mto0.7m.Fourfurnace-likestructureswerefoundinthe

building.Inthenortheastcornerofthebuildingwasafurnaceorovenstructureclearlyused

formetalworking,formedbystonesandmeasuring0.8mby0.8mwithaheightof0.7m

(Sander1997:85).Theradiocarbondatingofthefloorofthebuildingis489,plusorminus

103years,andthedatingofthetopofthefurnaceisabout752,plusorminus168years

(Sander1997:85).Excavatedmaterialsincludemanybrokenandburntstones,abronzebar,

sootandcharcoal(Sander1997:86).Severalotherpithouseshavebeenfoundonthesite,

manyofwhichhavesootandcharcoallayersinthem(Sander1997:86-7).Oneofthesepits

(A65)showsadarkredcircularstructureofhardburntclaysome0.9mindiameter.Another

suchstructurelayunderneaththisone,measuring0.9-1.3mindiameter.Twoadditional

bowl-shapedfurnacesappearedinthispit,diametersbetween0.5m-0.65mwithdepths

rangingfrom0.05mto0.1m(Sander1997:88).Brittle,burntstoneswerefoundaroundand

inthesestructuresaswellasasmallfragmentofiron(Sander1997:88).Otherpitswere

excavatedonsite,butnoevidenceofanestablishedsettlementorhallwasfound.Some

animalboneswerediscoveredinthepits,butnootherartefactsorremains.

Gold-foilfigurines(guldgubber)havebeenfoundonHelgö,andthereareseveral

additionalfeaturesthatsuggestHelgöwasa“pagancultcentre”,likeGudme,“where

marketswereheldatfestivaltimes”(Haywood2000:96).Haywoodpointsout,forinstance,

thatHelgömeans“holyisland”(2000:96).Althoughbronze-castingceasedatHelgö

sometimeduringtheVendelPeriod,blacksmithingcontinuedandseemstoshowaclose

associationwithpre-Christiansacralspaces(Zachrisson2004:156).Thereisastonyledge

onthehillnearthelargehall.Thisledgewasusedforritualmetallicdepositionsandburning

duringtheVendelPeriod,andatriangularstone-settingreplacedawoodenpostatthis

locationaftertheVendelPeriod(Zachrisson2004:148-9,156).Manyironobjectswere

depositedonthestonyledgeandcanbeassociatedwithspecificNorsegods.Forexample,

miniaturespears,Ãórr’shammerpendants,fire-steelpendants,miniatureshearsandamulet

ringshavebeenfound:theseareconsideredtobeassociatedwithÓñinn,ÃórrandFreyr

(Zachrisson2004:156).DuringtheMigrationPeriod,depositionpatternsatthislocation

113

included“manytoolsandlargequantitiesofcruciblesandobjectssymptomaticofcasting

andsmithing”(Zachrisson2004:155).This,alongwiththeevidencefortheproductionof

“prestigeobjectsdecoratedwithStyleIanimalornament”atHelgö,suggeststhat“smithing

andcastinghadgreatideologicalsignificance”atthissite(Zachrisson2004:156).

Inthelateeighthcentury,Helgödeclinedasamajorcentreofcraftproductionand

metalworking.Aroundthistime,thenearbysettlementcomplexatBirka(aboutfourteen

kilometresnorthwestofHelgö)appearstohavetakenoverthisrole.TheBirkasettlementis

basedaroundaportlocatedonthewesternendofanislandthatisnowknownasBjörko

(Haywood2000:31).ThetownismentionedinbothRimbert’sVitaAnskarii(c.870)and

AdamofBremen’sGestaHammaburgensisecclesiaepontificum(c.1075)(Ambrosiani

1993:43).Duringthelateeighthcenturyandthroughtothelatetenthcentury,Birka

flourisheduntil“itwasabandonedinfavourofnearbySigtuna”(Haywood2000:31).Even

afterthisabandonment,however,thesitecontinuedtobeidentifiedwiththeislandofBjörkö

throughouttheMiddleAges(Ambrosiani1993:43).Amajortradingsite,Birkawaslocated

atakeyintersection:therelativelyshelteredwaterwaysoflakeMälarenledtotheBalticto

thesouthandSigtunaandGamlaUppsalatothenorth,andalsototheeast,i.e.toStockholm,

HelgöandtheBalticagain.“Manyoftheinhabitantsweremerchants,buttherewerealso

craftsmeninmetals,jewelryandfurs”(Haywood2000:32).Birka’slocation“ontheroute

fromtheiron-andfur-producingforestsofnorthernScandinaviawasalsoimportant.Raw

materialsweretransportedtothetowninwinterandexportedoverseasinsummer.Themany

luxuryarticlesfoundintheBirkagravesillustratesurplusfromthistrade”(Ambrosiani1993:

43).Thetownissurroundedbymorethan3000graves(Haywood2000:32).Theisland

clearlyhadalong-termsignificanceasasettlementsiteandasaburialsite.

Fromthissitewecanseethatmajortrading,craftingandsmithingsitesalsooperated

incloseassociationwithlargeandprominentlysituatedhalls.Themainpopulationofthe

townwassituatedinasmallvalleyareaknownastheSvartaJorden,“BlackEarth”,adeep

layerofdarksoilcausedbydepositsofcharcoalandorganicwaste(Haywood2000:32).

Thisareaisclearlypartitionedbyditchesintoplots,eachcontaining“oneortwohousesand

severaloutbuildingsusedasworkshopsandstores”(Haywood2000:31).Atitspeak,the

populationofBirkaaveragedbetween700-1000people(Ambrosiani1993:43).Therewasa

largemainhall(20mby10m)nearthetopofthehill(Hedenstierna-JonsonandHolmquist

114

Olausson2006:11),andasmallerhallneartheportthatseemstohavehousedwarriorsand

operatedasagarrisonindefenseoftheport.

Therewereatleasttwositesformetalworking.Onesmithingsiteisrelatively

concentratedinsidea5mby6mbuildinglocatedbesidethemainhallareawitha2m

firebreakseparatingthetwobuildings(Hedenstierna-JonsonandHolmquistOlausson2006:

12).Atleastfourforgeswerelocatedinthissmithy,alongwiththeirontipofabellows

nozzle,15kgofslag,andafragmentofacastingmould(probablyforadiscbroochof

bronze)(HolmquistOlausson1993:104-5).Therewerealsoseveralcruciblesfoundoveran

areaof21m2,butthese“couldnotbeconnectedtocertainstructures”(HolmquistOlausson

1993:105).CharlotteHedenstierna-JonsonandLenaHolmquistOlaussonspeculatethat“if

allfourforgeswereatworkattheonetime,thiswouldmeanthateightsmithswereactive

here,makingitaverybusyworkshop”(Hedenstierna-JonsonandHolmquistOlausson

2006:12).Regardlessofsuchspeculation,itisclearthat“activityseemstohavebeen

intense”atthesmithy(Hedenstierna-Jonson2006:51).Thissmithymanufacturedand

repairedtheremarkableamountofironartefactsfoundonsite,includingweapons,locks,

keys,knives,andironamulets(intheshapeofÃórr’shammer)(Hedenstierna-Jonsonand

HolmquistOlausson2006:12).Somebronzecastingwasalsodoneinthissmithyandsilver

castingalsolikelytookplaceatornearthesmithy(Hedenstierna-JonsonandHolmquist

Olausson2006:12;HolmquistOlausson1993:104-5).

AnotherareashowingsmithingactivityistheSvartaJorden,wherelargequantitiesof

metalobjects,tools,mouldsandcrucibles“showthatindustrialprocesseshadbeencarried

on”(Ambrosiani1993:43).Ironpiecesconstitute“oneofthelargestgroupoffinds”from

theSvartaJorden(Fjaestad1995:101).Itisdifficulttodetermineaconcentratedareafor

smithingactivitiesintheSvartaJorden.Althoughevidenceofburningandcharcoalis

dispersedthroughoutthearea,thereisnoconcentratedevidenceoffurnacesorforges.

Crucibles,moulds,rivetsaswellasnailsandmanufacturingrefuseappearthroughoutthe

WesternandEasternHousePackageswhilesomevitrifiedsandhasbeenfoundinthe

SouthernHousePackage(AmbrosianiandClarke1995:34,40-45).

Sigtuna,aboutfiftykilometresnorthofBirka(andasuccessortothefunctionof

Birkawithintheregion),wasfoundedsometimeinthelatetenthcenturyasa“royal,

administrative,ecclesiasticalandcommercialcentre”(Haywood2000:173).Thesettlement

consistedofaboutonehundred“longnarrowtenements”thatfrontedacentralstreeton

115

eithersidewithalargeenclosureforaroyalresidenceatthecentre(Haywood2000:173;cf.

Hall2007:196).Duringtheendofthetenthcenturyandthebeginningoftheeleventh

century,SigtunawasthesiteofSweden’sfirstcoinmint.Coinswereissuedinc.995by

KingOlafErikssonskötkunung137andcarriedthemarksRexanSitunaandRexsvevorum,i.e.

“KinginSigtuna”and“KingoftheSvear”(Hall2007:196;Ros2002:174).Thismintwas

locatedinaplotorblockofbuildingsnearthecentreofthetown(Ros2002:165).Themint

buildingitselfisroughlysixmetresbyfourmetresindimension,nearlyidenticaltothetwo

otherlargebuildingsontheblockbutmuchlargerthanthetwosmallerbuildings(Ros2002:

167).Inthemintbuildingtheanteroomshowsevidenceofmetalworking,includingsilver

fragments,die-cores,coins,imprintedleadstrips(usedtotestthecoindies),crucibles,and

evidenceofbronze-craftsandbone-crafts(Hall2007:196;Ros2002:167).Weavingor

tapestryworktookplaceinoneoftheotherlargerbuildingsonthisplot.Thisplotwaslikely

ownedbythecrownandthecraftsmenwhoworkedandlivedthereprobably“belongedtoor

wereemployedbytheking”(Ros2002:174).Foraperiodofabouttwoorthreecenturies

Sigtunawasacommercialcentreofhigh-statuscraftworking(Haywood2000:173).

NorwayNorwayisinmanywaysaproblematicareaformetalworkingevidence.Recent

archaeologistshaveobservedthattheevidenceofmetalworking(particularlynon-ferrous)in

NorwayisrelativelysparsewhencomparedwithDenmarkandSweden(Hjärthner-Holdaret

al.2002:176).Therearesomesmallcoastalsettlementsthatshowlimitedevidenceof

metalworking.KaupangisexceptionalinthatitcorrespondsmorecloselytotheDanish

settlementpatternsintermsofstructureandproduction.TheinlandareasofNorway

demonstrateextensiveevidenceofironoreprocessing(smelting),buttheseactivitiesare

generallynotassociatedwithlargesettlements.Forexample,atafarmsitecalledFetinthe

Sysendalenarea,some100kmeastofBergen,aslagheap30by40metreswasfoundwith

thicknessesupto1.5metres.Smallhousefoundations(i.e.4by5metres)aresometimes

attachedtothesefindsbutnothingmore(Johansen1973:95).

Anumberofsmallsettlementswithlimitedevidenceofmetalworkinghavebeen

foundinsouthwesternNorway.AsettlementsitehasbeenfoundatKolnes,forinstance,

137KingOlafErikssonruledc.995-1022andRichardHallsuggeststhathisnickname,skötkonung,maytranslateas“tributaryking”or“treasureking”(2007:196).

116

aboutfourteenkilometressouthwestofStavanger.138AtKolnes,“fragmentsofatleastsix

differentcruciblesoftheclosedegg-formedtype”werefoundinagroupofMigrationPeriod

boathousesthatappeartohavebeen“multifunctionalduringthesummerseason”(Hjärthner-

Holdaretal.2002:180).

AuglendavStoreSvela,Bjerkreim(Rogaland),islocatedaboutfiftykilometres

southeastofKolnes.ThesiteatAuglendshowsevidenceoffoundationsforthreelonghouses

inassociationwith“oneverysmallbuildingandacemetery”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:

179).Inonehousetherewereseveralhearths.“Oneroundhearth,situatedjustinsidetheeast

entranceofthehousehadbeenusedforironsmithing.Castingofbronzeisindicatedbyone

fragmentofanegg-shapedcrucible”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:179).

InthesamegeneralareaasAuglendisthesiteatStorrsheia.Here,oneofthree

discoveredhousesseemstohavebeenasmithy.Itcontainsevidenceof“metalcastingand

ironsmithing”and“twocompleteandonefragmentarycrucibleoftheegg-shapedtype,one

bell-shapedopencrucibleandtwofragmentsofcruciblesofunidentifiableshapewere

found”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:180).

TheMigration-periodhousefoundatKnutstad,northoftheListafjord,isexceptional

inthatisshowsevidenceofbothferrousandnon-ferrousmetalworking.Thissiteislocated

onthesouthernshoreofNorway,about170kilometresfromKolnes,nearthepromontory

knownasLista.Thishousemeasuredroughly19metresby6metresandhadtwoentrances

(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:178).Thishouseislocated“onasmallmountainplateau,

abovethefiordonthenorthsiteofLista”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:178).Thereare

tracesofblacksmithingandnon-ferrouscastingatseveralhearthsinsidethehouse.Fourteen

fragmentsofcruciblesandonewholecruciblehavebeenfoundinthishouse,alongwith

fragmentsofclaymoulds(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:178).Two“fairlylargefragmentsof

mouldsofsoapstoneforingots”werealsofoundandindicatethatcastingwasdonehere

(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:178).AccordingtoHjärthner-Holdaretal.,thisisthe“largest

findofthiskindinNorway”(2002:178).Thereisalsoevidenceofseveralburialmoundsat

thissite.

Aboutninetykilometresnorth-northeastofKnutstad,anotherMigration-periodfarm

hasbeendiscoveredthatalsoshowssomeevidenceofnon-ferrousmetalworking,albeitona

138KolnesisnowinthemunicipalityofSola,inRogaland.

117

muchsmallerscalethanKnutstad.ThissiteisknownasSostelid,anditwasabout450m

abovesealevel,“hemmedinbyhillsandmountains[...]onaplateauhighabovethecentreof

themountainsettlement,Kyrkjebygda”(Hagen1953:354).139Ofthethreehousefoundations

excavatedatStostelid,siteIIcontainstheonlyevidenceofmetalworking.Thishousewas

about45mby6m(Hagen1953:355).Theeasternmostendofthehousecontainsmostofthe

evidenceoffires,includingpotsherdsand“numerouswhetstones,spinningwheels,ironslag,

piecesofflint,aquartzfire-stone,atalcsinker”andafragmentofacruciblewithfivedrops

ofsilverinit(Hagen1953:356;Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:189).Charcoalkilns

(“cauldron-shapedcavities”dugintotheearth)havealsobeenfoundonthefarmandmay

indicatethatironoresmeltingtookplacenearby(Hagen1953:363).Thewesternendofthis

houseappearstohavebeenreservedforlivestock.SiteIatSostelidisaboutsixtymetreswest

ofsiteIIandshowsevidenceofanotherhouseofslightlysmallerdimensionsthantheoneat

siteII(Hagen1953:354-5).SiteIIIatSostelidshowsevidenceofamuchsmaller,irregular

“primitivehouse”(likelyusedforstorage)onlyafewmetreswestofsiteIIanddirectly

connectedtothelargerbuildingbyarowofstones(Hagen1953:356).Thereisalsoevidence

ofafenced-inarea,pastureandploughedsoil(Hagen1953:362-3).Abouteightornine

burialmoundshavebeenfoundscatteredaroundthefarminlocationsthattendtoofferan

elevatedvantagepointoverthefarmanditssurroundings(Hagen1953:356-9).140Alarge,

rectangularmound“builtofstonesofunequalsize,superimposedononeanother”,wasfound

about35-40mwestofthemainhouseatsiteII(Hagen1953:360).Thismoundmeasured

roughly30mby10mandwasorientedsoastobeparalleltothemainhouse.“This

monumentisnotahousesiteandobviouslycanhaveservednopracticalpurpose.Nordid

excavationdiscloseanythingthatwasunmistakablyagrave”(Hagen1953:360).Tracesofa

fewsmallfiresandcharredbonewerefoundonthismound,alongwithabone-shapedquartz

whetstonedatingtotheMigrationPeriodanda“verybeautifulaxeofstone”thatisgenerally

similarindateandformtotheaxefromburialMoundVII(Hagen1953:360;seefootnote

140immediatelybelow).

139GudmundHatt’sreviewofAndersHagen’smonographcontainsaselectivebutdetailedsummaryofthesettlementfindsatSostelid(Hatt1954:522-5).WhileHatt’sreviewiseasilyaccessed,Hagen’smonographisonlyavailableatafewlibraries.MythankstoToneGuettlerattheLibraryofHumanitiesandSocialSciences(UniversityofOslo)formakingselectionsofHagen’smonographavailabletome.140Curiously,MoundVIIcontaineda“thick-buttedstoneaxe”that“ischaracteristicfortheNeolithicPhaseandisover2000yearsolderthanthegrave,whichdatestotheMigrationPeriod.[...]Theaxewasinallprobabilityanamulet”(1953:359).

118

TheViking-agesettlementatKaupangislater,largerandmorestronglyassociated

withtrade,productionandsacralspacesthanthesesmaller,Migration-periodsettlementsites

fromsouthwesternNorway.“KaupangislocatedbythemouthoftheOslofjord,inthe

regionofVestfoldonthefjord’swesternside”(Skre2008:112).Likethesettlementson

LakeMälerenthatoperatedastradingpointsbetweeninlandareasandcoastalregionsfarther

southandeast,Kaupangwasinanidealtradinglocation.Kaupangwasinaprotectedbay

nearthecoastalsailingroutebutitwasalsojustafewkilometreseastoftheriverLågen

whichoperatedasakeytraderouteinlandtoareasthatproducediron,whetstonesand

soapstone(Skre2008:112).EvidenceatKaupanghasprovensomewhatenigmatic,butitis

clearthatblacksmithingandglass-beadproductionoccurrednolaterthan803,possiblyonly

aspartofaseasonalworkshopsite(Skre2008:115).Aboutadecadeafterthisfiveorsix

discernibleplotswereerected,eachwithasmallbuilding.Inadditiontoblacksmithingand

beadproduction,amberworking,textileproductionandmetal-casting(jewelleryinlead,

bronze,silverandgold)tookplaceonsiteatthistime(Skre2008:115).Thesehouseswere

usedforseveraldecades,probablyuntilthemiddleoftheninthcentury.Interferencefrom

ploughingmakeslaterevidencedifficulttointerpret,butthereappearstohavebeen

continuedproductioninallthepreviouslymentionedcraftsintothetenthcentury.Atits

peak,Kaupangmayhavehadasmanyas90-100plotscoveringabouttwohectaresanda

populationofabout400-1000(Skre2008:118).Anaristocratichall(35mby11.7m-7.9m)

hasbeenfoundatafarmnamedHuseby,onekilometrenorthofKaupang(Skre2008:118).

ThishallwasbuiltinthelasthalfoftheeighthcenturyandmaycorrespondtoSkíringssalr.141

TheprestigiousOseberg(c.834)andGokstad(c.900-2)shipburialswerefoundafew

kilometresnorthofKaupang(Skre2008:112).Therearealsoover1000gravesinthearea,

204ofwhichhavebeenexcavated(Skre2008:118).DagfinnSkredoesnotmentionthe

relativelocationoftheburialstothetownorhall.

ThesiteatHurdalPrestegård,justnorthofKaupanginÅkershus,islocatednear

LakeHurdalandtheriverthatconnectstothislake(Bergstøl2002:81).JosteinBergstølhas

examinedtheevidenceofritualuseofcookingpitsfromc.65BCtoAD610(2002:77-78).

Bergstølobservesthatofthemorethan140cookingpitsthathavebeenidentifiedonthis

141OvertwohundredyearsofscholarshiphaveidentifiedKaupangwiththementionofSciringeshealin“Ohthere’saccount”atthecourtofAlfredtheGreatofEngland(Skre2008:112-4).Thisaccountwasrecordedinc.890.AsDagfinnSkrepointsout,“thereferenceheretoScriringeshealisbriefandraisesmorequestionsthanitprovidesanswers”(2008:112).

119

site,fourareclearlyidentifiedasforgesandonemorepitisclearlyasitewhereironwas

extractedfromore(2001:78).ThesefindsonsiteatHurdalinclude

severalcompactblocksofslagwithconvexundersides,similartotheso-called‘plano-convexslag’foundatHelgøinSweden[...].Thistypeofslagwasshapedduringtheprocessofreducingandrefiningtherawiron.[...]Theroundedshapeoftheundersideshowsthattheslaghadmelteddownintoabowl-shapedpit.(Bergstøl2002:78)

Bergstølappearstobeaccurateinpointingoutthatthesepitswereoverwhelminglyusedfor

cooking.Asmallnumberareexceptionalinthattheywereclearlyusedforsmithing

processestypicalofmajortradingandproductionworkshopsduringtheMigrationPeriod

andVikingAgeinScandinavia.

Evidenceofagoldsmith’sworkshophasbeenfoundatasiteatÅker,near

Lillehammer,142someninetykilometresnorthofHurdalineasternNorway.The“farmÅker

issituatedatanarrowbayatthenorth-eastendofNorway’slargestlake,Mjøsa,astrategic

andimportantpositioninthewayofcommunicationandtransport”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.

2002:181).“Ananalysisofthepunchesusedforthedecorativestampsonthebuckleand

otherobjectsfromthefindindicatesthattherewasagoldsmithworkshopatÅkerduringthe

sixthcentury(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:181).AfarmingfieldbesidealargeMigration

Periodboathousewasexcavated.TheboathousewasrebuiltduringtheHighMiddleAges

(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:181).Severalfragmentsofclaymouldsandcrucibleswere

foundinthefield.“Åkerissurroundedbyfarmscarryingtheophoricnamesanditwasthe

seatofthemajorthingduringthelateIronAge”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:181).

AtModvo,143aboutfourhundredkilometreseastofÅkerandHurdal,asingle,large

longhousewasfound,measuringfortybytenmetres.Onehalfofthelonghousecontained

livestock,theotherhalfhousedpeople.“Thehousehadbeendestroyedtwicein

conflagrations,andaftertheseconddevastatingfireitwasdesertedc.500AD”(Hjärthner-

Holdaretal.2002:180).Evidenceshowsthat“fairlyadvancedmetalcraftshadbeen

executedinthebuilding.”Tracesoffireplacesandironsmithingaswellasothertypesof

metalworkingwerediscoveredinthehabitationsectionalongwith23fragmentsofclosed

egg-shapedcrucibles(somewithtracedepositsoftinandcopper)andonefragmentofa

soapstonemould(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:180).

142ÅkerisintheVangmunicipality,withinthecountyofHedmark.143ModvoisinthemunicipalityofHafslo,inSognandFjordane.

120

ThemostnorthernsitesinthissurveyareatBorg,whichislocatednorthoftheArctic

Circle,onVestvågøy,thesecondlargestoftheLofotenislands.Fivekeysites(BorgI-V)

havebeenstudiedhere(JohansenandMunch2003:12-3).Ofthesesites,BorgI-III,andthe

associatedboat-houses,aristocraticcourts,gravemoundsandworkshopsshowevidence

fromc.200-1300.“Therearetwolargeboat-housesatBorgandacourtsiteatthe

neighbouringfarmBøstad”,suggestingthatthechieftainsthatlivedheremanagedfarms,

smallboatsforfishingandlargerboatsfortrading(JohansenandMunch2003:12).There

werealso19ironfish-hooksfoundatthesesites,suggestingthatfishwasakeysourceof

food(ArrheniusandMuyingo2003:175).

ThesiteatBorgIhasbeenthefocusofintensearchaeologicalstudies.Over90%of

theironslagfoundatBorgisassociatedwithBorgI(Holand2003:137).BorgIisa

remarkablylargefarmyardthatmusthavecontainedagreatnumberoflivestock(Johansen

andMunch2003:17).ArchaeologistshavefoundtheremainsofaViking-agehallorlong-

houseatBorgI(knownasBorgI:1a)whichwasorientedfromsouthwesttonortheast.144This

hallwasexceptionallylarge,measuring80mby7.5-9m(JohansenandMunch2003:13).

Thishallwastakendowninthetenthcentury.

HerschendandMikkelsensuggestthatthishallwasdividedintofiveroomswithfive

entrances(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:43,Fig.6A.3,cf.62-3).145Evidenceofactivities

associatedwiththishallisproblematicbecauseitappearstohavebeendisturbedbylater

ploughing(ArrheniusandMuyingo2003:180;HerschendandMikkelsen2003:63).Only

20%ofthefindsassociatedwiththehallareconsideredtobeinsitu,andthesefindsare

almostentirelyrestrictedtoitemsfoundinpost-holes(perhapsintentionallydeposited?)

(Holand2003:134).Whileinterpretationsbasedonthisevidencemaybequestionable,

archaeologistshavenonethelessattemptedtoidentifythefunctionsofeachroominthislater

hall.

144Therewasanearlierhall(BorgI:1b)onthesamesiteasthisViking-agehall.Theearlierhallmeasuredabout64mby7-8mandwasbuiltinthefifthorsixthcentury(JohansenandMunch2003:13).FrandsHerschendandDortheKaldalMikkelsensuggestthatthisearlierhallwasdividedintofourroomsandhadtwoentrances(2003:62).IntheseventhcenturythishallwastakendownandreplacedbytheViking-agehall.Evidenceofactivitiesintheearlierhallistoosparsetoidentifythefunctionsofeachroom(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:63).145HerschendandMikkelsenpointoutthat“nodistinctpartitionwallswerefound”(2003:62).Theybasetheirinterpretationofroomdivisions“onconstructiondetails,suchasthelocationofentrancesandfireplaces,aswellasongroupingsofpostsandthedistributionoffinds”(2003:62,cf.60).IntheolderhalltheysuggestthatRoomsAandBwereofroughlyequalsizeatthesouthwesternendofthehall.BothentrancesgaveintoRoomCandthiswasthesmallestoftherooms.Atthenortheasternendofthehall,RoomDwasbyfarthelargestroom,takingupalmosthalfthehall(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:43,Fig.6A.3).

121

Startingatthesouthwesternendofthehall,RoomAwasabout20mlongand160m2

inarea(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:65).RoomAhasbeeninterpretedasliving-quarters.

Evidenceof“heavierproduction”(forging,ironworkingandsoapstonework)dominatesin

RoomA(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:63).RoomAisalsostronglyassociatedwith

cookingactivitiesandthereisevidenceofafireplaceinitscentre(HerschendandMikkelsen

2003:65;Holand2003:138).Evidenceoftextileworkalsoappearsinthisroom.Thereisno

associationwithprestigemetalitems(e.g.guldgubber)inRoomA.

RoomBhasbeeninterpretedasanentrancechambertothehall(Herschendand

Mikkelsen2003:65).At3.75minlength,thiswasthesmallestroombyfar(Herschendand

Mikkelsen2003:65).TwoentrancesgaveintoRoomB,oneoneithersideofthehall.About

54%oftheironslagfoundatBorgIisassociatedwithRoomsAandB(Holand2003:136).

RoomCwasabout14mlongandupto9mwide(c.120m2)andhasbeeninterpreted

astheceremonial“hall”spacewithinthisbuilding(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:65).

RoomCwasusedasanothersetoflivingquarters,butwithsomedifferencesfromtheliving

quartersinRoomA(Holand2003:133).Severalprestigemetalartefactshavebeenfoundin

particularconcentrationinRoomC,includingtwoovalbrooches,afragmentofarectangular

brooch,fragmentsofabronzevessel,fivegoldenguldgubberplaquesandtheheadofa

manuscriptpointer(JohansenandMunch2003:14-5).Theguldgubber“wereundoubtedly

relatedtopaganceremonies”andalthoughthisroomwasusedforeverydayactivities,“there

isalsoeveryreasontobelievethattheroomalsohadanofficialfunctionandwasusedfor

banquets,cultceremoniesandfestivities”(JohansenandMunch2003:18).Theguldgubber

wereconcentratedinthenortherncorneroftheroom,perhapsindicatingahigh-seat

(JohansenandMunch2003:18).ThereisevidenceofacentralfireplaceinRoomCwith

broadbenchesalongthewalls(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:65).Aforge-stonemadeof

soapstonewasfoundinapost-holeinRoomCand20%oftheslagfoundatBorgIappears

tobeassociatedwithRoomC(Holand2003:136-7).Thereisalsoevidenceoftextile-work

inRoomC,buttoalesserextentthaninRoomA(Holand2003:137).Herschendand

MikkelsenconcludethatRoomCwastheceremonial“hall”space,butthatitalsohadseveral

otherpurposes,includingsometypesof“light”production(2003:64-6).

RoomDwas9mlonganditsfunctionisdifficulttodeterminebecausethereisa

generallackofevidenceinthisspace(HerschendandMikkelsen2003:66).Therewasno

122

fireplaceinRoomD.RoomDhadoneverylargeentrance(theonlyentranceonthe

northwesternsideofthehall),andalsoaninteriordoorwaythatopenedintoRoomC.

Finally,at33minlength,RoomEwasthelargestroombyfarandhasbeen

interpretedasabyrethatcontaineda“considerableamountoflivestock”(Herschendand

Mikkelsen2003:66).Ithadtwoentrances,bothonthesoutheasternsideofthehallandat

oppositeendsoftheroom.Someevidenceofmetalworking(includingananvilandhammer)

wasfoundinRoomE(ArrheniusandMuyingo2003:177,187Plan9D.9).

Asmallcomplexofsmallout-buildings(knownasBorgI:NW)justnorthwestof

BorgIappearstohavebeenassociatedwiththehalloveralongperiodoftime(Herschend

andMikkelsen2003:67).Oneofthesebuildingshasbeenidentifiedasasmithydatingtothe

VikingPeriod(JohansenandMunch2003:17).Forgingappearstohavebeendonehere

(2003:17).20%oftheslagfoundattheentireearlymedievalBorgsite(i.e.includingnot

onlyBorgI,butalsothesitesatBorgII-III)isassociatedwiththissmithyjustnorthwestof

BorgI,whileanother74%oftheslagfoundatBorgisassociatedwiththehallsiteatBorgI

(Holand2003:137).Thereisnotyetanyevidencethatironorewasprocessedonthesite,but

tradingsuggestsconnectionsbothnearandfar.OlaveSverreJohansenandGerdStamsø

Munchsuggestthatthe“occurrenceofslag,ironshellsandrodshapedblanksmayindicate

thatforgingactivitiestookplace”atBorgI(2003:17).BirgitArrheniusandHelenaFennö

MuyingoalsosuggestthattwoofthethreehammersfoundatBorgImaybegoldsmiths’

tools“becauseoftheirsmallsize”(2003:175).Itislikelythatthegold,bronzeandiron

objectsfoundherewereimportedfromelsewhereandthatsomemetalwork(particularly

ferrous)tookplaceonsite(JohansenandMunch2003:17).

Iceland Whiletheevidencefornon-ferrousmetalworkinginIcelandislimited(Hayeur-Smith

1999:194-5),itisclearthatbogironwasregularlysmeltedduringtheninthandtenth

centuries.TheresearchdoneatHálsinwesternIcelandisparticularlyindicativeofthese

smeltingactivities.Hálsissituated“onalowridgecrest[...]intheinteriorportionofwestern

Iceland’sBorgarfjörñurdistrict”(Smith2005:187).Afarmsteadwasoccupiedherefromthe

lateninthcenturyintothethirteenthcentury.Anironproductioncomplexissituatedatthe

southeasterncornerofthesettlementanditappearstohavebeenactivefromthelateninth

centurywithperiodsof“intenseproduction”atthebeginningandendofthetenthcentury

(Smith2005:188).Thefarmsteaddoesnotappeartohavebeenoccupiedduringtheperiods

123

ofintenseironsmelting(Smith2005:193-4).Onelargeslagheapwasfoundabout20-30cm

inmaximumthicknessandcovering45m2withseveralsmaller,outlyingslagheapsaswell

(Smith2005:187).Inanarcaroundthewesternendofthelargeslagheapareproduction

features,including“furnacebases,pits,andsmithingdebris.Twentymetressouthofthe

productionzoneisanassociatedareacontainingtwosuperimposedpithouses,eachofwhich

hasdebrisfromsmeltingandforginginitsfloorandfilldeposits”(Smith2005:188).

Excavationsintheyear2000revealed“whatappearstobethefirstwell-documentedseries

ofVikingAgesmeltingfurnacebasesfromIceland”(Smith2005:190).146Shallowbowlsof

slag,25-35cmindiameter,werediscovered,eachwithevidenceofanopeningontheeastern

sideofthebowl’sperimeter(Smith2005:190).Fouroftheseringswerediscoveredina

layerovertopofalargerandolderbasewithadiameterof45-50cm.Noneofthesefurnaces

appeartohavebeenslag-tappingfurnaces.Smallfragmentsofsiltyclaywithvitrified

surfacesseemtobetheonlyremainingevidenceoftheshaftsofthesefurnaces(Smith2005:

191).Oneofthesepiecesappearstopreserveacircularopeningforatuyerenozzle(Smith

2005:191).Heapsofturfappeartohavebeenplacedaroundthefurnaces,perhapstosupport

theshaftand/orpreventairintakethroughitswalls(Smith2005:192).Allthesefurnaces

appeartohavebeenre-builtandre-usedseveraltimes(Smith2005:192-3).Totheeastof

thesefurnacesisabatteredboulderwithclearevidenceofblacksmithing(Smith2005:193).

Tworemnantsofwhatappeartobeironcurrencybarswerediscovered,oneneartheboulder

andtheotherfromthepithousesmithy(Smith2005:193).Therewereotherfindsof

fragmentsofnails,arivetedbucketpatch,smallironcarvingknives,smallpiecesofcopper

alloyscrapandsomepossiblesilverflecks:thisindicatesgeneralrepairofironobjectsand

relatedcraftworkaswellassomepossiblenon-ferrousmetalwork(Smith2005:193).

FinishedtoolsandartefactsdonotappeartohavebeenmadeatHáls:theironorewas

processedintobarshere,andthesebarswereworkedintofinishedartefactselsewhere(Smith

2005:193).Throughoutthenorthernpartofthefarmcomplexthereisevidenceofcharcoal

pitsandcharcoalproductioninthelatetenthcentury(Smith2005:188).Hundredsoflumps

ofbogironorewerefoundonthesite,cachedinapit(Smith2005:190).KevinSmith

concludesthatbogorefromthenearbymarshlandswasgatheredandsmeltedonthissite,

andthatthesitewentthroughseveralchanges(are-buildingofthepithousesmithyfor

146Forsketchesofthesestructuresandreconstructiveexperiments,seeMarkewitz(2008:WorkingtowardsanIcelandicVikingAgeSmeltBasedontheremainsatHáls).

124

instance)andatleasttwoperiodsofextremelyintenseproduction,perhapsassociatedwith

theperiodicalre-generationofthebogironresources(2005:189).

NorthAmericaL’Anse-aux-Meadowsisanimportantsiteinthatitdemonstratestheportabilityof

smeltingpracticesduringtheVikingAge.Thebriefhistoryofactivityatthissitealsoshows

amicrocosmofsocialstratainrelationtoaristocraticspaces,livingspacesandworkshop

spaces.L’Anse-aux-Meadowsisasmall,temporarysettlementnearabrookatthemost

northernpointofNewfoundlandthatwaslikelyinhabitedfromc.1000toc.1020(Haywood

2000:117).Thecomplexconsistsofeightbuildingsinthreemaingroups,eachgrouphaving

alargehallwithinteriordivisionsandaworkshopwithadistinctfunction.HallA(102m2)is

characterizedashavinga“highstatusspace”withtwocommunalliving/sleepingroomsand

asmithy(Wallace2006:38).HallD(88.36m2)containedacarpentryshop,storageroomand

acommunalliving/sleepingroom(Wallace2006:42).HallF(160m2)appearstohavebeen

the“largestandmostimportantbuildingonthesite.Thisismostlikelywheretheleaderof

thesettlementresidedwithhispersonalcrew”(Wallace2006:45).HallFcontainedseven

rooms,includingahighstatusspace,twocommunalliving/sleepingrooms,akitchen,two

storageroomsandaboatshed.HouseB(17.5m2)andHutEappeartohavebeen

living/sleepingroomsandworkshops,whileHutC(7.5m2)wasalow-statusliving/sleeping

structure(Wallace2006:40-1).HutGwasapithousethatservedasaworkshopand

living/sleepingspace.HutJistheonlystructurelocatedontheoppositeshoreofthebrook.It

containedafurnaceforsmeltingiron.

HallAwaspartofacomplexincludingHouseBandHutC.Thiscomplexislocated

closesttothebrookanditcontainsthehighestconcentrationofmetalworkingevidence.In

HallA,RoomIII(thesmithy)hadtwodoors,onethatenteredfromtheterraceandanother

exactlyoppositeitthatopenedontothebogwhereironorewasextracted(Wallace2006:38).

AlthoughtheevidenceofblacksmithingisconcentratedinRoomIIIofHallA,someroasted

bogoreappearsinHouseB,alongwithsomeslagandsomestonepounders(Wallace2006:

39).

AtHutJ“afurnaceorsmelterstoodinthemiddleofthefloorandacharcoalkilnwas

situatedashortdistancefromthehut”(Wallace2006:59).Evidenceshowsthatthesmelting

ofironwasonlydoneonceatthissite,andsince“four-fifthsofthebogoreturnedintoslag,

andonlyone-fifthbecameworkableiron”ithasbeensuggestedthatthis“ironmasterwasnot

125

particularlyskilled”(Wallace2006:60).Theworkproducedaboutthreetofivekilogramsof

workableiron,“sufficientformakingabout100to200nails”(2006:60).Theworkwas

probablynotplanned:itwaslikelynecessarytosmelttheoreandproducethenailsinorder

torepaironeoftheships.

Therivetswereconcentratedinthemostnortherlycomplex(HallDandHutE),along

withmuchofthewood:thisislikelywhereboatswererepaired,usingtherivetsthathad

beenforgedatthesouthofthesettlement.Theredoesnotseemtobeevidenceoffarming.

Themainactivitiesappeartohavebeenblacksmithingandcarpentry,relatedtoshiprepairs

(Haywood2000:116).

SummaryThisconcludestheoverviewofrecentstudiesintotheroleofsmithinginthe

archaeologyofmedievalScandinavia.Clearlythereweresmithingfacilities,includingforges

andfurnacesaswellasdefinedworkshopareas,amongstthetemples,monumental

aristocratichalls,agrarianfarm-housesandsmallerhousesassociatedwithvarioustypesof

minorsettlementsandmajormulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexes.Therewerealso,

however,smithingfacilitiesinaverydifferenttypeofcommunity,onethatdidnothave

discernibletemplesorcentralhalls,butwasratheracollectiveofrelativelyitinerant

craftspeople.Smithingstructuresandspacesmayhavehadprestigioussocialsignificancein

aristocraticcentralplacecomplexes,butthesesmithingfeatureswerealsoquiteclearly

utilitarianandintegratedaspartofalargeproductionandtradingnetwork.Smithing

workshopsalsoseemtohavebeenestablishedinareasthataredistinctfromstructuresand

spaceswithprominentaristocratic,politicaland/orsacralfunctions.Thisdistinctionappears

inavarietyofaspects.Onsomesitesitisexpressedintermsoftherelativecleanlinessofthe

area.Atothersitesthereisaclear(thoughoftennotextremelylarge)distancebetween,on

theonehand,aristocratichallandsacralspaceand,ontheotherhand,theworkshopsite.At

yetothersitesthereisalsoacleardistinctionintopographicalorganization.Thecentralhall

andaristocraticspacestendtobeorganizedindirectrelationtooneanother,eitherinoneand

thesamebuildingorinangularrelationtoeachother.Thesearistocraticandsacralfeatures

areorganizedascentralanddistinctfeaturesinrelationtoanimmediatelysurroundingor

moredistantexpanseofrectangularplotsofworkshopsandsmallresidences.

126

1.6DiscussionofinterpretationsofmetalworkingandworkshopsitesScholarlyinterpretationsofthemetalworkingsitesmentionedabovehavefocused

uponthreeissues:first,theroleofmetalworkinginthehistoricaland

cosmological/mythologicalconceptcentral-placecomplexes;second,theroleof

metalworkinginrelationtothepoliticalandsacralfunctionsofthesesettlements;third,the

roleofmetalworkinginrelationtocommunitiesthatdonotappeartohaveprominent

politicalorsacralfunctions.Iwillnowsurveyanddiscusstheseinterpretations.

Akeyfactorintheinterpretationsofthesesitesisthetheoryofcentralplace

complexes.StefanBrinkdemonstrateshowthistheorycanapplytostudiesofspace/place

distinctionsinthearchaeologicalandtoponymicevidencefrommedievalScandinavia(1996:

235-9).AlthoughBrink’sstudyisquitegeneral,hisconclusionscontributetoour

understandingoftheroleofthesmithandsmithingactivitieswithinthemercantileand

agrariancommunitiesandtradingnetworksofViking-ageScandinavia.Brink’sanalysis

focusesonkeyfeaturesthatdistinguish“centralornodalplaces”with“oneormorepublic

functions,suchasadministrative,religious,judicial,mercantile”(1996:236-7).Brink

focusesoneliteorupper-levelplaces,suchasthegrandhallofthechieftain,147aswellas

temples,earlychurchesorraisedhillswithculticsignificancethatwerecloselyassociated

withthesehallsandtheircentralizingfunctions.Healsoexaminesthemanylesserhallsand

lower-levelplacesthatstillseemtohaveformedfunctionalcentersforsurrounding

communities,aswellascentrallocationsfortheitinerantorambulatorykingshipsofViking-

ageScandinavia.Hesuggeststhattheseplacesservedmanypurposes:

Beyondtheordinaryfunctionsperformedatan‘official’centralplace,suchastradeandmarketingandlegalandculticpractices,mostcertainlyalsoother,morespecializedskillswerepracticed,suchashighlyqualifiedforging,highlyskilledhandicrafts,specializedcultperformancesconductedbyaspecialpriesthood,anattendanceofparticularwarriorsandhousecarls,etc.(Brink1996:241)

Thiscategoryofelitecentralplacesincludesancientmonuments,placeswithspecialnames,

specialbuildingsandspecialartifacts,includingnotonlytheexclusivehallsorbroochesof

thesocialelite,butalsothespecializedworkshopspacesandtoolsof,forexample,thesmith

(Brink1996:240-1).

147e.g.thegrandhallsatLejre,Gudme,Birka,Sigtuna,Tissø,Toftegård,Uppåkra,Borg,etc.

127

Brinkalsospecificallyexaminestheroleofsmithinginrelationtotheearlycentral

placecomplexesofScandinavia.Theearliestandsometimesgrandesthallsofmedieval

ScandinaviawereestablishedintheRomanIronAge(A.D.0-400)as“multifunctional

centralplaces”andas“nodesofpower”(Brink1996:238).Someofthesesitescontinuedto

growininfluencethroughoutthelaterMigrationPeriod(A.D.400-600),VendelPeriod(A.D.

600-800)andVikingAge(A.D.700-1100).Withinthese“multifunctionalcentralplaces”,

Brinksuggests,“wemayseewherethesmith,mostprobablythesmithparpréferance,lived,

andwecandemonstratetheexistenceofaparticularpaganpriesthoodandalsopre-historic

militaryunitsandwarriors.Alltheseareinprinciplealwaysfoundonlyinacentral-place

context”(Brink1996:241).Brinksuggestsaprominentroleforthesmithandsmithingin

theseprestigiouscentralplaces.

FollowingBrink,LotteHedeager,KevinSmith,andTorunZachrissonhaveeither

suggestedorextensivelyarguedinfavourofinterdisciplinary,cosmologicalandconceptual

connectionsbetweensmithingactivitiesandelitecentralplaces.Thesearguments

consistentlydrawuponexceptionalarchaeologicalsitesandtheevidenceinVõluspá7and

Gylfaginning14.

Inparticular,HedeageremphasizestheimportanceoftheevidencefromGudmeand

otherprestigioussitesinrelationtointerpretingVsp7(Hedeager2001,2002).Hedeager

drawsuponLarsJørgensen’sslightlyearlieranalysisofevidenceatGudmeandits

importanceininterpretingtheroleofmetalworkinearlymedievalScandinavia(Jørgensen

1995,2003).148However,JørgensenandHedeagerusedifferentmethodologies,andthis

affectshowthespatialandsocialrelationsbetweenworkshopareasandaristocraticand/or

sacralareasareinterpreted.Bothscholarsacknowledgethegeneralscholarlyshiftawayfrom

interpretingGudmeasauniquesettlementandtowardsunderstandinghowGudmeis

structurallyparalleltoseveralotherearlyandprestigioussettlementsinScandinavia

(Hedeager2001:468-9;Jørgensen1995:213).Bothscholarsalsoreinforcethat

metalworking(particularlyingold)atGudmeisafundamentalfeatureofthearistocraticand

sacraldistinctionsthatweremaintainedatthissiteoverseveralcenturies(Hedeager2002:

13;Jørgensen1995:215,217).WhereJørgensenandHedeagerdifferisinhowtheydefine 148Hedeager’s2002articleisacondensedversionofhermoreextensive2001chapterforthemonographeditedbyDeJongetal.BothofthesepiecesbyHedeager,aswellasasmallcomponentofhercontributiontoTheVikingWorld(Hedeager2008:15-6),arebasedupona1995presentation(Hedeager2001:468).Jørgensen’s1995articleissimilarlybaseduponanearlier1992presentation.Thus,thedialoguebetweenthesepublicationsismuchmorecontemporaneousthatissuggestedbytheactualpublicationdates.

128

thespatialparametersofthosemetalworkingactivitiesandinhowtheyinterpretthesocio-

culturalsignificanceofsmithsworkinginpreciousmetals.Jørgensenfocusesuponspecific

evidenceforspatialdistinctionswithinGudme.Heinterpretsthedistributionofprestigegold

artefactsatGudmeasevidenceofawarriorelitethatcontrolledthedistributionofthose

itemsandlivedinspacesthatweredistinctfromtheworkshopareaswherethoseprestige

artefactsweremade(1995:211-2).Hedeager,however,takesaninnovativeandspeculative

approachtointerpretingGudmeitself,asawhole,inrelationtotheinformationinVsp7,and

shearguesthatthesesitesrepresentacosmologicalmodelforasacralcentral-placecomplex

(i.e.Gudme=“thehomeofthegods”).AspartofthismoregeneralperspectiveonGudmeas

awhole,Hedeagersuggeststhatcraftspeople(specificallysmiths)hadaparticularlyspecial

andpowerfulsocial(ifnotalsosacral)statusbecausetheywereresponsiblefortransforming

importedmetalsintosacralartefactsthathadspecificmeaningwithinGudme.Iwillstartby

discussingJørgensen’swork,andIwillthendiscussHedeager’swork.

Whilehedoesemphasizetheimportanceofthecloseassociationbetweencraft

productionandthearistocracyatGudme,Jørgensenreinforcesthatatitspeak“betweenthe

thirdandsixthcenturiesGudmewasdividedintocraftworkingandeliteareas”(2003:177;

cf.Jørgensen1995:213).HenotesthatatGudme“[s]everalfarmshaveworkshopsattached

tothem,whichisafeaturethatclearlydistinguishesGudmefromthemajorityofrural

settlementsinDenmark”(1995:205).149Jørgensenalsoobservestheremarkablecontinuityin

high-volumeandhigh-qualityartisanalproductioninpreciousmetalsatGudmeoveraperiod

ofseveralgenerations(1995:217).Hecomparesthiscontinuousproductivityinprecious

metalswithsimilarexamplesatstructurallyparallelsiteslikeLejre,Boeslunde,SorteMuld

andStentinget.Hethenmakesthisconclusion:

It can hardly be doubted that an ordinary rural population would be unable to continue activities of this kind for so long. Stable trade connections and supplies of raw metal would have been hard to maintain under the changing conditions of political power that prevailed in the Later Iron Age and Viking Period. The sites can only have possessed this long continuity because powerful élites continued to have large interests in centres of handicraft and trade like these. Gudme is a clear

149JørgensenisnotclearonhowexactlythisfeaturedistinguishesGudmefromothersettlements.Thiscloseconnectionbetweenseveralfarmsteadsandworkshopsisworthconsideringinrelationtoafl3andVelent’saccesstodomesticatedbirds:itseemslikelythatVelent’sworkshopisintheimmediatevicinityofafarmstead(seepage51above).

129

example of how an aristocracy was directly linked to an artisanal society in the 5th-6th centuries. (Jørgensen 1995: 217)

Thus,Jørgensensuggestsa“direct”politicalassociationbetweenaristocraticpowerand

artisanalproduction.InthisarticleJørgensenonlybrieflynotesthatsiteslikeGudmewere

closelyassociatedwithreligionaswellaswithtrade,productionandtheauthorityof

influentialmagnatesandroyalgroups(1995:215).Jørgensenobservesthattherearetwo

distincttypesofhoardsassociatedwithGudmeandthatthesetypesofgoldhoardsare

associatedwithdifferentspatialfunctions.Theonetypeiscomposedoffinished,prestige

objectsandisassociatedwiththespacesreservedforwarriorelites.Theothertypeofhoard

iscomposedofimportedobjects,ingotsandotherscrapmaterialsusedbyametalworkerto

createtheprestigeitemsthatareassociatedwiththewarriorelites.Jørgensenemphasizesthat

it“isimportanttonotethatthewarriortreasuresarenotfoundintheworkshoparea,butin

areaswhereworkshopactivitiesarenearlyabsent.ItseemsevidentthatGudmecanbe

dividedintotwomainareas:aworkshopareaandanareaofhigh-rankingwarriors”(1995:

212;cf.Jørgensen2003:177).Jørgensenstatesthatthefinishedgoldartefactsfoundat

Gudme“representgiftsgivenbyamagnatetohisfollowers,ofwhomseveralofveryhigh

rankmusthavebeenpresentinGudmeinthelate-5thand6thcenturies”(1995:212).

Moreover,thereisalsoachronologicaldistinctionbetweenthecraftproductionandthe

aristocraticfunctionsofGudme.DuringtheVikingAge,tradeandcraftactivities(including

metalwork)persistedwhiletheotheraristocraticandsacralfunctionsofGudmedeclined

(Jørgensen2003:177).AccordingtoJørgensen’swork,atthepeakofitsaristocraticand

sacralpotential,andduringitsdeclineinthebeginningoftheVikingAge,Gudme

maintainedarelativelyclearspatialdistinctionbetweenworkshopareasandareasreserved

forsacralfunctionsand/oraristocraticandwarriorelites.

AcknowledgingthesespatialdistinctionswithinthesettlementstructureatGudme

(2001:502),Hedeagermoregenerallyarguesthattheentiresettlementwasunderstoodasa

sacralspace(2001:504).Hedeager’smethodologyisbasicallytointerpret“the

archaeologicalandthewrittenrecordasdifferentexpressionsofasinglecosmological

model”(Hedeager2002:3).Herfocusisalsoondemonstratingtheimportantroleofgoldat

Gudmeandinthetextualsources,andshealsoarguesforthepowerfulandspecialstatusof

smithsatGudmeandinthetextualsources.ComparingVsp7andGylf14tothe

archaeologicalevidenceatGudmeandLundeborg,shesuggeststhat“metallurgy,skilled

130

metalworkandgold”are“crucialconceptsinnortherncosmology”andfoundationalaspects

ofthis“cosmologicalmodel”foracentralplace(2002:5).150Hedeagerinterpretsthesitesat

GudmeandLundeborgas“multifunctionalcentralplaces”thatdemonstrateparticular

significancenotonlyinrelationtoreligiousandpoliticalpowerbutalsoassiteswith

“overwhelmingevidenceofintensivecraftingactivities,especiallythoseofjewellersand

blacksmiths”(2002:7).Shearguesagainstthe“usuallyregarded”roleofmetalproduction

andcraftsmanshipas“aneutralorevensecondaryaffair”(2002:7).Instead,Hedeager

reinforcesthat

skilledcrafting,especiallyforgingandtheworkofjewellers–andprobablywoodcarvingaswell–werethehallmarkofpoliticalandideologicalauthority.[...]Highlyskilledmetalworkwasnotmerelyacraft;itwasanintegralpartofpoliticalandreligiouspower,andsomethingcloselylinkedtoidealsofroyalauthority.(2002:13)

Withrespecttotheliteraryevidence,HedeagernoteshowGylf14describesthesacredhall

Glañsheimrasentirelymadeofgoldandas“thebestandgreatestbuildingintheworld”

(Hedeager2002:12).Shealsonotesthat“anothercrucialelementofIñavõllrandtheonly

otherbuildingmentionedwastheforge”(2002:12).151Hedeagernotesthattheconceptofthe

central-placecomplexatÁsgarñrincludesa“placewhereskilledcraftingtookplace,

particularlymetalwork”(Hedeager2002:12).

Withrespecttocomparisonsbetweentheliteraryandarchaeologicalevidence,

Hedeagersuggestsacloseassociationbetweenmetalworkingactivitiesandaristocratic

and/orsacralfunctionsatGudmeandattheÆsir’ssettlementonIñavõllr.WhileHedeager

doesnoteJørgensen’sargumentfordistinctworkshopandaristocraticspacesatGudme,her

argumentfocusesmoreontheoverallsacralnatureofGudmeasawhole.Therefore,more

150Hedeager’searlierinnovativestudy(Hedeager1992:Iron-AgeSocieties:FromTribetoStateinNorthernEurope,500BCtoAD700)oftheemergenceofcentralizedpoliticalpowerinScandinaviahasreceivedseveralpositivereviews(Geselowitz1995:453-4;Kraig1994:208-9;Levy1993:750-1;Webster1994:467-8).Hedeager’s2001and2002interpretationsofGudme,whilespeculative,haveasolidbasisinthisearlierthesisthatthepreconditionsforthedevelopmentofcentralizedpoliticalpowerinScandinavialayintheemergenceofawarriorclasswithindividualizedopportunitiesforaccumulationthroughmanagementofprestigegoodsandsurplusproduction.Hedeagerstatesthatsheis“wellaware”thather2001and2002piecesonGudme(whichIdiscusshere)are“highlyspeculative”(2001:506).ThisspeculativeapproachisconnectedtoHedeager’sassertionthat“muchisgainedbyalsoapplyingourwell-informedimaginationtotheinterpretationofcomplexsitessuchasGudme.Weurgentlyneedtogetbeyondthetraditionalcircularargumentsaboutgoldmeaningpowerandviceversa”(Hedeager2001:506).151Itis,asIhavepointedout,unclearwhetheraflarintheseinstancesfromGylf14andVsp7refertoenclosedbuildingsortofurnaceand/orforgestructuresinanopenworkshopspace.ThearchaeologicalevidencefrommedievalScandinaviareinforcesthatsmithing(ferrousandnon-ferrous)tookplacebothinsideenclosuresandoutintheopen.

131

small-scaledistinctionsbetweenworkshopspacesandaristocraticand/orsacralspacesare

notasfullyacknowledgedinHedeager’sconclusionsasisthecaseinJørgensen’sstudies.

WhatisimportanttoHedeager’sargumentisthatlocallyproducedgoldbracteates

(guldgubber)andothermetalartefactswithpre-Christiansacralsignificancehavebeenfound

inextraordinaryquantityatGudme.Hedeagerreinforcesthatbecausesacralobjectswere

createdfrompreciousmetalsatGudmethemetalworkingatthesettlementclearlyhad

powerfulandsacralfunctions(2002:3-6;2001:476).152Asnotedabove,shealsosuggests

thattheevidenceatGudmeiscontrarytothe“traditionalarchaeologicalview”inwhich

workshopareasandworkshopproductionare“treatedasmarginal”(Hedeager2002:13).

HedeagercitesJørgensen’s1995publication153insupportoftheclaimthatthelargecentral

hallatGudmeissituated“inalocationheldbyarchaeologiststobethe‘workshoparea’

becauseofthemanyfindsofworkshopmaterial,especiallyfrommetalwork”(Hedeager

2002:13;cf.Hedeager2001:502).Hedeagerstatesthatworkinferrousandnon-ferrous

metalswasdoneinimmediateassociationwiththesearistocraticandsacralspaces,andthat

thiscraftsmanshipwasofthehighestquality(2002:7;2001:476).Basedonthese

statements,shealsomakesseveralclaimsaboutthestatusofmetalworkersatGudme:

Gudme’s great wealth suggests that the site was not just a central place for trade and production, but one with sacred connotations; a place where master artisans transformed bars, ingots, and coins of gold into symbolic objects like bracteates and ornamented scabbard mounts. [...] In this place the representation of the world was given a concrete form by specialists in control of the production process by which metal was transformed from one shape (scrap metal, ingots, coins etc.) into another (bracteates, fittings for swords etc.). (Hedeager 2001: 477-8; cf. Hedeager 2002: 7-8)

Insteadoffocusingprimarilyontheroleofsuchproductioninestablishingandmaintaining

socialandsacraldistinctionswithinthesettlementatGudme,Hedeagerfocusesonthe

generaldistinctionbetweenGudmeandtheoutsideworldandtheroleofthesmiths

152 Hedeagerpresentssomecompellingobservationsinregardstotheinterpretationoftheiconographyofthegoldbracteates(guldgubber)aspartofaspatialcomplexforconnectingtothegods.FollowingKarlHauck,HedeagersuggeststhatthegoldbracteatesportraythegodÓñinnonashamanic“journeytotheOtherWorld”(Hedeager2002:5).Hedeagersuggeststhatthis,coupledwiththesacralnamesofnearbyhills(Gudbjerg,“thehillofthegod/gods”,Albjerg,“thehilloftheshrine”),reinforcesthat“GudmewasindeedthemainhomeoftheOdincult”(2002:5).Shealsoarguesthatthecloseassociationbetweenmetalworkingandthecentralhallsuggeststhatthisactivityanditsproductswereintegralto the fabrication and maintenance of the representation of a sacred place and connection to the sacred realm (Hedeager 2002: 5-6; cf. Hedeager 2001: 472, 476). 153NopagereferenceforJørgensen’spaperisgivenineitherHedeager’s2001or2002pieces.

132

themselvesinmaintainingthisdistinction.Emphasizingthecloseassociationbetweenthe

aflarandkeyaristocraticandsacralspacesinVsp7andGylf14aswellasherassertionthat

skilledcraftingtookplaceintheimmediatevicinityoftheGudmehall,Hedeagersuggests

that“highlyskilledmetalwork”mustbeunderstoodinbothliteraryandarchaeological

contextsas“somethingcloselylinkedtoidealsofroyalauthority”(Hedeager2002:13).

Hedeagerarguesthatthesmithsincontrolofthesetransformationsheld“highposition[s]in

society”andwereunderstoodas“liminalfigures”with“supernaturalpowers”and“special

status”(2001:484-6;cf.2002:7).154Thereforetheworkshopspacesandactivities,according

toHedeager’sargument,alsoshowcloseconnectionstothegenerallysacralnatureofthe

settlementatGudme.

Atthispointfourfundamentalnuancesinthedistinctionsbetweenworkshopspaces

andaristocratic,politicaland/orsacralspacesneedtobereinforced.First,monumentalhalls

andprestigiousaristocraticand/orsacralspacesareonlyveryrarelytheimmediatelocations

ofmetalworkingactivities.155Jørgensen’s2003studyofTissø,forinstance,showsa

distinctionbetween,ontheonehand,themainaristocratichallandnearbycultbuildingand,

ontheotherhand,thesmithysomefiftymetrestothenorthontheperipheralboundaryofthe

fence-line(Jørgensen2003:190-3).Overthefourcenturiesofextensivegrowthand

expansioninthehigh-qualitymetalworkingandworkshopareassouthofthehallatTissø,the

hallareaandcultareawerekeptremarkablycleanandthesespaceswere“neveraproduction

unit”(2003:199).Overthecourseofitsdevelopment,thedistinctionbetweentheproduction

areasandthearistocratic/cultareaatTissøbecomesincreasinglystark(Jørgensen2003:186-

8).156Similarly,althoughguldgubberwerefoundinRoomCofthemonumentalhallatBorg

I,thereisnoexplicitevidenceofnon-ferrousmetalworkingatthesite:theseguldgubberdid

154Tosupportherargumenthere,HedeagerdrawsuponEliade’stheoriesaswellasanthropologicalstudiesoftheroleofsmithsincentralAfricantribes(Hedeager2001:486-8;Hedeager2002:7).155Consider,forinstance,themagnate’sresidenceandhallatToftegård,wherethereissomeevidencetosuggestthatmetalworkingtookplaceintheimmediateareaofthishall(seepage104above).ConsideralsothelimitedevidenceofsomemetalworkingdepositionsandpossiblyactivitiesintheopensacralspacenearthehillfortatHelgö(seepages112-113above).InregardstothisevidencefromHelgö,itshouldalsobenotedthatthissacralspaceisnottobeconfusedorconflatedwithaworkshopspace:theworkshopsandkey“productivesites”atHelgöareunmistakablydistinctfromthissacralarea(seediscussionbelow,onpage140).156Thepracticalnoiseandsafetyissuesrelatedtosmithingworkshouldalsobereiteratedhere.DavidHinton,inhis2003articleon“Anglo-SaxonSmithsandMyths”,suggeststhatsomepermanentsmithyfacilitiesmayhavebeenlocatedonthemarginsofcommunitiesforpragmaticreasonsrelatedtofirehazards(2003:271).AsHjärthner-Holdaretal.observe,onelargefarm-hallfromModvoinNorwayshowssignsofsmithingpracticesbeingcarriedoutinsideit:thishallburntdowntwiceandwasthenabandoned(2002:180).Sotheremayhavebeenalocalprecedentforpeoplelearningthehardwaythatsmithingwasperhapsmoresafelyperformedatsomedistancefromlivingspacesandkeyaristocratic,agrariananddomesticsettlements.

133

notnecessarilyhavetobemadeon-siteinorderforthesacralspacetobeunderstoodas

sacral.WhileevidenceatBorgIisdifficulttointerpret,itnonethelesssuggeststhat

blacksmithingmayhavebeendoneinandaroundthismonumentalhall.Theevidencealso

reinforcesthattherewereinternalpartitionswithinthehallandthattherewerearistocratic

(andperhapssacral)distinctionsbetweenRoomC(theceremonialfeastingspace)andthe

otherrooms(ArrheniusandMuyingo2003:117,187;HerschendandMikkelsen2003:63-6;

Holand2003:133-8;JohansenandMunch2003:12-8).157Craftingandmetalworkingare

neitherparticularlyassociatedwiththesacralandceremonialspace,noraretheseorother

everydayactivitiesparticularlyexcludedfromthatspace.

Helgö,Uppåkraandsomeothersitesalsoshowevidenceofspatialdistinctions

betweenmonumentalhallsorhillforts,high-qualitymetalworkingandsacralfunctions.The

toponymHelgö,ifitcanbeinterpretedasmeaningsomethinglike“holyisland”(Zachrisson

2004:145-6),maysuggesttheophoricassociationssimilartothetoponymsGudmeand

Tissø.SimilartoTissøandGudme,atHelgöbothferrousandnon-ferrousmetalwork

(includingtheconstructionofbroochesandironamuletsassociatedwithNorsegods)

occurredinworkshopbuildingsandareasthatwerelocatedsomedistancefromtheelevated

hillfortandsacralspaces(Bergman2005:16-7;BergmanandArrhenius2005:79;

Zachrisson2004:156).AtUppåkrametalworkingofferrousandnon-ferrousalloys

(including115guldgubberandevidenceofthefabricationoftheguldgubber)isconcentrated

inthreeareas50to160metressouthofthemainhallsandotheraristocraticandsacralspaces

(Stilborg2003:140).Gudmeand,toalesserextent,TissøandUppåkrawereremarkably

early,elite,sacralandproductivesiteswithmonumentalhalls.158Otherlessproductiveand/or

latersitesstillshowevidenceofkeyaristocratichallsandmetalworking,asisthecaseat

Hedeby,Birka,HelgöandKaupang.Allthesesitesconsistentlydemonstratedistinctions

betweenmetalworkingspacesandcentralaristocraticandsacralspacesassociatedwith

prestigiousormonumentalcentral-placehalls.

Second,somelessprestigioushallsorlong-housesshowcloserassociationsto

workshopspacesthanmonumentaloraristocratichalls,butthereisstillevidenceinthese 157SeealsoHerschend(1997:59)forabriefdiscussionofhowdifferenttypesofentrancesareimportanttounderstandinghowdifferentspaces(ceremonial,high-statusversuslow-statuslivingareas,etc.)withinahallmayhavebeenunderstood.IncontrasttotheseveralsmallersoutheasternentrancesatBorg,HerschendandMikkelsensuggestthatthelargernorthwesternentrancetoRoomCatBorgI:1a“musthavebeenelaborate”(2003:59).158SeemydiscussionofGudmeaboveandspecificallyJørgensen(2003:177)andSørensen(1994:28-31,39)fordetailsontheuniquecharacterofthehallatGudme.

134

lesserhallsfordistinctionsbetweenaristocraticspaces,sacralspacesandworkshopspaces.

Asnotedabove,thereisevidencethatsomemetalworkingtookplaceinsideatleastone

relativelymodesthallatGudme(VangPetersen1994:37,39).Thisisnotevidencefora

conflationofaristocraticorsacralspaceswithworkshopspaces.Thishallisneithercentrally

locatednormonumentalinsize159,anditisclearlypartofafencedfarmstead.AsJørgensen

pointsout,severalfarmsteadsatGudmeshowsignsofmetalworkingactivities,butthis

evidenceconformstothelargerpatternofdistinctionsbetweenworkshopareas(which

generallycontainonlyscrapmetalorimportsintendedasscrap)andspacesreservedfor

warriorelites(whichgenerallycontaintheprestigeitemsmadebythecraftspeopleatGudme

andelsewhere).ThelackofanyevidenceforpithousesatGudmemaysuggestthatskilled

metalworkersweremorepermanentlysituatedatthissettlementasopposedtothemore

temporarilyorseasonallyusedpithousesatsiteslikeÅhusIIandTissø.Butthesitesat

Gudmestillmaintainadistinctionbetweentheproductionofprestigemetalartefactsandthe

consumptionanddistributionoftheseartefactsbythesocialelite.

Hallsandfarmsteadsatothersitesalsoshowevidenceofmetalworkinginspacesthat

areneitheraristocraticnorsacralincharacter.Theseworkshopspacesmaybecharacterized

assuitingpragmatic,urgentorcommerciallyadvantageousneeds.Severalsitesshow

evidenceofapragmaticfocusonoreprocessingand/orshiprepairs,suchasL’Anse-aux-

Meadows,Ribe,HedebyandtheinlandprocessingfacilitiesinNorway.Archaeological

evidenceatL’Anse-aux-Meadows,forinstance,showsthatmuchofthemetalworking

activityonthissitewasnotplannedaheadoftime,butrathernecessaryinordertomakeship

repairsoveraperiodofonlyacoupledecades(Haywood2000:117;Wallace2006:60).

Forgesandworkshopswerelocatedinsidealargehall,whileasmeltingboothappearsto

havebeenlocatedsomedistanceawayfromthishall.Withinthishallotherdistinctpartitions

servedas“highstatus”spacesandlivingspaces(Wallace2006:38).Otherhabitationsand

workshopsonthissiteshowsimilardistinctionsinstatusandtypesofactivities,andthehall

inwhichmostofthemetalworkingtookplacewasdistinctfromthelargestandmost

prestigioushallatthesite(Wallace2006:45).EvidenceatSostelidshowsthat,asisthecase

withthesmeltinghutatL’Anse-aux-Meadows,activitiesrelatedtoironoresmeltingtook

placeoutsidethehousewhileblacksmithingtookplaceinsidethehouse.Thelonghouseat

159Thishallisthoughttohavebeenpartofafenced-infarmsteadandthehallitselfisonly125m2,asopposedtothe500m2spaceassociatedwiththemonumentalhallatGudme.

135

SostelidinNorwayshowsevidencethatthewesternpartitionwasreservedforlivestockand

theeasternmostendofthehousewasusedfornumerouscrafts,includingspinning,

blacksmithingandnon-ferrousmetalworking(Hagen1953:356,363;Hjärthner-Holdaretal.

2002:189).Furthermore,thesacralmoundsatSosteliddonotshowanydirectassociation

withsmithingactivities.Smallerhouses,likethosefoundatKnutstadinNorwayorthehouse

usedasamintatSigtunainSweden,wereusedbysmithsforworkinginferrousandnon-

ferrousmetalsand(inthecaseofSigtuna)alsoforhabitations(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:

178;Ros2002:165,167,173-4).LikesimilarworkshopspacesatL’Anse-aux-Meadows,

SostelidandthemodesthallatGudme(VangPetersen1994:37,39),thesespacesat

KnutstadandSigtunashownoevidenceofbeingparticularlyaristocraticorsacralin

themselves.

Third,someofthemostproductiveandintensiveworkshopspacesshownosignsof

agrarian,aristocraticorsacralfunctionswhatsoever.SiteslikeÅhusIIandVikhögsvägen,for

example,showevidenceofsmallhabitationsthatwerealsousedasworkshops.Noopen

sacralspacesorelevatedmoundshavebeenassociatedwiththesesites,norhasevidenceof

monumentalorevenmodesthallsoraristocraticcentresbeenfound.Thesesitesappearto

havebeeninhabitedbycraftspeople,includingsmiths,andclosecollaborationbetween

differentcraftspeoplemayhavetakenplaceonthesesites.Thestructureofthesesites

correspondsinsomewaystotheworkshopandtradingareasassociatedwiththeelitemulti-

functionalcentral-placecomplexesatTissø,HedebyandUppåkra.Thus,suchworkshop

communitiesarenotatoddswithsacraloraristocraticspaces.Rather,itappearsthat

pragmatic,commercialandproductiveconvenienceandefficiencyarefactorsthatshouldnot

beoverlookedwhenconsideringtherelationshipsbetweenaristocraticand/orsacralspaces

andworkshopspaces.

Finally,boththearchaeologicalevidenceatGudmeandtheliteraryevidencefrom

Gylf14andVsp7areunclearastothenatureoftheworkshopspacesandactivities:arethese

sacredorprofaneactivitiesandspaces?AsIhavealreadydiscussedtheproblematiclackof

specificallyNorseevidenceforinterpretingsmithsandsmithingactivitiesashavingbeen

understoodassacral,Iwillnotreiteratethosedetailshere.(SeetheIntroductiontothis

dissertation,page21andfollowing.)AsBrinkpointsout(1996:141),metalworkingtook

placeonallsitesthatshowevidenceofprominentaristocraticand/orsacralfunctions.The

precedingarchaeologicalsurveyshows,however,thatsacralspacesandmetalworkingspaces

136

differinseveralways.Workshopswerethelocationswhereprestigemetalobjectswere

produced,butfinishedproductsaregenerallyassociatedwithsacraloraristocraticspaces.

Thesacralspacesidentifiedatmostelitecentral-placecomplexesarethosethatcontain

concentrationsofprestigemetalitems,especiallythosewithcleartheophoricassociations

(guldgubberportrayingÓñinn,ironamuletsofÃórr’shammer,etc.).160Atsomeoftheseelite

sites,andalsoatsomelesselitesites,sacralspacesareidentifiedbygeographicdistinctions

(mounds/hillsorlakes,sometimeswiththeophoricnames)andbyopenand/orenclosed

spacesthatappeartohavebeenkeptcleanerthanisotherwisethecase.Incontrast,

metalworkingsitesdonotshowevidenceofhavingbeenintentionallykeptclearof

accumulatingdepositionlayersandwaste.161Atsomesitesthereisaclosespatialassociation

betweenthemainhallandasacralspace:thesacralspacemaybearoominsidethehall,orit

maybeanopenspaceorbuildinglocatedimmediatelybesidethemainhall.Ingeneral,

metalworkingspacesdonotdemonstratethisclosespatialcorrelationtomonumentalor

aristocratichalls.Aspointedoutabove,atsomesitesmetalworkingareasarediametrically

opposedtosacralspaces,i.e.metalworkingareasarenotkeptcleanandarelocatedonthe

oppositesideofthehallassacralspaces(andatgreaterdistancefromthehalls).

Whileitisclearthatskilledmetalworkingwasanessentialcomponentinmajor

central-placecomplexes,allthesenuancesgreatlycomplicateanyargumentthatdirectly

associatessmithingactivitieswithsacraland/oraristocraticspaces.CertainlyatGudme,as

elsewhere,theprestigeobjectsproducedbysmithingwerekeyfeaturesinsacralspacesand

aristocraticcentral-placecomplexes.Theseproductionsitesandactivitieswerethemselves

notnecessarilyunderstoodassacral,anditisclearthaton-siteworkinpreciousmetalswas

notnecessarytoestablishsacralandaristocraticspaces.SiteslikeBorg,forinstance,where

blacksmithingtookplacebutworkinnon-ferrousmetalsmaynothavebeendoneon-site,

couldstillhavemonumentalhallsthatcontainedsacraland/oraristocraticspaceswith

guldgubberandbronzebroochesthatwereobtainedthroughtrade.Thisisclearand

compellingevidenceforthesupportivebutspatiallydistinctroleofsmithingworkshopsin

theestablishmentofthesecomplexes.

160Consider,forinstance,thesitesatBorg,Helgö,Gudme,TissøandUppåkra(Jørgensen2003:183;Zachrisson2004:148-9,153,156).161Consider,again,Borg,Helgö,Gudme,TissøandUppåkra,aswellaslessersiteslikeToftegårdandBejsebakken(Jørgensen2003:180-1;Nielsen2002:197).

137

Althoughworkshopsmaynothavebeenlocatedindirectproximitytosacralspaces,

somerecentstudieshavesuggestedmoredirectpracticalconnectionsbetweensmithingand

thesacredatsomesites.First,itisworthbrieflymentioningtwopreliminarystudiesinto

associationsbetweenburialsitesandsmithingactivitiesinearlymedievalScandinavia.Terje

Gansumhasrecentlymadeacompellingcaseforthere-interpretationofburntbonedeposits

asevidencefortheuseofbone-coal162insmithing(particularlytheproductionof

phosphorus-richiron)ratherthan,ashasgenerallybeenthecase,evidenceofcremationor

cookingactivities(Gansum2004:44).Thisintroducesthepotentialforassociationsbetween

smithingactivitiesandbonesandperhapsdeath.Second,LisaK.Larssonhasrecently

publishedapreliminarystudyoftwoearlyIron-ageburialmounds200mapartfromeach

otherinÖstraBökestad,Sweden.Noevidenceofsettlementshasbeenfoundoneithersite.

ThesemoundsbothshowevidenceofburialsstartingintheBronzeAgewiththeoldest

burialslocatedatthetopofthemoundandthemostrecentatitsbase.Themoundsare

deliberatelycoveredinatightstone-packing(Larsson2005:111,118-9).InthelateVendel

PeriodandearlyVikingAge,afteraperiodduringwhichnoactivity(burialorotherwise)is

apparent,thesemoundswereintentionallydisturbedinordertoestablishopen-airforgeson

topofthehillsintheareasoccupiedbythemostancient,Bronze-ageburials(2005:104-5,

111).Activityattheforgesiscontemporaneouswiththelatestburialsatthebaseofthehills

(Larsson2005:106).Atbothsitesboneswerecrushed,burntanddepositedinandaroundthe

extantstone-packing,anditispossiblethatbone-coalwasusedintheforgestoo(2005:114,

118-9).Larssonsuggeststhattherewasa“consciousdecisiontoopenand‘destroy/disturb’

theearlierIronAgeburials[...]justastherehadbeenachoicetoestablishanironproduction

site”onthehills(2005:111).Shesuggeststhatthisreinforcessmithingaspartofapractice

thatcanre-connectwiththepastandactivatethe“dead’sconnectiontothelivingandvice

versa”(Larsson2005:112).163

Twootherrecentstudieshavealsoinvestigatedconceptualparallelsbetweencooking

andsmithing,suggestingritualandpossiblysacralconnectionsbetweencookingand

smithingsites.JosteinBergstølhasexaminedevidenceformorethan140pitsdatingfromthe 162Gansum’shypothesishereisthatboneswereburntinlowoxygenenvironmentsandturnedintobone-coalinmuchthesamewaythatwoodcanbeturnedintocharcoal.Thisbone-coalcouldthenbeusedinvarioussmithingprocessesasafuelwithchemicalproperties(andsocio-culturalsymbolism)slightlydifferentfromcharcoal.Gansum’spreliminaryevidenceillustrateshowbone-coalmightbedistinguishedfromothertypesofburntbonedepositsinthearchaeologicalrecord.163Burström(1990:261-71)andFarbregd(1993:8-11)alsoinvestigatetheconnectionbetweenironworkingandconceptionsofdeath.

138

firstthroughtotheseventhcenturyatHurdalPrestegårdineasternNorway(Bergstøl2002:

77-8).Thesepitswereoverwhelminglyusedforcooking,withtheexceptionofasmall

numberwhichwereclearlyusedforsmithingprocessestypicalofmajortradingand

productionworkshopsduringtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAgeinScandinavia.Bergstøl

arguesforaconnectionbetweencookingandsmithingatthissitebydrawinguponRandi

Barndon’sapplicationoftheoreticalconceptsofmicro-cosmos.Thesmithyis,accordingto

Barndon,understoodas

“acontextinwhich‘technology’createsa‘microcosmos’andaspacewheremetaphorsaboutlifeanditsmoralcontentcanbestaged.Throughandinlinewiththiscontexttheitemsproducedarealsogivenaspecificsignificance,suchasfurnaces,hoesorpots,allbearingconnotationsofthesamethemewithinthem.”(citedinBergstøl2002:79-80)164

Bergstølsuggeststhatthissenseofaritualmicro-cosmosimpliesaparallelandaconnection

betweensmithingandcooking.HealsosuggeststhatthesiteatHurdalPrestegårdmay

reinforcethatsmithingandcookingtookplaceinrelationtosimilarpitformationsandin

relationtosimilarritualpractices.

InhisrecentanalysisofanarchaeologicalsitenearJärrestadinsouth-eastScania,

BengtSöderbergsuggeststhat“smithingandcookingstandoutinthearchaeologicalmaterial

asperhapsthemostimportantactivities,closelylinkedtothehallandhovenvironment”

(2003:297).Althoughthecookingandsmithingactivitiesmaybesimilarinimportance,the

preliminaryevidencesuggestsacleardistinctionbetweencookingactivitiesandsmithing

activities.Evidenceofcookinginthehallisfoundinthewesternendprimarily,andthereis

someevidencethatmayindicatecookingorritualburningwherefire-crackedstonesand

animalremainshavebeenfound,somefiftymetrestothewestofthehall(Söderberg2003:

296-9).Evidenceofsmithing(includingslag,vitrifiedclay,hammerscale,andiron)is

containedtothehouselocatedsomefivetotenmetresthesouth-westofthehall(Söderberg

2003:297-8).Söderbergproposesa“structuralist”approachtointerpretingthissite,

concludingthat“smithingandcookingareinterpretedascloselyintegratedactivities,

involvingtheoppositionalpairsoflife/death,culture/nature”(2003:283,300).Major

proponentsofthesebinaryoppositionsandstructuralistapproachareClaudeLevi-Strauss

164BergstølcitesBarndon’sPh.D.thesis,MattersofMetallurgy,MastersofMetaphors:IronworkingamongtheFipaandthePangwaofSouthwestTanzania(Barndon2001),whichwas,atthetimeofBergstøl’s2002publication,stillinpreparation.

139

and,morespecifically,MargaretCluniesRoss’sinterpretationoftheconfrontationbetween

theÆsirandthegiantÃjazioveranoxandanearthoven(CluniesRoss1994:116-8).It

seemsvalidthatthesebinariessituatecookingandsmithingasstructurallyparallelonetothe

other.ThearchaeologicalevidenceatJärrestad,however,preservesspatialandfunctional

distinctionsbetweenthesetwotypesofactivities.

Bergstøl’sandSöderberg’sargumentssuggeststructuralormetaphoricalparallels

betweencookingandsmithingpractices.Similarly,asnotedabove,thelanguageofEilífr’s

Ãórsdrápadependsuponametaphoricalinterplaybetweencookingandsmithingallusions

andmotifs.AsIhavepointedout,Ãórsdrápadoesnotblurdistinctionsbetweencookingand

smithing.Rather,itreinforcesthatthesetwoactivitiescouldbeunderstoodasdistinct,one

fromtheother,evenwhensetcloselyinparallel.Bothsmithingandcookingrequiredthe

heatofafireand,frequently,somesortofcontainerorcontrolledspace.EvidenceatHurdal

Prestegårdshowsthatthepitstructuresusedpredominantlyforcookingmightalsobe

suitableforsmithingactivities.Itispossiblethatforgesortheremnantsofasmelting

procedurecouldbeusedtocookfood,andgeneralstructuralparallelsmaybeobserved

betweenthecontructionofacookingpitandtheconstructionofaforge.Butthisisnottosay

thataforgeorfurnaceisthesamethingasacookingfireordomestichearth,andmuchless

thatcookingisthesameassmithingorsmelting.Makingafirecapableofreachingmore

than700oCinordertoworkmetalsisadistinct,butparallel,processtomakingafirethatis

onlycapableofthemuchlowertemperaturessufficientforcooking.

Associationsbetweensacralsites,ritualpracticesandsmithingactivitiesarestill

debatable.Theabovearesomeareasofpreliminaryresearchthatmayprovefruitfulinthe

future.Forthetimebeing,theearlyevidencefromGudmeandelsewheresuggeststhat

aristocraticandsacralspacesweredistinctfromworkshopspacesinwhichmetalworking

tookplace.

StudyingthesiteatHálsinIceland,KevinSmithsuggeststhat“asacriticalresource

withlimiteddistributionandanideologicalcharterlinkingitsproductiontotherealmofthe

gods,ironcouldpotentiallyhavebeenmonopolizedbyIcelandicchieftains”(2005:187).

Smith’sevidenceforthisisthatGylfaginningchapter14establishesaparadigm“thatties

metalworkingandskilledcraftingtothecreationofnewsocietiesandidentifiesthese

technologicalandaestheticendeavorsasgiftsfromthegods,equalinimportanceto,and

essentialforsupportingtheestablishmentofgovernments,domesticunits,andreligious

140

institutions”(2005:184).Inchapter30ofEgilssaga,Skalla-Grímrissaidtohavebeen

járnsmiñrmikillokhafñirauñablástrmikinnávetrinn,“agreatiron-smithandusedtodoa

lotofbog-iron-smeltingduringthewinter”(ÍF21988:78-9).165Skalla-Grímrisalsoskilled

inbuildingships,andhisisaninfluentialpoliticalfigureinthesettlementofIceland:the

settlementatBorgisoneofthemostprominentearlysettlementareas.Smithpointsto

possibleassociationsbetweenpoliticalpower,settlementparadigmsandironaccess.There

is,however,noevidenceinEgilssagatosuggestthatSkalla-Grímr'ssmithingactivitiesare

sacralinnature.

EvidenceatHelgö,however,maystronglysuggestassociationsbetween

metalworkingactivityandtherealmofthesacred.Helgödemonstratesacleardistinction

betweenthearistocratichallontopofthehillandtheworkshopsiteslocatedsomedistance

awayfromthishall,mostlytothenorthandnortheast.Theseworkshopswereresponsiblefor

theproductionofmanyprestigeitemswithgreatideologicalsignificance(Zachrisson2004:

156).Immediatelysouthofthehall,astonyledgeisclearlyaspaceinwhichsacral

depositionsweremadeoverthecourseofseveralcenturies.Thesedepositionsincludeiron

amuletsassociatedwithparticularNorsegods,aswellastools,cruciblesandobjects

associatedwithcastingandsmithingactivities(Zachrisson2004:155).Zachrissondoesnot

commentonthisevidenceintermsofactualsmithingactivitiesatthestonyledge:smithing

activityseemstohavebeenconcentratedattheidentifiedworkshops.Thedepositionofthis

smithingmaterial,however,maysuggestsomerituallinkbetweensmithingactivityand

sacralrealms.Itmayalsotestifytoaperiodduringwhichthisareawasusedasawastesite,

butthisseemsunlikelygiventheprolongeduseofthestonyledgeasaritualdepositionsite

andtheevidenceofsmithingwasteneartheworkshopsites.Importantly,however,itisthe

smithingmaterial,tools,andwastethatarepartoftheevidenceforthispotentiallink,notthe

smithingworkshopareasthemselves.Thus,arguments(likeHedeager’s)forsmithing

activitiesasfundamentaltoconnectionswiththesacralrealmsmaybevalid,butitis

questionablewhetheractualsmithingsitesandworkshopsitesdemonstratedsuchsacral

connections.

Itisimportanttomaintainadistinctionbetweenevidenceoftheroleofmetalworking

withincommunalstructuresandevidencerelatedtotheroleofindividualsmithsandmultiple

165ThetermrauñablástrandthesignificanceofbogironarediscussedinmoredetailinrelationtoVõluspástanza40.

141

craftspeople.Baseduponevidenceofsmithingactivitiesandtrading,BrinkandHedeager

makecasesforforgesandsmithingactivitiesasintegralpartsofinfluentialmulti-functional

central-placecomplexesinmedievalScandinavia.Theymay,however,overstatethe

evidencefortheroleoftheindividualsmithwithinthesecommunalstructures.Withthe

exceptionofafewsuggestivebutnotconclusivesites(likethemintinSigtuna,forexample)

wedonothavecompellingevidenceofsmithswithhighlyspecializedskill-setsresiding

permanentlyatinfluentialpoliticalandreligiouscentres,havingtheirproductionscontrolled

bytheirrespectivesettlementcomplexanditsleader(s).Whatwedohaveisevidenceof

smithingproductionsites,tools,wasteandfinishedartefacts.MikaelAndersenmaintainsa

closefocusonthisevidenceandadvocatesamorebalancedappreciationofindividual

smithingfiguresasskilledinmultipleareasbutnotnecessarilyspecializedmastersinonly

onearea.Andersensuggeststhatsomenoblemen“mightemploygoldsmithsandother

specializedcraftsmenattheirfarms.Butmostcraftsmenhadtomasterseveralprofessions”

(Andersen1993:645).AccordingtoAnderson,theMästermyrtoolchestisacaseinpoint,

sinceitcontains“toolsforbothforgingandwoodworking,aswellasscalesandother

equipmentusedintrading”(1993:645).Andersonalsoobservesthatthereweredistinct

variationsinlocalproductionversustradefromspecializedlocationsforwhatevercouldnot

beacquiredlocally,i.e.combs,jewellery,beads,glass,preciousmetalsandbronze.

Inaddition,JohanCallmerhasmadeaconvincingcaseforhighlyspecializedmetal-

smithsneedingtobemoreambulatoryand,thus,notbeingexclusivelycontrolledorowned

byanyonecentral-placecomplexormagnate:rather,thesehighlyskilledmasterslikely

traveledsomewhatindependentlyofthesedentarypoliticalandtradingpowers,makinguse

ofestablishedworkshopfacilitiesastheycameandwent(Callmer2003:337-44).Thereis,

thus,acrucialdistinctionbetween,ontheonehand,evidenceofrelativelypermanent

smithingfacilitiesandactivitiesand,ontheotherhand,evidenceofdifferenttypesand

qualitiesofcraftspeopleandtherelationsbetweenthosecraftspeopleandcentralplace

complexes.166Inthiscontext,Brink’sconclusionsarevalidonlyinsofarastheyconfirmthe

caseforforgesandothermetalworkingfacilitiesasintegratedintoseveraltypesof

settlements,withparticularprominenceatseverallargerandmoreinfluentialcentralplace

complexes(Brink1996:240-1).

166Onthetopicofpermanentblacksmithingfacilitiesandthestationaryassociationsofbogironoresmeltingactivities,seeHinton(2003:279)andseethediscussionofaversefromFlóamannasaga(page185below).

142

Furthermore,CallmerextendshisfindingsatÅhusIIintoacomparativeargumentfor

interpretingseveralsimilarsitesthroughoutScandinaviaaslong-standingworkshop

communitiesthatwerestructureddifferentlyfromtheagrariancomplexesthatsometimes

developedintopowerfularistocraticandreligiousnodes.Ratherthanhavinganaristocratic

hallorlargereligiousspaceatitscentre,thegridsatÅhusIIareregular,withhabitationplots

suitabletofamiliesoffivetotenpeople.Callmerhypothesizesthatlocationslikethese

developedfromsmalltemporarysitesintolargercommunitiesthatwereconstantlyoccupied

bymostlyitinerantcraftspeoplewhoformedcollaborativeandmutuallysupportive

communities.Evidenceclearlyshowsthatallsortsofcraftswerepracticedattheselocations,

especiallysinceclosecollaborationwasnecessaryinordertomakemanyoftheartefacts

associatedwiththesesites(e.g.broochesandcombs).Someofthesecraftspeoplewere

itinerant,whileothersweremorepermanent.Manyweregeneralists,whilesomewere

specialists.Theredoesnotseemtohavebeenoneparticularfigureofthesmithor

craftsperson,butratheravarietyofroleswithinonedevelopingtypeofcommunitythat

consolidatedresourcesandtools,includingfurnacesandforges.Callmersuggeststhat

Thelifestyle,culture,perhapsalsotheirvernacularsetthepeopleactiveascraftsmenandtradersasidefromtheinhabitantsofthedifferentregions.Frequentlytheremoteness(inrelationtocentrallocationsintheregions)andthecoastallocationoftheplaces[likeÅhusII]contributedtothissocialisolation.Localsocietyoftheperiodhadgreatdifficultiesinassimilatingapopulation,whichbyitshabits,doingsandformany,byitsextractionwasalien.Consequentlyitismostlikelythatmanyofthesetradersandcraftsmenneverbecamepartofthelocalsocietyandthenwemustconsidertheprobableissueoftheformationofaseparatesociety.Wemaytendtoimaginethesepeople,onthemarginofthemajoritypopulation,weakandvulnerableandexposedtoconditionality.Thismaybeafalsepicture.Theygatheredmanytogether[ÅhusIIcouldhavehosted500-1000atitspeaksize]andtheycouldcertainlyinstantlymusterarelativelylargetroopofarmedmen.(Callmer2002:155)

AccordingtoCallmer,ÅhusIIresemblestheculturallyliminalyethighlypracticalworkshop

andmarketsitesonshorelinesorbeaches(thenorthwestEuropeanwics),aswellasatsites

likethelargeworkshopsontheislandsofBirkaandHelgö,whichmayhaveproducedgoods

forchieftainsonsiteandin“adefinedregionaroundLakeMälaren”(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.

2002:169;cf.Hill2001:104-10).

143

Callmer’sworkpresentsadifferentpictureoftheworkshopareasandtheindividuals

usingthoseareasinrelationtothearistocraticindividualsandhalls.Evidenceshowsthat

manyofthelargerworkshopareasestablishedatornearbyelitecentralplacecomplexeslike

Gudme(i.e.Lundeborg),Tissø,Uppåkra,andelsewherewerenotpermanentlyoccupiedby

particulargroupsorindividuals,butratherseasonallyusedduringtimesofintenseproduction

and/ortrade,and/orinassociationwithfestivals.Callmer’sworkmayalsointroduceaclear

distinctionbetweentheselargerexpansesofworkshopsandsmallerworkshopareasclosely

associatedwithparticularhallsinanearlyphaseofsettlement.Take,forexample,the

originalmetalworkingbuildingnorthofthehallatTissø.Thisworkshopclearlyoperated

fromtheearliestphaseofsettlementandoverseveralcenturiesasadistinctproductionunit

fromthedevelopingmetalworkingareasnorthandsouthofthehall.

Thisdistinctionbetweentypesofworkshopssuggeststhatattheearlyphaseof

settlementinVsp7theaflarwerelikelysituatedwithinthemainenclosureofthesettlement

oftheÆsir,aswasthecaseatTissøinitsfirstphase.Atthispointinthenarrativeof

Võluspá,theaflarareproductiveunitsintegratedwithintheÆsir’scommunityand

population:thereisnoevidenceatthispointinthenarrativeofout-sourcing,tradeor

itinerant,externalgroups.

1.7Võluspá7-Conclusion:interpretingafl2.Theextantattestationsshowthataflalmostexclusivelyreferstoaforgeand/or

furnaceusedformetalworking,mostofteninassociationwithironbutalsowithreferenceto

goldandothernon-ferrousmetals.Aflmay,insomerareinstances,refertoaworkshoparea

oredifice,perhapsinmetonymicassociationwiththemetalworkingforgeorfurnacefeatures

containedtherein.Withthisdefinitioninmind,IwillnowreturntoVõluspástanza7anda

detailedexaminationoftheroleoftheaflarinthefirstsettlementoftheÆsir.Therearethree

keyitemstoconsiderindiscussingthisattestation.First,theseaflarareassociatedwith

tangir,“tongs”,tól,“tools”,aswellasauñr,“wealth,preciousobjects.”Second,theseaflar

areestablishedinanareaknownasIñavõllr.Iwilldiscussthemeaningofthisnameandthe

significanceofthislocation.Third,theseaflarareestablishedinrelationtoseveralother

structuresandspaces.Thesestructuresandspacesincludeahõrgr,“outdoorsanctuary”,and

ahof,“temple”oranenclosedsacralspaceoredifice(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.hõrgr,

144

hof).Thesestructuresalsoseemtobeassociatedwithadministrativeandaristocratic

functions.

Tongs,toolsandpreciousobjects

Theaflarareclearlyresponsiblefortheproductionofauñr,“preciousthings”,and

theshapingoftangir,“tongs”,andtól,“tools”(7.5-8).Tangir,“tongs”,generallyreferstothe

tongsofasmith,whichwerelikelymadeofironandusedtohandlehotironorothermetals

(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.töng;Fritzner1954:s.v.töng;LP1931:s.v.tõng;ONP2010:

s.v.tõng).Tólmoregenerallyreferstocraftingequipment,usuallytoirontoolsusedfor

woodworking,generalcrafting,andsometimesmetalworking(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

tól;Fritzner1954:s.v.tól;LP1931:s.v.tól;ONP2010:s.v.tól).Auñr,however,doesnot

refertotools,butisratherageneraltermfor“wealth,riches,treasure”or,inthisspecific

context,perhaps“preciousobjects”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.auñrm.).Elsewherein

thePoeticEdda,compoundslikeauñrann,“housefilledwithriches”,andauñsalr,“hall

filledwithriches”appear,clearlyassociatingthegeneraltermauñrwiththedisplayand

circulationofwealthinanaristocratichall(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.auñrann,auñsalr;

cf.Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.auñigr).Moreover,thefirsttwolinesofVsp8portraythe

Æsirenjoyingthegoldengame-piecesandtheabundanceofgoldthatseemstobethe

productoftheseaflar:Teflñoítúni,teitirvóro,/varãeimvettergisvantórgulli(Neckeland

Kuhn1962:2),167“Theyplayedcheckersinacourtyard,theywerecheerful,forthemthere

wasnolackofgoldatall.”Inthiscontextauñrappearstorefertoobjectsofgoldin

oppositiontothetangirandtól,whicharelikelymadeofiron.Thetoolsandtongsare,it

wouldseem,madeinordertoworkwithgoldandtoproducegoldartefacts.WhileHedeager

suggeststhattheÆsirusedtheseaflartosmeltironore(2001:499),thereisnoclearsense

thatthegodsextractandrefineorehere:theaflarareprimarilyassociatedwiththeshaping

167LaFargeandTuckersuggestthattúntranslatesas“courtyard,(enclosed)field;homemeadow”(1992:s.v.tún).HermannPálssonnotesthatthetermtúninthisstanzaissignificantinthatitlikelyreferstoacentralcourtyardareaassociatedwithahallormultiplehalls:

[I]nIceland[tún]denoted‘ahomefield’,thecultivatedmeadowclosetothefarmhouse.InNorway,however,túnmeantthespacebetweenthefarmbuildings,‘theyard’.Itisofcoursemorelikelythatthegodsplayedtheirgamesofdraughtsintheshelteredcourtyardthanonanopenmeadow.Inthisconnectionitisworthnotingthatthe[ninth-century]NorwegianpoetÃorbiõrnhornklofireferstosomewarriorswhowerethrowingdiceinKingHaraldr’scourtyard:rógbirtingar,/ãeiresíHaraldstúni/húnumverpa[“warriors,theyareinHaraldr’scourtyard,theythrow(game)pieces”].(Hermann1996:63;cf.SPSMA2001-2010:ÃhornHarkv1)

145

(skapa)oftongsandthecreation(smíña,gøra)ofpreciousobjectsandothertools.Thereis

noexplicitmentionofsmeltingactivities,althoughthistoomaybeunderstood.Thus,aflar

likelyreferstoopenforgesprimarily,sincetheseweresufficientfortheshaping

(blacksmithing)ofironandthecastingofnon-ferrousmetals.Thissuggeststheimportance

ofproductivemetalworkingfacilities(particularlythosethatworkwithgold)inprestigious

settlementcontexts.

Moreover,theattestationinVõluspá7israreinthatitisintheplural,aflar:onlytwo

otherattestationsintheNorsecorpusmentionmultipleaflartogetherlikethis,andthoseare

theparaphraseofVsp7inchapter14ofGylfaginning(cf.afl13above)andthedescription

ofthesinfulworkofthedevilinElucidarius(cf.afl10above).Theeffectofthepluralaflar

inVsp7ismostlikelyliteral:thereismorethanoneforgeand/orfurnaceormetalworking

areaestablishedinassociationwiththisfirstsettlementoftheÆsir.Thisdescriptionof

multipleaflarmayimplythatthereweremanymetalworkingfacilitiesandjobstobedone,

and/ormanyskilledsmiths.Archaeologicalfindsatextensiveworkshopcommunitieslike

thoseatTissø,GudmeandLundeborg,UppåkraandÅhusIIshowthatitispossiblefor

multipleforgesand/orfurnacestobeactivecontemporaneouslyatdifferentplotsonsuch

sites.ArchaeologicalfindsatRibe(Jensen1991:31),Birka(HolmquistOlausson1993:104-

5)andHáls(Smith2005:190-1)alsoshowthatitispossibleformultipleforgesorfurnaces

tobeactivecontemporaneouslyinsideanindividualworkshopstructureorspace.Itisclear

thatenclosedsmithingworkshopslikeHálsandBirkacontainedthreefurnaces(atHáls)used

forprocessingbogironandfourforgesusedforblacksmithingandnon-ferroussmithing(at

Birka).Thesestructureswerefoundinayoungerlayeroffinds,overlayingolderandmuch

largersinglefurnace(atHáls)andforge(atBirka).Datingevidenceshowsthatitispossible

alltheyoungerstructuresatBirkaandHálswereinusecontemporaneously.AtRibeaforge

fornon-ferrouscrucibleworkandafireforheatingmouldswerelocatedinoneopenspace

andwereinusecontemporaneously.Thus,thearchaeologicalevidencesuggeststhatthere

areanumberofpossiblesituationsinwhichmultipleaflarmightbereferredto.

Iñavõllr

Vsp7impliesthattheseaflararerecognizablesmithingandcraftingareasor

structuressituatedsomehowinrelationtothehõrgrochofinageographicallocationnamed

Iñavõllr.Iñavõllrappearsinstanza7andagaininstanza60ofVsp,aftertheapocalypse:

146

FinnazÆsiráIñavelli(60.1-2),“ÆsirassembleonIñavõllr.”168Althoughthereisnomention

ofaflarinthepost-apocalypticsetting,inVsp61someofthemetallicartefactsfirstcreated

bythegodsinVsp8areonceagaindiscovered:

Ãarmunoeptirundrsamligargullnartõflorígrasifinnaz,ãærsíárdagaáttarhõfño.(61.1-6).

Therewillonceagain,wondrously,thegoldengame-piecesinthegrassbefound,thosethatinearlierdaystheyhadpossessed.

Thegold-thatchedhallatGimléinstanza64andthefieldinwhichthegoldengame-pieces

arere-discoveredinstanza61seemtobethesameplaceastheIñavõllr(stanzas7and60)

uponwhichtheÆsiroriginallymeetandestablishtheirsettlementandfirstplayedwiththeir

goldgame-pieces.InVsp62theseeresssaysthataftertheapocalypseonIñavõllrMuno

ósániracrarvaxa(62.1-2),“unsownfieldswillgrow.”Thus,Iñavõllrisrepetitively

associatedwiththeoriginsofsacralspaces,buildingsandremarkablyproductiveandelite

agrariancomplexes,includingparticularreferencetothemetalgoldand,atleastinVsp7,

aflar.AstheinterpretationofVõluspáinGylfaginningsuggests,thesiteonIñavõllrappears

tobecyclicallyassociatedwithagullaldr,“goldenage”(Faulkes2000:15),inaratherliteral

way:thetoponymisrepetitivelyassociatedwithpreciousmetals.

ThemeaningofthetoponymIñavõllrissomewhatunclear.Thesecondcomponentof

thenameisthemasculinenounvõllrinthesingular(vellirintheplural).Võllrdefinitely

means“agrassgrownplain,anopenspace”(Holtsmark1969:99),an“openfield”or“plain”

(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.võllr;Fritzner1864:s.v.völlr).AsHoltsmarkpointsout,it

“isatermfrequentlyusedasanappellativeandasasecondelementinanumberofplace-

names”(Holtsmark1969:99).Holtsmarkalsopointsoutthat,apartfromitsroleinIñavõllr,

thetermvõllrisusedtwiceinVõluspáasanappellative,intheplural.Inthestanza[24]whichreferstothewaragainstthevanir,whichendedbyavictoryforthevanir,knáttuvanirvígskávõllusporna[“vanirwereableto,terribleinbattle,treadwiththeirfeetontheplains”],169thevellirobviouslyareplainsinAsgarñr.Instanza31itissaidthattheMistilteinnwas

168TheonlyotherappearanceofthetoponymIñavõllrisinGylfaginningchapters15and53.AsAnneHoltsmarkpointsoutthesourcefortheinformationinGylfisclearlyVõluspáandthusGylfshouldbeseenasaninterpretationratherthanaseparatesource(Holtsmark1969:100). 169SeveralscholarssuggestanemendationofvígskáasitappearsinRtovígspá,“battlespell”(NeckelandKuhn1962:6;LaFargeandTucker1992:293;Dronke1997:13).

147

growingvõllumhærri[“higherthantheplains”].(Holtsmark1969:102,mytranslations)

Sothemeaningofvõllr,thesecondelementinIñavõllr,isclearandwelldemonstrated.

Scholarshaveproposedanumberofpossiblemeaningsforthefirstcomponent,iña-,

andforIñavõllrasasingleunit.deVriessuggeststhat“shiningfield”isthemostpreferable

option(deVries1977:s.vIñavõllr).AsdeVriesnotes,WillyKrogmannhasarguedthatiñ

sharesetymologicaloriginswitheisa,“glowingfire/ash”(deVries1977:s.veisa,Iñavõllr)

or“embers,glowingashes,showerofsparks,?bonfire”(ONP2010:s.v.eisa).Krogmann’s

argumenthereisbasedupontheNorwegianandSwedishwordid,referringtoafishthatis

alsocalledidmort,idmurt(Krogmannqtd.indeVries1977:s.v.Iñavõllr;Holtsmark1969:

101).Krogmannsuggeststhatthisnamerepresents“anIndo-Europeanroot,thesemantic

kernelofwhichis‘burn,gleam’”(qtd.inHoltsmark1969:101).Holtsmarkpointsoutthat

apart“fromthefish-namethereisnotraceofsuchanetymoninOldNorseorother

Scandinavianlanguages.Krogmannhashadtopostulatealostadj.*iña-appearingasanoun

inthefish-name”(1969:101).HoltsmarkconcludesthatKrogmann’s“solutioncannotbe

saidtobeaveryhappyone.Methodologically,itisfar-fetchedtoexplainanamefroma

hypotheticaletymonwhenthelanguageoftheVikingperiodhadahomonym”(1969:101-2).

Nonetheless,deVriespresentsKrogmann’ssuggestionasthepreferableoption,asdoFolke

StrömandLeeM.Hollander(Holtsmark1969:102).

SomescholarshavedevelopedwhatHoltsmarkidentifiesasslightlyChristianizedor

EdenicinterpretationsofIñavõllrasaparadisiacalplace.Holtsmarksuggeststhatthe

associationbetweenIñavõllrandagullaldr,“goldenage”,inGylfaginningclearlycomes

fromaChristianperiodlaterthantheoriginalcompositionofVõluspá.Thus,thesettingon

Iñavõllrismadeinto

asymbolofthe‘goldenage’which[Snorri/theauthor]reconstructsfromclassicalandOldNorsesources,i.e.hisscholasticandskaldiclearning.HisviewoftheIñavõllrlingersonwithinterpretatorsofourtime.SophusBuggethinksthatthenamemaybealoan,viaOldEnglish,fromthebiblicalEden.Linguistically[this]isimpossible[...]butthetwowordsmighthavebeencombinedbyapieceofpopularphilologyinSnorri’stime.Butthenthetwowordsmusthavebeentherebeforehand,andIñavõllrisstillunexplained.Bugge’shypothesishasgainedbutfewfollowers,butneverthelesshisideahascolouredlaterinterpretations.(Holtsmark1969:101)

148

Asexamplesofthese“coloured”classicaland/orChristianinterpretationsHoltsmarkpoints

toFinnMagnussen’sGudenesForsamlingsplads,SveinbjørnEgilsson’sCampusIdæusand

FinnurJónsson’s“‘markensomaltidgentagersig,foryngersigafsigselv’(‘thefieldwhich

alwaysreiterates,rejuvenatesitself’).SigurñurNordal,inhiscommentarytoVõluspá,goesa

stepfurtherandtranslates‘fagertgrøn,stedsegrønslette’(‘beautifulgreen,evergreen

plain’)”(Holtsmark1969:101).Morerecently,JohnLindowhassuggestedthat“eternal

field”“makesthemostsense,giventhatIñavõllristheterrestrialequivalentofthepaired

second-generationgodsandtheirgamingpiecesandmemoriesthatsurvivethemythological

presentandRagnarõk”(Lindow2002:198).Althoughthesetranslationsmaymakesensein

relationtothecontext,particularlywiththeinformationprovidedinSnorraEdda,theydo

nothaveasolidbasislinguistically.Furthermore,Holtsmarkrejectsthe“notionofIñavõllras

aheathenParadise”,statingthatas“avõllriseoipsograssgrown,itisboundtobegreen,but

thisnotionisnotimplicitinthenameandthereisnoallusiontoitelsewhereintheVõluspá,

andthereisnomentionofitsbeauty”(Holtsmark1969:101).Onlinguisticgrounds

Holtsmarkmakesavalidcritiqueoftheinterpretationssuggestedbythesescholars.

Nonetheless,theassociationstorejuvenationandgoldcouldbeaccuratecontextual

interpretationseventhoughtheymaynothaveabasisinthelinguisticmeaningofIñavõllr.

Asquotedabove,thereisadescriptionofcropsgrowingonthefieldwithoutsowingafter

Ragnarõk,andtheremaybeacloseassociationbetweenIñavõllrandthemetalgold.While

Holtsmark’sconcernsaboutoverlyChristianinterpretationsarevalid,theseassociations

carryidyllicimplicationsintermsofproductionandfertilityinbothpre-Christianand

Christiancontexts.

Ofcourse,thefundamentalissueisnotnecessarilythecontextualmeaning,butthe

potentialoriginal,linguisticmeaningsofiña-andIñavõllr.Inthisregard,Holtsmarkexplains

thattherearetwoviableoptions.First,iñamayhaveashortvowel.Inthiscasethepossible

interpretationsare“iñi,m.gen.iñia‘backwater’,iñia(grœnn)‘ever-.’[...]Etymologically

thiswordmaybegroupedwiththesameetymonasLat.iterum[“again,asecondtime”]”

(Holtsmark1969:99).Second,íñamayhavealongvowel.Inthiscase,Holtsmarkpoints

out,thelikelyinterpretationis“íñ,f.pl.íñir‘activity,pursuit’;theetymonseemstohave

beenproductiveinOldNorse,wefindíñn,f.,íñka,v.,íñinn,adj.;íñia,v.andf.,isalso

groupedwithíñ”(Holtsmark1969:99).“Mostprobably”,Holtsmarkcontinues,“askald

fromtheVikingAgeandhisaudiencewouldassociateIña-withoneofthesetwowords,”i.e.

149

theshortorlongvowel,meaning“backwater/again”or“activity,pursuit”respectively(1969:

99).Holtsmarkexplainsthatthelongvowelisthemostlikelyusage:

theformÍña-wouldatonceberecognizedasthegen.pl.ofíñ,f.,meaning‘pursuit’,asanIñiwouldhaveiñiaasagenitiveform.Theetymoníñ‘pursuit’seemstohavesuchastrongpositionthatitishardlylikelythatahomonymcouldbeusedinamythicallocalnamewheretheintentionoftheskaldmusthavebeentogivehisaudienceassociationsastothenatureofthevõllr.(Holtsmark1969:99-100)

AsHoltsmarkpointsout,the“ÆsirhadindeedmanypursuitsontheIñavõllr”andthe

descriptionsofactivitiesinstanzas7,8and61reinforceacontextualunderstandingof

Íñavõllras“Fieldofpursuit”,or(perhapsmoreprecisely)“Fieldofpursuits”(1969:100).

Hõrgrochof

TheseaflararefirstestablishedonIñavõllraspartofacomplexofotherbuildings

andspacesthatarenotablysacralandadministrativeinfunction.Despitethefactthatseveral

translatorsusethepluralforbothhõrgrandhofinVsp7(Dronke1997:8;Larrington1996:

5),170hõrgr,beingamasculinenoun,clearlyappearsinthesingularandwouldbespelled

hõrgaifitwereintheaccusativeplural.Hofisaneuternounandtakestheformhofinboth

singularandpluralaccusative.Thus,hofcouldbeinterpretedinthesingularorplural,but

hõrgrmustbesingular.Gylfaginningsuggeststhatmultipletemplesorhallstructuresare

builtatthispointinthemythologicalnarrative(Faulkes2000:15).InthecontextofVõluspá

7,aparallelconstructioninagreementwithhõrgrinthesingularmaydictatethathofisalso

singular,butthisisnotnecessarilytosaythatonlyonesuchstructureisbuilt.171Hõrgr

consistentlyreferstoanaltarofstoneoranelevatedandopen(outdoor)space,suchasahill

ormountain(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.hörgr;Fritzner1954:s.v.hörgr;Hermann1996:

63;LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.hõrgr;LP1931:s.v.hörgr;Turville-Petre1975:239-43).

Hofreferstoanenclosedsacralspaceoredifice,e.g.atemplebuiltoftimber(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.hof;Dronke1997:119;Fritzner1954:s.v.hof;LaFargeandTucker

1992:s.v.hof;LP1931:s.v.hof;Turville-Petre1975:239-43).Thissuggeststhat,inthe

170DronkecitesVafãruñnismál38,wherehofomokhõrgumappearinthedativeplural,andHelgakviñaHiõrvarñssonar4,wherebothnounsappearintheaccusativeplural,Hofmunekkiósa,/hõrgamarga(1997:119). 171ConsiderLindow’sfairlyliteraltranslation,whichcouldbeinterpretedassomewhatambiguousastotheprecisenumberofaltarsandtemplesthatarebuilt:“TheÆsirassembledonIdavõllr/Thosewhoaltarandtemplehightimbered”(2001:197).

150

contextofVsp7atleast,suchsmithingestablishmentsandtheproductsofsmithingare

definitivefeaturesofsettlementswithprominentsacralspacesorfunctions.

ThereisevidenceinVõluspátosuggestthatthissettlementonIñavõllralsohas

prominentadministrativefunctionsinestablishingandmaintainingsocialandpoliticalorder.

ThereareseveralinstancesinVspwhenthegodsassembleattheirrõkstólar,“judgementor

councilseats”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.rõkstóll).Thegodsdothisinstanza6before

organizingthecosmosintopatternsoftimeandspace.Theyalsoconveneattheserõkstólar

instanza9todebateaboutthecreationofthedwarfs.Instanza23theyholdcouncilbefore

Óñinnstartsthefirstwarintheworld,andinstanza25theymeetagainattherõkstólarto

determinewhohadpledgedFreyjatothegiant-familyinmarriage.Therepetitivecouncilsat

theserõkstólarclearlyfunctioninasocialandpoliticalway.Therõkstólararealsoclosely

associatedwiththesettlementonIñavõllr,whichisitselftherepeatedmeetingplaceofthe

godsinVsp7and60.Thus,theaflarareestablishedinrelationtoasettlementthatalsohas

prominentsocialandpoliticalfunctions.

WhileitispossiblethattheÆsirwentsomedistancefromthehõrgrochofto

establishtheiraflar,thestanzanonethelesspresentstheworkofestablishingallthese

buildingsand/orspacesascloselyassociatedconceptuallyandchronologicallyifnotalso

spatially.Conceptsofdistinctregionsorgeographicallocationsaswellastravelintoandout

ofdistinctregionsdonotseemtoenterintothenarrativeofVspuntilstanza8,withthe

arrivalofthethreefemalegiantsfromtheregionsknownastheIõtunheimarorJõtunheimar,

“Giant-lands”(8.8).172Thesejourneysacrossboundariesareamajorthematicfeatureofthe

mythologicalnarratives.CluniesRossidentifiestheseinteractionsbetweenthegodsandthe

giantsas,inmanycases,havingtodowiththedesireforresourcesandculturalartefacts:

various“strategiesofpredation”demonstratethegods’practiceofunilaterallyexploitingthe

giants(CluniesRoss1994:103).ButitisclearthatatthischronologicalpointinVsp7,the

so-calledgullaldr,“goldenage”(Faulkes2000:15),suchdistancesanddistinctionsarenot

yetoperative:theÆsirappeartohappilymakeandconsumetheirownwealthatthispoint.

Thus,theaflararelikelyestablishedinrelativelycloseproximitytothehõrgrochofandthe

mainsettlement.TheÆsir,atanyrate,appeartohaveratherexclusiveaccesstothewealth

172ThetermJõtunheimarinstanza8introducesnotonlythegiantsthemselves,butalsothesettlements,farmsandresidencesofthegiants,i.e.theirownmulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexes(cf.LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.heimr).

151

producedbytheaflar.

ThisdescriptionofVsp7,particularlywhenconsideredalongsidetherelated

paraphraseinGylf14,exhibitsseveralofthehallmarksoftheoriesaboutelitecommunal

structuresandnetworksinearlymedievalScandinavia.Thesetextsdescribecentralhallsand

sacralbuildings/spacesthatalsofunctionasseatsofpoliticalorsocialorderforsurrounding

areas.Thesetextsalsosituatemetalworkingfacilitiesaskeyfeaturesintheproductivityand

socialpowerofthesettlementonIñavõllr.Brink,Hedeager,Jørgensen,Smithand

Zachrissonmakeexcellentcasesforforges,furnacesandsmithingactivitiesasintegralparts

ofinfluentialmulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexesinearlymedievalScandinavia(Brink

1996:135-41;Hedeager2002:5-10;Jørgensen1995:217;Smith2005:184-7;Zachrisson

2004:155-6).ThisevidenceagreeswiththeinformationinVsp7andGylf14.Thehõrgrand

hofsuggestsacralspacesthatarecloselyassociatedwiththeworkshopsiteinVsp7andthe

administrativeroleoftheÆsir’srõkstolar.TheinterpretationofVsp7inGylf14includes

descriptionsofaristocratichalls,andVsp8describesgame-playingwithgoldenartefactsin

thearistocraticspaceofatún,“courtyard”(8.1).Allthisinformationiscomparabletothe

relationshipbetweenworkshopsiteslocatedsomedistancefromthehalls,templesandsacral

spaces(suchashillswiththeophoricnames)onsiteslikeTissø,Gudme,Hedebyand

Uppåkra.Furthermore,siteslikeBirka,Tissø,Gudme,HedebyandUppåkraalsoshow

evidenceofpoliticalandsocialcontroloversurroundingareasintheformoftrading

connections,largerampartsordefensivestructures,tradinglaws,andthecirculationof

coins.Archaeologicalevidenceshowsthatlarge-scalesmithingfacilitieswithindistinct

spacesand/oredificeswereactivenearmagnates’hallsinmulti-functionalcentral-place

complexesthatincludedsacralstructuresandfeatureslikethehõrgrochofofVsp7.This

settlementpatternsuggeststhat,inthecontextofVõluspáandGylfaginningatleast,

smithingfacilitiesandtheproductsofsmithingaredefinitiveandformativefeaturesofwhat

Brink,Hedeagerandothersrefertoasmulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexes.Bothlarge-

scaleevidence(likethatwhichhasbeengatheredbyarchaeologicalinvestigationsof

settlementpatternsandnetworksthroughoutmedievalScandinavia),andsmall-scale

evidence(liketheforge-stonefromSnaptunandtheseshortexcerptsfromVõluspáand

Gylfaginning)suggestthatwearejustified,touseHedeager’swords,ininterpreting“the

archaeologicalandthewrittenrecordasdifferentexpressionsofasinglecosmological

152

model”(2002:3).Smithingactivitiesandfacilitiesareintegralaspectsofboththe

mythologicalidealofacentralplacecomplexandthehistoricalreality.

Moreover,asHedeager,Smith,Zachrisson,andotherssuggest,someprestige

artefactsproducedorusedatsmithingfacilities(liketheguldgubber,theSnaptunstone,and

variousironamulets)seemtohavebeenintegraltoforgingconnectionsbetweenhistorical,

elitecentralplacecomplexesandthemythological,sacralidealsofthesecommunal

structuresoutlinedintextslikeVõluspáandGylfaginning.Thisevidencesuggeststhatthe

productsofmetalworkingwerenotonlyimportantpragmatically(irontoolsforagricultural,

domesticandcraftingwork)andpolitically(prestigebroochesfordisplayingstatus,and

weapons).Also,theproductsofmetalworkingwereessentialinforgingconnectionswith

sacralrealmsanddefiningsacralspaces.Thereis,additionally,limitedevidencefromHelgö

suggestingthatthetoolsandcruciblesusedinsmithingactivitiesmayhavebeenofsacral

significance(Zachrisson2004:155-6).

Thisevidencefromboththearchaeologicalandwrittensourcesalsoshows,however,

thatmetalworkingspacesareunderstoodindifferenttermsthanaristocratichallsandsacral

spaces.Infact,thehierarchalandspatialorganizationoflargercentralplacecomplexes

discussedbyBrink(1996:240-1)andsurveyedintheprecedingsectioncorrespondstothe

orderingoffoundationaleventsinVsp7andGylf14.AccordingtoVsp7,first,thegods

meettogetheronIñavõllr(7.1);second,theybuildtemplesandaltars(7.2);third,they

establishforgeswithwhichtomakepreciousobjectsandmetaltools(7.3-4).Thispatternis

corroboratedbytheproseparaphraseinchapter14ofGylfaginning:firstthegreatesthall,

Glañsheimr,isestablishedasaseatofpowerforthemalegods;thenVingólfisestablished

forthefemalegods;finally,thesmithingfacilitiesareestablishedsothatalltoolsand

preciousobjectsmaybemade(Faulkes2000:15).Inthesecontextssmithingfacilitiesare

clearlyofkeyimportanceinthecentral-placecomplex,butitisimportanttonotethatthese

facilitiesareestablishedonlyafterthearistocraticleadershaveconvenedandfoundedtheir

hallsandsacralspaces.TheorderingoffoundationaleventsinGylf14andVsp7reinforces

thatthehõrgrochofarethesacralandaristocraticallydistinctspaces,theonetypeoffeature

(i.e.thehõrgr)standinginimmediaterelationtotheother(i.e.thehof)andnothingelse.In

contrasttothis,thesetextsintroducesmithingfacilitiesinexplicittermsofproductivity,not

necessarilyelevatedsanctityoraristocracy.Thehõrgrochofareestablishedastheself-

evidentandelevated(hátimbroño,“builttallwithwood”)nodalpointsofthismulti-

153

functionalcentral-placecomplex,whileitisexplicitlystatedthattheforgesareestablished

(withoutanyreferencetoheightorgrandeur)sothattoolsandpreciousobjectscanbemade:

aflalõgño,auñsmíñoño,/tangirscópooctólgorño,“theyestablishedforges/furnaces,

smithedpreciousthings,formedtongsandmadetools”(7.5-8).Onesetofstructuresis

inherentlysignificantwhiletheotherissignificantasaproductiveunitinrelationtoand

serviceoftheelevatedauthorityoftheformer.

WhilethesanctityoftheaflarinVsp7isperhapsdebatable,theirroleasproductive

unitsdemonstratingthesanctityandpotencyofthehõrgrochofisclearinboththeliterary

contextandthearchaeologicalcontext.Inherdiscussionoftheformativeroleofsmithing

facilitiesinmulti-functionalcentralplaceslikeGudme,Hedeagersuggeststhatsmithing

facilitieswerekeyattheselocationsbecause“therepresentationoftheworldwasgivena

concreteformbyspecialistsincontroloftheproductionprocessbywhichmetalwas

transformedfromoneshape(scrapmetal,ingots,coins,etc.)intoanother(bracteates,fittings

forswordsetc.)”(2002:6).ThedescriptionsinVsp7andGylf14certainlyevokethissortof

direct,on-siterelationshipbetweensmithingfacilitiesandthehalls,templesandsacralopen

spacesofanelitesettlement.Itisunclearwhatsortofdistancemaybeimpliedbetweenthe

hõrgrochofandtheaflar.Thereisclearevidencefrombotharchaeologicalandtextual

sourcesthattherewerespatialandorganizationaldistinctionsbetweenworkshopspacesand

aristocraticandsacralspaces.Thereisalsoevidence,however,thatduringtheearlyphasesof

settlementindividualworkshopedificesandareasweresituatedinside(butattheperiphery)

offencedenclosuresthatalsocontainedcentralhallsandsacralspaces.Itseemsprobablethat

atthisearlyphaseoftheÆsir’ssettlementtheaflarstandincloserelationtothecentral

aristocraticandsacralspaces,butthattheyaretobeunderstoodasdistinctfromthosespaces

intermsbothofdistanceandspatialorganization.Theestablishmentofforgesandfurnaces

inVsp7isindicativeofthefoundationalroleofmetalfabricationtothepoliticalandsacral

associationsoftheelite,whethertheÆsirorhumankings.Fromasynchronicperspectiveon

thismomentinthenarrativeofVõluspá,thetoolsandpreciousobjectsmadeinthefurnaces

andforgesareclearlyintegraltotheestablishmentoftheÆsir’spoliticalandreligioussway

overtherealm.

Inconclusion,Vsp7demonstratestheusageofaflinacontextofsmithingproducts

andtools.Thestanzamentionstheambiguousauñ,“preciousthings”,whichlikelyrefersto

objectsmadeinsemi-preciousandpreciousmetals.Vsp7alsomentionstongs,whicharean

154

essentialfeatureofthesmithingworkshopwhere,asthestanzaalsomentions,othermetal

toolswouldbemade.Inthiscontextaflmostlikelyreferstoopenforges,sincethesewere

sufficientfortheworkingofbothferrousandnon-ferrousmetals.Thereisnomentionofiron

orebeingextractedorrefined,butitisnonethelesspossiblethatthisisimpliedandthat

smeltingfurnacesmightalsobeunderstoodwithinthereferencetoaflar.Inthisattestation,it

isunclearwhetheraflarrefertospecificmetalworkingforgesand/orfurnacesorperhaps,by

association,totheworkshopedificesoroutdoorareasthatcontainedthesefeatures.Itis

clear,however,thattheseaflararecontextuallyrelatedtocommunalsacralspacesand

structuresaswellasbeinginvolvedinthecreationofothertools.Theaflarareessentialto

makingthesetoolsfrommetalsandperhapsalsofromothermedia,likewoodandstone,with

theaidofmetaltools.

155

AshortnoteonGullveigGullveigismentionedonlyinstanza21ofVõluspáandnowhereelseintheOld

Norsecorpus.AsRudolfFischerpointsout,thisstanzaisoneofthemostdifficultpiecesof

Võluspátointerpret(1963:582).KarlMüllenhoffobservesthatthereappearstobean

assumptioninthetextofVõluspáthattheaudiencewillsimplyrecognizeandbefamiliar

withcertainmythologicalfigures,relationshipsandstories,andthusnoexplanationis

included(1891:96-7).Theso-calledGullveigstanzaisoneofthesefeaturesaboutwhichthe

originalaudiencesupposedlyknewquitealotwhileweknowremarkablylittle.

InthisbriefnoteIwillonlymentionanddiscusstheinformationthatpertainsto

interpretingGullveigasarepresentationofthemetalgold.173Iwillstartbyoutliningthe

textualinformationonGullveig.Iwillthenbrieflysurveythecriticalinterpretationsofthis

figurethatrelatetothemetalgold.Iwillconcludebymakingafewtentativesuggestions

abouthowGullveigcouldbesignificantasasmithingmotififthereweremoreevidence

aboutGullveigherself.

1.TextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspá20,21,22BecausemanyoftheinterpretationsofGullveigdependuponcontextualinformation

fromsurroundingstanzas,Ialsociteherestanzas20and22.Võluspástanzas20-22appearas

followsintheCodexRegius(R):

Ãañankomameyiar,margsvitandi, ãriár,órãeimsæ,erundãollistendr; Urñhétoeina,añraVerñandi –scároáscíñi–,Sculdinaãriñio; ãærlõglõgño,ãærlífkuro aldabornom,ørlõgseggia.(20.1-12)

From there come maidens, much knowing, three, out of that lake, which under a tree stands. Urñr they call one, the second Verñandi – they carved on a stick – Skuld the third. They established laws, they chose lives for the children of people, fates of men. (Lindow 2002: 244 with modifications)

Ãatmanhonfólkvígfyrstíheimi, erGullveigogeirumstuddo okíhõllHárshánabrendo; ãrysvarbrendo,ãrysvarborna, opt,ósialdan,ãóhonenlifir.(21.1-10)

173ForadiscussionofthisdebateseeMcKinnell2001b.

156

She remembers that war of peoples first in the world, when they buttressed Gullveig with spears and in the hall of Higher they burned her; three times [they] burned [her], three times [she] was born, often, not seldom, though she yet lives. (Lindow 2002: 154 with modifications)

Heiñihanahéto,hvarstilhúsakom, võlovelspá,vittihonganda; seiñhon,hvarshonkunni,seiñhonhugleikinn, ævarhonanganillrarbrúñar.(22.1-8)

Heiñr[they]calledher,wherever[she]cametohouses,aseeressskilledinprophecy,sheobservedmagicstaffs;sheperformedseiñr,174wherevershecould,sheperformedseiñrinatrance,alwayswasshethejoyofanevilwoman.(Lindow2002:165withmodifications)

Althoughtherearenosubstantialvariantsinstanza21itselfinHauksbók(H),bothDronke

(1997:89)andNeckelandKuhn(1962:5)pointoutafewminorvariantsanderrorsthatI

willnotdiscusshere.MoreimportanttotheinterpretationofGullveigisthefactthatthereis

aconfusionofseveraldistinctnarrativesornarrativesequencesinthesestanzas.175This

makesanyinterpretationofcausalrelationsbetweenstanzasdifficult.Althoughweknow

remarkablylittleaboutthecontextandmeaningoftheGullveigstanzaintheorderingofR,

thetextofRdoesappeartobethemoreaccuratesourceinthiscase.

2.ThepossiblemeaningsofGullveig’sname ThekeyissuesherearethemeaningofthenameGullveigandthesignificanceof

behavioursand/orsymbolismassociatedwithGullveiginstanza21.ThenameGullveigitself

isatypicalGermanicdithematicforenamethatcombinestheseparatewordsgullandveig.

Gull,aneuternoun,certainlyrefersto“gold”insomesense(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

gull;Fritzner1954:s.v.gull).Theprimarymeaningofveigis“drink”or“liquor”(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.veig;Fritzner1954:s.v.veig;LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.veig).

Thus“gold-drink”or“gold-liquor”arethemostliteraltranslationsofGullveig.deVries

suggestsseveralalternativemeaningsforthename,allofwhicharefemininenounsorproper

names(deVries1977:s.v.veig).Thesesuggestions,aswellasthesuggestionsofother

scholars,maybeorganizedintosixgeneralcategoriesofmeaningforthisonename:

174SeiñrisanOldNorsewordthatappearstorefertotheoccupationofasorcerer.SeePricefordocumentationanddiscussionofseiñr(2002:63-90).175Seefootnote5(onpage3)intheIntroductiontothisdissertation.Hpresentsamajorseriesofvariantsintheorderingofstanzashere.

157

1)Gold-power(thegreedforgold?),Gold-strength,Gold-force,Gold-martial-

strength

2)Gold-heavy-drink,Gold-drink,Gold-intoxicating-drink(mead?)

3)Gold-thread,Gold-wall

4)Gold-cup

5)Gold-disaster,Gold-fight,Gold-war,Gold-militant

6)Gold-standard,i.e.abanner176

AccordingtoJohnMcKinnell’sassessmentofthisbodyofscholarship,the“majority

view”isthatGullveig

isaquasi-allegoricalfigureassociatedwiththeVanir,thattheÆsirburnherinÓñinn’shallinordertotrytoexorcisethegreedforgoldwhichsherepresents,butthatthismerelyleadstoherbeingrebornasthevõlva[“prophetess”]Heiñr,whosenameisusuallytranslatedastheadjective‘Bright’.Theattackonherthenleadsindirectlytothewarbetweenthetworacesofgods,hencetothedestructionofthefortress-walloftheÆsir,theemploymentandbetrayaloftheGiantBuilder,andthustothemoralfallofthegodsandtheconfrontationwiththegiantswhichendsatRagnarõk.(McKinnell2001b:394-5)177

McKinnell,however,scrutinizestheconnectionbetweenGullveiginstanza21andHeiñrin

stanza22178aswellastheprevailinginterpretationsofGullveigasarepresentationofthe

greedforgold.Henotesthatgulldoesnotappearinany“compoundnounswhichreferto

anypsychologicalormoraleffectofgold”(2001b:406).McKinnell’spointhereis

important,butitisdifficulttoruleoutthepossibilitythatanymentionofgoldmightcarry

strongovertonesofgreedandstrife,particularlyinrelationtothethematicimportanceof

goldandgreedinearlylegendsoftheNiflunghoard/Rhinegold.Nonetheless,McKinnell

speculativelysuggeststhatthefirstelement,gull-,“couldmean‘madeofgold’,‘wearing

gold’,‘havingmuchgold’,orperhaps‘belongingtothegods(especiallytheVanir)’”(2001b:

407).AccordingtoMcKinnell,thesecondelement,-veig,“seemsmostlikelytomeaneither

176Thisinformationiscollectedandorganizedfromthefollowingsources:Cleasby-Vigfusson(1957:s.v.gull,veig),Dronke(1997:41,44),Fritzner(1954:s.v.gull,veig),Hedeager(2001:493),HermannPálsson(1996:72),LaFargeandTucker(1992:s.v.veig),LP(1931:s.v.gull,veig),McKinnell(2001b:412-3),Motz(1993a:81),SigurñurNordal(1978:42-3),deVries1977(s.v.Gullveig,gull,veig).177cf.CluniesRoss’sexaminationsof“negativereciprocity”and“strategiesofpredation”betweenthegiantsandthegodsintheOldNorsecosmologicalnarratives(1994:45-67,103-5,115-22).OnGullveigandinterpretingVsp21inregardstorelationsbetweentheÆsirandtheVaniraswellasbroaderpatternsofnegativereciprocityintheOldNorsecorpus,seeinparticularpages199-220ofCluniesRoss1994.178McKinnellpointsoutthatHeiñr’sname“originallymeans‘heath’”,andhearguesthatsheisnotareincarnationofGullveig(2001b:413).

158

‘militarystrength’orsimply‘lady’;thesense‘drink’ispossible,butthereisnoparticular

reasontofavourit,andveigneverappearsintheabstractsense‘intoxication’”(McKinnell

2001b:407).179McKinnellconcludesthat,if“thepoem’sfirstaudiencewereexpectedto

recogniseGullveig,[...]itwouldprobablyhavebeenasafemalefiguremadeof,wearingor

possessinggold,andendowedwithmilitarystrength”(2001b:407).180

3.PotentialmetallurgicalsignificanceofGullveigSeveralscholarshaveusedphrasesthatsuggestthatGullveigissomehowasymbolic

personificationoftheprocessofpurifyinggold.SofarasIcandetermine,thisinterpretation

hasitsrootsinthelatenineteenthcenturywithKarlMüllenhoff’sDeutscheAltertumskunde

(Vol.5).Müllenhoff’sworkhasbeencitedbyseveralmorerecentscholars,butthis

particularmetallurgicalargumentisdifficulttotrackdownprecisely.Forthemostpart,

scholarsciteMüllenhoffwithoutpagereference.Ibelievethepassagethatthesescholars

referenceappearsonpage96ofMüllenhoff’smonograph.181Here,inhisowncharacteristic

prose,MüllenhoffsuggestsonlyinpassingthatGullveigisrepresentativeofmetallurgical

innovationandsymbolism:aufdieeigentlichebedeutungdesmythus,sodasetwadiegötter

beidiesergelegenheitdiekunstderläuterungdesgoldeserfundenhätten,kommteshiergar

nichtan,nuraufdienaturderGullveigunddieihrwiderfahrenemishandlung(Müllenhoff

1891:96),“theactualmeaningofthemyth,thatthegodsinventedtheartofpurificationof

goldonthatoccasion,isofnoimportancehere;onlyGullveig’snatureandthemistreatment

sheexperienced.”182Müllenhoff’sargumentinthiscontextisthatGullveigrepresentsboth

thepurificationofawitch(hexe)byburningandthepurificationofgoldbyburning(1891:

96-7).Tomyknowledge,Müllenhoffnowheremakesanyfurthercommentorargumentthat

Gullveigrepresentsthediscoveryofthepurificationofgold.Heseemstoimplythathis(or

someoneelse’s)interpretationofthismythisasarepresentationoftheinventionofthe

purificationofgold.However,withoutevidenceandafullyreasonedargumentthisis 179Itshouldbenotedhere,asIexplainabove,thattheprimarysenseofveigelsewhereis“drink”or“liquor.”McKinnellis,thus,arguingforaratherdistinctinterpretationofthiselementinthisparticularcontext.Iseenoparticularreasonnottofavourtheinterpretation“gold-drink”:weknowtoolittleaboutGullveigtodismissanyvalidoption.180McKinnellgoesontodiscussindetailpotentialevidencefromoutsidethisstanzatobolstertheinterpretations“Gold-lady”and“Gold-military-strength”.181This1891publicationofVolume5ofDeutscheAltertumskundeis,atleastinthepagesdealingwithGullveig,identicaltotheearlierpublicationofthesamevolumein1883,whichMcKinnellandSigurñurcite(McKinnell2001b:394,407;Sigurñur1978:42-3).182MysincerethanksgotoDr.TillDavyforhishelpnavigatingandtranslatingMüllenhoff’seccentricprosestyle.

159

speculativeatbest.Furthermore,theideaandpracticeofpurifyingafemalewitchbyburning

needstobeculturallyandhistoricallysituatedassomethingthatisdistinctfromthe

practitionersofNorseseiñrinearlierperiods.Thekillingofwitches,particularlybyburning,

hasalongandcomplexhistory,butthishistoryisinmanywaysdifferentforNorthern

EuropeandScandinavia.Sincethisareaofstudyisnottheprimaryfocusofmycurrent

project,itsufficestobrieflynotethatwitchburningsinScandinaviaonlyappearinChristian

contextsmuchlaterthantheVikingAge.Earlier,maliciouspractitionersofseiñrappearto

havebeenpunishedwithbanishment,stoningordrowning.183Thecompletelackofevidence

surroundingGullveigisahighlyproblematicstartingpointforsuchprecisemetallurgicaland

socio-culturalinterpretations,especiallyconsideringthefactthatgoldorewasnotextracted

fromtheearthinearlymedievalScandinavia.184

Nonetheless,Müllenhoff’spassingreferenceappearstohavecirculatedpersistently

throughoveronehundredyearsofscholarshiponGullveig.Writinginthemiddleofthe

twentiethcentury,RudolfFischersuggestsseveralspiritual,ritualpurificationanalogiesto

theGullveigstanza.AspartofhisargumentFischerintegratespsychoanalytictheory,

modernconceptsoftheindividual,metaphorsofindividuatedspiritualpurgation,and

ceremoniesfromBuddhistandHindutraditions(1963:584-6).Fischersuggeststhatthe

introductionofthethreeNornsinstanza20ofVspbringstotheforethefatefulnatureof

earthlyexistence.ThenhemakesthefollowinginterpretationofGullveigandstanza21:Der

BerichtüberdenGold-Läuterungs-RitusalsdererstenheiligenHandlungdesMenschenin

derWeltfolgtdannunmittelbar,geradezualsAntwort(Fischer1963:592),“Theaccountof

thegoldpurificationrite,asthefirstholyactionofthepeopleintheworld,follows

immediately,almostasananswer”.Thisappearstobeacause-and-effect,Christianized

interpretationofpurificationritualsbeforedeathinatextthatisostensiblypre-Christianin

natureandmayarguablynotconformtosuchcausalinterpretations.Fischerdoesnotpointto

anyevidenceofatraditionallyNorseunderstandingofgoldpurificationrituals.

MorerecentscholarshavenotventuredintoFischer’sremarkablycomparative

territory.Nonetheless,passingcommentsresemblingMüllenhoff’sstatementspersist.

183SeeinparticularGuñniJónsson(1948:143),StephenMitchell(1997:17-20)andKatherineMorris(1991:6,17,173-6).ForinterpretationsthatmaybemoreappropriatetothePoeticEddaandmotifsofburningintheVikingAgeinScandinavia,seeByock(2001:77-9,207-17)andPrice(2002:357).184ThereisevidencetosuggestthatimportedalloysofsilverandcopperwereexperimentedwithinearlymedievalScandinavia(Hjärthner-Holdaretal.2002:174).

160

Dronke,forinstance,perpetuatestheinaccurateinterpretationofthisstanzaasawitch

purification:shesaysthat,“whentheÆsirtrytostopGullveig’shostilewitcherybyburning

her,theyfindsheisanindestructibleelixir,rebornpurified–asburntgoldwillbe–from

everykilling”(1997:41).Similarly,McKinnellinterpretsGullveigasagoldenidolinthe

formofawoman,whichtheÆsirburn:“Onecanburnanidol,butjustasgoldemerges

refinedfromthefire,thecultofthegoddessherselfsurvives.Becauseofthis,theÆsirthen

beginawaragainsttheVanir”(2001b:413).AndyOrchardsuggeststhat“Gullveigis

sometimesheldtobeapersonificationofgold,purifiedthroughrepeatedsmelting,or

perhapsoneoftheVanirill-treated”(2002:156-7).

Abrief,butmoredetailed,discussionofMüllenhoff’sstatementappearsinSigurñur

Nordal’sannotatededitionofVõluspá.SigurñurattributestoMüllenhoffaconnection

betweenthephraseãrysvarbrendu,“threetimes[they]burned[her]”,andthewaythatgold

was“fired”(1978:43).SigurñursuggeststhattheOldNorsetermsbrenntsilfrandbrennt

gull(i.e.“burnt”or“pure”silverandgold?)operateasevidenceinsupportofthis(1978:43).

Furtherresearchisneededinordertodeterminewhatexactlyismeantby“purified”or

“burnt”silverandgold(cf.Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.gull,silfr;Fritzner1954:s.v.gull,

silfr;ONP2010:s.v.brennt-silfr,gull,silfr).Theextantattestationsshowthatbrenntgull

referstoaqualitativestandardofpurity,butitisunclearwhatsortofburningprocessor

metallurgicalcharacteristicsthisrelatesto.Itisalsonecessarytodeterminehowthegold

alloysinuseinearlymedievalScandinaviawouldhaverespondedtoheattreatment.Ithas

beensuggestedthatmostalloysofgoldinuseduringthisperiodwouldrespondquitepoorly

toheattreatment(Nerman1982:33).Furtherresearchinthisareaisnecessary.Itremains,of

course,speculativethatbrenntgullwasunderstoodinanyrelationtotheburningofGullveig.

ItisinMcKinnell’sinterpretationthatIseethemostvalidwayofinterpreting

Gullveigasasmithingmotif.McKinnellmakesanattractive(andspeculative)interpretation

ofGullveigasafigurethatissomehowsimilartoFreyjaandÃorgerñrHõlgabrúñr(2001b:

408-412).HepointsoutthatFreyjaiscloselyassociatedwithgold,treasureandseiñr,

“sorcery”.Similarly,Ãorgerñrisassociatedwithshrines,sorcery185andofferingsofgold.

AccordingtoMcKinnell,GullveigisaparallelfiguretoFreyjaandÃorgerñr.Gullveigis

associatedwithshrines,sorceryandthelinkbetweensacralgoldartefacts(i.e.guldgubbar)

andsacralspaces(McKinnell2001b:409-413).Instanza21itisclearthatGullveigislikely 185OneoftheformsofÃorgerñr’stitleisHõrgatrõll,“trolloftheshrines”(McKinnell2001b:408).

161

insideÓñin’shall(SigurñurNordal1978:42).Thisislikelyanaristocratic,ceremonialhall

withsomesortofsacralspaceeitherinsidethehallornearby.McKinnellalsoparenthetically

observesthattheuseofspearstosupportorbuttress186Gullveigissuggestivebecausespears

are“theweaponoftherivalcultofÓñinn”(2001b:412).So,accordingtoMcKinnell’s

interpretation,wecanspeculateaboutstanza21asarepresentationofaritualisticopposition

betweenmythicalfiguresandgroups,i.e.ÓñinnthespeargodoftheÆsirversusGullveig

thegold-figureoftheVanir.187

Someofthisspeculationcan,however,beavoidedifthecorrelationbetweenmetals

ormetalobjectsandparticularmythologicalfiguresandgroupsissetaside.Gullveigmay

havebeenunderstoodasbelongingtotheVanir,butwecannotknowthisforcertain.Ifwe

setthisaside,however,itisnonethelessclearthatstanza21portraysspears(presumablyof

iron)surroundingifnotalsopiercing/cuttingGullveig,whomaybeeithermadeoforclosely

associatedwiththemetalgold.JustasGullveigsomehowsurvivesthreeburnings,itisalso

clearthatitemsofgold(notiron)showresilienceoverlongperiodsoftimeandthroughfire

inVõluspá.188Forexample,theselectÆsirwhosurvivetheapocalypticburningoftheworld

onceagainfindthegoldgamingpiecesfromVsp8(61.2-3).Thegold-thatchedhallatGimlé

alsoappearsunscathedafterthisuniversalburning(64.1-4).Goldappearstofunctionasa

remarkablyunchangedarchaeologicalfindinthenarrativeofVõluspájustasitdoesin

modernarchaeologicalfindsfromearlymedievalScandinavia.Unlikethesegoldengame

pieces,thepresumablyirontoolsthattheÆsirshapein7.7-8arenotmentionedinstanza61

aftertheworldhasbeenburned.Moreover,outoftheninereferencestoironoriron-related

186FortheinterpretationofstyñjaseeSigurñur(1978:42).Theimplicationappearstobeanattack(again,itisdifficulttosayconclusivelywhatismeant)anditseemsthatGullveigissurroundedbyspearssuchthatsheissupportedonallsidesbythem.187InpartofhisworkontheMythandreligionoftheNorth:thereligionofancientScandinavia,GabrielTurville-PetreexaminesÓñinn’sroleasaritualisticfigureparticularlyassociatedwithanimals(1975:56-61),runicknowledge(1975:70-1),war-making(1975:50-6),andthespear:

ThespearwasÓñinn’sfavouriteweapon,andalreadythepoetEgillcalledhim‘Lordofthespear’(geirsdróttinn).HewasownerofthespearGungnir,whichaccordingtoSnorri,wasforgedbydwarfs.InaverseascribedtoBragi,Óñinnwascalled‘Gungnir’sshaker’(Gungnisváfañr).IntheYnglingaSaga(Ch.IX),whereÓñinnisdescribedasamortalkingoftheSwedes,itissaidthatbeforehediedinhisbed,Óñinnhadhimselfmarkedwithaspear-pointbelievingthathewouldgototheworldofgods(Goñheimr).(Turville-Petre1975:43)

Turville-Petrealsohighlightstherecurrentmotifof“giving”or“pledging”avictimtoÓñinnviathegallowsoratspear-point(1975:45-6).Heisalsooftendescribedasthepatronandprotectoroflegendaryheroes,teachingthemstrategyandmakingtheminvulnerabletosteel(1975:56-61).188Whileironcan“burn”ifexposedtoheatincertainconditions,goldalsohasamuchlowermeltingpointthanironandobjectsmadeofgoldwouldnotnecessarilysurviveunchangedinafireofsufficienttemperature.

162

objectsinVõluspá,189sixarereferencestoweapons190andatotalofsevenappearincontexts

ofbattle,strifeandgeneraldestruction.191Thedifferentqualitiesofthesetwometals(how

theydoordonotoxidizeovertimeinhoardsandreacttoheatinpyresorhall-burnings)and

theculturalsignificanceoftheobjectstheymakemaybepartofathematicoppositionin

Võluspá.Stanza21mayexhibitasimilaroppositionalpatternbetweengold(Gullveig)and

iron(spears).

Insummary,Gullveigmostliterallymeans“gold-drink”or“gold-liquor.”Ofthe

speculativeandcontextualinterpretationssurveyedhere,McKinnell’sisthemostpertinent

andattractiveinrelationtosmithingmotifs:a“femalefiguremadeofgold,wearingor

possessinggold”whoispossiblyassociatedwithmilitarystrength(McKinnell2001b:407).

ItispossiblethatGullveigwasunderstoodinrelationtothesignificanceofthemetalgoldin

sacralspaces.Itisclearthatstanza21exhibitsanoppositionbetweeniron(spears)andgold

(Gullveig).Thisoppositionmayberelatedtohowthefundamentalqualitiesofthesemetals

wereunderstoodasdistinct:ironreadilyoxidizesandisusedtomakeweaponsofstrifeand

destruction,whereassacredobjectsofgold(may)surviveuntarnishedthroughfireandover

longperiodsoftime.Furtherresearchisneededtodeterminewhetherornotthemetallurgical

processesandqualitiesimplicitinbrenntgullmightprovidepertinentinformationforthe

interpretationofGullveig’sburning.

1897.7-8,21.3-4,36.1-4,40.1-8,45.7-8,50-51,52.3,55.719021.3-4,36.1-4,45.7-8,52.3,55.719121.3-4,40.1-8,45.7-8,50-51,52.3,55.7

163

Chapter2:JárnviñrandVõluspá40 InthischapterIexaminethesignificanceofthemythologicaltoponymJárnviñrin

relationtosmithingmotifs.FirstIexaminethetextualevidencerelatingtoJárnviñr.Second,

Ianalyzethedifferentderivativesofthenameinbothliteraryandtoponymiccontexts,andI

evaluatepreviousscholarlyinterpretationsofJárnviñr.Third,Iexaminetheroleofbogiron

depositsintoponymicandsettlementconceptsfromViking-ageScandinavia.Ithencompare

thisevidencewithtoponymic,archaeologicalandgeologicalinterpretationsofthearea

aroundtheSchleiinletonthesouthernJutlandpeninsula.

2.1 TextualandliterarydetailsofVõluspá40Vsp.40presentsinaldna,“theoldone”(femininesingular),asthenameofafemale

creature.InaldnaresidesinaplacecalledJárnviñr,“Iron-wood”.MuchlikeGullveigin

stanza21,inaldnaappearsonlyinthisstanzaandinthequotationofthisstanzainchapter

12ofGylfaginning(Faulkes2000:14).TheCodexRegiusmanuscriptpresentsthestanza

fromVõluspáasfollows:

AustrsatinaldnaíJárnviñiokfœddiãarFenriskindir;verñrafãeimõllumeinnanokkurrtunglstjúgariítrollshami(40.1-8)

IntheeastsattheoldoneinIron-woodandgavebirthtotherelativesofFenrirthere;acertainoneofthemallin[the]shapeofatrollwillbecomedestroyerof[the]heavenlybody.192

TheHauksbókmanuscriptpresentsonlythreeminorvariants.Inthefirsthalf-lineHhasbyr,

thethird-personpresenttenseofbúa,“tolive,dwell,reside”,193whileRhassat,thepast-

tenseofsetja,“tosit”(NeckelandKuhn1962:9).194Inthethirdhalf-lineHhastheverb

fœña(“tobearorgivebirthto”195toraise,bringup”,“tofeed,givefoodto”,“togivebirth

192Tungltranslatesliterallyas“heavenlybody”andgenerallyreferstoeitherthemoonorthesun,inmanycasesthemoon(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.tungl;Fritzner1957:s.v.tungl;Cleasby-Vigfusson1954:s.v.tungl;LP1931:s.v.tungl).SigurñurandLaFargeandTuckersuggestthattunglherereferstothesun(Sigurñur1978:80;LaFargeandTucker:1992:s.v.tungl).Hermannpointsoutthatin“Gylfaginningch.12,thedestroyerofthemooniscalledMánagarmr”(1996:81).ThusHermannsuggests“moon”asatranslationoftunglhere.Ichoosetousethemoregeneral“heavenlybody”inmytranslation.193Fritzner1954:s.v.búa;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.búa.194Fritzner1954:s.v.setja;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.setja.195LaFargeandTuckermakethisspecificsuggestionforthemeaningoffœñainVsp40(1992:s.v.fœña).TheyalsonoteothermeaningsoffœñafromthePoeticEdda,including“tofeed”,“toliveon(i.e.in)toodeepsorrow”,“tonurture,rear,bringup”,“tobebroughtup”,“tobeborn”,“tofather,beget”(1992:s.v.fœña).

164

to”)196inthepresenttense(fœñir)whileRhasthisverbinthepasttense(fœddi).Intheeighth

half-lineHhastrõllsinsteadoftrolls(NeckelandKuhn1962:9).

IntheproseofGylfaginningchapter12theversefromVõluspá40isparaphrasedby

Hárasfollows:‘GÿgreinbÿrfyriraustanMiñgarñíãeimskógierJárnviñrheitir.Íãeim

skógibyggjaãærtrõllkonurerJárnviñjurheita.Ingamlagÿgrfœñiratsonummargajõtna

okallívargslíkjum,okãañanaferukomnirãessirúlfar’(Faulkes2000:14).“‘Acertain

giantesslivestotheeastofMiñgarñrinthatforestwhichisnamedJárnviñr.Inthatforestlive

thosetroll-womenwhicharecalledJárnviñjur.Theancientgiantessbreedsassonsmany

giantsandallinwolf’sforms,andfromthatoriginthesewolvesaredescended.’”Afterthis

proseparaphraseofVõluspá40,Gylfaginningthenpresentstheverseinitsentirety,changing

thetenseoftheverbsinlinesoneandthreeandfollowingthevariantsfromHinhalf-lines

one,threeandeight:

Austrbÿrinaldna íJárnviñi okfœñirãar

Fenriskindir.Verñrórãeimõllumeinnanokkurrtunglstjúgariítrõllshami.(Faulkes2000:14)

IntheeastdwellstheoldoneinJárnviñrandgivesbirthtotheoffspringofFenrirthere.Acertainoneofthemallin[the]shapeofatrollwillbecomedestroyerof[the]heavenlybody.

Gylfaginning12interpretsthe“trollshapes”inRandHaswolfshapes.Ratherthan

followingR,thetensesofGylfaginning,alongwithothervariants,appeartocorrespondtoH

here.UrsulaDronkehassuggestedthisshiftintenseinGylfaginningisintentionalon

Snorri’spart.Snorri,Dronkeclaims,“isnotregularizingthetenses[...]justforregularity’s

sake,heisbuildingupadidacticscenery,inthepresent,oftheworld’sstructure,ofheaven

andhell”(Dronke1997:69).Itisunclearwhatevidencethereistosupportthisattributionof

intentionalitytoSnorri.Hpresentssimilartensechanges,andinbothcasesitisdifficultto

determinewhetherthescribeisregularizingtenses,orifthistenseshiftoccursforsomeother

reason.ShiftsintenseoccurinbothOldNorseproseandpoetry.

196Fritzner1954:s.v.fϖa;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.fϖa.

165

2.2SmithingmotifsinVõluspá40ThekeytermofinterestinthecurrentstudyisJárnviñr,amasculine,singular,

dithematictoponym.Thebasicquestionaboutthistoponymiswhetherornotwearejustified

ininterpretingitasasmithingmotif,associationorallusion.Inordertodeterminewhetheror

notthisisthecaseIwillstartbyexaminingthederivativesofJárnviñr,firstinliteraryand

theninhistoricalcontexts.Iwillexaminetheliteralmeaningofthesenamesandthen

examinescholarlyinterpretationsofthesenames.Inparticular,Iwillexaminethepossibility

thatJárnviñrmayberelatedtotopographicalconceptsofbogironresourcesandprocessing

intheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge.

2.3TheformsofJárnviñr:literaryThefirstelementofJárnviñr,járn,isaneuternounandsometimesappearswith

alternatespellingsinOldNorsesources,e.g.ísarnoríarn(deVries1977:s.v.járn).Járn

generallyrefersto“iron”.Itcanalsometonymicallyrefertoitemsmadeofiron,e.g.

“weapon”,“sword”,“shackles”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.iárn;Fritzner1954:járn;

Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.járn).Viñrisamasculinenounreferringto“wood”,“forest”,

“tree”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.viñr;Fritzner1954:s.v.viñr;Cleasby-Vigfusson

1957:s.v.viñr).197ThecompoundJárnviñrmaybetranslatedliterallyas“Iron-wood”,“Iron-

tree”or“Iron-forest.”

JárnviñjurisanOldNorsederivativeofJárnviñrinthefeminineplural.Járnviñjur

appearsintheproseparaphraseofVsp40fromGylf12(seepage164above).Inthiscontext

itisstatedthat“‘acertaingiantessliveseastofMiñgarñrinaforestwhichisnamedJárnviñr.

InthatforestlivetrollwivescalledJárnviñjur.’”Thisimpliessomesortofassociation

betweenthetoponymJárnviñrandthecreaturesthatlivethere,whichareapparentlyfemale

giantsortrollsknownasJárnviñjur,i.e.“Iron-wood-lings”,or“Ironwoodites”asJohn

Lindowsuggests(Lindow2002:205).

ThefemininesingularJárnviñja(i.e.“Iron-wood-ling”)appearsinHáleygjatalverse

two.198AspartofadescriptionofthebirthofÓñinn’ssonSæmingr,Eyvindrskáldaspillir

197Viñrcanonrareoccasioncontextuallyrefertosmalltwigsorwithiesofwoodormetalwires(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.viñr;Finnur1931:s.v.viñr).198RussellPoolepointsoutthatHáleygjatalisonlypartlypreservedandthatthesequenceoftheextantstanzasisunclear.Inhis2007articlePooledesignatesthisexcerptasstanzas3and4,followingFinnurJónsson’sorganizationofthestanzasinSkj.(1967:AI,68,1973:BI,60).InhiseditionofthispoemfortheSPSMA,Poole

166

makespoeticreferencetoJárnviñrasaregionassociatedwithfemalegiantsand,inthiscase,

onegiantessinparticular.Ãjazi’sdaughterSkañi,throughunionwithÓñinn,givesbirthto

Sæmingr:

Ãannskjaldblœtrskattfœrigatásaniñrviñjarnviñju;ãásãaumæríManheimumskatnavinrokSkañibyggñusævarbeins,oksunumargaÕndurdísviñÓñnigat.(SPSMA2001-2010:EyvHál2)

ThedescendantoftheÆsir,shield-worshipped,begattheearl[bringeroftribute=Sæmingr?]withthegiantess[denizenofIronwood],whenthatcouple,renowned,–thefriendofmenandSkañi–dweltinJõtunheimar[thehomeofthemaid/ofthestone<‘boneofthesea’];andSkañi[theladyoftheski]hadmanysonswithÓñinn.(Poole2007:162withmodifications)

Eyvindrisatenth-centuryskald.ThisverseappearsinthreemanuscriptsofHeimskringla,

onedatingfromtheearlyfourteenthcenturyandtwofromtheseventeenthandeighteenth

centuries.Allthesemanuscriptsaretranscriptsoflostmedievalvellums.Substantivevariants

arenotedbyRussellPoole(2007:161n.37,166).

InSkáldskaparmál,Járnviñja,inthefemininesingular,isalsoincludedasanamefor

atroll-wifeinthefourthstanzaoftheanonymousÃulurorlistofnamesforTrollkvenna,

“Troll-wives”or“Troll-women.”ThislistnotonlycontainsthenameJárnviñja,butalso

severalothernamesforfemaletrollsthatmaybesuggestiveofsmithingactivitiesor

associations:

ÕflugbarñaokJárnglumra,Ímgerñr,ÁmaokJárnviñja,Margerñr,Atla,Eisurfála,Leikn,Munnharpa

revisesthisanddesignatesthisentireexcerptasstanza2.IfollowthenumberingoftheSPSMAeditionandemendPoole’searliertranslationaccordingtohismorerecentwork.

167

okMunnriña.(Faulkes1998a:112)

AsIhavenoted,thetwoelementsofGermanicdithematicnamesdonotusuallyrefertoone

another.Severalofthesenamesfortrollwomenareanexceptiontothisrule.Motzsuggests

(andIagree)thatseveralnamesforgiantesses(i.e.trollwomen)aretruecompounds,

meaningthat“thepartsofanameseemtobeindefinitionofoneanother”(1981:498).199

ThisiscertainlythecasewithtoponymslikeJárnviñr,anditisalsothecaseinpoetic

circumlocutionsorkennings.Theinterpretationofthesenamesissomewhatspeculative,

particularlyifattemptsaremadetoexplainaconnectionbetweenfemaletrollsandJárnviñr.

Inthe“Excursus”thatfollowstheconclusiontothischapterIsuggestsomepossibilitiesfor

howthenamesinTrollkvennastanza4mightbeinterpretedinrelationtogeneral

metalworkingmotifs.

2.4TheformsofJárnviñr:toponymicandotherparallelsSeveralscholarshavenotedthatJárnviñrappearstoberelatedtoapairoftoponyms

fromtheSchleswig-HolsteinregionofwhatisnowNorthernGermany.Járnviñrappearsto

becognatewiththetoponymJarnwith.Additionally,thefirstelement(járn-)ofthetoponyms

JárnviñrandJarnwithalsoappearstobecognatewiththefirsttwosyllablesofthetoponym

Isarnho,whichalsoappearsintheSchleswig-Holsteinregion(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

járn;deVries1977:s.v.Járnviñr;Müllenhoff1891:122).Moreover,bothJarnwithand

IsarnhomaybeequivalentinmeaningtoJárnviñr(“Iron-wood”)200andthesetoponymshave

alonghistoryintheSchleswig-Holsteinregion.Tracingthishistoryandthehistoryofother

toponymsinthisareais,however,difficult.ThisareahasbeencontestedbetweenDenmark

andGermanyformanycenturies.After1864theareabecamepartofGermany,butsomeold

“Danish”toponymspersistintheregionofsouthernJutland.Duringthemedievalperiod,this

regiononthesouthernJutlandpeninsulawasalsoafrequentlycontestedborderlandoccupied

byadiversegroupofpeoples,includingtheFrisians,Saxons,Danes,Angles,Franks,Swedes

andSlavs(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:32-42).201Becauseofthisdiversebackgroundof

differentlanguagesandterritorialinteractions,manyofthetoponymsintheareahave

changedorbeenlost(Brink1999:425).JarnwithandIsarnhohaveonlybarelysurvived,and

199SeealsoCluniesRossforadiscussionoftheroleofpoeticnames,categoriesandheitimoregenerallyinOldNorsepoetictraditionsthatmaydateasearlyastheeleventhcentury(CluniesRoss1987:81-2).200Iexaminethesemanticmeaningoftheseandrelatedtoponymsindetailbelow.201ForasuccinctsummaryoftherolethattheSchleswig-Holsteinwarsof1848-51and1864hadinthehistoryofAnglo-Saxonscholarship,seeMichaelKightley’sdissertationonRacialAnglo-Saxonisms(2009:14-5).

168

itisdifficulttoplacetheminaprecisehistoricalandtopographicalcontext.

InhiscitationontheetymologyofJárnviñr,deVriespointsoutthatbothJarnwith

andIsarnhorefertoaforestedborderregionbetweentheSchleiandtheTraveinwhatisnow

NorthernGermany(1977:s.v.Járnviñr;cf.Udolph1984:506-7).202TheSchleiisaninletof

theBalticSeathatextendsmorethanthirtykilometresinland,terminatingneartheViking-

agecomplexatHedebyinthesouthernregionoftheJutlandpeninsula,i.e.theregionof

Schleswig-Holtseininmodern-dayGermanyjustsouthofFlensburg.TheTraveisa

navigableriversome120kmlonglocatedabout100kmsoutheastoftheSchleiinletand

Hedeby.Thisisalargearea,anditmayormaynotbecoincidentalthatitcorresponds

roughlytotheLimesSaxoniae:theLimesSaxoniaewasinpartestablishedalongimpassable

topographicfeatures,includingrivers,tractsofswamplandanddensewoodlands(Goetz

2001:80;Hardt2001a:224-6;Hardt2001b:442-5;Udolph1984:506-7;Wolfram2001:

239).203SomeofthedensewoodlandsthatcametobeassociatedwiththeLimesSaxoniae

maycorrespondtothistractofdenseforestthatdeVriesidentifiesasJarnwithandIsarnho

(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:34;Degn1994:24,154).

deVriessuggeststhatJárnviñriscloselyrelatedtoagroupoftoponymsthatappearto

haveequivalentmeanings,i.e.OldGermanicEisenwald,OldDanishIarnwithandOldSaxon

Isarnho(1977:s.v.Járnviñr).TheNordisktidsskriftforoldkyndighedcorroboratesthatthis

forestwascalledIsarnhoinOldSaxonandJarnwithinOldDanish(1832:272).Duringthe

tenthcentury,thetoponymJernwithreferredtoapoliticalandadministrativedistrict

immediatelysouthofEckernförde(DegnandMuuß1966:42).Thesouthernboundaryof

JernwithcorrespondedtothemostnorthernboundaryoftheIsarnhodistrict.Inturn,the

Isarnhodistrictextendedtothesouth,encompassingKielandfollowingthewesternsideof

theLimesSaxoniae(DegnandMuuß1966:42).204ThetoponymJarnwithhasalsobeen

202“Nameeinesgrenzwaldes,eig.'eisenwald';adäIarnwith'waldzwischenderSchleiundderTrave',vgl.d.Isarnho(MüllenhoffDA5,122)”(deVries1977:s.v.Járnviñr).deVriescitesMüllenhoff’sDeutscheAltertumskunde(Vol.5).203Itisalsoworthnotingherethat“Denmark(Danmark)containsthewordmark‘dividingforest’andthenameofthepeopleDanir.Traditionallythenameisunderstoodasapars-pro-totoname,originallydenotingtheforestthatdividedthepeoplefromtheSaxonsinsouthernSchleswig.Themeaningofthenameoftheinhabitants,Danir,isobscureandstillmuchdebated”(Brink2008:60).204AdamofBremendescribesthisareainsomedetailandthegeographicalboundariesthatseparatedthevariousgroupsandregions:HancautemDaniamanostrisNordalbingisflumenEgdoredirimit,quodoriturinprofundissimosaltupaganorumIsarnho,quemdicuntextendiseensmarebarbarumusqueadSliamlacum(Adam1876:153),“Now,thisDanishlandisseparatedfromourNordalbingiansbytheriverEider,whichrises

169

documentedasreferringtoathirteenth-centurypoliticalandadministrativeregionthat

correspondstotheDanishWohld,atoponymthatsurvivesintomoderntimes,e.g.German

DänischerWohld(Degn1994:154;HeydermannandMüller-Karch1980:2).Thehistoryof

thetoponymsJarnwithandIsarnhointheregionimmediatelysouthofEckernförde,asitis

identifiedbydeVries,appearstogobacktotheVikingAge.

TheformandmeaningofthemodernJarnwithandthetenth-centuryJernwithare

clearlyparalleltoJárnviñr.Thesetoponymstranslateroughlyas“Iron-wood.”TheOld

SaxonIsarnhousesavariantspellingofjárn.Thisvariationisoneofseveraldifferentbut

widelytestifiedusagesanditstillclearlyrefersto“iron”(deVries1977:s.v.járn).The

terminal–hoofIsarnhois,however,notcognatewiththeOldNorseviñr.Itisperhaps

possiblethat–hoistheresultofattritionfromtheOldNorseholtorholz,“forest”,butthis

wouldbeadrasticchange.Ihavenotfoundanycommentaryuponthisdifficultyinthe

scholarshipontheseparticulartoponyms.Theterminal–hoelementinIsarnhomaybe

cognatewithOldNorsehaugr,OldSwedishhög,OldDanishhøiandhoe,meaning“hill”or

“burialmound”(Fritzner1954:s.v.haugr;deVries1977:s.v.haugr).Ifthisisthecase,the

OldSaxontoponymIsarnhowouldnothaveabasisinthesamesemanticelementsastheOld

DanishJarnwithorthemythologicalOldNorsetoponymJárnviñr,“Iron-wood”.Rather,

Isarnhowouldinthiscasemean“Iron-burial-mound”or“Iron-hill.”Sincethetwotypesof

toponyms(i.e.bothJarnwithandIsarnho)doappeartobeassociatedwithslightlydifferent

politicalboundaries,itispossibletheywereoriginallytwoseparatebutrelatedtoponyms,or

thatonerootformofthesenowdistincttoponymsunderwentachangeduetoapolitico-

linguisticbarrierinthisarea.

ThetoponymItzehoe,aboutsixtykilometressouth-southwestoftheDanishWohld,

exhibitsasimilarfinalsyllabletoIsarnho.DieterBergertracesItzehoebacktodocuments

fromtheearlyninthcenturywiththreedifferenthistoricalspellings,Idzehoe,Ezeho,Ekeho

(1993:145).Bergerclaimsthatthenameitselfcannotbeclearlyexplained.Thefirstelement

(Itze-,Idze-,Eze-,Eke-)appearstocomefromtherootformforGermaneiche,OldNorse

eik,“oak”(Berger1993:145).Thesecondelement,-ho,wouldonceagainappeartomost

closelyresembleOldNorsehaugr,“hill”or“burialmound”,anditsvariousspellings,

particularlyOldDanishhøiandhoe.TheGermanengrabburialmound(alsoknownasthe

inthedenselywoodedhighlandofthepagans,calledIsarnho,which,theysay,extendsalongtheBarbarianOceanasfarastheSchleiSea”(Adam1959:186).

170

Galgenbergburial)islocatedinItzehoeanddatestotheBronzeAge(1500-1300BC)

(Haseloff1938:58-62;Müller2010:19-20).Withoutexplanation,however,Bergeridentifies

thissecondsyllableassomehowreferringeithertoaforestorapromontoryoflandbyariver

(1993:45).ThelattersuggestionmayrelatetotheAnglo-Saxonhóh,whichusuallymeans

“heel”buthasbeendocumentedintoponymsreferringto“apointofland,formedlikeaheel,

orboot,andstretchingintotheplain,perhapsevenintothesea”,i.e.“apromontory”

(Kembleqtd.inBosworth-Toller1954:s.v.hóh;Toller1955:s.v.hóh;Campbell1972:s.v.

hóh).Itzehoewas,untilthenineteenthcentury,basedonashelteredislandformedbya

pronouncedoxbowoftheStörriverwithprojectionsoflandoneithersideoftheisland

(Degn1994:158).Thislocationisappropriatetotheinterpretation“oak-promontory”or

“promontorywith/besideoakforest”.NorthofItzehoeistheItzehoerKlosterforst,“Itzehoe

MonasteryForest”(ADACVerlag2004:339;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L2122).

Particularregionsattheedgeofthisforestarereferredtoas–hölz,“forest”,e.g.Klosterhölz,

LübuscheshölzandVorderhölz(ADACVerlag2004:339;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:

L2122).Itisperhapspossiblethatholzorholtunderwentattritiontoformhoandhoe,butit

wouldseemunusual(thoughnotimpossible)tohavecontemporarytoponymsinthe

immediateareathatretainthecompleteholzform.Itispreferabletointerpret–hoasreferring

toapointoflandassociatedwithaforest,i.e.eiche,“oak.”Theroothaugrisalsoplausible

andtestifiedinothertoponyms,anditisentirelypossiblethattoponymsendingin–holz

wouldbelocatedalongsidetoponymsendingin–hoor-haugr.Regardlessofsuch

difficulties,thereappearstobeacloserelationsemantically,topographicallyandhistorically

betweenthetwotoponymsJarnwithandIsarnho,evenifthesecondelementofIsarnhodoes

notrefertoaforest.

Theterminalelement–hoappearsinanothertoponymfromtheSchleswig-Holstein

region.Jerrishoeislocatedaboutfortytosixtykilometresnorthwestoftheareaassociated

withtheDanishWohldandthetoponymsJarnwithandIsarnho(DegnandMuuß1966:211).

JerrishoemayappeartobeadistincttoponymfromJarwith,IsarnhoandJárnviñr,but

WilhelmClausensuggeststhatthethreesyllablesofJer-ris-hoecorrespondtotheOldNorse

wordsjárn-hrís-haugr,“Iron-wood-mound”(1980:374).

ClausenpresentsthehistoryofdocumentedspellingsfortheJerrishoetoponymas

171

follows:Ernohög(1196),Jerisho(1483),Jernshoŋ205(1499),JürgeshuŋandJirrigshöŋ

(1652),JŋrrißhoiandJŋrrishoe(1688),JörrichshoeandErichshoe(1794)(Clausen1980:

374).Thefirstoftheseattestationsisfromadocumentdated21March1196inwhichKing

CanuteVIconfirmshisownershipofthemonasteryatGuldholmonLangseelake,aboutten

kilometresnorthofSchleswig(Clausen1980:375).Thisdeclarationalsoincludesanestate

namedErnohög.Next,aSchleswigtaxationaccountfrom1483mentionspropertyinJerisho

thatwassoldtotheArchdeaconofthechurchinSchleswig(Clausen1980:375).Finally,

anotherSchleswigtaxationaccountfrom1499mentionsindividualswithroyalconnections

residinginJernshoŋ(Clausen1980:375).Theseaccounts,aswellasthelateraccountswhich

Iwillnotexamineindetailhere,clarifythatthehistoryofthetoponymsErnohög-Jerisho-

JernshoŋislocalizedtothenorthofSchleswigandtothesouthofFlensburginthecentreof

theAngelnregion.206Thereare,however,severalchallengestoidentifyingthehistorical

locationandliteralmeaningofthesetoponyms.ThemeaningofErnohög-Jernshoŋ-Jerisho,

asClausenacknowledges,cannotbedeterminedforcertain(1980:374).Itisalsouncertain

whetherallthesetoponymspertaintothesamelocation.Ernohögappearstobeadifferent

wordthanJerisho.Furthermore,Ernohögalsoappearstobementionedincloserelationto

theareaaroundLangsee,whichisabouttenkilometerseastoftheareaassociatedwith

modern-dayJerrishoe.IwillnowdiscusstheinterpretationofeachelementofJerrishoe,

Ernohögandtherelatedtoponyms.

IthasbeensuggestedthatthetoponymJerrishoeoriginateswithanestateownedby

someonenamedErichorJürgen(Clausen1980:374).Twoofthelaterattestations

(Jürgeshuŋfrom1652andErichshoefrom1794)supportthisinterpretation.Brinkpointsout

that“theman’snameErik[...]seldomseemstobefoundinprehistoricplace-names(Brink

1999:431).Thepossibilitycannotbeentirelyruledoutthatthetoponymmay,insome

period,havebeenassociatedwithanindividual’spropername.Atthesametime,however,

thegeneralhistoryofthenamebeforeandaftertheseventeenthandeighteenthcenturies

suggestsadifferentsetofassociationsthanthosethatmightoriginatewithanindividual’s

propername.Furthermore,theappearanceofseveralothertoponymsintheareathatclosely

correspondtoJerrishoereinforcethatthistoponymispartofalargerpatternof

205Clausen’sdocumentpresentsthetoponymsdatingfrom1499throughto1688withthisvelarnasalIPAsymbol,andIreproduceaccordingtoClausen.206SometimesreferredtoasAnglia,themoderndistrictofAngelnencompassesFlensburg,SchleswigandEckernförde.

172

geographical/topographicalassociations,onethatisnotlikelyrestrictedtotheownershipof

justoneestate.Clausenpointsout,forinstance,thatthetoponymJerrishoeisassociatedwith

anothertoponymsomedistanceawayfromJerrishoebutstillwithinthisdefinedarea

northwestofSchleswig.Thefirsttwosyllables,Jerris-,ofthemoderntoponymJerrishoe

correspondtothetoponymJerrisbekwhichisthenameofacreekthatrunsthroughthisarea,

originatingfromsmallertributariesinthenorth,botheastandwestofJerrishoe,andrunning

southintotheTreenenearJerrisbekvillage(ADACVerlag2000:21;DegnandMuuß1966:

211;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1320,L1520).207Theselocationsandfeaturesare

closetothewesternbankoftheTreeneriver,whichrunsroughlynorth-northeasttosouth-

southwestthroughthisarea,ultimatelyflowingintotheEidermuchfarthersouthwest.

FollowingtheTreenenorthfromJerrisbektoJerrishoe,thevillagesofEggebekand

KeelbekarealsosituatedveryclosetotheTreeneandwithintenkilometresofJerrishoeand

Jerrisbek(ADACVerlag2000:21;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1322).Thesuffix

-beklikelycomesfromtheOldNorsebekkr,amasculinenounthatreferstoa“brook”or

“bank[ofariver]”(deVries1977:s.v.bekkr).208BekkrmayhavereferredtotheJerrisbek

creek,theTreeneriver,thebanksofeitherofthesewaterways,thelowlandbogsinthearea,

ortoalloftheabove.

WhileBergerdoesnotcommentuponthehistoryofEggebek,hedoessuggestthat

thefirstsyllableofthetoponymEggenfeldenoriginatesinapersonalname,EtoorEtto

(1993:86).Alternatively,thefirstsyllableofEggebekmaybeassociatedwiththeOldNorse

femininenounegg,“edge”(Fritzner1954:s.v.egg;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.egg).Egg

predominantlyreferstothecuttingedgesofaxesandswords(ONP2010:s.v.eggsb.f.1),or

moregenerallytotheaxesandswordsthemselves(ONP2010:s.v.eggsb.f.2).Several

usages,however,applytotopographicalfeatures(ONP2010:s.v.eggsb.f.4).Onitsown,

207AmunicipalitynamedJersbekislocatedsomeonehundredandfortykilometressouth-southeastofJerrishoe,justnorthofAhrensburg(ADACVerlag2000:64;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L2326).Ihavenotbeenabletoaccesshistoricalstudiesofthisvillagedirectly,butIhavelearnedindirectlyfromtheirmunicipalitywebsitethatthevillagewascalledYrekesbekeinLatindocumentsdatingfrom1310(DieGeschichtederGemeindeJersbek2010:n.p.).Thisearlyfourteenth-centuryformofthetoponymseemstosuggestsomeassociationbetweenanestateandthepropernameofitsowner,i.e.Erik,ratherthananassociationwithJárn.Themunicipalhistory,however,alsoincludesreferencetoasmallvillagenamedFelsenschmiede,whichmaytranslateroughlyas“rock”or“cliff”and“smith”or“forge.”208BekkralsohasearlyIndo-Europeanroots,withaformfromOldSlavonicreferringtoa“bog”(deVries1977:s.v.bekkr).TheOldSlavonicmeaningmayhavebeenpertinentintheSchleswigareaduringtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge:Slavswereoneofthemanygroupsinhabitingthisregion(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:32-42;Roesdahl2008:652).

173

eggmaybeusedtorefertoacliff-topormountainridge,whereasacompoundlikefjallsegg

referstotheridgeofamountain(Cleasby-Vigfusson1974:s.v.fjallsegg).Thereareno

prominentmountainrangesonthesouthernJutlandpeninsula.Aswillbediscussedshortly,

however,thisregionnearJerrishoecorrespondstoatransitionalzoneinthetopographyof

southernJutland.Jerrishoe,Jerrisbek,KeelbekandEggebekarealllocatedinthetransition

betweentheeasternlandscapeofhillsandthecentralandwesternformationofslightlyraised

plains(knownasGeest)(HeydermannandMüller-Karch:1980:2).Thistransitionalzone

alsohappenstocorrespondtothemajornorth-southtradingroute(nowamajorhighway,but

historicallyknownasthe“ArmyRoad”)intheregion(Wiechmann2007:29),whichhas

beenactivesincethemedievalperiod(Degn1994:81,89).Thus,Eggebekmayrefertosome

sortoftopographicalboundaryzoneinassociationwiththebodyofwaterorbogindicatedby

-bek,e.g.“brook[atthe]edge”.

ThetoponymsJerrisbek,EggebekandKeelbek209thushaveahistorygoingbackto

theVikingAgewithassociationstotheriverTreeneandrelatedtributariesandwetlands.

Eggebekmayalsoexhibitassociationstoothertopographicalfeaturesinthisspecificarea.

Jerrishoeappearstobepartofthislargernetworkoftopographicalassociations.Incontrastto

thesetoponymicassociations,Janneby,i.e.“Johanne’sresidence”,isjustwestofJerrishoe

anddoesnotexhibitanyothertoponymsinassociationwithsuchabroadregion:thereisno

Jannebek,despitethefactthatJannebyislocatedjustasclosetotheestuariesassociatedwith

thenamesJerrisbek,EggebekandKeelbek.

AccordingtoClausen’shypothesisthefirstelementofErnohög-Jernsho-Jerishoŋ

(i.e.ern-,jern-,jer-),correspondstotheOldNorseneuternounjárn,“iron.”Thereisone

problemwiththisinterpretation.Theterminal-nappearsattheendofjárninthemultiple

attestedspellingsforjárninOldNorsecompounds(Fritzner1954:s.v.járn).Thisterminal

-nalsoappearsinmanycognateformsofthewordjárninotherlanguages,bothmedieval

andmodern(eisen,éarn,íarn,ísarn,ísern,järn,jern,íren,írsen,ísan,eisarn)(deVries

1977:s.v.ísarn,járn).IftherootofthefirstsyllableofJerishoisindeedaformoftheword 209DeterminingtheoriginsofthefirstsyllableofKeelbekismoredifficult.ThefirstsyllablemaycorrespondtothesamerootasKiel,aharbourtownsouthofEckernförde.BergersuggeststhatKielcomesfromarootformreferringtotheinner,narrowtaperedendofafjord(1993:150-1).WhileKielislocatedimmediatelyonaharbourandinlet,Keelbekisnot.Thefirstsyllable,keel-,couldbeaformoftheOldNorsekeila,afemininenounreferringtoafish(Fritzner1954:s.v.keila).Alternatively,keel-couldoriginatewiththerootoftheOldNorsenounkjóll,referringtoa“longship”,orkjõlr,“keel”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.kióll;deVries1977:s.v.kjõlr).TheOEDsuggeststhatkjóllshouldnotbeconfusedwiththeOldNorsekjõlr,meaning“keel”(OEDs.v.keel,n2).Thetwowordswereoriginallydistinctbuthavebeencombinedsincethesixteenthcentury.

174

járn,thenitisnecessarytoexplainhoworwhytheterminal–nisdroppedinthemajorityof

thelaterattestationsforthetoponymJerrishoe.Onlythefirstattestation,Ernohög,andthe

third,Jernshoŋ,retaintheterminal–n.

ThemajorityofthedocumentedformsofJerrishoe(whichcomesfromjárn-hrís-

haugraccordingtoClausen)exhibitanelisionofthe/ħ/in/ʀħʀ/,thatis,betweenjárnandhrís.ThisresultsinthelaterformslikeJerishoandthemodernJerrishoe.Ifweconsiderthe

difficultyofenunciatingthehypotheticaloriginalformjárn-hrís-haugr,itislikelythatsome

compressionwouldhaveoccurredoverthehistoryofthistoponym.Itmakessensethat

compressionwouldoccurbetweenthe/ʀ/ofjárnandthe/ħʀ/ofhrís,resultingintheelisionoftheterminal/n/fromjárn.Similarsoundcombinationsappearincompoundslike

járnhringr(Fritzner1954:s.v.jarnhringr)orJárnhryggr(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

járn).Forexample,asFritznerillustrates,járnhringrhassimplifiedtojernringinModern

Danish(Fritzner1954:s.v.jarnhringr).Moreover,thefirstsyllableofthemodernNorwegian

toponymJarfjorden,insouthernVaranger,hasbeencompressedfromjarn:Jarnfjorden

(SandnesandStemshaug1980:s.v.Jarfjorden).Similarly,inEngland,irenwasreducedto

ireandyreinsoutherndialectsofearlyMiddleEnglish,whileinnortherndialectsirenwas

compressedintoirn,yrn(OEDs.v.iron,n.1).Althoughthereisnospaceherefora

comparativeanalysisofdialecticalshiftsinsouthernEnglandandsouthernJutland,itis

significantthatthesechangesinsouthernEnglandareroughlycontemporaryandparallelto

thechangesillustratedbytheextantattestationsErnohög-Jernshoŋ-Jerishofrom1196to

1499.TheshiftsinsouthernMiddleEnglishdialectstestifythatinsomecontextsthe/n/

componentwasdroppedfromjárn/ísarn/iren/isen.Furthermore,HenningKaufmannnotes

thatsomeolderformsoftheModernGermaneisensurvivewithoutthe/n/inmodern

toponymsalongtheRhine,particularlyEisholzorIßholznearLeverkusen(1965:96).These

toponymsalsoappeartomean“Iron-wood.”Thisevidenceandlogicisnotconclusiveinthe

evaluationofClausen’shypothesis.ItispossiblethatthefirstsyllableofJerrishoedoesnot

representONjárn,“iron.”However,theevidencealsoclearlyillustratesthatahypothetical

originalformofthetoponymJárn-hrís-haugrcouldhavecompressedintoJerrishoe.

ClausensuggeststhatthesecondsyllableofJerrishoeisthewordríss,“bush”

(Clausen1980:375).ThiscorrespondstotheOldNorsehrís,aneuternounreferringto

“shrubs”,“bushes”,“forest”(deVries1977:s.v.hrís).Thiselementmayalsobepreservedin

175

anothernearbytoponym.GörrisauappearsintheimmediateareaofJerrisbek,abouteight

kilometresduesouthofJerrishoe(ADACVerlag2000:21;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:

L1522).ThesecondsyllableofGörrisauappearstopreservethesamehríselementas

Jerrishoe.ThefirstsyllableofGörrisauisborrowedfromWesternSlaviczgoreti,“roast”

(Berger1993:114).ThelastsyllableofGörrisau,-au,isasuffixthatappearsinothermodern

Germantoponyms.Itreferstoareasclosetobodiesofwaterorrivers(Berger1993:42).It

alsosharesacommonrootwiththeOldNorseá,“river”(deVries1977:s.v.á1f.).The

toponymGörrisaucorrespondstoariverthatflowsfromtheeast,enteringintotheTreene

justsouthofwhereJerrisbekenterstheTreene(ADACVerlag2000:21;

MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1522).Hence,Gör-ris-au,“Roast-forest-river.”Ifthe

secondelementofthesetwotoponymsmaybeinterpretedassharingarootwiththeOld

Norsehrís,thenitsupportsClausen’sinterpretationofthesetoponymsbeingrelatedto

prominentgeographicfeatures(brooks,forests,mounds)inthearearatherthantheproper

namesofestateowners.

TheimmediateproblemwiththissuggestionisthatthefirstattestationforJerrishoe,

Ernohög,hasoasthesecondsyllable,anditseemsimpossibletoconfusethissyllablewith

anyformevenremotelyrelatedtohrís.Clausenoffersnoexplanationforthis,nordoeshe

noteitasaproblem.Onepossibleexplanationisthatthe1196attestationErnohögisamis-

transcriptionfromdictationortheresultofsomeothererrorintransmission,orperhapseven

amistakeduetounfamiliaritywiththetoponyms.Icannot,however,thinkofany

hypotheticalformsthatcouldleadtosuchamistake,andthevowel-shiftfrom/i/to/o/also

doesnotconformtoalogicalpatternhere.Thismay,nonetheless,beamistake.

ItshouldalsobepointedoutthatErnohögmayrefertoanotherlocality,distinctfrom

Jerrishoe.ThestatementconfirmingCanute’sownershipfocusesupontheparishat

GuldholmbyLangsee.Theinformationwehaveonparishboundariesfromthefourteenth

centurysuggeststhatGuldholmwasadistinctparishfromtheregionassociatedwithJerisho

(Degn1994:137).Informationfromtheeleventhcentury,however,identifiesGuldholmand

FlensburgastheclosestmonasteriestotheJerrishoeregion(Degn1994:136).Itisnot

impossiblethattheregionofJerrishoetothenorthwestwouldbeapartofthelandclaim

associatedwithGuldholm,butperhapsamoreproximalsiteisbeingreferredto.

Finally,Clausennotesthevarioushistoricallydocumentedspellingsofthefinal

syllableofJerrishoe:-hn,-hoŋ,ho,hoe,hoi,hunand–hög(1980:374).AsIhavealready

176

reviewedinsomedetail,thesecanallclearlybeassociatedwiththewordforahillorburial

mound,inOldNorsehaugr,OldSwedishhög,OldDanishhøiandhoe(deVries1977:s.v.

haugr).ClausensuggeststhatdieletzteSilbe[...]bezeichnetunzweifelhafteinHünengrab,

vondenenaufderFeldmarkmehrerevorhandengewesensind(1980:374),“thelastsyllable

[...]undoubtedlymeansachamber-grave,severalofwhichwerepresentintheFeldmark.”

Thisisanattractiveinterpretation.Severalburialmoundsarelocatedonthepeninsulajust

southofEckernförde,intheDanishWohld(ADACVerlag2000:33).Estimatessuggestthat

ontheJutlandpeninsulaandthroughoutDenmarkandnorthernGermanyabouttwenty

thousandmegalithictombswerebuiltinthemiddleofthefourthmillenniumBC

(MilisauskasandKruk2002:226-7;Hansen1997:179).Youngermounds(1700-1000BC)

alsoappearintheareaofJerrishoe,suchasthefamousburialoftheSkydstrupwomannear

Flensburg(Breuning-Madsenetal.2000:2).Asmanyas600burialmoundsmayhave

existedintheAngelndistrictalone(Heldt1998:11).Burialsofsimilarage(1700-1000BC)

alsoappearasfarsouthasBornhöved,nearNeumünster(Dreibrodtetal.2009:487).It

shouldalsobenotedthat–homayshareanoriginwiththeAnglo-Saxonhóh,inthesenseof

“apointofland”,“apromontory”(BosworthandToller1954:s.v.hóh;Toller1955:s.v.hóh;

Campbell1972:s.v.hóh).Therearemanyelevationchangesinthisarea,somequite

pronounced,andtherearemanytributaries(MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1120,1122,

1320,1322,1324,1522,1524,1724).Althoughseveralscholarssuggestthat–homeans

“forest”,IhavefoundnovalidexplanationofthisandIsuggestthattheexplanationsoutlined

abovearepreferable.

Inreview,althoughitisdifficulttoconclusivelydeterminewhatErnohög,Jerisho,

JernshoŋandthemoderntoponymJerrishoemayhavemeant,thetranslation“Iron-forest-

mound”isadefensibleinterpretationofmostoftheextantattestations.Theearliest

attestation,Ernohög,appearstoretainthejárn,“iron”,andhaugr,“mound”,components,but

themiddleocomponentisdifficulttoexplain.Despitetheseandtheotherdifficultiescited

above,thetoponymJerisho-Jerrishoeexhibitsstrongassociationswithparticulartopological

features,especiallyraisedhillsorlargeburialfeaturesandforestsorshrubs.Thefirstsyllable

ofJerrishoemayormaynotpreservetheelementjárnthatappearsinJarnwith,Isarnhoand

Járnviñr.Relatedtoponymsintheareaalsosuggestanetworkoftopographicalassociations,

includinghills,escarpmentsorothertopographicaltransitions.Jerisho-Jerrishoeappearsto

havebeenapartofthisnetwork.Tothesoutheast,intheDanishWohldregion,Jarnwithand

177

Isarnhoalsoappeartocorrespondtoasimilarmorphologicalandsemanticpatternof

associationsbetween“iron”and“wood”or“iron”and“mound.”Themythologicaltoponym

Járnviñr,“Iron-wood”,conformstothispatternofassociationsaswell.

2.5ScholarlyinterpretationsanddefinitionsofJárnviñrManyscholarshavepresentedinterpretationsofJárnviñr.Fritzner(1954)andLa

FargeandTucker(1992)donotofferdefinitionsforthetoponymJárnviñr.Severalother

scholarsdo,however,offerdefinitionsforJárnviñr,andtheserangefromextremelyliteralto

historicallyandculturallyspecific(cf.Udolph1984:506-8).Cleasby-Vigfussonsuggeststhe

nameJárnviñrreferstoaparticulartypeofforest,a“mythicalwoodwithironleaves”thatis

“peopledbyogresses”thatare,astheinhabitantsofthatlocation,calledJárnviñjur(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.járn;cf.LP1931:s.v.járnviñja,Járnviñr).CitingtheNordisktidsskrift

forOldkyndighed(1832:272),Cleasby-VigfussonalsoidentifiesJárnviñrascognatewiththe

localnameforawoodinHolstein,nearmoderndayHamburg:theGermanIsarnhowor,in

Danish,Jarnwith(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.járn).Unusualthoughitmayseemto

consideraforestthatliterallyhasironleaves,themythologycontainsotherfeaturesthatcan

seemequallyunusual.Thisexplanationcannotnecessarilyberuledoutsimplybecauseit

seemsunusual.Thisis,however,anextremelyliteralinterpretationofamythictext.Cleasby-

Vigfussonpresentsnootherevidenceofa“mythicalwoodwithironleaves”intheNorse

tradition.

LPinterpretsJárnviñrasatoponymthatreferstostore,tætteogmörkeskove,“large,

denseanddarkforests”(1931:s.v.Járnviñr;cf.Udolph1984:506-7).Thissuggestionis

unusualinthatitseemstoimplicitlyconstruejárninthisdithematicnameasreferringto

dark(járn=blackorgrey?)andimpenetrablequalities.RelativetoCleasby-Vigfusson’s

suggestion,LPseemsappealinginthatitisnotsoextremelyliteral.Largeforestsareoften

darkerthan,forinstance,openheaths,andforestscancontaindensefoliageorunderbrush.

ThereisalsoevidencetosuggestthattherewasadensetractofforestintheJarnwith-

IsarnhoregionduringtheVikingAge(Degn1994:24,154;deVries1977:s.v.Járnviñr).

TheinterpretationinLPmayperhapsbevalidcontextuallybutitisvagueinitsreferenceto

themeaningoftheindividualcomponentsofJárnviñr.LPdoesnotciteanyinstancesin

whichjárn,eitheronitsownorinacompoundword,denotesorconnotesdarkness,density

178

orlargeness.IhavenotbeenabletofindanysuchexamplesinFritzner,Cleasby-Vigfusson

orLaFargeandTucker.

Tworecentinterpretationsofferamoreconcreteandspecificexplanationfor

Járnviñr.TerjeGansuminterpretsJárnviñrassuggestinga“closeconnectionbetweenthe

productionofiron[i.e.smelting]andwood[i.e.asafuelresource]inthemythologyaswell

astechnology”(2004:46).Similarly,RussellPoolesuggeststhatJárnviñrmeansa“forest

[withresourcesof]iron”,i.e.aforestwithinornearwhichironoreorbogironispresent:

Vsp40representsJárnviñrasaforestintheeastwhereatrollwomangivesbirthtowolves;inGylfch.12theforestisdescribedaslyingeastofMiñgarñrandasinhabitedbytrollwomen(Simek1993,179).Possiblysignifiedbythisdistinctivenameisaforestwherenativeironoreoccurred.Bogiron,thestaplesourceoforeintheVikingAge,istypicallyfoundinlocalitieswherestreamsriseinmountains(cf.thenotionofSkañiasresidinginthemountains)andrunthroughanearbypeatbog.AccordingtoEgilssaga(ch.30),SkallagrímrKveldúlfssonsetuphissmithybythebogatRauñanes,rauñimeaning‘(bog)iron’.(Poole2010:pers.comm.)210

Anybogirondepositsandironoredepositsthatoxidizeintheatmospherearereadily

identifiablebyreddishbrownpigments(Breuning-Madsenetal.2000:3)and/oriridescent

oilyfilmsonthesurfaceofthewater,whicharecalledjarnbrákinIcelandic(Short1996-

2010:n.p.).Ironorecouldalsobeextractedfromtheearthorsand,throughasimilarprocess

tobogironextraction.Inallthesecases,regardlessofhowtheorewasinitiallyfound,the

ironorehadtoberoastedandpowderedbeforeitcouldbesmelted(Perkins1969:94;

Evenstad1790[2010]:n.p.).211Bothbeforeandafterthisroasting,theoreisidentifiableby

itsredorreddish-brownpigmentation.HencethetermrauñithatPoolementions,referringto

“redearth”,i.e.haematiteand/orotherformsofironoxideaccumulations(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.rauñi).212

210Poole’scommentherecomesfromanemailexchangeinMarch2010andmaybeincludedasanotetoHálegjatalinaforthcomingeditionfromSPSMA.SeealsoUdolph’snote,inwhichhealsosuggestsapossibleconnectiontoprehistoricbogironoreprocessing(1984:506-8).211OleEvenstad’slateeighteenth-centurymanuscriptisoneofthebestsourcesofinformationonthismethodofprocessingbogiron.Espelunddiscussesitinsomedetailbuthedoesnotciteitextensively(1997:47-58).AspartofherworkontheL’Anse-aux-Meadowssite,BirgittaWallacehastranslatedseveralkeypassagesofEvenstad’swork.ThesetranslationsareavailableonlinethroughtheCanadianMysterieswebsite,ajointprojectthroughCanadianHeritageandtheUniversityofVictoria:http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/lanseauxmeadows/ironworking/4248en.html 212R.F.TylecoteandR.E.CloughhavestudiedthecompositionofScandinavianbogironfindsandpublishedanalysesofthesmeltingofbogiron(1983:115-18).

179

2.6 Rauñi,“bogiron”:toponymicpatternsandsettlementcontextsTheinclusionofrauñiinsettlementcontextsintroducesanotherleveloftoponymic

andsocio-historicalconsiderationstotheanalysisofJárnviñr.CouldJárnviñrsomehowbe

relatedtobogirondepositsortoponymicpatternsassociatedwithironoreandsmelting

activities?PoolenotesthatthetoponymRauñanesexhibitsaconceptuallinkbetweenrauñi,

“bogiron”(Fritzner1954:s.v.rauñi;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.rauñi),andnes,“aness”,

i.e.aprojectionoflandintothesea(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.nes).Rauñanesmeans

“Ness[withresourcesof]bogiron.”Theliteraryandhistoricalevidenceforthisconceptof

bogironresourcesinrelationtoRauñanesdemandsfurtherinvestigationbeforeanyparallel

examinationofJárnviñrisbroached.

ThehistoryofRauñanesexhibitsseveraldifferentrepresentationsofaspecific

conceptofculturalgeography,i.e.theassociativelinkbetweengeographicalfeaturesand

ironoreresourcesinsettlementpatterns.Althoughthetoponymincludesnoelementthat

makesreferencetoawoodlandorforest,inthecontextofEgilssagaitclearlyexhibitsa

culturalhistoryofconceptuallylinkingaparticulargeographicalfeature(aness)with

convenientaccesstotwonaturalresources,bogironandwoodforfuel.

Beforequotingthecompletepassagefromchapter30ofEgilssagaitisnecessaryto

explainthatintheMöñruvallabókmanuscript(AM132fol.)forEgilssaga,Rauñanes

actuallyappearsasRaufarnes(ÍF21988:78).ForsometimenowRaufarneshasbeen

thoughttobeamisspellingofthetoponymRauñanes,whichreferstoaheadlandsouthwest

ofBorginIceland(Finnur1894:93n.17;GeodætiskInstitut1947:Añalkortblañ2.

Miñvesturland).From1908,theÁrbókhinsíslenzkafornleifafélagspresentsthefollowing

explanationbehindthetoponymichistoryofthisheadland:

Nafnnessinsogbæjarinshafasumirhaft:Raufarnes.EnRauñaneservissulegahiñrétta.Ísjávarhömrumblasirãarhvervetnaviñlagafrauñleitribergtegundundirblágrÿtislagi,semvíñahefirlíkarauñleitanblæ.Sumstañarvella‘járnláarvatns’-uppspretturútúrberginu.Enmestberáãvííbergsbrúnni,sembærinnstendurá.Viñãennarauñaliternesiñánefakent.AñvísuersamskonarrauttberglagundirblágrÿtinuíDigranesi(núBorgarnesi)ogviñaráMÿrunum.EníRauñanesiblasirãañhvañbeztviñaugum.(Árb.Fornl.1908:21)

Somepeoplehavehadthenameoftheheadlandandthefarm:Raufarnes.ButRauñanesiscertainlythecorrect[name].In

180

rock-faceseverywherealayerofreddishrockisabsolutelyclearunderabasaltlayer,whichwidelyalsohasareddishlook.Insomeplacesiron-laden-springs[i.e.springsofwatercarryingiron]wellupoutfromtherock.Butmostisbroughtoutbesidetheedgeoftherock,wherethetownstands.Theheadlandiswithoutdoubtknownafterthatredcolour.Infactthesamesortofredrock-layerisunderthebasaltinDigranes(nowBorgarnes)andmorewidelythroughouttheMÿr.ButinRauñanesitismostclearto[the]eyes.

Thisdescriptionshowsthatthereisgoodreasonforthepromontorytobeknownas

Rauñanesandassociatedbothwiththecolourredandwithirondeposits.SigurñurNordal

statesthatthenameRaufarnesmustbeamutationofRauñanes(ÍF21988:78n.1).

RaufarnesandRauñanes,andothertoponymsincorporatingtheRaufar-andRauña-

elements,appearelsewhereinIceland(particularlyinthenortheast)andshowasimilar

tendencytowardsconfusionormutation(cf.ÍF11986:340-1,492).Themeaningof

Raufarnes(fromthefemininenounrauf,“rift,hole”,hence“nessof[the]rift”)maynotbe

unrelatedtothevariouscliffsandlayersofrockthataredescribedaboveandareclearly

associatedwiththegeologyandhydrologyofirondeposits(Cleasby-Vigfusson1974:s.v.

rauf).TheexactreasonsorfactorsinvolvedintheprevalenceofbothRaufarnesand

Rauñanesremainunknown,butbothtoponymsare(atleastonBorganes)clearlyassociated

withirondepositions.

Thefollowingpassagefromchapter30ofEgilssagaalsoshowsthatthetoponym

Rauñanes(orRaufarnesasthemanuscriptwouldhaveit)213isassociatedwithbogiron

smeltingandblacksmithing:

Skalla-Grímrvarjárnsmiñrmikillokhafñirauñablástrmikinnávetrinn;hannlétgerasmiñjumeñsjónummjõklangtútfráBorgãarsemheitirRaufarnes;ãottihonumskögarãareigifjarlægir.Enerhannfekkãarengansteinãannersváværiharñreñasléttrathonumãœttigottatlÿjajárnviñ–ãvíatãarerekkinemamalargrjót;eruãarsmáirsandaralltmeñsæ–ãatvareittkveldãáerañrirmennfóruatsofaatSkalla-GrímrgekktilsjóvarokhrattframskipiáttæruerhannáttiokreriúttilMiñfjarñareyja;létãáhlaupaniñrstjórafyrirstafnáskipinu.Síñansteighannfyrirborñokkafañiokhafñiuppmeñsérsteinokfœrñiuppískipit;síñanfórhannsjálfruppískipit

213Followingtheexampleofmanyeditorsandtranslators,IdonotcorrectRaufarnestoRauñanesinthisexcerptfromEgilssaga.FromnowonIwill,however,useonlyRauñanesinmyownanalysisanddiscussionofthisregionanditshistory.

181

okreritillandsokbarsteininntilsmiñjusinnaroklagñiniñrfyrirsmiñjudyrumoklúñiãarsíñanjárnviñ.Liggrsásteinnãarennokmikitsindrhjáoksérãatásteininumathannerbarñrofanokãaterbrimsorfitgrjótokekkiãvígrjótiglíktõñruerãarerokmununúekkimeirahefjafjórirmenn.Skalla-Grímrsóttifastsmiñjuverkit,enhúskarlarhansvõnduñuumokãóttisnimmarisit;ãáortihannvísuãessa:

Mjõkverñrár,sásaura,ísarnsmeiñratrísa,váñirviddabróñurveñrseygjarskalkveñja;gjallalætkágolligeislanjótsmeñanãjóta,heitu,hrœrikytjurhreggsvindfrekar,sleggjur.(ÍF21988:78-9)

Skalla-Grímrwasagreatiron-smithandusedtodoalotofbog-iron-smeltingduringthewinter;hehadasmithybuiltneartheseawellawayfromBorginthatplacecalledRaufarnes;itseemedtohimtheforestwasnotsofarawaythere.Buthecouldgetnostoneinthatplacewhichwouldbehardorlevelenoughsothatitseemedtohimgoodtohammerironupon–becauseinthatplacethereisnothingexceptbeachpebbles;therearefinesandsallalongthesea–thatwasoneeveningwhenothermenwenttosleepthatSkalla-Grímrwenttotheshoreandlaunchedtheeight-oaredshipheownedandrowedouttoMiñfjarñareyjar;heletdropthenastoneanchorfrom[the]bowoftheship.Thenhesteppedoverboardanddovedownandbroughtupwithhimselfastoneandloadeditupintotheship;thenhewentupintotheshiphimselfandrowedtolandandcarriedthestonetohissmithyandputitdownbeforethedoorsofthesmithyandhehammeredironwiththatthereafterwards.Thatstonestillliesinthatplaceandagreatamountofslagalongsideitanditcanbeseenthatthestonehasbeenhammeredontopandthatitisasurf-wornrockandthereisnootherrocklikeitthereandagreaterweightcannotnowbeliftedbyfourmen.Skalla-Grímrwasveryeageraboutworkinthesmithy,buthisfarmhandscomplainedaboutthatandthoughtthetimetoriseinthemorningwasearly;thenhe[Skalla-Grímr]composedthisverse:

Veryearlymustthetreeofiron[blacksmith]rise,hewhoshalldemandwealthfromthewind-suckingclothesofthebrotherofthesea[smith’sbellows].Imakesledge-hammersringonthehotgoldoftheenjoyerofthebeam[glowingiron],whilethewind-

182

greedymovinghovelsofthewind[smith’sbellows]howl.214

ThetoponymRauñanesandthetermfortheprocessofsmeltingbogiron(rauñablastr)are

morphologicallyparallelinconstruction.Thesecompoundwordsestablishthecultural

landscapeofsmithinginsettlement-periodIceland.Thesmithyislocatedsomedistance

awayfromthemainsettlementcomplex.Thesmithyisestablishedsothatitisclosetoa

sourceoffuel:woodfromtheforestmustbebakedinlargevolumestoproducetheamounts

ofcharcoalnecessaryforsmeltingprocedures.AsthetoponymRauñanessuggests,the

smithyisalsoclosetolowlandsrichinrauñi,“bogiron”,deposits.Thenarrationemphasizes

thatthelastingevidenceofblacksmithingworkfunctionsasanimportant,evenmonumental,

featureinthehistoricallysituatedculturalgeographyofthisregion.215Thisexcerptfrom

Egilssagademonstratesthatironsmeltingpracticeswereaprominentfeatureinthecultural

landscape.Skalla-Grímr’sactivitiesliterallyshapethelandscapeintermsofmonumentaland

archaeologicalimprintsinthelandscapeovertime,andtheseimprintsareevidenceofa

culturalgeographythatconnectsbogironresourcestowood(fuel)resources.

Moreover,evidencefromliterary,historicalandarchaeologicalsourcesshowsthat

thereisclearlyahistoryofsocialnetworkinginrelationtothesegeographicalassociations

andbogironresources.AccordingtotheMelabókmanuscriptofLandnámabók,amanis

nicknamedRauña-BjõrnbecauseheblésfyrstrmannarauñaáÍslandi(ÍF11986:87n.),

“wasthefirstofmeninIcelandwhosmeltedbogiron.”Rauña-BjõrnisaNorwegianwho

establisheshisfamilyinIcelandearlyinthesettlementperiod.HebuyslandfromSkalla-

Grímr(ÍF11986:88-90),whichsuggestsacloseinteractionbetweentworenownedearly

settlerswhoarealsoskilledbogironsmeltersandblacksmiths.Thatthefirstinstanceof

smeltingbogironisanoteworthyandnetworkedhistoricaleventinLandnámabókspeaksto

thesignificanceofthispracticeassomethingthatshapedtheculturalgeographyofmedieval

Scandinavia(cf.Smith2005:184,187).216

214IhavefollowedBjarniEinarsson’stranslationofthisverseclosely,withsomemodifications(cf.Bjarni2003:42n). 215Writingin1933,SigurñurNordalechoesthephrasefromthesagaitself(quotedabove),observingonceagainthatevidenceofbogironsmeltingcanstillbefoundonRauñanes(ÍF21988:78n.1).216Furthermore,Skalla-GrímrisalsotransplantingintothenewIcelandicsocietythesocialorganizationandworkethicthathisfathersuccessfullydemonstratedinNorway:attheoutsetofthesagawearetoldthatKveld-Úlfr(Skalla-Grímr’sfather)wasrichinbothgoodsandlands,afigureofgreatauthorityandanexceptionallyablefarmer.Kveld-Úlfrisnotasmith,asisobviouslythecasewithSkalla-Grímr,butKveld-Úlfrissaidtohavebeeninthehabitofrisingveryearlyinthemorninginordertolookoverhiscattleandcornfields,aswellastheactivitiesofhislabourers(sÿslumañr)andskilledcraftsmen(smiñir)(ÍF21988:1).Kveld-Úlfrisanexemplary

183

Furthermore,KevinSmith’sstudiesofthefarmsteadatHálsinIcelandshowthatbog

ironwascollected,roasted,storedandsmeltedonafarmsteadthatwasoccupiedfromthe

lateninthcentury(Smith2005:188).ThisfarmsteadisintheBrogarfjörñurdistrict

associatedwiththeextensivelandclaimmadebySkalla-Grímr(Smith2005:203).Smith’s

datingofthesitecorrespondstotheninth-andearlytenth-centurysettlementperiodandthe

datingoftheeventsdescribedinbothEgilssagaandLandnámabók.However,Hálsisnot

likelytocorrespondtoSkalla-Grímr’sownmetalworkingsite,forRauñanesappearstohave

beenlocatedfarthersouthwest,closertoBorg,nearLeirulœkrontheBorgarfjõrñrinlet(ÍF1

1986:“LandnámSkalla-Gríms”;LandnámsseturÍslands2010:“EgilsSagaRevealed”).

Rauña-Bjõrn’slandclaimcorrespondsmorecloselytotheinlandareaassociatedwithHáls

(Smith2005:203;ÍF11986:“LandnámSkalla-Gríms”).

YetanotherinfluentialsmithismentionedinLandnámabók.Chapter328describesa

manwhoissuggestivelycalledHrolfrhõggvandi,orHrolfr“TheStriker”(ÍF11986:328).

HrolfroncefarmedataplacecalledMoldatúninNorway.HissonsarecalledVémundrand

Molda-Gnúpr,andtheywererenownedinNorway,beforetheymovedtoIceland,as

vígamennmiklirokjárnsmiñir,“greatfightersandblacksmiths”(ÍF11986:328).The

genealogicalinfluenceofthisfamilyisstronginIceland,anditisultimatelysaidto

contributetotheSturlungfamily(ÍF11986:329),oneofthemajorfamiliesinpowerin

thirteenth-centuryIceland.Vémundr,likeSkalla-Grímr,alsorecitesaversewhenheisinthe

smithy:

Ekbareinnafellifubanaorñ.Blástumeir!(ÍF11986:328)

I,justbymyself,becamethebaneofeleven[men].Blowharder!

Thisverseclearlycomesacrossasathreateningimperativetopumpthebellowsharderor

die.Vémundrpresentsafearsomefigurebothinthesmithyandatbattle.Itisnonetheless

clearthatthisblacksmithisaninfluentialfigureinsocietyandhistory,workinginhissmithy

andcommunitybycoordinating(andmotivating)aworkforce.

figurewithrespecttotheagrarianmulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexandaristocraticassociationsoftheworkofskilledcraftsmen.Skálla-Grímrisasimilarlyimpressiveandinfluentialfigure.Heisaniñjumañrmikill,“agreathard-workingman”,askipasmiñrmikill,“agreatship-builder”,andajárnsmiñrmikill,“agreatiron-smith”(ÍF21988:75,78).ForSkalla-Grímr,hisworkethicandskillsasaniron-smitharepartandparcelofhisroleasasuccessfulleaderofanearlysettlementandasamanagerandcoordinatorofaworkgroup.

184

Anotherkeyinstanceoftheculturalgeographyofsmithingresourcesandtheuseof

thetermrauñiappearsinthethirteenth-centuryKonungsskuggsjá,atreatisewrittenforthe

educationofMagnúslagabœtir(b.1238d.1280),thesonofKingHákonHákonarson.Inthe

father-sondialogueofthistreatise,thefatherdescribesthebogironresourcesthataboundin

Iceland:

Áãvilandiermálmrsámikill,erjárnskalafgera,okkallamennãannmálmrauñaeptirmállÿzkusinni,oksvakallamennhérmeñoss.Ensámálmrhefirveritœrinneinndagfundin,okmennhafaætlatatbúaannandagferñsínaãangat,okblásaãarokgerajárnaf,ãáhefirsárauñihorfitsváíbrott,atengimañrveithvarhannkomniñr,okerãatkallatáãvílandirauña-undr.(Keyseretal.1848:37)

Inthatlandthatoreisabundant,whichironismadeoutof,andpeopletherecallthatorebogironaccordingtotheirlanguage,andsopeoplecallithereamongstourselves.Whenenoughofthatorehasbeenfoundoneday,andpeoplehaveplannedtopreparethenextdayfortheirjourneythence,andtosmeltinthatplaceandmakeironoutof[it],thenhasthatbogironwithdrawnaway,suchthatnooneknowsfromwhereitcomesbelow,andthisiscalledinthatlandthebog-iron-marvel.

Thispassageemphasizestheimportanceofidentifyinggeographicallocationsthatarerichin

bogiron.Italso,however,characterizesthesedepositsassometimesfleetingorunstable.The

humanimpactonthelandscapefollowingsettlementinIcelandactuallyincreasedthe

numberofwetlandsandthusalso,insomeareas,mayhaveincreasedthepresenceofbog

iron(Smith1995:334-9).Thisrauña-undrphenomenonmaysuggestthatthehumanimpact

onthelandscape(and/orotherfactors)madesomebogirondepositslessstableandmore

fleeting,perhapsalsoincreasingtheawarenessoftheneedtomanageresourceslike

woodlands(McGovernetal.2007:45-6;Smith1995:339).

Furthermore,asRauña-Bjõrn’sNorwegianextractionandexpertiseshows,these

practiceswerenotlimitedtoIceland.ArneEspelund’sresearchidentifiesthelonghistoryof

bogironprocessingthroughoutScandinaviafrommedievaltimesthroughtotheendofthe

pre-industrialera(Espelund1997:47-57).JustasSkalla-Grímr’sworkisseasonal,sotoothe

Norwegianwordjernvinnareferstoseasonaliron-smeltingactivitiesthattookplaceatmore

thanonehundredsitesfromatleastc.1455toc.1645(Espelund1997:47-8).Thereisalso

evidenceofbogironprocessingatL’Anse-aux-MeadowsinNewfoundland,showingthat

185

thesetechniqueswerehighlyportableandthattheirhistoricalusagecorrespondstothedates

andeventsofEiríkssagarauña(Wallace2006:59-63).

Flóamannasagapreservesanotherpieceofliteraryandhistoricalevidencethatthis

topographicconceptofbogironresourcesandprocessingtechniquestraveledwiththe

Scandinavians.Thissagaappearsintwokeyredactions.Theshorterredactionappearsin

severallatepapermanuscripts,whilethelongerredactionisonlypreservedinthevellum

manuscriptAM445b4toandacopyofthisvellum,AM5154to(Perkins1969:93).

AccordingtoGuñbrandurVigfússonandFrederickYorkPowell(1905:630-1),Björn

Sigfússon(1958:429-51)andRichardPerkins(1969:93),thelongerredactionofFlóamanna

sagarepresentsamoreoriginalformoftheworkthantheshorterpapermanuscripts.

Accordingtobothredactions,ÃorgilsØrrabeinsstjúprisshipwreckedonthecoastof

Greenlandwithhiscompanions.Afterbeingforcedtospendtwowintersthere,Ãorgils’s

slavesmurderhiswifeandescapewiththeboatthatÃorgilshasbeenbuilding.After

spendingathirdwinteratthesamesite,Ãorgilsandhiscompanionsescapeinaskinboatand

thelongerredactionincludesabriefandenigmaticaccountfromtheirjourneysthatisnot

preservedintheshorterredaction.PerkinsinterpretsthisaccountasdescribingÃorgilsand

hiscompanionsdiscoveringaninscribedverseuponanobject(perhapsanoar)leftbehindby

theescapedslaves(1969:93).

Vaskatekdasi,erekãessadróoptósjaldanáratborñi;sjágerñimérsáralófa,meñanheimdragihnauñatrauña.(ÍF131991:291-2)

“IwasnolaggardwhenIpulledthisoar,againandagain,attheship’s(boat’s)side.Itgavemesorepalms,whilethestay-at-homebeatatbog-ore.”(Perkins1969:95)217

FinnurJónssonidentifiesthisverseasbelongingtothetenthcentury,probablyaroundthe

year987(1967AI:185).Perkinspointsoutthattheverse,asinterpreted,juxtaposes“two

descriptionsofrhythmicalmotions:thepullofthesailor’soarinthefirstsixlinesisset

againstthebeatingofthestay-at-home’shammerinthelasttwo”(1969:96).Hearguesthat

thisversemayoriginallyhavecomefromanoraltraditionofrhythmicalchantsassociated

217SeePerkinsforadetailedanalysisanddocumentationofhowtheverseisinterpreted(1969:93-95).

186

withparticularlyrepetitiveactivities,likerowingandsmithing(e.g.beatingmetal,pumping

bellows)(Perkins1969:96-101).Theversedoesnotappearinacontextthatwouldsuggest

ironsmeltinginGreenland,butitdoesprovidefurtherevidencethatknowledgeofbogiron

processingtraveledwiththeScandinaviansduringthisperiod.Italsosuggeststherewasa

historyofassociationsbetweenrauñi,“bogiron”,andtheprocessingofthisresourcein

particularlyfixedgeographicallocationsaspartofrelativelyindoorsorlocalwayoflife.In

contrasttothemanwhorowsaboat(perhapstocatchfishortrade),themanwhoworkson

bogironistheheimdragi,theonewhostaysatafarmsteadcomplexsituatedclosetofire,

shelterandtheresourcesneededforharvestingandprocessingtheore.

JørnSandnesandOlaStemshaug’sNorskStadnamnleksikon(1980)identifiesseveral

Norwegiantoponymsthatalsopreservetheelementrauñi,“bogiron”,whichisnowcalled

myrmalminModernNorwegian.Rauda,“redriver”,andRauland(fromRauñaland,“landof

bogiron”)bothappearintheTelemarkareaandarerelatedtoONrauñi,“bogiron”(Sandnes

andStemshaug1980:s.v.Rau(d)a,Rauland;cf.Olsen1926:110,204).Theelementrød-

appearsinnumeroustoponymsthroughoutNorwayandinsomecasesappearstocomefrom

ONraud,adj.“red”,butinothersitappearstocomefromONrauñi,m.“bogiron”(Sandnes

andStemshaug1980:s.v.Rødberg,cf.Rødungen).SandnesandStemshaugalsonotethatthe

elementjarn-appearsinmanyNorwegiantoponymsandisregularlyassociatedwithrivers

thatcarrysubstantialamountsofironintheirwateraswellaslocationswherebogiron

smeltingtookplace(1980:s.v.Jarn-,Jarfjorden).

InadditiontotheseScandinaviancontexts,severaltoponymsinNottinghamshire,

Bedfordshire,Oxfordshire,YorkshireandNorthumberlandalsoincorporatederivativesof

OldNorserauñr,OldEnglishrēadorOldSaxonrōd(deVries1977:s.v.rauñi,rauñr;OED:

s.v.red;Smith1970:s.v.rauñr).Inthesecasesrauñrisusuallyan“allusiontothecolourof

thesoil”,andseveralinstancesarealsoclearlyassociatedwithirondepositsandearly

medievalironworking(Smith1970:s.v.rauñr).Unlessotherwisenoted,allthefollowing

toponymsaredocumentedintheDomesdayBook(c.1086).Watts(2004)succinctly

documentsthehistoryofformsforallthesetoponyms:

187

• Radcliff,Ratcliffe,Rawcliffe,“redclifforbank”(Lewis1845:614,618;Mills

1991:s.v.Radcliffe,Rawcliffe;Smith1961b:s.v.Rawcliffe;Watts2004:s.v.

Radcliff,Radclive,Ratcliffe,Rawcliffe).218

• Radford,“redford”(Watts2004:s.v.Radford;Watts2004:s.v.Radford;Whynne-

Hammond2007:209-10;).

• Radley,“(thesettlementatthe)redwoodorclearing”(Watts2004:s.v.Radley).219

• Radway,“(the)redway”(Watts2004:s.v.Radway).220

• Radwell,“redspringorstream”(Mills1991:s.v.Radwell;Watts2004:s.v.

Radwell).

• Rathmell,“redsandbank”(Lewis1845:614;Mills1991:s.v.Rathmell;Smith

1961c:s.v.Rathmell;Watts2004:s.v.Rathmell).

o TheOldIcelandictoponymRauñamelrhasbeennotedasaparallelhere

(Smith1961c:s.v.Rathmell).InLandnámabók,Rauñamelrreferstothe

landclaimofthehõfñingimikill,“greatchieftain”,ÃorirGrímsson,whichis

locatedneartwored-colouredsanddunesaboutfortykilometresnorth-

northwestofSkalla-Grímr’sfarmsteadandsmithyatRauñanes(cf.ÍF1

1986:96-8,“LandnámSkalla-Gríms”).Whilethereisnomentionofiron

smeltinginassociationwithRauñamelr,Landnámabókdoesrecounta

curiousstoryofÃorir,asanoldblindman,goingoutsideoneeveningand

havingavisionofagreatandevil-lookingmanrowinguptheriverina

218CharlesWhynne-HammondnotesthatRadcliffeonTrent,alongwithmuchofNottinghamshire,“hasaninterestinggeology,successivebandsofsedimentaryrockrunningnorthtosouth:sandstone,clays,limestones.Thesetwovillagesstandonthekeupermarlplateau,whichgivesaredclaysoil.”(2007:209-10).Lewisalsonotesthat,“nearthevillage[ofRatcliffeonTrent]isaperpendicularcliffofredclay,fromwhichtheparishtookitsname”(Lewis1845:s.v.Ratcliffe-on-Trent).NotfarfromRadcliffeonTrentisthetoponymWorksop:“Theprefixherederivesfromweorc,butwhetherthiswasapersonalname,orreferredtoabuildingisnotknown.ThesuffixisfromtheSaxonwordhopmeaningasmallnarrowvalley.IntheDomesdayBooktheplacewascalledWerchesope”(Whynne-Hammond2007:210).AbouttenkilometresfromRatcliffee(nearConistonWaterinCumbria),Tylecotenotesthat“redhematite,charcoal”and“typicalbloomeryslag”havebeenfoundalongwiththeremainsoffourfurnaces(Tylecote1986:185).ThisevidencecorrespondstoestimatesofthirtysimilarsitesaroundConiston,likelydatingtothethirteenthtosixteenthcenturies(1986:185).219TheearliestrecordforRadleyisfromc.1180(Watts2004:s.v.Radley).220“ThereferenceistoanancienttrackwayrunningfromBrailesbelowEdgeHilltoKnightcote[...]andtotheredcolouroftheearth”(Watts2004:s.v.Radway).

188

járnnõkkvi,“iron-boat”(ÍF11986:97-8).Thismandigsatthegatetoa

sheeppen,andthatnightalavaeruptionbeginswherehewasdigging.

• Rawmarsh,“redmarsh”(Mills1991:s.v.Rawmarsh;Smith1961a:s.v.

Rawmarsch;Watts2004:s.v.Rawmarsh).221

• Rotherham,“homesteadorestateontheRotherriver”(Watts2004:s.v.

Rotherham).222

• Rothbury,“(thesettlementat)theredfortification”(Watts2004:s.v.Rothbury).223

221Thereis“redearth[...]everywhereaboutRawmarsh”andthisisthoughtto“havegivenoccasiontothename”(Smith1961a:s.v.Rawmarsch).SamuelLewisnotesthatfollowing1066theestateofRawmarshwasdividedintothreemanors,Rawmarsh,WhetecroftandKilnhurst(1845:619).HenotesthatRawmarshisparticularlyknownforexcellentcoalminesandexcellentearthenwareandclay,aswellasatraditionofprocessingironatKilnhurstmanor.LewisdescribesthelandscapeandactivitiesaroundtheKilnhurstmanor,ontheriverDon:

Thesurfaceisdiversifiedwithhillanddale,andthesoilisgenerallyfertile;thesubstratumaboundswithcoal,ofwhichthereareminesinoperation,andalsowithclayofexcellentqualityforearthenwareandpottery.[...]ThevillagestandsontheridgeofahillrisingfromthevalleyoftheDon,andontheroadtoPontefract;itisneatlybuilt,andtheinhabitantsareemployedintheneighbourhingcollieries,andinthemanufactureofsteelandiron,forwhichthereareextensiveworksinthehamletsofKilnhurstandPark-Gate.Therearelikewisesomelargepotteriesforthemanufactureofwhiteandcolouredearthenware.TheNorth-Midlandrailwaypassesthroughtheparish.[...]Thechurch,anancientstructureintheNormanstyle,wastakendown,withtheexceptionofthetower,andrebuiltin1839.(Lewis1845:618)

222ThereareseveralpossibleinterpretationsoftherootformandsemanticmeaningbehindthethreedifferentriversnamedRother(Gover,MawerandStenton1933:118-9;Lewis1845:670-5;Watts2004:509).Whiletheexactmeaningoftherootformofthesenamesisamatterofsomedebate,itisclearfromLewis’sobservationsthattheareaaroundRotherham(westridingofYork),hasalonghistoryofactivitiesrelatedtoironoreprocessing:“thedistrictaboundsinmineralwealth;andcoalandironorearefoundingreatfusion,andhavebeenwroughtfromaveryremoteperiod.Thetownwasformerlycelebratedforitsmanufactureofedgetools;andin1160,therewereminesofiron-stone,smelting-furnaces,andforgesintheneighbourhood”(Lewis1845:672).223Rothburyisalsosubjecttothedebatenotedabove(cf.footnote222immediatelyabove).Tylecotenotestheevidenceofanore-roasterandfurnaceinMinepitWood,Rotherfield(Sussex),datingtoatleastthefourteenthcentury(Tylecote1986:179,182-3).DescribingthevillageofRothbury(Northumberland)LewisnotespossibleassociationstothecolourofthewaterintheriverRother,thecolouroftheriverbeditselfandthefishintheriver(i.e.ONrauñiasanappellativeoftrout,“theredone”).Finally,Lewisalsonotesthatthis“wideandairy”town

consistsofthreestreetsirregularlybuilt,divergingfromthemarketplace;theinhabitantsaresuppliedwithwaterfromseveralsprings.Theparishcontainsanabundanceoflimestone,sandstone,andiron-stone,andthoughtherearenominesatpresentworked,yetfromthelargeaccumulationsofscoria,itisevidentthattheymusthavebeenextensivelywroughtataveryancientperiod,andmostprobablybytheRomans:inmanypartsoftheparish,thewaterissostronglyimpregnatedwithironastobeusedmedicinally.TheancientForestofRothbury,occupyingatractsevenmileslongandfivebroad,hasbeendividedundertheauthorityofanactofparliamentpassedin1831.(Lewis1845:670-1)

Thus,associationswithironaredistinctlypossibleinthehistoryofRothbury.LewisalsonotesthatseveralancientdefensiveembankmentssurroundRothburyatdistancesofoneortwomiles,andthat“theplanofoneoftheserpenttemplesoftheDruidsmayclearlybetraced”(1845:671).Thevillage,althoughinastateofdisrepairduringLewis’stime,wasclearlyaprominenttradingcentreandproductioncentreinearliertimes.

189

• Roxby,“farmsteadorvillageofamancalledRauñr”(Mills1991:s.v.Roxby;Watts

2004:s.v.Roxby).224

Whilethesearenotallallusionstoironoreintheformofbogirondeposits,inmostcases

theydoclearlyrefertored-colouredearth,stoneorwaterinareaswherelocaldepositsof

ironorehavebeenfoundintheformof“ironstone”225andprocessedduringthemedieval

period.226

ThisinformationfromthesagasandotherOldNorsetextsandcontextssuggeststhat

bogironprocessingwasakeyaspectofsettlementsocietyinIcelandandthroughout

ScandinaviaandtheBritishIsles.Smith’sanalysisinparticularemphasizestheconceptual

andsocialimportanceofbogironresourcesandprocessing.Drawingupontheinformation

presentedinVõluspá7andGylfaginning14,227Smithsuggeststhat

aparadigmisestablishedthattiesmetalworkingandskilledcraftingtothecreationofnewsocietiesandidentifiesthesetechnologicalandaestheticendeavorsasgiftsfromthegods,equalinimportanceto,andessentialforsupportingtheestablishmentofgovernments,domesticunits,andreligiousinstitutions.

[...]

Asacriticalresourcewithlimiteddistributionandanideologicalcharterlinkingitsproductiontotherealmofthegods,ironcouldpotentiallyhavebeenmonopolizedbyIcelandicchieftains.(2005:184,187)

Thisinterpretationofanideologybehindtheconceptualizationofbogironresourcesis

plausible.However,thebasicevidenceforsuchsuppositionsmustbetheprominenceof

suggestivetoponyms,historicaleventsandsettlementpatternsintheliteratureand

archaeology.Thattheseresourceswereofgreatimportanceisshownbythenetworksof

associationsthatrelatetoinstanceslikeSkalla-Grímr’sseasonalsmeltingpracticeson

224“InthenorthofEnglandtheremainsofIronAgefurnaceshavebeenfoundatRoxby(Cleveland)andatWestBrandoninDurham”(Tylecote1986:140)225“Ironstone”mayrefertoseveralslightlydifferentformsofironore,butinseveraloftheselocalitiesinEnglanditappearstoreferto“clay-ironstone”,whichisusuallyfoundinassociationwithcoaldepositsandshalelayers(Tylecote1986:124,cf.126,139).Insomeareasthisironstonehasbeenexposedandweatheredintoformsoflimonite,magnetiteorhematite(Tylecote1986:124).TylecotediscussesinmoredetailthetypesofironoresandthelocalitiesinwhichtheseoreshavebeenhistoricallyidentifiedandprocessedintheBritishIsles(1986:124-7).226IwillalsonotehereTylecote’ssurveyofironoreandironoreprocessingintheBritishIslesfromtheRomanIronAgeandthroughouttheMedievalPeriod(1986:124-8,136-42,179-201).227Seeafl13.(page56above),andtheconclusionstoChapter1,specificallypages126andfollowingand153andfollowing.

190

RauñanesinEgilssaga.Onthewhole,thisevidencesuggeststhattherewerecommercial,

political,ideologicalandpracticalforcesdrivingthesocialconstructionofageographythat

was,inpart,identifiedthroughrelationtosignsofbogirondepositsfromstreamsandbogs

aswellasconvenientaccesstowoodlandsasasourceoffuelspecificallyforsmelting

operations.

2.7ReturningtoJárnviñr:toponymsandsettlementcontexts Thisevidenceraisesthequestionofwhetherornotwearejustifiedininterpretingthe

toponymJárnviñrasreferringtoasimilarsetofassociationsbetweenbogirondeposits,

woodlandsandthesettlementareaswheresmelting(andliving)tookplace.Beforethe

mythologicalcontextcanbeexamineddirectly,thetoponymicevidenceofsmithingsites

fromScandinavia,particularlyformsthataremorphologicallyorsemanticallysimilarto

Járnviñr,mustbeexaminedinrelationtoconceptsofspatialnetworksinspecific

geographicallocations.Dothesetoponyms(Jarnwith,Isarnho,Jerrishoe)showahistoryof

associationswithpre-historicsettlementcontexts,and,ifso,dothesecontextshaveanything

todowithmetalworking,particularlythesmeltingofbogiron?StefanBrink’sinfluential

workontoponymicevidenceofprehistoriccentral-placecomplexesinScandinaviaisakey

resourceinthisareaofstudy.WithaparticularfocusontheareaofsouthernJutlandthatis

associatedwithJarnwith/Isarnho,Iwillexaminesomearchaeologicalevidenceofprehistoric

smeltingsitesandthegeographicandgeologicalfeaturesassociatedwiththeresourcesused

atthesesites.

ThetoponymicevidenceintheregionassociatedwithJarnwith-Isarnho-Jerrishoeisin

somewaysmoredifficulttostudythanthematerialthatBrinkusestoillustratehistheories

aboutcentral-placecomplexesduringtheLateIronAgeandearlyVikingAge.Brinkfocuses

mostlyuponevidencefromdistrictsinSwedenbecausethisis“wherewehavearichsource

material.InDenmarkitisnotsoeasytopickoutsuchclearstructuresasinSweden;

obviouslymanyoftheDanishprehistoricplace-nameshavebeenreplacedandlost”(Brink

1999:425).Despitethefactthattoponymicevidenceismoresparseandfragmentaryin

DenmarkandNorthernGermany,theregionsurroundingmodernSchleswigandFlensburg

doescontaintoponymsthatmaycorrespondtoBrink’srubricfortheidentificationof

prehistoriccentral-placecomplexes.AccordingtoBrink,

ThemainingredientsofthisLateIronAgecentral-placecomplexareacoherentsettlementdistrict,normallyina

191

communicativestrategicpositionforthelargerland,provinceorregion.Inseveralcases,abayoraninletleadsintothissettlementdistrict,whereitwidenstobecomealagoon-likebayoralake.Inastrategicpositionnearthemouthofthisinlet,veryoftenasupposedlychieftain’sfarmissituated,normallywithanamein–tunaror–salir,sometimesin–husar.VeryoftenwehaveinthevicinityaHusabyoraBosgården,whichhypotheticallymaybeunderstoodasalateradministrativecentrebelongingtotheMiddleAges(andmaybetheLateVikingAge).Inthissettlementdistrict,scatteredaround,wefindthesiteoftheretinue(karlar,rinkar,etc.),oftenthefarmofasmith(Smedby),anelusiveplace-nameGillberga(sometimesGilleby),notyetconvincinglyinterpreted,indicationsofanassembly-andthing-site(Hög,Ting-,etc.),severalpagancultsitesandgroves(Frösvi,Torslunda,Odensåkeretc.).Oftenthetoponymicevidencemaybecoupledwithextraordinarymonuments,suchasrudimentsofhallbuildings,largemounds,culthousesorcultsites.(Brink1999:434-5)

TheSchleiclearlyoperatesasahighlyshelteredwaterwaywithabroadinletfartherinland.

ThestrategicroleoftheSchleiandthisregionintransportationandtrade(bothfromeastand

westandnorthandsouth)hasalreadybeendiscussedinrelationtothehistoryofthe

settlementatHedebyduringtheseventhtoeleventhcenturies(seepage92above).Alongthe

lengthofthemosteasternstretchoftheSchleitoponymslikeGunneby,Sieseby,Guckelsby,

Karby,Kopperby,Grödersby,KetelsbyandBösbyappear,eachsuggestingafarmstead

complex.OnthenorthernsideoftheSchlei,immediatelysouthofSüderbrarup,isanareaof

lessthanonesquarekilometreassociatedwiththeelementUl-,includingUlsnisland,Ulsnis,

Ulsnishöh,Ulsnisfeld(ADACVerlag2000:22;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1524).

ThisUl-elementdatesbacktotenthcenturytoponymsinthisarea(Berger1993:261-2).

BrinkidentifiesthisUl-elementasthenameofthepagangodUllr,suggestingthatthese

toponymsmayreflectaprehistoriccultsitethatfunctioned“withinasettlementdistrictor

region”(Brink1999:425,428;cf.Brink2008:62-3).228ThissmallareaaroundUlsnisalso

includesthetoponymsGunneby,SchmedelandandGallberg,suggestingthatthiswasoncea

settlementdistrictwithitsownfarmsteads,smithingsitesandcultsites,allwithinlessthan

onesquarekilometre.Aboutfivekilometreswestofthisregionisacomplexoftoponyms

(Tolk,Tolkschuby,Tolkwad)thatreflecttheOldNorsewordtolkrortúlkr,“spokesman”

228Alternatively,Ul-andparticularlyUlsnis-mayshareoriginswiththeOldNorseúlfr,“wolf”,andnes,“headland”(deVries1977:s.v.nes,úlfr).

192

(OEDs.v.tulk;deVries1977:s.v.tulkr;ADACVerlag2000:22;Militärgeographisches

Amt1963:L1522).Thismayrefertoasettlementassociatedwitharetinueservinga

particularfunction,aswithKarlabyandRinkabyinBrink’sstudies(1999:424-5,434-5).

ImmediatelysouthofTolkisGammeltoft.Inhisstudiesoftoponymicandgeographic

informationsystemsaroundLadby,eastFunen(Denmark),PeterSteenNielsenidentifiestoft

asmeaning“‘theareaoutsidethecommonlandwhichwasavailabletoeveryfarmerina

villageforbuilding,etc.’Theseareasareusuallysituatedindirectconnectionwithindividual

farms”(Nielsen1999:491).Nielsenalsopointsoutthat“thefieldname‘GammelToften’

meaning‘formertoft’”isalsoassociatedwithprehistoricsettlements.“Inseveralcases,”

Nielsenobserves,“this[GammelToften]hasbeendocumentedtoindicatethelocusofan

oldersettlement–usuallyfromtheVikingAgeorearlier”(1999:491-2).Thesetoponyms

clearlycharacterizetheSchleiregionasarichareaforprehistoriccentral-placecomplexes,

includingspecificlocalitiesassociatedwithsmithingactivities,e.g.Schmedeland(<smíñ).

MoreevidenceaboundsintheregionassociatedwiththeSchleiandFlensburginlets.

Severalsuggestivetoponymicnetworkscorrespondtothenorth-southtraderouteinthisarea

(Wiechmann2007:29;Degn1994:81,89).Indicationsofanassemblysitemaybefoundin

thetoponymTinglev(<Ãing,i.e.assembly),229locatedtwentykilometresnorthwestof

FlensburgandabouttwelvekilometresnorthwestofSmedeby(GeodætiskInstitut1978:1211

IV).TenkilometresnortheastofSmedebyisTørsbøl(GeodætiskInstitut1978:1211I,1211

IV).230ThefirstsyllableofTørsbølappearstobederivedfromthegodÃórrandthistoponym

mayrefertoacultsite.ImmediatelysoutheastofTørsbølisRinkenæs(<rinkar),asmall

projectionoflandthatenterstheFlensburgFörde(GeodætiskInstitut1978:1211I).Five

kilometressouthwestofSmedebyisFrøslev(<Freyr),anothertoponymthatissuggestiveof

acultsite(GeodætiskInstitut1978:1211IV).Brinkpointsoutthattheelement–lev/-lövin

ScandinaviatoponymsisneverfoundintheBritishIsles:this“mustindicate”thatthis

toponymicelement“ceasedtobeproductiveintheVikingAge,andhencemustbeolder”

(Brink2008:58).231

229cf.Brink(1999:426-7)230BrinksuggeststhattheScandinaviantoponymicelement–bölelikelydatestoc.1000-1500andmaymean“farm”(2008:59-60).Iamnotsurethatthe–bølelementinTorsbølcorrespondsto–böle,particularlysinceBrinkclearlyrefersto–böleinthecontextofnorthernSweden(2008:60).231C.T.Smithsuggeststhatthis–levelementmusteitherdatetoAngliansettlementsofthefourthcenturyinJutlandandSweden,ortosomepointlaterthantheseventhoreighthcenturiesinthesesameareas(Smith1978:

193

Ifwefollowthetraderoutefarthersouth,totheregiondirectlybetweenFlensburg

andSchleswig,anotherhighlysuggestivetoponymappears.Süderschmedebyissituated

somefourteenkilometressouthofFlensburgandsometwentykilometresnorthofSchleswig

andHedeby(ADACVerlag2000:21;DegnandMuuß1966:211;Militärgeographisches

Amt1963:L1322).Süderschmedebyisimmediatelytotheeastofthemajornorth-south

highway,whichcorrespondstothetradingrouteusedsincemedievaltimes(ADACVerlag

2000:21;Degn1994:81,89;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1322;Wiechmann2007:

29).ThetoponymSüderschmedebyisrelatedtosmithingactivitiesandcanconfidentlybe

separatedintotothreeOldNorsewords,suñr,“south”(cf.deVries1977:s.v.suñr),smíñ,

“forgework,smithing”or“smithy”or“forge”(cf.deVries1977:s.v.smiñ),andbœr,

“house,courtyard,farm”(cf.deVries1977:s.v.bœr).Brinksuggeststhattoponymslike

Schmedebylikelyindicateafarmsteadcomplexwhere“thesmith,mostprobablythesmith

parpréferance,lived”(Brink1996:241-2;cf.Brink1999:425,433-4).232Süderschmedeby,

thus,translatesroughlyas“Southern-Smithing-House”,“Southern-Smithing-Farm”or

“Southern-Smithing-Courtyard.”Moreover,thistoponymislikelythesoutherncounterpartto

themorenortherlySmedeby(GeodætiskInstitut1978:1211IV).Immediatelyeastof

SüderschmedebyisTorsballig(Tor-<Ãórr–-ballig<?),233anothertoponymthatis

suggestiveofacultsite.Threelargeburialmoundshavebeenfoundintheimmediate

vicinityofTorsballig,oneofwhich(accordingtolegendandlocalfolksong)belongsto

KingFrode(Heldt1998:11).234Thesemoundsarec.3000yearsoldandwhilethereareonly

threepreservedtodaythereusedtobeagroupofsevenmoundsatthislocation(Heldt1998:

11).ImmediatelywestofSüderschmedeby,onlythreeorfourkilometresawayonthe

westernsideofthetrade-routeandtheTreene,isJerrishoeanditsassociatednetworkof

toponyms.

128).Brinksuggeststhattheelement–lev/-lövalongwithseveralotherScandinaviantoponymicelements“fairlysecurelydatetotheRomanperiod(c.0-400)”(2008:58).232BrinksuggeststhattheScandinaviantoponymicelement–by(like–stadand–land)likelydatestoc.500-1100(2008:58).233JürgenUdolphoutlinestheprevalanceoftoponymicelementsthatappeartoberelatedtoarootform*balg-(1994:21-4).Ithasbeenhypothesizedthattheelement–balligisrelatedtothisrootandmayhaveoncereferredtoahill,anincreaseinelevation,oraclearinginaforest(Udolph1994:22-3;Heldt1998:16).Udolphclaims,however,thatTorsballigisafalseballig-nameandisnotactuallyrelatedtothesemeanings(1994:23).Nonetheless,asHeldtpointsout,theÃórr/Tor-elementappearsinnumeroustoponymsintheAngelndistrictandtheseareasareclearlyassociatedwithcultactivitiesandburialmounds(Heldt1998:16).234MythanksgotoS.JägerforhelpingwithaccesstothechronicleofHavetoftloitandTorsballig.

194

Farthertothesoutheast,intheDanishWohldassociatedwiththetoponymsJarnwith

andIsarnho,areacollectionofHünengraberburialsandthetoponymHohenstein(ADAC

Verlag2000:33;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1526).Brinksuggeststhattheterminal

-stein/-stenelementmaybeinterpretedasareferencetoaraisedrunestoneorotherstone

monument(1999:426-7;deVries1977:s.v.steinn).

Thistoponymicevidencesuggeststhattherewereprehistoricmulti-functionalcentral-

placecomplexesinthisarea,andthatthesecomplexesincludedsettlementsthatwere

particularlyassociatedwithsmithingactivities.

2.8ArchaeologyandgeologyofJarnwith-Isarnho-JerrishoeThegeologyoftheJutlandpeninsulaisamajordeterminingfactorinthehistorical

accessibilityofresourceslikebogiron,woodlandsaswellasarablelands.AsIhave

mentionedabove,thereisevidenceforalongitudinaltractofdenseforestinthisregionofthe

JutlandpeninsuladuringtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge.Thistractofforestappearsto

havebeenonepartofapatternoffourgeneraltypesoftopographicalregionsinsouthern

Jutland,arrangedroughlyfromeasttowestalongasimilarlylongitudinalorientation.The

centralandmostdominantgeologicalpartofthesouthernJutlandpeninsulaiscomposedofa

formationknownastheGeest.DuringtheperiodsinquestionthisGeestwascoveredin

elevatedplainsandheaths(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:33-4;HeydermannandMüller-Karch:

1980:2;Mikkelsen1999:188;Nørbach1999:240-6;Wegener1850:9;Wiechmann2007:

34).235TothewestoftheGeestwerelowlandmarshes;totheeastoftheGeestwasahilly

lowlandarea;throughoutportionsofthehilly-landwasadenselyforestedborderland

(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:33-4;HeydermannandMüller-Karch:1980:2;Mikkelsen1999:

188;deVries1977:s.v.Járnviñr;Wegener1850:9;Wiechmann2007:34).236DortheKaldal

235Seethefootnote130(page92above)formoreinformationonthetoponymHedeby/Haithabumeaning“settlementattheheath.”236ThegeologicaltransitionsbetweenthreegeneraltypesofgeologicaldepositsandtopographyareclearlyapparentfromnorthofFlensburg,throughSchleswiganddowntoNeumünster.First,tothewest,istheelevatedGeest.ThisGeestdemonstratesseveralareasofsteepinclinesthatconnecttothesecondandcentralfeature,i.e.thesandyandmarshylowlands.Thirdandmosteasternisanotherareawithsteephillscomposedofglacialdepositsofgravelandsanddescendingintolowlandsofclayandboulderdepositions.Thetransitionzonesbetweentheseformationsclearlycorrespondtothemainnorth-southtraderoutenearSchleswig/Hedebyandthenetworksoftoponymsassociatedwithsmithing,i.e.Süderschmedeby,Smedeby,Jerrishoe,Joldelund,Jarnwith/Isarnho,etc.Adetailedtopographicaloverlayandanalysisofthisinformationandthecorrespondingsmeltingsites,ofthesortthatNørbachdemonstratesfornorthernJutland(1999:244,Fig.8),wouldprovemostusefulinproducingmoredefinitiveandaccessibledataonthespecificcorrelationbetweenlocationsandformations.TheDeutscheLandschaften–BauundFormengeologicalmaps(InstitutfurLandeskunde1970)in

195

Mikkelsen’sstudyofsettlementstructuresinDenmarkfromtheIronAgethroughtothe

MedievalPeriodshowsthatthesetopographicalpatternsofGeest,lowlandsandforestsare

notrestrictedtosouthernJutland,butcontinuethroughoutnorthernJutlandaswell(1999:

188).Thelongitudinalorientationofthispatternis,however,morepronouncedinthe

southernpartsofJutlandandoverlapswiththenorth-southandeast-westtraderoutesthat

crossatHedeby,theDanevirkeandtheSchleiinlet.

SeveralscholarshaveshownthatthetransitionalzonesbetweentheGeestandthe

lowlandsappeartohavebeenfocalpointsforsettlementactivities.Theseareasfrequently

hadaccesstonearbyarablelands,woodland,tributaries,bogsandwetlands,allwithina

relativelysmallarea.Inparticular,DortheKaldalMikkelsenandLarsChristianNørbach

haveshownthatsmallareasofarablelandwereparticularlyfocusedimmediatelytotheeast

oftheGeestandthewoodland(Mikkelsen1999:188;Nørbach1999:240-6).TheGeestthat

composesthegravelandsandbasefortheelevatedheathisformedoftheremnantsofthe

glacialmorainesthatwerecreatedduringtheWeichselianIceAge(Breuning-Madsenetal.

2000:2;Nørrbach1999:242).Nørbach’sresearchshowsthatiron-smeltingsitescorrespond

closelytolocationsneartheedgeoftheGeestandnearwoodland.Thesesiteswithevidence

ofironproductionalsoextendintothenorthernJutlandpeninsula,followingtheperipheries

ofglacialmorainesincloseassociationwithtributariesandwoodlands(Nørbach1999:240-

6).

Thereareseveralreasonsbehindthisstructuralorganizationofthesettlementand

smeltingactivitiesontheJutlandpeninsula.ThehillstotheeastoftheGeestarealsothe

resultofglacialactivity.Duringthelastglacialperiod,westernJutlandandNorwaywerethe

onlyareasofmainlandScandinaviathatwerenotunderaglacier(Nørrbach1999:242;

Ahlmann1976:20).Areasrichinbogirondepositstendtocorrespondtothetransitional

zonesattheedgesofthisGeest.Thereareseveralreasonsforthis.Itisclearthatthesandand

gravelcompositionoftheGeestallowedfortheglacialwaterstoerodemineraldeposits,

transportingironinthetributariesandconcentratingitinlowlands.Evenlongafterthe

glacierreceded,bogironorecontinuedtoaccumulateinthelowlandbogsofthisarea

becausethepreviousglacialrun-offhadreducedthecalciumcontentofthesedimentsand

createdanenvironmentinwhichironoxidesmaymorereadilyformnodulesofbogiron

combinationwiththeMilitärgeographischesAmtseriesoftopographicalmaps(1963)showaclear,ifgeneral,correspondence.

196

(Nørbach1999:242).ManyoftheestuariesintheseareasflowdownfromtheelevatedGeest

andotherelevatedhillsintheeasternareas,depositingbogironoreinthelowlands(Nørbach

1999:242).Nørbach’sstudyshowsthatthecloseassociationbetweensettlementpatternsand

ironoreextractionsitesfromtheVikingAgeextendsintonorthernDenmarkatsiteslike

Varde,SnorupandDrengsted.Nørbachalsonotesthatsomesitesshownoevidenceof

smeltingatall,despitethefactthatbogironisknowntohavebeenlocallyabundant(1999:

242-4).Thelackofironsmeltingatthesesites,Nørbachsuggests,“mustbeexplainedbythe

absenceofanadequatesupplyoffuel(wood)tomaintainalarge-scaleironproduction”

(1999:244).Thissuggestsastrongcorrelationnotonlybetweenthetopographicalfeatures

thatleadtoaccumulationsofbogironore,237butalsotothetopographicalareasthat

correspondtoaccessibletractsofdenseforest.

Immediatelybeforeandthroughoutthemedievalperiod,therewereseveralsitesat

whichbogironwassmeltedintheareasurroundingtheFlensburg,SchleiandEckernförde

inlets.Afewkeyarchaeologicalsiteshavebeenexcavatedinthisarea,especially

Süderschmedeby,Handewitt,Flensburg,JoldelundandNeumünster.HansHingst,for

instance,hasdoneseveralstudiesofsmeltingsitesinthisarea.Heoffersaprecise

topographicaldescriptionofanarchaeologicalsmithingsiteassociatedwith

Süderschmedeby:

IndenWaldstreifenundaufdenAckerflächenvordemOstrandderTreeneNiederungzwischenderGemeindegrenzeTarpundderEuropastraße3befindensichzahlreicheSpurenvorgeschichtlicherEisenverhüttungsplätze.(Hingst1973:249)

InthestripsofforestandthearablelandlocatedontheeasternedgeoftheTreenelowlandsbetweenthemunicipalboundaryofTarpandEuropeanHighway3therearemanytracesofprehistoricsmeltingsites.

237Curiously,researchonburialmoundsontheJutlandpeninsula(particularlyEgtvedandGadbjerg)fromtheEarlyBronzeAge(1700-1000BC)showsthattheanaerobic,acidicandpercolatingenvironmentimmediatelysurroundingoakenlogcoffinsisconducivetotheformationofbogirondeposits(Breuning-Madsenetal.2000:1-9).Theseaccumulationsformpan-shapedfeaturesunderneathandsometimesovertopofburialdeposits,“encapsulating”theburiedremains.Chemicalanalysisoftheseaccumulated“ironpans”showsthattheyaresimilarincompositiontobogirondepositsintheregion(Breuning-Madsenetal.2000:1).Themoundsthatshowtheseparticularaccumulationstendtocorrespondgeographicallytothe“mainstationaryline(theicelimit)oftheWeichselGlaciation”(Breunind-Madsenetal.2000:2).Ifthereisanywaytodeterminewhetherthesedepositsmighthavebeenusedforsmeltingthiscouldproveafascinatingareaoffurtherstudy,particularlyintopotentialassociationsbetweensmithing,elevatedmounds,deathandthesupernatural(cf.Larsson2005:99-124;seealsothediscussionofLarssonandGansumonpage137above).

197

TheEuropastraße3isthemajorcurrentnorth-southhighwaythroughthisregion,and(asI

havenotedbefore)itcorrespondstothemedievalnorth-southtraderoute(ADACVerlag

2000:21;Degn1994:81;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1322).Thisclearlysituatesthe

findsatSüderschmedebyinthetopographictransitionalzonebetweentheelevatedplainsand

heathoftheGeestandthehillylowlandstotheeast,withconvenientaccesstothistrade

route.

TheSüderschmedebysiteitselfischaracterizedasaterracedworkplace,witha

substantialchangeinelevation(Hingst1973:249).Atthissiteananvilstonewasfoundwith

threeflatstones,allofwhichweresetuponalayerofsettlementsedimentssometwenty

centimetresthick(Hingst1973:249).Thisclearlyestablishesthattheflatstonesandanvil

stonewereintentionallyplacedhereafteraprecedingperiodofsettlementactivities.The

remnantsofatleastninebloomeryfurnacesandagreatquantityofironslagandcharcoal

werefoundnearby.Estimatessuggestthatseveraltonsofslaghavebeendepositedhere

(Hingst1973:249).Depositionsofslagandwastearequitedeep,sometimesuptotwo

metres,suggestingthatsmeltingactivitiestookplacehereforanextendedperiodoftime.

FindsdatetotheLateRomanIronAge(AD200-400)andearlyMigrationPeriod(AD300-

550)(Hingst1973:249-50).

HandewittisabouttwelvekilometersnorthofJerrishoe(ADACVerlag2000:21;

MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L1320,L1322).Inaforestareahereamoundofironslag

wasfoundaboutsevenmetresindiameterandninetycentimetresinheight(Hingst1974:

152).Hingstsuggeststhefindsindicatethatbogironwasroastedandsmeltedatthissite

(1974:153).Pitkilnswerefound,suitableforcharcoalproduction,andtheycontainedshards

ofpotteryvessels,suggestingthattheymayalsohavebeenusedforroastingbogiron.Fifty

metresnorthoftheslagmoundtheremainsofseveralmedievalbloomeryfurnaceswere

found(Hingst1974:153).Hingstdoesnotoutlineinformationonthestatusofasettlement

associatedwiththislocation.

AboutsixkilometreseastofHandewittanotherironsmeltingsitehasbeenexcavated

nearmodern-dayFlensburg.Inaforestedregiontheremainsofatleastninedistinctfurnaces

havebeenfoundalongwithseveralslagheapsmeasuringintotalnearlyfiftysquaremetres

(Hingst1969:429).ActivityheredatesfromthePre-RomanIronAgethroughtotheHigh

MiddleAges(Hingst1969:430).Severalsimilarsiteshavealsobeenexcavatednear

Neumünster,aboutthirtykilometressouthoftheEckernfördepeninsulaassociatedwiththe

198

toponymsJarnwith-Isarnho(Hingst1970:423-52;MilitärgeographischesAmt1963:L

1924).

MorerecentarchaeologicalworkhasbeendoneatJoldelund.Thissiteislocated

aboutfifteenkilometresdueeastofJerrishoe,abouttwentykilometerssouthwestof

FlensburgandthirtykilometersnorthwestofSchleswigandHedeby/Haithabu.The

KammberghillinJoldelundwasthesiteofaniron-processingsettlementduringthefourth

andfifthcenturies.ThespatialextentofthesettlementsiteduringLateRomanIronAgeand

earlyMigrationPeriodappearstohavebeenatleasteighthectares,oralmostonesquare

kilometre(Jöns1999:255).In“thelow-lyingareasadjacenttoseveralstreamswhichrun

closetothissite,theremainsofbogironoredepositshavesurvivedtothepresentday”(Jöns

1999:255).TheexcavationofKammbergatJoldelundispartial.Althoughthefindsshow

convincingevidenceofanestablishedsettlementwithextensiveactivitiesinironprocessing,

thereisinsufficientinformationtodeterminethecommunalstructureofthissettlementand

thespatialandcommunalrelationsbetweenthesmithingactivitiesandthespacesthatmay

havehadaristocraticandsacralfunctions(JönsandHeinrich1997:186).Thereare,however,

severalareasofritualdeposition.Many,butnotall,oftheseoccurinopenspacesbetween

settlementbuildingsandinareaswherenootherdiscernibleactivitiestookplace,i.e.no

smeltingorcraftingorotherwise(JönsandHeinrich1997:162-7).

EvidenceontwoexcavationsitesatKammbergshowspostholesforsomefifteen

structuresranginginsizefromaboutfivetotensquaremetrestooveronehundredand

twentysquaremetres(DörflerandWiethold2000:224-5).Thereisextensiveevidencethat

aboutfivehundredbloomeryfurnaceswereusedonthesesitesoveraperiodofaboutone

hundredandfiftyyearsinthelateRomanIronAgeandearlyMigrationPeriod(Erlenkeuser

andWillkomm1997:212-5).Thebloomeryfurnacesappearinconcentratedareasinthe

northwesternandsoutheasterncornersofthesettlementarea(Jöns1999:256).Some

furnacesappearinclustersofuptotwenty,whileothersappearratherisolatedoringroupsof

twotosix(Jöns1999:256).Jönssuggests“thepreparatoryoperationsoftheactualsmelting-

processtookplaceatJoldelundtoo”,andthereisevidencethatthereweredesignatedareas

forroastingbogironore,creatingcharcoalandstoringbothcharcoalandroastedironore

(Jöns1999:256).Althoughthereisnotyetanydirectevidenceofsmeltingatthesesites

duringtheVikingPeriod,thereisclearevidenceofcharcoalkilnactivityonthesesites

throughouttheVikingPeriod(ErlenkeuserandWillkomm1997:202).Thereisevidenceof

199

severalspecificblacksmithingworkshops,wheretheironbloomsproducedfromsmelting

procedureswouldhavebeenworkedintowroughtironingotsforfurtherproductionand/or

trade(Jöns1999:257).Thus,“thecraftspeoplewerenotonlyresponsiblefortheworkingof

theobtainedironbyforgingbutalsofortheexecutionofthesmelting-processes”(Jöns1999:

257).Whereasironprocessingatothersiteswassometimesanisolatedandseasonalactivity

withoutassociationstoagrariancomplexesandeconomiccomplexes,ironprocessingat

Joldelundwaspartofalargereconomicalandsocialnetwork:

Itseemsthattheiron-workingofJoldelundhadbeenrunbyspecialistswithinaruralcommunity.Thisisconfirmedbytheevidenceofatleastonesmithy.Theworkshop,whichhadprobablybeenshiftedrepeatedly,hadbeenbuiltjointlywithseveraltypicalRomanIronAgeandMigrationPeriodenclosedfarmyardscomprisingaisledlong-houses,outbuildingsandgranariesaroundacommunalground.(Jöns1999:257)

ThemanyscholarsinvolvedininvestigatingtheKammbergsiteatJoldelundappeartoagree

thatironprocessingatthislocationhadanimportantroleduringtheLateRomanIronAge

andearlyMigrationPeriod.Itislikelythattheproductionprimarilysatisfiedtheneedsofthe

immediatecommunityandof“neighbouringfarmsorsettlements.Inaccordancewiththis,

theinvestigationofbotanicalremainshasshownthattheironproductionwasanincorporated

partofthesettlementstructureandthatitdidnotentailsignificantdeforestationinthe

environsofthesite”(Jöns1999:258).

Theevidencesuggestsseveralmorphological,semanticandconceptualsimilarities

betweenthemythologicaltoponymJárnviñrandthehistoricaltoponymsJarnwith,Isarnho

andJerrishoe.Thefirstsyllableofallofthesetoponymsrefersto“iron”.238Theelements

–viñrand–withand–risalsoallrefertoawoodlandorforestedarea.Theelements–hoand

–hoemayrefertoahill,aburialmound,orperhapstoapromontoryoreventoaforest,

althoughthislastpossibilityiswithoutclearlinguisticexplanation.Thetoponyms,when

consideredtogether,suggestaclosetopographicalassociationbetweenironandwoodlands,

elevatedhillsormounds,andpossiblyalsopromontories.Thetopographyoftheareaaround

theFlensburg,SchleiandEckernfördeinletsisandwas(duringtheMigrationPeriodand

VikingAge)composedofanextensiveandelevatedheathtothewestandlowlandswith

238Itshouldbekeptinmindthat,incomparisontoJarnwithandIsarnho,itislesscertainthatthefirstelementofJerrishoecorrepsondstoONjárn(seediscussionaboveonpages170-177).

200

manyhillsandsomeancientburialmoundstotheeastnearthecoast.239Theselowlandswere

alsoassociatedwithalargetractofdenseforestextendingroughlyfromnorthtosouthalong

theedgeoftheelevatedheath.Topographicalmapsconfirmthattheareaiscomposedof

lowlandmarshesandpastureswithdrasticchangesinelevationduetohillsandtheGeest

formationtothewest.Thus,alltheelementsofthesetoponymscorrespondtothetopography

ofthearea,bothmodernandmedieval.

The“iron”elementinthesetoponymsalsoclearlycorrespondstotheprocessingof

bogirondepositsinthisareastarting,atthelatest,duringthePre-RomanIronAgeand

continuingintotheHighMiddleAges.Settlementswherebogironwassmeltedfrequently

tendtobeassociatedwithareasthatprovideconvenientaccesstomultipleresources

(Nørbach1999:244).Similarly,thetoponymic,literaryandhistoricalinformationfromother

OldNorsesourcesreinforcesthattheprocessingofbogironwasanimportantpracticeinthe

settlementcontextorthecentral-placecomplex.Althoughitisonlypartial,thetoponymic

andarchaeologicalevidencefromtheareaaroundtheFlensburg,SchleiandEckernförde

inletsalsosuggeststhatthisconceptofacentral-placecomplexappliedintheseareasand

thatthereweresettlementsparticularlyassociatedwithsmithingactivitiesingeneralifnot

alsosmeltingproceduresinparticular.ThesesitesincludeSmedeby,Süderschmedeby,

Jerrishoe,Joldelund,Handewitt,Flensburg,JarnwithandIsarnho,allofwhicharefound

withinanareathatextendsroughlyonehundredkilometresfromnorth-northwesttosouth-

southwestandaboutfifteenkilometresfromeasttowest.Concentrationsofevidencefocus

particularlyontheareaaroundJerrishoe,includingHandewittandFlensburgtothenorth,

SüderschmedebytothewestandJoldelundtotheeast,allwithinatentofifteenkilometre

radiusaroundJerrishoe.Alltheselocationsaresituatedontheeasternedgeoftheelevated

Geestformationwiththecoastalinletsandmajortradingportssituatedjustabitfarthereast.

Similarly,asPoolepointsout,accordingtoVsp40andGylf12Járnviñrisaforest

locatedintheregioneastofthemajorsettlementcentreatMiñgarñrwhichislikelylocated

ontheIñavõllrplain.Thisconceptoftopographicassociationswithincentralsettlement

complexesisclearlyimportantinthemythologicaltradition.Thetoponymicand

archaeologicalevidencefromthesouthernregionoftheJutlandpeninsulasuggeststhatthe

historical“iron-wood”wasaforestedborderlandsituatedtotheeastoftheGeest,anelevated

239Forabriefdiscussionofsomeoftheover600burialmoundsthatwereonceprominentintheAngelndistrict,seeHeldt(1998:11-16).

201

centralplainandheath(Crumlin-Pedersen1997:33-4;deVries1977:s.v.Járnviñr;Wegener

1850:9;Wiechmann2007:34).Boththehistoricalandthemythologicaltoponymsoperate

withinanetworkoftopographicalassociations,particularlybetweenplainsandwoodlands.

Thesegeographicalrelationsappeartocorrespondtothelimitedinformationpresentedabout

therelativelocationofJárnviñrandMiñgarñrinVõluspáandGylfaginning.

ThisevidenceshowsthatthehistoricaltoponymsJarnwith,IsarnhoandJerrishoe

correspondsemantically,culturallyandtopographicallytosettlementcomplexeswherebog

ironwassmeltedfromroughlyc.100toc.1100.Thereis,thus,goodreasontobelievethat

themythologicaltoponymJárnviñralsorepresentsaconceptofasettlementlocationwhere

bogironcouldbe(oroncewas)processed.Essentially,thistoponymmayconfidentlybe

understoodasmeaning“woodlandwithornearbogironresources.”

2.9ConclusionAtthispointthreeseparateandpossiblyrelatedconclusionsmaybestated.First,the

toponymJárnviñroperatesaspartofacentral-placecomplexgeographicallysituatedinboth

ahistoricalcontext(onthesouthernJutlandpeninsula)andinamythologicalcontext(inas

muchasJárnviñrisintheeastrelativetothesettlementknownasMiñgarñron/nearIñavõllr).

Second,thetoponymJárnviñrexhibitsaconceptualassociationbetweentwoimportant

resourcesinsmithingpractices,namelybogironandwoodorfuel.Thissemanticassociation

isparalleltothesettlementactivitiesandtopographicassociationsconnectedtothehistorical

toponymsJarnwith,IsarnhoandJerrishoe.Third,accordingtoVsp40andmultiple

corroboratingsourcestheJárnviñrsiteissomehowassociatedwithfemaledenizens,orvice

versa,oneofwhomisresponsibleforthecreationorfostering,birthorraising,ofa

specificallydestructivetypeofbeingítrollzhami,“in[the]shapeofatroll”(Vsp40.8).In

conclusion,themythologicaltoponymJárnviñrisbothpartofagenerallyNorseconceptof

bogironprocessinginsettlementcontextsanditisalsopartofaneminentlylocaltraditionof

bogironsmeltingandothercraftingandtradingactivitiesonthesouthernJutlandpeninsula

aroundHedeby.

2.10Excursus:whatdotroll-womenhavetodowithJárnviñr?IwillnowexaminethesignificanceoftheTrollkvenna4stanzainrelationto

smithingmotifs.Beforestarting,however,Ishouldnotethattheevidenceinformingthe

interpretationofthesenamesisnotnecessarilyconclusive.Myexaminationhereisrelatively

202

equivocalastothevariouspossibleinterpretationsofeachname.Wheretheevidenceismore

convincing(butstillgenerallyspeculative)isintheconsistentassociationtoironartefacts

and/orcraftingactionsinmost,ifnotall,ofthepossibleinterpretationsofseveralofthese

names.

ThereareatleastthreedistinctpossibilitiesforthemeaningofÕflugbarña.First,the

namemayberepresentativeofthegeneralantagonismbetweenthegiantsandthegods.

Second,thenamemayrefertothetypicalScandinavianbattleaxe.Third,thenamemayrefer

toaxesthatwereusedastools.

ThefirstcomponentwordofÕflugbarñaistheadjectiveõflugr,240“strong”,“mighty”

andthesecondcomponent,-barña,couldcorrespondtotheadjectivalpreteriteformofthe

verbberja,“tobeat,strike,smite”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.berja).Ifthisisthecase,

thenÕflugbarñamaymean“powerfullybeaten[i.e.byÃórr]”.Thiscouldserveasan

appropriatenameforagiantess,givenÃórr’spropensityforbeatingthesecreatureswithhis

hammer.Thus,itispossiblethatÕflugbarñareflectsthegeneralantagonismbetweenthe

godsandthegiants.

Alternatively,-barñamaybeafemininenounreferringtoa“beardedaxe”,perhapsa

battleaxeoratoolusedasahammerorclubincarpentryortokillfish(Fritzner1954:s.v.

barña;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.barña;Motz1981:500;deVries1977:s.v.barña).

AndyOrchardsuggestsÕflugbarñamaytranslateas“mightystriker”(Orchard2002:278),

butitmoreliterallymeanssomethinglike“Mightyclubbing/hammeringaxe”,“Mightyaxe

[usedfor]clubbing/hammering.”Thesedefinitionsclearlysuggesttwotypesofaxe,the

battleaxeortheaxeusedasatoolinvariouscontexts.InanexplanationinSkáldskaparmál

ofhowskaldsshouldrefertoweapons,itismadeclearthatthenamesoftroll-womencanbe

usedtorefertoaxes.Moreover,thisexplanationalsopresentsadistinctionbetweenaxes

associatedwithbloodorbonesandaxesassociatedwithwoodortrees:SverñheitaÓñins

eldarenøxarkallamenntrõllkvinnaheitumokkennaviñblóñeñabenjareñaskógeñaviñ

(Faulkes1998a:67),“SwordsarecalledÓñin’sfires,andpeoplecallaxesbynamesoftroll-

women,andrefertothemintermsofbloodorwoundsorforestortree”(Faulkes2001a:

118).Theswordisaweaponexpresslydesignedtokillhumans,andSkáldskaparmálgives

240deVriessuggeststhatthiswordiscognatewithOldNorseafl1.“strength,power”(1961:s.v.õflgast).

203

onlyoneoptionastohowitcanbepoeticallynamed.241Theaxe,however,canbebotha

weaponandatool,dependingonhowitisdesigned.TheSkáldskaparmálguidelinesappear

toreflectthisdistinctionbetweentheswordandtheaxewhilealsoreinforcingthatthenames

oftroll-womenmaybeusedtorefertoaxesthatmaybeeithertoolsorweapons.

Inseveralcontexts,asLotteMotzpointsout,“skaldicpoetscloselylinkthebattleaxe

withthefemaletrolls”(1981:497).Thetermgÿgr,forinstance,isusedtorefertoatroll-

woman(cf.Vsp42.3).Rímmu-gÿgr,“war-giantess”,isalsoacircumlocutionusedtoreferto

abattleaxe(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.gÿgr).Gÿgralsoappearsontwooccasionsin

Skáldskaparmál,onceasanameforanaxeandonceasatermreferringtothefemaletroll

Gríñr(Faulkes1998a:24,121;Faulkes1998b:s.v.gÿgr;c.f.Fritzner1954:s.v.gÿgr;c.f.de

Vries1977:s.v.gÿgr).

EinarSkúlason’sÕxarflokkr,“flokkr[poem]oftheaxe”,presentsseveraldifferent

examplesofhowmoreofthesecircumlocutionscanwork.242AsKariEllenGadepointsout,

Einarr’spoemseemstopraise“agiftofmorethanoneweapon”anditisclear“thatthe

weaponswerepreciouscommoditiesencrustedwithgoldandsilver–inoneinstance(st.10)

Einarrmentionsthatdragonsorserpentswereengravedonthebladeoftheaxe”(Gade:in

press).GadealsoobservesthatEinarr

drawsonOldNorsemythandlegendwhendescribingthegoldencrustationsontheweapons,suchasthegoddessFreyjaweepingtearsofgold(sts1-3,9)andthegiantessesFenjaandMenjagrindinggold(sts3,6)andhealsousesaseriesof

241TheprosopopoeiaoftheAnglo-Saxonriddlesportraysacuriousparadoxinthecharacterofswords.Riddle18describestheswordasawulderlicuwihtethatseemstobejustasmuchaproductofthesmithasanagentthatbringshomethehondeweorcofsmithsintheformofbootyafteradayofvictoriousbattle(Williamson1977:ll.1,7).Theswordisanentitythatisshapedinstrife:ongewinsceapen(Williamson1977:ll.1).Itsidentityistorninaparadoxicalstrifebetweentheextremesofaloyalretainerandatreacherousoutlaw.Theswordishonouredwithgiftsandasubjectofpublicdiscourseandpraise,asthoughitwereagloriousandtriumphantretainerinthemeadhall(Williamson1977:ll.9-12).InRiddle76wealsoseethesword(orperhapsthescabbard,thesheathedandlessthreateninggarbofthesword)describedasæñelingeseaxlgestealla(Williamson1977:ll.2),aphrasethatDavidsoncomparestotheroleofÆschereasHroñgar’smosttrustedandintimateadvisorinBeowulf(Davidson1962:156;Bwfll.1326).But,asRiddle20demonstrates,theswordisalsoanoutlaw,hatedinwideregions(faheomicwide)andaccursedamongweapons:wæpnumawyrged(Williamson1977:ll.16-17).Itistheonlyweaponoriginallydesigned,asDavidsonpointsout(1962:152),notforthehunt,butpreciselytokillfellowmen. 242Iquoteversesfromthispoem,aswellastheproseorderandtranslations,fromKariEllenGade’seditionofthetextforSPSMA.IgivemythankstoGadeforprovidingaccesstoherarticle,whichiscurrentlyinpress.ThefullpoemmaybeaccessedinSkj(1967:A1477-9)andSPSMA(ESkØxflIII).Gade’seditionfortheSPSMA,followingJónSigurñsson(1848-87:III364-5),usesthetitleØxarflokkrtorefertoapoembytwelfth-centuryskaldEinarrSkúlason(Gade:inpress).ThistitleisappliedtoaseriesofversescollectedfromthroughoutSkáldskaparmál.Gadeclarifiesthatthetitleisappliedfor“thesakeofconvenience”,maintainingthat“itmustbeemphasizedthattheexistenceofthispoemisdubiousatbest”(Gade:inpress).

204

ofljóst‘tootransparent’constructionstorefertothehnoss‘treasure’hehasreceived(sts3-5)(HnossisalsothenameofFreyja’sdaughter).ThewordorderinthispoemisunusuallyconvolutedanduncharacteristicofEinarr’spoetry,andthestanzascontainmanyinvertedkenningsaswellasexamplesoftmesis.(Gade:inpress)

InthelasthalfofstanzasixEinarrusesthenameofthegiantessFenjatodescribethegold

inlayonanaxe:

Mjúks(beramínarøxarmeldrãannviñhlynfeldrar)konungsdÿrkarfé(Fenjufõgrhlÿr)bragarstÿri.[...]Fémjúkskonungsdÿrkarstÿribragar;fõgrhlÿrøxarmínar,feldrarviñhlyn,beraãannmeldrFenju.

[...]

Thewealthofthekindkingextolsthecontrollerofpraise[POET];thefaircheeksofmyaxe,attachedtotheshaft,bearthatflourofFenja<giantess>[GOLD].(Gade:inpress)

Einarr’sdescriptionclearlyreferstoanornatelyinlaidprestigegift.Thisaxelikely

correspondstosomethinglikethesilver-inlaidaxeheadfoundinagraveatMammen,

Jutland,243datingtoc.971(Hall2007:178).Thisbattleaxeisalateexampleofan

exceptionaltraditioninScandinavianweapons.Before“theninthcenturyandearlier”,

Callmerexplains,

generalContinentaltrendsinweaponryarewellreflectedintheScandinavianmaterialandtherearelargenumbersofimportedweaponsfromContinentalworkshops.TherelativelygreatimportanceoftheaxeasanoffensiveweaponinScandinavia,however,showstherelativeindependenceandoriginalityofScandinaviancombattechniques.(2008:447)

Moreover,MotzalsocategorizesthenameÕflugbarñaasoneofseveralnamesfortroll-

womenthatare“traceabletowordsforwarliketemperamentorwarriors’equipment”(1981:

500).MotzplacesJárnsaxa,“iron(short-)sword”,Atla,“fierce,quarrelsome”,andÍmgerñr,

“fightenclosure”,inthiscategory(1981:500).Whilethereremainalternativeinterpretations

formanyofthesenames,thisevidencetestifiestotheinsularcharacterofthebattleaxein

earlymedievalScandinaviaandtheskaldicpracticeofusingthenamesoffemaletrollsor

243ThisisinnorthernJutland,betweenÅrhusandAalborg.

205

giantsaskenningsforbattleaxesspecificallyaswellasothertypesofbattlegearand

fightingtemperaments.

Severalofthesefemaletrollshavenamesthataremoregenerallyassociatedwithboth

axesandothertoolsusedinwoodworkingandmetalworking.ThenameGríñrisonesuch

example.Forinstance,shortlyfollowingtheabovecitationfromSkáldskaparmál(Faulkes

1998a:67),thelaststanzaofEinarSkúlason’sÕxarflokkrisquoted:

Sjámegurétt,hvé,Ræfilsríñendr,viñbráGríñarfjõrnisfagrtofskornir,foldviggs,drekarliggja.Megusjárétt,hvédrekar,fagrtofskornir,liggjaviñbráGríñarfjõrnis,Ræfilsfoldviggsríñendr.

Theycanrightlyseehowdragons,beautifullyengraved,lieneartheeyelashoftheGríñr<troll-woman>ofthehelmet[AXE>AXE-BLADE],ridersofthehorseofRæfill’s<sea-king’s>land[(lit.‘ridersofRæfill’sland-horse’)SEA>SHIP>SEAFARERS].(Gade:inpress)244

Asabove,EinarrusesthenameGríñrheretorefertoaratherprestigiouslyengravedbattle

axe.Similarly,GrettirÁsmundarsonalsousesthenameGríñrtodesignateanaxe(perhaps

notasprestigiousasEinar’s)viathecircumlocutiongunnarGríñi,“battle-giantess”(ÍF7

1936:47;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.gríñr,gunnr).245ThenameGríñralsoappearsinthe

storyofÃórr’sjourneytofacethegiantGeirrøñrandhisdaughters:Ãórrkomtilgistingartil

gÿgjarãeirarerGríñrerkõlluñ(Faulkes1998a:24),“Ãórrwentandlodgedforthenight

withagiantesswhoiscalledGríñr”(Faulkes2001a:82).246Inthiscase,Gríñrhelpsequip

ÃórrforbattleagainstthegiantGeirrøñr(inhissmithy-likehall)andhisdaughtersbygiving

thegodherownmegingjarñar,“girdlesofmight”,járngreipr,“iron-grips”,andherstafr,

“staff”,whichisnamedGríñarvõlr,“Gríñr’spole”(Faulkes1998a:25).Onemightwell

wonderwhatagiantessisdoingwiththeseitemsandwhetherthisinitselfissuggestiveof

connectionsbetweensomegiantessesandsmithingactivities.Asitis,wehearnothingelseof

Gríñr,butÃórrdoesusealltheseitemsinhissuggestivelysmith-likeexchangewiththegiant

Geirrøñr.TheclimaxofthefightinvolvesGeirrøñrthrowingahotironingotatÃórr:

244Citingverse471,line4,asevidence,Faulkessuggeststhat“fjõrnirperhapsmeansshieldratherthanhelmet;theaxeasenemyoftheshieldisalsoamoreusualimage”(1998a:196n.“Verse245/3”).245Amoreliteralinterpretationofgríñrwouldsuggestgunnargríñitranslatesas“franticeagernessofbattle”,whichisasuitablenameforabattleaxe.246Notetheuseofgÿgrheretorefertothetroll-womanGríñr(seeabove).

206

‘EnerÃórrkomíhõllinagagnvartGeirrøñiãátókGeirrøñrmeñtõngjárnsíuglóandaokkastaratÃór,enÃórrtókímótimeñjárngreipumokfœriráloptsíuna,enGeirrøñrhljópundirjárnsúluatforñasér.ÃórrkastañisíunnioklaustgõgnumsúlunaokgõgnumGeirrøñokgõgnumvegginnoksváfyrirútaníjõrñina.’(Faulkes1998a:25)

‘AndwhenÃórrcameintothehalloppositeGeirrøñrthenGeirrøñrwithtongstookholdofaglowinglumpofred-hotironandthrewitatÃórr,butÃórrcaughtitwith[the]iron-grips,andraisedintotheairtheglowinglump,andGeirrøñrranunderanironpillartoprotecthimself.ÃórrthrewtheglowinglumpandstruckitthroughthepillarandthroughGeirrøñrandthroughthewallandthusbeyondintothegroundoutside.’

Similarsmithingmotifsappearinthetenth-centuryskaldEilífrGuñrúnarson’sÃórsdrápa,

whichfollowsthisproseparaphraseinSkáldskaparmál(seeafl22.onpages59-62above).

ClearlythegiantessGríñrnotonlyhasanamethatcanbeusedtorefertheproductsof

smithingactivities(e.g.axes),butshealsoappearstobecloselyassociatedwiththe

paraphernaliaappropriatetosmithingactivities(e.g.iron-grips=tongs?gloves?).Thisbody

ofevidencesuggestsassociationsbetweennamesforfemaletrollsorgiants(particularly

Gríñr)andbattleaxesaswellas,inatleastonecase,sometoolsassociatedwithsmithing.

ItisdifficulttodeterminewhatexactlyÕflugbarñamightreferto.Toreiterate,the

namemaymean“mightyclubbing/hammeringaxe”,“mightyaxe[usedfor]

clubbing/hammering”,or“powerfullybeaten[byÃórr,orsomeone/something]”.The

semanticrangeofthenameappearstosuggestsomesortofhammeringorclubbingsurface,

perhapsinadditiontoorinsteadofacuttingsurface.IntheversecitedabovefromGrettis

saga,Grettiralsousesasimilarcircumlocution,hamartrõll,torefertothesameaxe

discussedabove.247Hamarrtendstomean“hammer”inOldNorse(frequentlyreferringto

Ãórr’shammer),butitcanalsorefertothebackofanaxe,iftheaxeinquestionhas

poundingsurface,e.g.õxarhamarr,“thebackofanaxe”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.öx;

Fritzner1954:s.v.hamarr).248Somebattleaxesfromthisperiodhadspikesonthebackor

247Metaphoricallyhamarrcanrefertoacrag,i.e.thewedge-shapeleftbyanaxe(cf.Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.hamarr;Fritzner1954:s.v.hamarr).Thus,hamartrollmaymean“crag-troll”i.e.anothernameforagiantorgiantessand,inthiscase,anaxe(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.hamarr).LPsuggeststhatGrettir’smeaninghereisrathertoreferto“atrollwitha(iron)neck”,bywhichIsupposethe“neck”oftheaxeismeant(LP1931:s.v.hamartrõll).248Consider,forinstance,theaxesandadzesfoundintheMastermyrchest,whichappeartohavebeenusedforshipbuildingandotherwoodworking(ArwidssonandBerg1983:34,Pl.12“Axeno.62”).

207

pointsthatwouldbepartlydestroyedifusedasahammeringsurface.249However,theterm

õxarhamarrreferstoaxesthathadabluntendoppositetheblade,ratherlikeasplitting

wedge.TheearliestproseattestationforõxarhamarrcomesfromGrágásandstatesthatitis

consideredahomicide(dráp)ifamankillsanothermanwithanõxarhamarr(ONP2010:

s.v.øxarhamarr).Althoughsuchcarpentryandpoundingaxesappeartohavebeenintended

astoolstheywerealsousedonoccasion(seeminglywithsomestigma)asweapons(ONP

2010:s.v.øxarhamarr;ÍF121954:417).TheaxethatGrettir’sversedescribes,forexample,

isonewhichGrettirusestokillaman,andthisleadstoGrettir’soutlawry.

Despitethefactthatsuchaxescouldclearlybeusedasweapons,thenotionofanaxe

havinga“hammer”onitsback,orapoundingsurface,issuggestiveofaxesthatwere

designedtoworkastools.Thesehammerscouldbeusedinconjunctionwithhammersfor

workinginwood,e.g.forsplittingwoodandbringingdowntrees.Similarly,suchaxesmight

beusedinmetalworkingandinthekitchen(cf.ONP2010:s.v.øxarhamarr;Jónand

Guñbrandur1858:601).250Someofthesemoredomesticaxeshavebeenfoundinfemale

graves(Pedersen2008:205-6).Otheraxesareassociatedwithship-building.Inthe

thirteenth-centuryKonungsskuggsjá,forexample,thefatheradvisesthesonthatwhatever

toolsmightbefoundinagoodship-buildingworkshopshouldalsobetakenwithoneon

boardashipduringjourneys,includingsmiñarõxar,scolpaocnafra,ocõllonurãautoler

tilscipsmiñarãarfathava(Holm-Olsen1945:130),“smith’saxes,turner’schiselsand

augers,andallthoseothertoolsthatareforaship-builderusefultohave.”Consideringthe

referenceinSkáldskaparmáltokenningsforaxesthatincorporate,ontheonehand,allusions

tobloodandbones251and,ontheotherhand,allusionstowoodandtrees,Õflugbarñamight

belong(atleastasfarasdesignatedpurpose)tothelattergroup.Bothhamartrõlland

249TheMammenaxe,forinstance,hasfinelywroughtdecorativepatternsonthebackofitshead(Hall2007:178).Thiswasclearlynotintendedasapoundingsurfaceorasatool.250Tylecotenotesthat,“aftersmelting,thebloomwouldbecutup,firstwithanaxeandlaterwithachiseltogivesmallerpieces”(1986:191;cf.Tylecote1987:175).Thiscuttingwasalsoessentialtodeterminingthequalityoftheironthathadbeenproduced(Tylecote1986:191).HallshowsasmallphotoofanironbloomrecoveredfromØyane,Telemark(Norway),whichappearstohavehadaroughlytriangularsectionremovedfromit(Hall2007:44).ThesamepagefeaturesaphotoofthetoolsoftheMastermyrchest,includingseveralhammersandsmallaxesorchiselswithapoundingsurface.ThefacingpageshowsthekitchenequipmentandothertoolsfromtheOsebergburialofc.834,includinganaxewithpoundingsurfaceonalongwoodenhandle(Hall2007:45).Significantly,axe-shapedcurrencybarsofironwerealsoparticulartoScandinavia(Tylecote1986:191-2).251Itshouldalsobenotedthatanaxeusedinassociationwithpreparinggameormeatmighteasilybeassociatedwithbothbonesandblood,yetnotnecessarilywithbattle.See,forinstance,Eyrbyggjasaga,whereaxesfeaturingabluntendareusedtoportionwhalemeatbutalso,inappropriately,tostrikemeninthehead(Scott2003:271).

208

Õflugbarñaclearlyexhibitpoundingandbeatingactionsthatwouldbeappropriateofanaxe

withapoundingsurface(e.g.asplittingwedge),likelyanaxethatwasusedforcraftingor

foractivitiesapartfrombattle.

Thesethreepossibilitiesremainopenfordebate.Õflugbarñamaybeevocativeofthe

generalantagonismbetweenthegodsandthegiants:“powerfullybeaten[byÃórr]”.The

namemayrefertoabattleaxe,sincetherewasclearlyanestablishedskaldicpracticeof

usingthenamesoftroll-womentorefertoornateandprestigiousbattleaxes.The

archaeologicalevidencealsotestifiestothespecificallyScandinaviantraditionoffighting

withlargebattleaxes.Finally,thesemanticmeaningofthenameÕflugbarñaseems

particularlyappropriatetoanaxethatwasdesignedwithapoundingsurface(øxarhamarr),

i.e.anaxemeantasatoolofsomesortratherthanaweaponorprestigegift.Ofcoursesuch

toolscanbeusedasweapons,andthesevariousinterpretationsarenotnecessarilymutually

exclusive.252Itis,forexample,possiblethatthebeatingmotifapparentinthisnameis

connectedtobothÃórr’smythologicalhammer-smitingactivitiesaswellastothereal-world

activityofsplittingwoodormetalwithanaxeand/orahammer.Likewise,Ãórr’sbeatingof

femalegiantsmightbeunderstoodasparalleltousingasledgehammertostrikethehammer-

endofa“giantess”,i.e.anaxeorwedgetoolusedtosplitwoodor,possibly,tosplit

consolidatedironbloomsintoindividualcurrencybars.

Járnglumraconsistsoftheneuternounjárn,“iron”,andtheverbglumra,“tomake

noise”“torattle”(Fritzner1954:s.v.glumra;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.glumra)or“to

cry,roar,reverberate”(deVries1977:s.v.glumra).SoJárnglumramaytranslateas“Iron-

rattle”or“Iron-noise”or“Iron-roar/reverberate.”LPsuggests“Iron-rattling”(1931:s.v.

Járnglumra).TheverbglumraappearsinstanzafiveofHákonarmál:253glumruñugylfringar

/ígotnahausum,“swordsresoundedin[the]skullsofmen”(SPSMA2001-2010:EyvHákI;

Skj.1973:BI57).254Thecontexthereisbattle.Thisquotationalsosuggeststhatthefirst

element,járn,ofthenameJárnglumramightbeinterpretedasreferringtoasword,andthat

thewholenamecouldbeinterpretedas“theresoundingnoiseofthesword.”Indeed,Motz

notesthatthismaybeatruecompound,i.e.onecomponentqualifiestheother(1981:503).

252Itshouldbenoted,however,thatthebattleaxesthatEinarrSkúlasondescribesareclearlyprestigegiftsandnottobeconfusedwiththeaxesthatwouldhavebeenusedbyaveragefarmersandworkers.253Hákonarmálisattributedtothetenth-centuryskaldEyvindrskáldaspillirFinnsson.254ONPlistsattestationsforglumrathatalsoapplytoswordsorgoldrings,andoneattestationdescribesthunder(ONP2010:s.v.glumravb.).

209

LPsuggeststhatthegiantessnameGlumrameans“thenoisyone”,andMotzplacesboth

GlumraandJárnglumrainacategorywithothernamesfortroll-womenthatsimilarlysuggest

“noise(especiallyofbeastsandbattles)”(LP1931:s.v.Glumra;Motz1981:503).

Elsewhere,theverbglymja,whichiscloselyrelatedtoglumra(deVries1977:s.v.glymja,

glumra),isusedinseveralskaldicstanzastorefertothenoiseofbattle(LP1931:s.v.

glymja).Inparticular,inSkáldskaparmál,glymjareferstothenoiseofseveralmetal

artefacts,includingarmourasitisputon(Faulkes1998a:81v288.1)andtotherattlingofa

weathervaneonaship(Faulkes1998a:93,v346.4).Thenounglymrappearsinakenningfor

theroarofbattle(Faulkes1998a:67v225.1)andthenoisy-wind(storm)ofbattle,i.e.the

noiseofmetalinbattle(Faulkes1998a:67v222.1).Thereis,thus,agooddealofevidenceto

reinforcetheinterpretationofJárnglumraasacircumlocutionfor“resoundingsword”or

“roaringofswords”,i.e.thenoiseofbattle.

Whiletheseinterpretationsmakesenseandhaveskaldicevidencetosupportthem,

thereareanotherthreepossibleinterpretationsthat,althoughspeculative,shouldnonetheless

benoted.First,Járnglumracouldrefertothenoiseofpoundingiron,i.e.thehammeringwork

oftheblacksmith.Certainlythiswasnotaquietoccupation.Second,itispossiblethat

Járnglumramightrefertothenoiseofahammerpoundingnails.Thethirteenth-century

skaldicpoemLíknarbraut,“TheWayofGrace”,celebratesChrist’spassion(Tate2007:

228).InstanzasixteenthenoiseofthehammersnailingChristtothecrossisdescribed:

Glymrvarñ[heyrñr]hárafhömrum,“Highclangingwasheardfromhammers”(cf.Tate

2007:247).ReturningagaintoEilífrGuñrúnarson’sÃórsdrápa,theverbglymjaispartofa

suggestivelysmith-likedescriptionofthenoiseofÃórrbanginghishlymãél,“clanging-file”,

againststonesthatarereferredtoasFeñjusteñi,“anvil-stoneofFeñja(ariver,i.e.rocks

poundedinariver)(Faulkes1998a:27).Tomyknowledge,thesearetheonlyattestationsof

glymr,oranyrelatedword,thatreferstonoiseinassociationwithpoundinghammersor

othersmithingtools(LP1931:s.v.glaumr,glumr,glymr,etc.).Thus,whileitisplausible

thatJárnglumramightreferexplicitlytothenoiseofahammerratherthananaxeorsword,

theevidenceforthisislimitedtoonlyafewexamples.Incomparison,thebodyofevidence

thatrelatesthisnametothenoiseofswordsinbattleismuchmoreextensive.

Third,NeilPricepresentsathoroughexaminationoftherodsorstaffsthathavebeen

foundinseveralfemaleburialsfromViking-ageBirkaandacrossallofScandinavia.

Drawingonnumerousreferencestostaffsorrodsintextualsources,Priceidentifiesthese

210

rodsasseiñstafr,staffsusedinthepracticeofNorseseiñrorsorcery(2002:175-204).

Severalofthemetalstaffsarequitecomplexintheirconstruction,showingthatthesmith

whomadethemhadadvancedskillsinwelding,forminggeometricshapesandsmallbut

detailedwolf-headsandminiaturehalls.Bothtextualandarchaeologicalsourcesshowthat

severalofthesestaffsaremadeofwood.StaffsmadeofironanddatingtotheVikingAge

havealsobeenfoundthroughoutScandinavia(e.g.Birka,Klinta,Fyrkat,Gävle),andthe

termjárnstafrappearsatleasttwiceinthetextualsources,bothtimesinrelationto

supernaturalgiants(Price2002:177,181-85,189,193).255

Severalofthestaffsthathavebeenrecoveredfromburialshavemetalamuletrings

attachedtothem.ThestafffromGävle,forinstance,hasaringaffixedtotheendofitwith

severalironamuletsonthering:itis,essentially,aniron“rattle”(Price2002:189).The

staffsfromMyklebostad,SøreimandVekaalsohaveringsaffixedtothehandles(2002:193,

194,196).Pricealsoexaminesseveralsimilaramuletsthatarenotattachedtostaffs.These

amuletsarecomposedofbronze,silverorironringswithmetalpendantsinvariousshapes

thathavebeenstrungontotherings(2002:204).Theshapesofthesependantshavebeen

interpretedasreferringtovariousdeities:miniatureswords(Óñinn),miniaturestaffs

(symbolicofseiñr-staffsthemselves?),miniaturespearsorspear-heads(Óñinn)andhammers

(Ãórr).Priceconcludesthat,

whenwehaveanyhumancontextforthestaffs,theyarefoundassociatedwithwomen.Theirmeaningisofcourseuncertain,butthelinktothevariouskindsofseiñr-staffsissuggestive.Thisisstrengthenedbytheirassociationwithother‘amulets’thatcanbeconnectedtoÓñinn.ItmayalsobesignificantthatthestaffsneverappearonthesameringasÃórr’shammers–aclearsuggestionthattheyareunconnectedwiththisgod.Itappearsthatthestaffs[...]mayhaveformedpartofthe‘tool-kit’ofVikingAgesorceresses.(Price2002:204)256

MightJárnglumrarefertosuchstaffsand/oramuletsandtherattlingnoisesthattheymake?

Couldthisnamemean“arattlemadeofiron”or“therattlingiron[staff/amulet]”?Thisis

possible,butperhapsunlikelygiventhatjárnstafrisalreadyatestifiedtermreferringtothese

items.Ihavenotfoundanyuseofglumraorwordsofsimilarmeaninginassociationwith

thetextualreferencestothesestaffs,butthematerialobjectscertainlysuggestthatthey

255InthesummaryofÃórsdrápainSnE,Gríñr’sstaff(Gríñarvõlr)whichsheloanstoÃórr,andthesmithingandironmotifsassociatedwithitshouldalsobenotedhere.256SeealsoMonicaFjaestad’sarticlefordetailsonthediscoveryoftheBirkaartefacts(1995:98-106).

211

wouldhavemadenoiseandthat,asatooloftheseiñkona,thisnoisewouldhavebeenone

definingcharacteristicofthejárnstafr.Asthewordjárngerñrshows,thesecompoundsmay

referbothtoindividualfemales(Járngerñristhenameofseveralwomenin,forinstance,

Landnámabók)andtometalartefacts(járngerñreferstoanirongirdle)(Cleabsy-Vigfusson

1957:s.v.járn).SoitisperhapspossiblethatJárnglumrareferstotheseironstaffswith

rattlingamulets,and/ortotheamuletsthemselves.Theevidenceforbattlenoisesis,however,

amoredominantlytestifiedassociationwithglumraandrelatedverbs.

ÍmgerñrandEisurfálaareenigmaticbutseemtosharesomesimilarities.Thefirst

elementím-mayconsistoftheneuternouním,“dust,ashes,embers,soot”(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.ím;Motz1981:505;deVries1977:s.v.ím).Gerñrisoftenthenameof

agoddessorwoman(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.Gerñr).Motzpointsout,however,that

GerñralsohasIndo-Europeanrootsinwordsthatmean“toenclose”,asintheONmasculine

noungarñr,“enclosure”,e.g.Miñgarñr(1981:500).Eisurcouldbeinterpretedastheplural

formofthefemininenouneisa,“glowingembers,ashes,fire”(Fritzner1954:s.v.eisa;

Cleasby-Vigfusson1974:s.v.eisa;Motz1981:505;deVries1977:s.v.eisa).Theverbeisa

means“torush,showerdownembers,proceeddashingly”(Motz1981:503).Fálamayrefer

tofemaletrolls(Fritzner1954:s.v.fála)aswellasgiantessesandhigh-spiritedorrude

women(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.fála).MotzsuggeststhatfálaalsohasIndo-European

rootsinverbsmeaning“tocover”,henceONfela,“toconceal”(1981:500).Motz

categorizesEisurfálaasoneofseveralnamesthatsuggestspeedormovement,including

Brana,“torush,advancewiththespeedoffire”,andGeysa,“torushfuriously,gush”(1981:

503).InthiscategoryMotzalsosituatesMunnriñaandMyrkriña,whichhavetheverbriña,

“toride”,astheirsecondcomponents.Drawingonthealternativemeaningoffála,“to

conceal”,MotzalsocategorizesEisurfálawithÍmgerñrasnamesthat“showgiantessesas

secretbeings,hiddenfromtheviewofmenbycowls,hoods,orthewallsandfencesoftheir

dwellingplace”(1981:500).Ímgerñr,ifinterpretedas“enclosureofashes/embers”,mightbe

areferencetoaforgeorfurnace.Similarly,Eisurfála,ifinterpretedas“concealingof

embers/fire”,couldalsosuggestaforgeorfurnace.Thereis,however,nootherevidenceto

reinforcethisinterpretationconclusivelyanditisspeculativetomakesuchsuggestions.

Unlikethepoeticcategoriesforaxe,sword,shield,etc.inSkáldskaparmál,therearenosuch

categoriesforfurnacesandforges.

212

Ámamayberelatedtotheadjectiveámr,“black,loathsome”(Motz1981:503).257

Margerñr258andAtla259donotappeartocontainanyelementsrelatedtometalworking,metal

orfire(Fritzner1954:s.v.mara;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.mara;deVries1977:s.v.

atla).

Leiknisusedasanameforafemaleogre,trollorsorceressandseemstosharea

connectiontoleikr,amasculinenounmeaning“game,spell”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.

leikr;deVries1977:s.v.leikr).Motzalsosuggeststhefemininenounleika,“playmate”

(1981:504).

Munnharpatranslatesas“mouth-harp”,i.e.acrampinthemouth,andMunnriñamay

translateas“mouth-ride”or“mouth-cold-fever”(Fritzner1954:s.v.ríña;Cleasby-Vigfusson

1957:s.v.ríña;Motz1981:502-3).

Tosummarize,oftheelevennamespresentedinthisstanzaofTrollkvennanames,

fivecontainsomeelementthatissuggestiveoffires,metalorpossiblymetalworking.

Õflugbarñaisconnectedtoaskaldictraditionofusingfemaletroll-namestorefertoaxes.

TheexplanationofthispracticeinSkáldskaparmálisparticularlysuggestiveofconnections

toforestsingeneral:“giantess-nameoftheforest”appearstohavebeenavalidformulafor

makingakenningforanaxe.Járnviñjaisalsosuggestiveofsmithingmotifs,anditspresence

inthislistisbothenigmaticandsuggestive.TheconnectionbetweenJárnviñrandthe

giantesseswholiveinthiswoodmaybeapparentinthenameÕflugbarña:axeswereused

forcuttingdowntreesandsplittingwood,andthatwoodwasinturnusedtopowerfurnaces

andforges(i.e.Eisurfála,Ímgerñr?).Thisremainsspeculative.Thisevidencedoes,however,

clearlyshowthatasmallconcentrationofTrollkvennanamesexhibitaffinitiestometal

artefactsand,possibly,metalworkingoractivitiesrelatedtowoodworkingandgeneral

crafting.

TheotherstanzasofTrollkvennanamesfromSkáldskaparmáldonotappearto

containsuchaconcentrationofreferencestometals,featuresofburningornoisesindirect

connectiontometalsand/orburning.Hyrrokkin(=hyrrm.“embersoffire”+rokinnfrom

rjúkav.“toemitsmokeorsteam”)andJárnsaxa(=járnn.“iron”+saxn.“short,heavy

257Cleasby-Vigfussonsuggeststhatámacouldrefertoredandinflamedskinduetostreptococcusbacterialinfection,aconditionnowknownasErysipelas(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.áma).258MotzsuggeststhatMargerñrmaymean“nightmare”,orthefirstelementmar-mayberelatedtothemasculinenounmarr,“sea”(1981:501,504).259MotzsuggeststhatAtlamayberelatedtoatall,a.“fierce,quarrelsome”(1981:500).

213

sword”orsaxav.“tochop,hack”)aretheonlytwootherTrollkvennanamesthatstandoutas

beingsuggestiveofironobjectsand/ormetalworkingphenomena(Fritzner1954:s.v.hyrr,

rjúka;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.hyrr,rjúka,saxa).ThisconcentrationinTrollkvenna4

maysuggestthatJárnviñjaispartofagroupofsuchnamesthathavesomesignificancein

relationtometalobjectsandpossiblysmeltingorforgingphenomena.Thisevidenceis,

however,notsufficienttostandonitsown.

Itisalsoclear,however,thatJárnviñjaandJárnviñjuraresomehowconnectedtothe

toponymJárnviñr,andthatthistoponymisstronglyassociatedwithbogironoreand

smeltingactivities.Theremaybealargernetworkofassociationshere.ThenameJárnviñja

isitselfalsooneofthesenamesandmayalsorefertoanaxe,260thoughitisunclearwhether

Járncouldbeinterpretedasthenameofagiantessaccordingtothepoeticformulaoutlinedin

Skáldskaparmál.Severalofthesenamesarepartofapoetictraditionofdescribingironaxes

byusingthenamesoffemaletrollsorgiants.Similarly,othernamesforgiantessescanrefer

toswords,thenoiseofswords,andotherobjectsmadeofiron.Thispoetictraditionisalso

closelylinkedtoavarietyofnarrativecontextsinwhichvarioustoolsorweaponsandpieces

ofmetalarementioned(e.g.axes,Ãórr’shammer,“iron-grips”,theexchangeoftheiron

ingotinÃórsdrápa,possiblyiron-staffs).Thus,Õflugbarñalikelyreferstoanaxeandthis

nameispartofapoetictraditionthatisstronglyassociatedwithmetalworkingmotifsand/or

products.ThegiantessesoftheJárnviñr,theseJárnviñjuror“Ironwoodlings”,couldbea

groupofcircumlocutionsreferringtotools,weaponsandactivitiesassociatedwithworkand

lifeinandnearthe“Iron-woods”,i.e.theforestsnearbogirondepositswhereworkshop

settlementsproducedironobjects.

Asonefinalpoint,itisworthreiteratingthatferrousmetalworkingwasdifferentfrom

non-ferrousmetalworkinginearlymedievalScandinavia.Ironwastheonlymetalthatwas

refinedlocallyfromoreintheearthandtransformedintofinishedartefactsandtools.Thus,it

isvalidtopointoutthatirontools(axes,hammers,knives,adzes,chisels,etc.),weapons

(axes,swords,spears,arrows)andprestigeorculticobjects(amulets,pendants,seiñstafir)

wereproducedformanygenerationsinrelationtolocaloredeposits,topographicalconcepts,

activities,occupations,tradingrelationshipsandstories.

260Anaxeisbasicallyacombinationofanironheadwithawoodenhandle;henceiron(járn)andwood(viñr)aretheconstituentelementsofaxes.

214

Chapter3:SmithingmotifsinVõlundarkviña

ThefocusofthischapterisanexaminationofsmithingmotifsinVõlundarkviña.First

Iwillexaminethefollowingfeatures:

- thebroadlyartisanalandmorespecificallymetalworkingactions.

- themetallicandnon-metallicartefactsthataredescribed.

- thesignificanceoftheseactionsandartefactsandhowdescriptionsofartisanal

actionsandrelationshipschangeoverthecourseofthenarrative.

- thesignificanceofVõlundr’sartisanalrevengeinrelationtoGermaniccustoms.

- thepossibleanaloguesforthetransformationofskullsintodrinkingvessels.

Second,Iwillexaminethepoemasaperformanceofspatial,networkedrelations,onceagain

drawinguponthetheoryofcentral-placecomplexesasStefanBrinkhasappliedittostudies

ofpre-historicScandinaviansettlements.

Therehavebeenmanystudiesoftheparallels,analogiesandpossiblesourcesforthe

motifsthatappearinVõlundarkviña.Comparisonshavebeendrawnbetweenthemotifsin

thispoemandmotifsappearingineighteenth-centuryandnineteenth-centuryaccountsof

shamanicinitiationnarrativesinSiberia261andmultipleearlymedievalandclassicalsources

inwhichskullsareusedasdrinkingvessels.InduecourseIwillnotesomeofthese

comparisons,andinsomecasesIwillalsonotetheargumentsandinterpretationsof

Võlundarkviñathathavebeenbaseduponsuchcomparativeapproaches.Forthemostpart,

however,myaiminthischapterisnottoofferanothercomparativestudyofthepoemandits

motifs.MyprimaryaimistoexaminetheartisanalmotifsofVõlundarkviñaand

contextualizethesemotifswithrespectto,ontheonehand,thespatialconceptsandrelations

thatareperformedbythepoemitselfand,ontheotherhand,theearlymedievalScandinavian

contextfromwhichthisnarrativecomes.

261AccordingtoEliade’sparaphrase(1978:83),thesedream-narrativesinvolveaspiritjourneyinwhichtheinitiatemeetsasupernaturalsmithfigurewhore-forgestheinitiate’sskullusingaspecialanvil,orreassemblestheinitiate’sbodyusingironeitherinplaceofboneorasaconnectiveagentbetweenbones.Thesenarrativesinvolveaconsistentsequenceofevents:1)spiritualjourneytothesmith,2)dismemberment,3)re-integrationofthebody,sometimesusingmetalcomponents,4)spiritualreturnjourneywithconfirmedstatusasshaman.ThecomparisonofthisshamanicnarrativetoVõlundarkviñahasledtotheYakutproverb“thesmithandtheshamancomefromthesamenest”beingappliedtoVõlundr(Dronke1997:257;Eliade1978:83).Thisiscategoricallyinaccurateforseveralreasons(cf.Einarson2009:221-4;cf.Kehoe2000).SeealsoKaarenGrimstad’sinterpretationofVõlundarkviñaasaprofaneandnolongerunderstoodversionofaoncesacralinitiationriteforyoungwarriors(1983:203).SeethediscussionintheIntroductiontothisdissertation(page28above)

215

3.1BroadlyartisanalmotifsBeforeexaminingthemorepredominantlymetal-orientedmotifsofVõlundarkviña,it

isimportanttonotethatoneoftheearliestartisanalmotifsinthepoemistheswan-maidens

spinningfinelinen.Instanzaone,theswan-maidensarriveontheshoreofÚlfsiárandãærá

sævarstrõndsettuzathvílaz,/drósirsuñrœnar,dÿrtlínspunno(1.5-8),“thereontheshore

ofthelake[they]sattorestthemselves,southernladies,[they]spunpreciouslinen.”

WeavingmotifsappearinseveralOldNorsetexts,frequentlyinassociationwithovertones

ofthesupernaturalandfate(Bek-Pedersen2009:23-39).262Spinningmayormaynotbe

understoodasadistinctactivityfromweavinginthisinstance.263

Astheprimaryfocusofthecurrentstudyissmithingmotifs,Iwillnotgointothe

detailsofweavingtechnologyinmedievalScandinavia.Itsufficestobrieflypointoutthat

activitiesinbothmetalworkingandweaving/spinningtookplacesimultaneouslyatmanyof

thesettlementsandworkshopcommunitiesinearlymedievalScandinavia.Sigtuna,for

instance,wasthelocationofthefirstcoinmintinSweden(c.995;cf.Ross2002:174).This

mintwaslocatedintheantechamberofabuildingonaplotthatcontainedfourother

buildings.Oneoftheotherbuildingsonthisplotwasclearlyusedforweavingortapestry

work(Ros2002:167,173-4).Thisplotwaslikelyownedbythecrown(Ros2002:174).

BejsebakkenisasettlementontheLimfjordenwaterwayinnorthernJutlandwithevidenceof

forty-twolonghousesandthree-hundredandfiftypithouses,datingtoc.400-800AD

(Nielsen2002:187,198,200).Bejsebakkenwaslikelyapermanentsettlementthatwas

periodicallyvisitedbymerchantsandcraftspeople(Nielsen2002:197).“Weavingweights

andspinningwhirls”havebeenfoundinthepithouses,demonstrating“thatthepithouses

wereusedfortextileproduction”(Nielsen2002:197).Afewofthesepithousesdifferfrom

theothersandwereclearlyusedassmithingworkshops(Nielsen2002:204).Near

Bejsebakken,theViking-agesettlementatSebbersund264alsoshowsevidenceofbothtextile

workandsmithing(Nielsen2008:135-6).ThesiteatÅhusinsouthernSwedenwasalso

262InherarticleontheNornsfortheMedievalScandinavia:anencyclopedia,ElseMundalsuggeststhattheNornsrepresentthehighestpowerintheOldNorsecosmosandthattheirfate-makingactivitiesaremagicalactionsreferredtoeitherasthespinningofathread(Regnismál13,HelgakviñaHundingsbana1)orasmakingamarkinwood(Võluspá20)(Mundal1993:625).263Asnotedabove,NeilPriceoffersarecentexaminationofseveralmetalsseiñr-staffsthathavebeenfoundinfemaleburials(Price2002:182-200).Thesestaffsmayhavealsobeensignificantinrelationtospinning.EldarHeide,forexample,hasofferedabrief,speculativestudyoftheevidenceofspinninginNorseandSámicontextsaspartofhisargumentthattheseactivitiesmayhaveheldsignificanceinrelationtoseiñrrituals(2006:164-169). 264SebbersundisnearNibe,alsoontheLimfjordenwaterway.

216

locatedontheshoreofawaterwayandexhibitsactivitiesinbothmetalworkingandfine

textiles(Callmer2002:125).SeveralofthecraftsatÅhuswereperformedinclose

collaboration.Comb-making,forexample,requiredclosecoordinationbetweenhighly

skilledcarvingandfinesmithingwork(Callmer2002:127,142,155).265Åhusdiffersfrom

othersites,however,inthatitshowsnoevidenceofadefinedordistinctcentralhallorcult

space.Theplotsarefairlyregularandappeartohaveaccommodatedgroups(possibly

families)offivetotenpeople(Callmer2002:125,127).

Theevidenceofmultipletypesofcraftingatthesesitesisnotexceptional.266

MetalworkingdidnottakeplaceinanartisanalvacuuminmedievalScandinavia.Similarly,

Võlundrandhisbrothersformfamilyunitswiththeirwivesandtheylivetogetheronthe

shoresofÚlfsiárwheretheseswan-maidensspinfinelinensandVõlundrlaterforgesseven

hundredrings.

3.2Specificallymetalworkingactions,artefactsandspacesThefirstarguablyartisanalmotifthatappearsinVõlundarkviñaisthepropernameof

oneofVõlundr’sbrothers.ThenameSlagfiñrappearsonlyinVõlundarkviña(Dronke1997:

327)anditistheonlynameinthepoemthatisparticularlysuggestiveofsmithingmotifs.267

Thefirstelement,slag-,“isnotapersonal-namecomponentelsewhereinNorse”(Dronke

1997:328).268ItappearstoresembleOldNorseslag,aneuternounmeaning“ablow,stroke”

(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.slag).

Severalscholarssuggestthatthisfirstelement,slag-,sharescloseaffinitieswith

Võlundr’sownartisanalactivities(Dronke1997:327;Buggeqtd.inJónHelgason1962:28). 265Callmeralsopointsoutthatseveralprestigeartefactsmayhavenecessitatedthecollaborativeworkofseveralsmithsandcraftspeople(2003:347-9).266ConsideralsoRibe(Hall2007:23),Hedeby(Müller-Wille1993:275),VikhögsvägenatLöddeköpinge(Ohlsson1976:95-6,108-10)andKaupang(Skre2008:115).267ThenameVõlundralsosuggestsanassociationtoskilledcrafting.Inthiscase,however,itseemstheliteralmeaningofthenamemaybedistinctfromtheconnotationsthenamelaterbecameassociatedwith.Theoriginalformsofthenamemayhavemeantsomethinglike“BattleBrave”(cf.Dronke1997:328;Nedoma1988:58-70).InlaterOldNorseandOldIcelandicsources,thenamewasalsousedasanappellative,meaning“amastersmith,agreatartist”,butthismeaningisdistinctfromtheactualsemanticrootsofthename.ThisappellativeusagepersistsintoModernIcelandic(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.völundr;Fritzner1954:s.v.völundr).Itisalsosignificantthatinhisninth-centuryOldEnglishtranslationofBoethiusKingAlfredusedVõlundr’sname(WelandinOldEnglish)totranslatethenameoftheheroFabricus.EllisDavidsonsuggeststhatAlfred’s“mindseemstohavejumpedfromthehero’snametotheLatinwordfaber,‘smith’,andfromthereagaintothenamewhichforhimstoodforthemostfamousofsmiths,Weland”(1958:145).ThismaysuggestanearlierdateforthecloseassociationbetweenVõlundr/Welandthesmithandtheappellativeusevõlundr,“amastersmith,agreatartist”,thantheextantOldIcelandicexamples.Atanyrate,apartfromSlagfiñrandVõlundr,thepersonalnamesinVõlundarkviñadonotappeartoshareanydirectsemanticconnectiontoartisanalmotifs. 268JónHelgasonalsonotestheuniquenatureofthenameSlagfiñr(1962:28).

217

Theverbslá,forinstance,appearsfourtimesinVõlundarkviña,alwaysreferringto

Võlundr’smetalworking,andtheprimarysenseofthisverbis“tostrike,beat”(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.slá;LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.slá;Fritzner1954:s.v.slá).The

verbsláisusedinnumerousartisanalcontextselsewhere,predominantlyinrelationto

metalworkingandblacksmithing:forexample,slávef,“tostriketheloom”,slásverñ,“to

strikeasword”,sláãvertréafsilfriíhofit,“toforgeacross-beamoutofsilverinthetemple”,

slásaum,“toforgenails”,sláherspora,“toforgewar-spurs/caltrops”,269sleginnframbroddr

ferstrendr,“forgedintoafour-edgedpoint”,270sláöxareñagref,“toforgeaxesordigging

tools”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.slá).LaFargeandTuckerandFritznersuggestthatthe

meaningofsláthatpertainstoVõlundr’sactivitiesismorespecifically“tohammer,forge”

(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.slá;Fritzner1954:s.v.sláv.10).Instanza20ofthispoem,

sláisassociatedexplicitlywiththeuseofahammer.InVõlundarkviña,sláisalsoassociated

withtheverbsgøra,“tomake”,andlykja,“tojointheendsof,tocoil”,aswellasthe

productionofartefactssuchaslindbaugar,271“rings”,vél,“ingeniousdevices”,and

brióstkringlar,“brooches”.Therefore,inthiscontextitislikelythatthisfirstcomponentof

Slagfiñr’snameis“appropriateforVõlundrhimself”(Dronke1997:327).SophusBugge

takesthisonestepfurther,suggestingthatSlagfiñr,likehisbrotherVõlundr,isalsoaskilled

smith(qtd.inJón1962:28).Whilethepoemprovidesnoevidencetosupportorrefute

Bugge’ssuggestion,hammeringandforgingarethematicallyimportantmetalworking

activitiesinVõlundarkviña.ThefirstelementofthenameSlagfiñrmaybeconnectedtothese

activities.

Thesecondelementofthisnamesurvivesintwoforms:SlagfiñrandSlagfinnr.Inthe

CodexRegius,thesecondelementofthisnameappearsas–fiñrinthethreeattestationsinthe

269cf.Cleasby-Vigfusson(1957:s.v.herB.),Fritzner(1954:s.v.herspori). 270FromEgilssaga:

Ãórólfrvarsvábúinn:hannhafñiskjõldvíñanokãykkvan,hjálmáhõfñiallsterkan,gyrñrsverñiãví,erhannkallañiLang,mikitvápnokgott;kesjuhafñihanníhendi;fjõñrinvartveggjaálnalõngoksleginnframbroddrferstrendr,enuppvarfjõñrinbreiñ,falrinnbæñilangrokdigr,skaptitvareigihæraentakamáttihenditilfalsokfurñuligadigrt;járnteinnvarífalnumokskaptitalltjárnvafit;ãauspjótvárukõlluñbrynãvarar.(ÍF21988:136)

Ãórólfrwassoequipped:hehadashieldbroadandthick,atoughhelmetonhishead,girdedwithasword,whichhecalledLang,agreatweaponandfine;athrustingspearhehadinhand;thebladewastwoellslongandforgedintoafour-edgedpoint,butabovethebladewasbroad,thesocketbothlongandthick,theshaftwasnothigherthancouldbegraspedwithhandatthesocketandwonderfullythick;anironspikewasinthesocketandtheshaftwasentirelywoundaroundwithiron;thosespearswerecalledmail-coat-piercers.

271Itisclearthesearemadefromgullrautt,“redgold.”

218

prosepreludeandthetwoadditionalattestationsinstanzafour.Incomparison,-finnrappears

intheonlyextantattestationofthenamefromtheprosepreludeinAM748I4to(Neckeland

Kuhn1962:116).FinnrclearlycorrespondstothemasculinenounusedtorefertotheSámi

intheprosepreludetothepoem(aselsewhereinOldNorsesources).Fiñrlikelyrepresentsa

variantformoffinnrthatalsoreferstotheSámi(Fritzner1954:s.v.fiñr).272Itistherefore

possiblethatthesetwovariantsarenotdistinctinmeaning.AndyOrchardfocuses

exclusivelyonthisinterpretation,suggestingthatthenameSlagfinnrisevocativeofboth

“smith-craftandthemagicalabilitiestraditionallyassignedtotheFinnsorLapps”(2002:

330).Thus,asOrchardsuggests,thename“appearstocombineelementsofthelegendary

activitiesofVõlundrhimself.”

Analternativeinterpretationshouldbrieflybeexamined.Dronkehypothesizesthatif

SlagfiñrcanberelatedtoOldHighGermanslegifedera,“aglossforpenna,‘pinion’(‘the

featherthatstrikestheair’),wecouldtake–fiñrasadjectival,fromfjõñr,‘feather’,so,

‘havingfeathers,wings’”(1997:327).273Thenounfiñrorfiñri(plural)tendstoreferto

“plumage”(inusagesreferringtothefeathersofabedorarrowfletching,forinstance),

whereasfjõñrtendstorefertothe“quill”orbaseofthefeather(CleasbyandVigfusson

1957:s.v.fiñr,fjõñr).Fiñriisneuter.Fjõñrisfeminine.Theadjectivalformfiñr(which

Dronkehypothesizes)conformstothepatternforstrongmasculineadjectives,butthisagrees

withneithertheneuternorthefemininenounformsfiñriandfjõñr.Furthermore,thetwo

componentsofaGermanicdithematicnamedonotneedtoshareanyparticulargrammatical

relationshiporsyntax,muchlessacollectivesemanticrelationship.AsIhavenotedbefore,

Germanicdithematicnamesonthewholetendtohavetwodistinctelements,eachsignifying

onitsown.Theexceptionstothisrulearetoponymsandsomeofthenamesofmythological

creatures,likethelistofTrollkvennanamesexaminedinChapter2.Slagfiñrisneithera

toponym,northenameofamythologicalcreature.ThereforeitisbesttointerpretSlagfiñras

twoindependentnouns,i.e.slag,“smith’shammerstroke”,andfiñr,“Sámi”,withoutany

combinedunitofmeaningorsyntacticagreement.Interpretingfiñras“feathers,plumage”is

grammaticallyproblematic,anditseemsmorelikelythatthisisavariantspellingofFinnr,

“Sámi.”

272E.V.Gordonnotesthephonologicalchangewhereby–nnfollowedby–rbecame–ñ,asinmañrwithdat.mannianddat.õñrumwithnom.annarr(Gordon1971:280).273JónHelgasonexplainsmuchthesamehypothesis,butconcludesthatsupportislackingforit(1962:28).

219

3.3Võlundr’sindependentcreations Võlundarkviñacontainsseveralreferencestotwotypesofmetalartefacts(seven

hundredringsandonesword)thatweremadebyVõlundrpriortohiscapturebyNíñuñr.The

firstofthesereferencesappearsinstanzafiveshortlyaftertheswan-maidenshavedeparted

alongwithVõlundr’stwobrothers:

EnneinnVõlundrsatíÚlfdõlom;hannslógullrauttviñgimfastan,[274]lucãihannallalindbaugavel;(5.1-6)

ButaloneVõlundrsatinÚlfdalir;heforgedredgoldround[the]firmly-heldgem,hejoinedtheendsofallringswell;

Theseringsappearagaininstanzassevenandeight,whenNíñuñr’smenenterVõlundr’s

hall:

sáãeirábastbaugadregna,siauhundruñallra,ersáseggrátti.

Ocãeiraftóco,ocãeiráléto,fyreinnútan,erãeirafléto.(7.5-8.4)

Theysawuponabastroperingsstrung,sevenhundredinall,whichthatman[Võlundr]owned.

Andtheytookthemoff,andputthemon,exceptforone,whichtheykeptoff.

Theringsappearagaininstanzaten,whenVõlundrcountsthemandnoticesthatoneis

missing(theonewhichNíñuñr’smenkept):

Satáberfialli,baugatalñi,álfalióñi,einssacnañi;hugñihann,athefñiHlõñvésdóttir,alvitrunga,værihonaptrkomin.(10.1-8)

Hesatonthebear-skin,countedrings,countrymanofelves,onehemissed;hethoughtthat[she]had[it],Hlõñvér’sdaughter,275[that]youngalienbeing,[hethoughtthat]shehadcomebackagain.

Stanzaseventeenandtheproseprecedingitmakeparticularmentionofthekingtakingtwo

ofVõlundr’screations,aring(presumablytheonewhichNíñuñr’smenkeptinstanzaeight)

andVõlundr’ssword(whichhasnotbeenmentionedinthepoempriortothisinstance):

274WhiletheCodexRegiusMS.actuallyreadsgimfástan,NeckelandKuhn,alongwithmanyotherscholars,emendthistogimfastanorgimfastan(NeckelandKuhn1962:117;cf.Jón1962:59).AsIdiscussinmoredetailbelow,Dronkeassertsthataccentinthemanuscript“isnotnecessarilysignificant”(1997:308).IfollowMcKinnell’ssuggestionfortranslatingthephraseviñgimfastan(McKinnell1990:2;McKinnell2003:331).275ThisisVõlundr’swife.

220

Níñuñrkonungrgafdóttursinni,Bõñvildi,gullhring,ãannerhanntócafbastinoatVõlundar.Ennhannsiálfrbarsverñit,erVõlundrátti.Enndrótningqvañ:

‘Tennhánumteygjaz,erhánumertéñsverñochannBõñvildarbaugumãeccir;(NeckelandKuhn1962:119;17.1-4)

KingNíñuñrgavetohisdaughter,Bõñvildr,agoldring,thatwhichhetookoffthebastropeatVõlundr’s[house].Andhehimselfworethesword,whichVõlundrowned.Butthequeensaid:

‘Histeethlungethemselvesout,whentohimswordisdisplayed,andherecognizesBõñvildr’sring.’

InstanzaeighteenVõlundrspeaksaboutbothofhispreviouscreations,whichhavenowbeen

takenfromhim:

‘ScínnNíñañisverñálinda, ãaterechvesta,semechagastkunna, ocecherñac,semmérhœgstãótti; sáermér,fránnmækir,æfiarriborinn, séccaecãannVõlunditilsmiñioborinn.(18.1-10)

‘Aswordshinesupon[the]beltofNíñuñr,that[sword]whichIsharpened,asImostskillfullyknewhow,andIhardened,276asseemedtomemostsuitable;thathasfromme,glitteringsword,foreverbeentakenaway,277IdonotseethatbroughttoVõlundrin[the]smithy.’

Finally,instanzastwenty-sixandtwenty-seven,BõñvildrbringstheringbacktoVõlundr

becauseithasbeenbrokenandneedstoberepaired:

ÃánamBõñvildrbaugiathrósa,erbrotiñhafñi:‘Ãorigaecatsegia,nemaãéreinom.’

Võlundrqvañ:‘Ecbœtisvábrestágulli,

atfeñrãínomfegriãiccir, ocmœñrãinnimiclobetri, ocsiálfriãératsamahófi.’(26-27)

ThenBõñvildrbegantopraise[the]ring,whichhadbroken:‘Idarenottellit,excepttoyou[i.e.Võlundr]alone.’

Võlundrsaid:‘Iwillrepairso[the]breakin[the]gold,thattoyourfather[it]willseemmorebeautiful,andtoyourmothermuchbetter,andtoyouyourselfjustasgoodasbefore.’

276Thesameverb,herña,isusedinafl36(seepages72-73above). 277ThistranslationfollowsLaFargeandTucker(1992:59)

221

3.3-aInterpretingtheringsThereareafewfeaturesabouttheseringsthatareclearlyunderstood.Accordingto

stanzafive,thematerialwhichVõlundrusestomaketheseringsisgold,particularlygull

rautt,“redgold”,whichisatypeofgoldthatcommonly(ifnotexclusively)appearsin

Germaniclegendarynarratives(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.gull).278Beyondthis,

however,interpretingtheselinesbecomesdifficult.AsJónHelgasonpointsout,half-lines

onethroughfourofstanzafivesegirfrásmíñumVõlundar,enerekkifullljóst(1962:59),

“giveanaccountofVõlundr’sconstructions,butitisnottotallyclear.”Inotherwords,this

seemstobearemarkablyprecisedescription,butsomeoftheterminologyremainsunclear.

Thisdifficultyismostlybecausegimfastrandlindbaugrarehapaxlegomena.

Thetermlindbaugrreferstothetypeofartefactproduced.Thesecondcomponentof

thiscompoundisclearlythemasculinenounbaugr,“ring”,andthecontextfurtherreinforces

thatVõlundrismakingrings.Weknow,forinstance,thatVõlundrmakessomeseven

hundred279ormorebaugar,“rings”,atthispointinthenarrative.WealsoknowthatVõlundr

hasthesesevenhundred“ringsstrunguponabastrope”,ábastbaugadregna(7.5-6).The

termlindbaugrappearstodescribealltheseringsasonegeneraltypeordesignofring.

Moreover,Võlundrhastocountthemallbeforehelearnsthatoneismissing,280whichmay

implythattheringsaremoreorlessthesameinappearanceandconstruction.Sothecontext

andthesecondelementoflindbaugrreinforcethataparticulartypeofringisbeingmadein

greatnumberandtheyarestrunguponabastrope.

Thefirstcomponentoflindbaugris,however,enigmatic.Lind-hasbeeninterpreted

inatleasttwoways.First,DronkeandMcKinnellsuggestthatlindreferstoaropemade

fromthebarkofatree,i.e.a“linden-bastcord”(Dronke1997:308;cf.McKinnell2001a:

331).Second,LaFargeandTuckerandHansKuhnsuggestthatthefirstelementlind-is

278This“redgold”ispossiblyanalloythatincludesaparticularratioofcopperandsilver,therebyproducingaslightredcoloration(CretuandvanderLingen1999:119,Fig.9).279JónHelgasonalsopointsoutthatthiscount,sjöhundruñ,moreaccuratelyreferstothe“oldhundred”,i.e.=onehundredandtwenty,andthereforeatotalofeighthundredandfortyrings(1962:60). 280Níñuñr’smentakealltheringsofftherope,andputthemallbackon,exceptforone,whichtheytakebacktotheking.Níñuñrthengivesthisringtohisdaughter,Bõñvildr.ItseemslikelythatVõlundrassociatesthismissingringwithhiswifeinstanzaten,whenhenoticesamissingring:hugñihann,athefñiHlõñvésdóttir,/alvitrunga,værihonaptrkomin(10.5-8),“hethoughtthat[she]had[it],Hlõñvér’sdaughter,strangeyoungcreature,[hethoughtthat]shehadcomebackagain.”Itisforthisreason,andnotnecessarilyforanythingphysicallydistinctaboutit,thatherecognizesthisringinparticular(hannBõñvildarbaugumãeccir,“herecognizesBõñvildr’sring”)andassociatesitwithhiswife(NúberrBõñvildrbrúñarminnar–bíñcaecãessbót–baugarauña,“NowBõñvildriswearing–Ishallknownoredressforthis–mybride’sredring”)(17.3-4,19.1-4;Dronke1997:248).

222

morecloselyrelatedtolinnrorlinni,meaning“snake”or“serpent”(LaFargeandTucker

1992:s.v.lindbaugr;Neckel1968:129).

TheinterpretationsuggestedbyDronkeandMcKinnelldrawsuponthecontextof

theserings.Dronkepresentsaninterpretationthat“relatestothesmith’sprocedure:henow

closesthering’smetalcircletohangonthecord.Solindbaugarwouldmean‘linden-rings’,

‘ringsforthelinden(-bast)cord’”(1997:308).Dronkenotesthatlindi,“belt”,whichappears

in18.2ofVõlundarkviña,is“thoughttobesocalledfromtheplaitedlinden-bastofwhichit

wasmade.”281Dronkealsonotes,however,thatlindis“notelsewhererecordedinON”as

meaning“linden-bast”(1997:308).Thislackofevidenceisproblematic,butMcKinnell’s

examinationoftheroleofOldEnglishvocabularywithinthepoemreinforcesthatlindbaugr,

although“uniqueinON”,meanssomethinglike“ringsthreadedonabark-fibrerope”

(McKinnell2001a:331).Thisinterpretationisbothplausibleandattractive.

LaFargeandTucker,however,noteanotherpossibilityforinterpretingthefirst

syllableoflindbaugr.TheyciteHansKuhn’ssuggestionthatlind-mayberelatedtoOld

HighGermanlint“snake,dragon”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.lindbaugr;Neckel1968:

129).Accordingtothisinterpretation,theproperOldNorseformwouldbelinn-baugr,

“serpentinearm-ring(i.e.arm-ringcoiledlikeasnake)”orperhaps“arm-ringshapedlikea

serpentbitingitstail”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.lindbaugr).Theamplearchaeological

evidenceofringsterminatinginsnake-headsordragon-headscouldsupportthis

interpretation(Andersson1995:69-82;Magnus1976:112).Dronkepointsout,however,that

OldNorselinnr,“serpent”,“isnotelsewhereuseddescriptivelyinaringkenning(e.g.‘ring

withasnakedepictedonit’or‘ringlikeasnake’),butonlyasasubstituteforbaugritself(so

armlinnris‘snakeofthearm’,i.e.‘bracelet’).JónHelgasonalsonotesthatthemost

prevalentexplanationforlindbaugarhasbeentointerpretitsomehowasmeaning

linnbaugar,“serpent-rings”,despitethefactthatthemanuscriptclearlyhaslind-,notlinnror

linni(Jón1962:59).Itisdifficulttoexplainhowascribewouldmisinterpretlinnrorlinni

andwriteinsteadtheuniqueONcompoundlindbaugr.McKinnell’sexplanation,“rings

threadedonabark-fibrerope”,thereforeremainsthemostcogent.

Thisdoesnot,however,providemuchinformationastowhatexactlythese

lindbaugarare.AcloserexaminationoftheverbsthatdescribehowVõlundrmakesthese

281If,asDronkesuggests,lind-isrelatedtotheONlindi,“belt”,thenanotherpossibletranslationshouldbeacknowledged.Lindbaugrcouldmoreliterallymean“belt-ring”or“ringstrunguponabelt.”

223

ringsmaypresentbetterinformation.Theseverbsareslá,“tohammer,forge”,andlykja,“to

jointheendsof,tocoil.”282Asnotedabove,sláhasthespecificsenseof“tohammer,forge”

inVõlundarkviña(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.slá).

Inmostattestations,theverblykjameans“tolock,shutin,enclose,join”,andatleast

oneattestationoftheverbreferstoakista,“chest”,perhapswithmetallocks.Thisusagein

Võlundarkviña5.5istheonlyattestationthatexplicitlyreferstometalworking,andthesense

appearstobe“tocoil”or“toweld”,i.e.tojointhetwoendsofaringtogether(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.lykja;LP1931:lykja;Fritzner1954:s.v.lykjav.1.).Theverblykja

suggeststhatringsofmetalarebeingcoiledintospiralsorweldedintocompletecircles.

Thesetwoprocessesarepossiblydistinctintermsoftheskillstheyentail:shapinggoldinto

spiralsdoesnotrequiremanyoftheskillsusedinweldingorcastingringsintoseamless

circles.

Adeterminingfactorhereisthattheringsareclearlythreadedontoarope.AsDronke

notes,thisappearstobepartofVõlundr’sprocedureforfinishingtheringsandstoringor

displayingthem(1997:308).Itisanecessaryfeatureoftheringsthattheyhangorotherwise

remainsecurelythreadedonarope.Iftheringsareneck-ringsorarm-ringswitha

permanentlyopenspace(Fritzner:1954:s.v.halsm.;Magnus1976:112),thentheymight

notstayontherope.Theringsshouldthereforebeclosed(eitherbyaseamlessweld,orbya

flushjoint)ratherthanbeingpermanentlymótlauss,“withoutjoint”(Cleasby-Vigfusson

1957:s.v.mót).

Iflykjareferstothefinishingofsomesortofarelativelyflushjointwithoutwelding,

thenthreepossibilitiesshouldbenoted.283First,ringscouldbebentshutandagainre-opened,

iftheyarethinenoughandifthemetalismalleableenoughtosustainsuchbending.Goldisa

remarkablymalleablemetal.284Suchringsmightalsobesecurelyshutwithaloopand

282LaFargeandTucker:lykia,“tojointheendsof”,“tocoil”(Vkv5)2.“toenclose,clasp”(1992:s.v.lykja).SeealsoFritzner(1954:s.v.lykjav.). 283TheHistoriskaMuseetinStockholmhasalargecollectionofringsfrompre-historicScandinaviaondisplayandavailableforviewingthroughtheironlinecatalogue(“guldring”;http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/start.asp).KentAnderssonhasalsodoneextensivestudiesofRomanPeriodringsfromScandinavia(c.0–AD375).WhileAnderssoniscurrentlyworkingonlaterexamples,hisworkistomyknowledgethemostdetailedanalysisofthegoldringsinScandinavia.ItishelpfultoconsiderthecategoriesoftypesofringsthatAnderssonidentifiesandthecorrespondingsketchesofeachtype(Andersson1993a:9-12).284SomeofthegoldringsintheGuldrummet(GoldRoom)attheHistoriskaMuseethaveslightlyoverlappingendsandappeartohavebeenintendedasornamentswornaroundtheneck.Thesearethinenoughthattheycouldbebenteasily.Similarly,Andersson’scataloguesdescribeseveraltypesofringsthatappeartohavebeendesignedtobebentintoplaceonthefinger,armorneck(1993a:181Fig.60,182Fig.61,183Figs.62-3,186

224

hook/knob,alatchoranon-permanentfixtureofsomesort(Andersson1995:88-91;Magnus

1976:84-5;Webster2006:Fig.19).285Second,bothendsofaringmaybetwistedtogether,

therebyformingarelativelypermanentclosedloopwithoutwelding.Severalsilverringsthat

closeinthismannerareondisplayattheVikingarexhibitintheHistoriskaMuseet

(Stockholm).TheHistoriskaMuseetdatabasealsocontainsseveralgoldringsthathavebeen

closedbytwistingthelooseendsaroundtheringitself(“guldring”).286

Third,theringsmaybespirals.Ifthespiralsthemselvesareclosed(withlittleorno

spacebetweenthecoils)thenitcouldpreventthemfromfallingofftherope.Cleasby-

Vigfussonnotesthatmetalsusedtobecoiledintospiralsandthenpieceswerecutoff

accordingtopayment:inthesecontexts,baugr“simplymeansmoney”andwasusedby“the

poetsinnumberlesscompounds”(1957:s.v.baugr).TheVikingarexhibitattheHistoriska

Museet(Stockholm)hasseveralverytightspiralsofhacksilverondisplay,287andtheironline

databaseshowsseveralexamplesofsimilarlytightspiralsofgolddatingtotheMigration

PeriodandVikingAge.288ThisinterpretationwouldmeanthatVõlundrmakessomeseven

hundred“currencyspirals”,notnecessarilyitemsofjewellery.Theimplicationsofthis

interpretationneedtobeassessedinregardstothecompoundgimfastanin5.4:ifthisword

Fig.66,188Fig.70,202Fig.79,208Fig.87,212Fig.89,224Fig.95).Seealsohttp://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=109210 285TheHistoriskaMuseetinStockholm,intheGuldrummet,hasseveralexamplesofgoldneckringsthatcloseusingahookandloopfixture.Italsohasthreegoldneck-collarscomprisedofthreetosevenhollowtubesofgold.AtleastoneofthesecollarsisfromVästergötland(fifthcentury)andshowsanintricatefixtureusingsixloopsandapintosecurelyclosethering.Onthefive-tubedcollar,thismechanismfeaturesanintricatelydesignedsafetylockfeaturingaspringtoapplytension.ThissortofintricatedeviceseemsappropriateincomparisontothevélthatVõlundrmakesforNíñuñr.Theintricatepatterningoftheseneck-collarsmightalsobesuggestiveofthepatterningofropes,beltsoreventree-bark,henceperhapsintroducinganotherpossibleassociationtotheelementlind-.Thisis,however,ratherspeculative.Somedetailedphotosmaybeseenonthemuseumwebsite:http://www.historiska.se/utstallningar/fastautstallningar/guldrummet/SeealsoNerman,Figures3,7,18,22(1982:69,71,75-6).ConsideralsothefinelydecoratedhooksinFig.29ofAndersson1993a(72). 286Thetworingsinthemiddleofthisphotodemonstratethismethodofclosing:http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=109500 287SeealsoHall(2007:57)foraphotoofthesilverhoardfromSpillings,Othem,Gotland(c.867),whichshowsseveralvarietiesofsilverrings,includingpartlyopen,bentshut,spiralsandfingerrings.288SeeforexamplethefollowingfindsfromtheHistoriskaMuseetonlinecatalogue:http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=111213http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=109501http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=272206http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=120475http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=109733KentAndersson’sstudiesalsoincludedocumentationofthekeytypesofrings,severalofwhichformrelativelytightspirals(1993a:9-12,102Fig.42,110Fig.43,181-96,200,202).Whilemostofthesefindsareclearlyitemsofprestigiousjewellery,someareclearlynotandmayberegardedascurrencyspirals(Andersson1993a:206Fig.85).

225

incorporatestheelementgimr,m.“preciousstone,jewel”,thentheseringsareclearly

prestigejewellerythatarenotnecessarilyintendedforuseascurrencyinthesensethat

“currencyspirals”are.289Moreover,thefactthatBõñvildrclearlywearsoneoftheseringsas

apieceofjewellerysuggeststhattheseringsaregenerallyintendedasjewellery,notsimply

ascurrency.

Thealternativetothesethreemethodsofjoiningopenringsisthattheringsare

seamlesscircles.Twomethodsmaybeusedtoachievethis.First,theringscouldbecastinto

amould,therebycreatingcompletelyseamlesscircles.290Second,thelooseendsoftherings

couldbeweldedtogether.Dependingupontheskillwithwhichthisisdone,itcanalso

producetheeffectofaseamlesscircle(Andersson:pers.comm.291).Theverblykjainstanza

fivesuggestswelding,coilingorperhapstwisting,butnotcasting:theprocessusedfor

castingisdistinctandtheverbsusedforcastingmetaltendtoreinforcetheliquidstateofthe

metalandtheactionofheatingandpouringthemetal.292Lykjathereforerulesoutthe

possibilitythattheseringsarecastinmoulds.

ThequalitativeassociationsofVõlundr’sskillandknowledgelikelyalsoruleout

severalpossibilities.Inthisinstance,theadverbvelmodifiestheverblykja.Thisaesthetic

andqualitativedescriptionofVõlundr’stechniquesuggeststhatheisperformingatechnique

thatrequiresadvancedskills.Thepossibilitythattheringsareclosedsimplybybendingthem

closed(withoutsomesortofornatelyand/orskillfullyformedconnectingmechanism)may

alsoconfidentlyberuledout.

Thisleavesonlythreelikelypossibilitiesforhowthelooseendsoftheringsare

attached.First,theymaybetwistedshutinaskillfulmanner,withoutnecessarilywelding

them.Second,theymaybeweldedtogether.Third,theymaybejoinedtogetherbylatching

orhookingmechanisms.Materialexamplesofallofthesepossibilitiessuggestthateachmay

289See,forinstance,thisgoldringwitharubysetinit,whichdatestotheRomanIronAgeandwasfoundinUppsala:http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=110291290KentAnderssonnotesthattherearemanyexamplesofcastgoldringsdatingfromtheRomanPeriodinScandinavia,includingallthedifferentkindsofsnake-headringsintheformofneck,armandfingerrings(Pers.comm.;cf.Andersson1993b:81-6).291Inanemailtome,AnderssonhassaidthatherecallsfromhisexaminationofringsofType1and5thatsomeofthesetypesappeartohavebeenwelded,althoughtheexacttechniqueusedtoaccomplishthisisnotyetknownforcertain(pers.comm.;cf.1993b:31-5,41-4).292Seethediscussionoftheverbssteypaandvellaabove(pages47-49and77ff.).

226

havebeenconsideredskillfulandofhighaestheticand/ortechnicalquality.293Thishelpsto

clarifythatlindbaugarlikelyreferstothreepossibletypesofrings.

Thecompoundgimfastanin5.4alsodescribesaparticularmethodand/orfeaturein

theconstructionoftheserings.ThiscompounddoesnotappearelsewhereinOldNorse.The

compoundcontainstwoelements,gim-and–fastan,andeachelementhasbeeninterpretedin

atleasttwoways.Thefirstelement,gim-,hasbeeninterpretedastheneuternoungim,“fire”,

whichappearselsewhereinONversebutnotinprose(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.gim;

LP1931:s.v.gim;SPSMA2001-2010:s.v.gim).294Thisfirstelementhasalsobeen

interpretedasthemasculinenoungimr,“gem,preciousstone”,butgimrappearsonlyin

compounds,e.g.gimsteinn“gem,preciousstone”(McKinnell1990:2).Thesecondelement,

-fastan,hasbeeninterpretedeitherasthesuperlativeoftheadjectivefár,“brightlycoloured,

stained”,295orasaderivativeoffastr,adj.“fast,firm,hard”or(adv.)“fast,strongly,hard,

incessantly”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.gim;Dronke1997:308;LaFargeandTucker

1992:Finnur1954:s.v.gim;Jón1962:59;LP1931:s.v.gim;Nerman1982:32-3).

Iwillstartbyconsideringthoseinterpretationsofgimfastanthatarebasedupongim

n.,“fire”.The1860editionofLPandLaFargeandTuckerspeculatethatgimfastrisone

compoundwordmeaning“fireproof”or“fire-resistant”andthatthismightrefertoananvil

(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.gimfastr;LP1860:s.v.gimfastr).Accordingtothis

interpretation,thephrasewouldreadasfollows:hannslógullrauttviñgimfastan,“he

hammeredredgoldagainstafireproof[=ananvil].”BirgerNermanrejectsthisinterpretation

because“thepoemisotherwisecompletelydevoidofperiphrasis”(1982:32).Thereare,

however,anumberofequallyenigmaticcompoundsinthepoemthatappeartoreferto

particulartechniquesorproductsofsmithing.Itisperhapsmoreimportanttoobservethatthe

interpretationofgimfastanasacollocationforananvilisnotattractivebecausethereisno

evidenceofthisorsimilarcollocationsinOldNorsereferringtoanvils.

LP1931interpretsgimasreferringtothefireofaforgeandthesecondelement

-fastanasaseparateadverb,meaning“incessantly”(LP1931:s.v.gim).Accordingtothis

293TheexamplesIamdrawinguponheredatefromtheMigrationPeriodandVikingAge(Scandinavia,andinsomecasesAnglo-SaxonEngland,andtheNetherlands)andcanbeseeninMagnusMagnusson’smonograph(1976:84-5),LeslieWebster’sarticle(2006:Figs.19-20),andattheGuldrummetintheHistoriskaMuseet. 294TheresultsofaheadwordsearchforgimontheSPSMAwebsiteshowthatmostusagesreferto“jewel”,butaminoritydoreferto“fire”:http://www.skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/db.php?table=lemma&id=27191&val=gim295AsInoteabove,themanuscriptreadsgimfástan.EditorscommonlyemendtogimfastanorgimfastanandIdiscussthereasonsforthisinmoredetailshortly.

227

interpretation,5.3-4readsasfollows:hannslógullrauttviñgimfastan,“hehammeredred

goldwithfire[i.e.heatedbyfire]incessantly”(LP1931:s.v.gim).Thestrengthofthis

interpretationisthatgimn.,“fire”,doesappearelsewhereinONpoetry,particularlyin

kenningsforgoldrings(LP1931:s.v.gim).Thekeydifficultywiththisinterpretationisthe

doubtfulnessoffastanbeinganadverb.Dronkeclaimsthatinterpretingfastanasanadverb

“wouldhavenoparallelandwouldbeunfittingforthemakingofadelicatering”(1997:

308).WhileDronke’ssecondstatementisquestionable,296sheiscorrecttopointoutthatan

adverbialformfastanhasnoparallel(cf.Nerman1982:33).Thus,theseinterpretationsthat

arebasedupongimn.,“fire”,appeartobeimplausible.297

Severalscholarshaveinterpretedthefirstelement,gim,asONgimrm.,“gem,

preciousstone.”Thedifficultywithgimrm.isthatitappearsnowhereelseinOldNorse.

GimsteinnistheOldNorsecompoundthatgenerallyrefersto“jewel”or“preciousstone”

(McKinnell1990:2).McKinnellpointsoutthatthewordgimisusedinOldEnglishverseto

mean“jewel”(McKinnell1990:2).Asanexample,McKinnellpointstotheOldEnglish

MaximsII22-3:Gimscealonhringestandan,“agemshouldstandonaring”(McKinnell

2001a:331).AspartofhisargumentforOldEnglishinfluenceonthevocabularyof

VõlundarkviñaandfortheIcelandicscribe’smisunderstandingofthatvocabulary(1990:4-5,

11),McKinnellsuggeststhatthefirstelementofgimfastanmaybethisOldEnglishword

gim.Thus,accordingtoMcKinnell,becausetheOldEnglishsimplexgimdoesnotexistin

OldNorse,it“seemstohavebeenmisunderstoodbythescribe,whomadeofitgimfastan,a

singlewordwhichfailstomakeanyobvioussense”(McKinnell1990:2;cf.McKinnell

2001a:331).Thisargumentisattractiveinthatitexplainsnotonlytheprovenanceofthe

296Whiletheverbslácangenerallymean“toforge”,itmightjustaswellbeinterpretedas“tohammer”inthiscontext.Moreover,substantialstrength,forceandenergymayhavegoneintothemakingofsuchrings,andsuchhammeringmightbedonewithdexterity,skillandcare.Interpretationsofsuchartefactsandaestheticimpressionsofdelicacyandfragilityneedtobemadewithanawarenessofhowmodernsensibilitiescanbiasourperspective(cf.Callmer2003:337-41).297Nermanhasalsosuggestedthatitmaybeimplausibletointerpretgimasn.“fire”becausethepurityofgoldinearlymedievalScandinaviawasinsufficienttomakesuchheat-treatmentfeasible:

Goldcanbecold-hammeredifitisnotquitepure.Butgoldmustbecold-hammeredifitisnotquitepure;onlypuregoldcanbehot-hammered.NowoldScandinaviangoldwaspracticallyneverquitepure;oftenitdidnotcontainmorethaneightypercent.offinegold.Scandinaviangoldthereforehadalways,orpracticallyalways,tobecold-hammered.(Nerman1982:33)

Nermanmaybecorrecttoruleoutthepossibilityofgimn.,“fire”.ButIbelievefurtherresearchisneededtodeterminethespecificmaterialsandtechniquesusedtofabricategoldringsinearlymedievalScandinavia.CouldVõlundr,forexample,beweldingtheseringsshutusingasolderingalloywithasufficientlylowmeltingpointthatitdoesnotadverselyaffectthegoldoftheringitself?

228

compoundgimfastanitself,butalsotheconfusinglackofsenseinthecompoundasit

appearsinthemanuscript.

IfMcKinnelliscorrecttointerpretgim-asamisunderstoodOEloanword(gim,

“jewel,preciousstone”),thenallthatremainsistointerpretthesecondcomponent,-fastan.

SophusBuggeandBirgerNermaninterpretthemanuscriptreadingofgimfástan(withan

accentonfástan)asthesuperlativeoftheadjectivefár,“brightlycoloured,stained”(Nerman

1982:33;Buggeqtd.inNerman1982:33).Thus,thereadingwouldbe“hestruckthered

goldagainstthebrightestcolouredjewel”(cf.Nerman1982:33).298Dronke,however,points

outthatthere“isnoevidencetosupportareadingfástanassuperlativeof–fár[...]Thereisno

certaininstanceoftheuncompoundedpositiveadj.fárinON[...],andnorecordedinstance

ofthesuperlativeinanyGmclanguage”(Dronke1997:308).Dronkecitesliosár,

(commonlyemendedtolióssar,“shining,radiant”)intheeighthhalf-lineofstanzafiveas

evidencesupportingthisassertionthattheaccentingimfástanisnotnecessarilymeaningful.

Thelastremainingpossibilityisthat–fastanisamasculine,accusativeadjective,

meaning“fast,firm,hard”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.gim;Dronke1997:308;Fritzner

1954:s.v.gim;Jón1962:59;LP1931:s.v.gim).Dronkeidentifiestwopossible

interpretationsofhowOEgimorONgimr,“jewel,preciousstone”,couldbedescribedas

fastr,“fast,firm,hard.”First,thejewelcouldbe“fast”or“secure”“becauseitwastightly

heldbythegoldhammeredroundit”(Dronke1997:308).Insupportofthisinterpretation,

shequotesfromtheOldEnglishpoemElene:“sincgimlocen...hlafordesgifu,‘treasure-gem

closedin(withgold)...alord’sgift’”(Elenell.264-5qtd.inDronke1997:308).Second,

Dronkesuggeststhatthegemmighthavebeen“madefirmbyresinorcement”,likegarnets

incloisonnéwork(1997:308).299Thereisinsufficientinformationtoruleoutoneortheother

ofthesepossibilities,andbothappeartobeequallyplausible.Thus,McKinnell’s

interpretationseemsthemostattractiveinthatitisrelativelyinclusive.Hesuggeststhe

298Buggeactuallysuggests“‘hestrucktheredgoldagainsttheglitteringpreciousstone’”,butthisdoesnotretainthesuperlativeoffárthatbothBuggeandNermansuggest(Nerman1982:33).299ForasummaryandevaluationofNerman’sinterpretationoftheseringsandhisargumentthatthephraseviñgimfástanreferstoatechniqueknownasverroteriecloisonnée,seeFidjestøl(1999:145-7).Nermansuggeststhatthistechniquepertainstotheperiodfrom300-700andhethereforemakesacaseforVõlundarkviñadatingtobefore550AD(Fidjestøl1999:145-6).AsFidjestølpointsout,however,

Nermanwasexceptionallywellequipped,beingprofessionallytrainedinphilologicalmattersaswellasarchaeology,andmostreviewersofhisworkhaveacceptedhisarchaeologicalelucidationofobjectsmentionedinEddicpoemswithgratitude.HisprincipalaimwastocontributetothedatingoftheEddicpoems,however,andinthisrespecthisresultshaveremainedmorecontroversial.(Fidjestøl1999:147)

229

complexviñgimfastanshouldbeseparatedintothephraseviñgimfastan,and“thephrase

shouldthenbetranslated‘to/roundthefirmly-heldgem’”(1990:2).Numerousexamplesof

ringsholdingstonesandgarnetsettingshavebeenfoundfromtheRomanPeriodand

MigrationPeriod.300Whileitisdifficulttoarriveataconclusiveinterpretationofthisphrase,

McKinnell’sargumentfortheOldEnglishinfluenceonthisandotherpiecesofvocabularyin

VõlundarkviñamakesaplausiblecaseforviñgimfastanimplyingthatVõlundraffixes

preciousstonesorgarnetstotheserings.Thus,theselindbaugarthatVõlundrmakesare

clearlyprestigeitemsofjewelleryadornedwithpreciousstones.

3.3-bInterpretingtheswordTheotherindependentcreationassociatedwithVõlundrishissword.The

descriptionsofthisswordprovideinformationaboutVõlundr’ssocialstandingandhisskills

asasmith.Thisswordisfirstmentionedinstanzaseventeenandtheprosepassagethat

precedesthisstanza.Theprosesaysthathannsiálfrbarsverñit,erVõlundrátti(Neckeland

Kuhn1962:119),“he[Níñuñr]himselfworethesword,whichVõlundrowned.”Theverb

bera,“towear”clothesor“tocarry”weapons(ONP2010:s.v.3beravb.2”,3beravb.3;

Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.bera),issignificant:itsuggestsNíñuñriswearingthissword

onhispersoninhiscourt,displayingitasanarticleofclothingorjewellerymightbeworn.

Thiswouldappeartobeaprestigioussword.

TheproseandverseofVõlundarkviñadifferslightlyintheportrayalofVõlundr’s

roleasasmithinrelationtothissword.Theinitialstatementintheproseprecedingstanza

seventeenisequivocalastowhetherVõlundr,inthispoem,displaysanyskillsrelatedto

blacksmithingorsword-making.301Accordingtotheprose,Võlundrsimplyownedthis

sword,andasanaristocraticfigureamongsttheSámi,itisfittingthathewouldownasword

300ConsiderAndersson,Figures30,32,33,41,45,52,75,97,99(1993a:73,83,99,128,156,196,227,231).Consideralsohttp://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=43454,http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=43455,http://www.historiska.se/data/?foremal=110291.301WhileVõlundrischaracterizedpredominantlyasanon-ferroussmithinthispoem,elsewhereheisalsoassociatedwithferrousmetalworking.InBeowulfWēlandisresponsibleforthemakingofBeowulf’smail-shirt(ll.455).Accordingtochapter67ofVelentsãáttrinÃiñrekssagaafBern,VelentmakestheswordMímungr(Guñni1961:Vol.1,97-9).Fromanarchaeologicalandanthropologicalperspective,JohanCallmerpointsoutthatthere“wasonlyasmallnumberofweaponsmithsonthislevelinScandinavia”(2003:347).Callmeralsosuggestsitislikelymanyoftheseactivities(i.e.theproductionofapattern-weldedswordorthemakingofbroochesfrommoulds)“presupposesagroupofseveralmastersmithsandcraftsmenworkingtogether”(2003:347).Onpattern-weldedswords(whichshouldnotnecessarilybeconfusedwithdamascenedswords)seethedescriptioninthesixth-centuryletterbyCassiodorus(writtenforTheodorictheOstrogoth)tothekingoftheVarni(Brady1979:102),andseealsoManfredSachse(1993:13,19-21)andEllisDavidson(1962:1-40,114-8,130-1,142-5).

230

worthyofbeingwornbyaking.Thefollowingverseisquiteclear,however,thatVõlundr

hadahandinfinishingthissword:

‘ScínnNíñañisverñálinda, ãaterechvesta,semechagastkunna, ocecherñac,semmérhœgstãótti;’(18.1-6)

‘Aswordshinesupon[thebelt]ofNíñuñr,that[sword]whichIsharpened,asImostskillfullyknewhow,andIhardened,asseemedtomemostsuitable;’

Theverbshvessaandherñaappearincontextsthatrespectivelyrefertotheprocessesof

sharpeningabladeandhardeningortemperingit(Fritzner1954:s.v.herñav.;Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.herña,hvessa).302DuringtheVikingAgeinScandinavia,swordswere

generallymadefromiron.ThisexcerptshowsthatVõlundrisskilledinbladesmithing

techniques,particularlytemperingandsharpeningblades,anditmayormaynotalsoimply

thatheisskilledinweldingironandsmeltingironore.303Eitherway,Võlundrisa

remarkablyskilledartisan,abletoproducerefinedartefactsinbothferrousandnon-ferrous

metals.ThistestifiestoVõlundrasanartisanwith“deepandexclusiveknowledge”aswell

asthesocialconnectionsandcapacitiesofproductionthatwere“onlyknownandmastered

byaminor(oftenevenaminimal)partofthepopulation”(Callmer2003:342).

Inthestanzaquotedabove,Võlundralsoconveysasenseofprideorappreciationfor

thisparticularswordbecauseitistheresultofthebestofhisskillandknowledge:semec

hagastkunna[...]semmérhœgstãótti(18.4,6).Thepoemclearlydelineatesthetechnical

actionsofthesmith(hvessaandherña)aswellasthebodyofknowledgeandskillpossessed

onlybythesmith(ãykkiaandkunna).ThepoemportraysVõlundrhimselfarticulatingthis

nuanceddistinctionbetweenthesetwocategoriesoftheartisanal.Theimplicationhereisthat

thesufferingandexploitationthesmithenduresarenotsimplybecausehisswordhasbeen

takenfromhim,butalsobecausebothhisskillsandhisknowledgearenotbeingproperly

respected.

302Seeherñainattestationafl36.inChapter1(page72above).SeealsoFritzner(1954:s.v.herñaf.). 303Inthisinstance,itispossiblethatVõlundracquiredaroughlypreparedswordbladeandfinishedit,temperingandsharpeningthebladeaswellas(possibly)addingahilt.Itisalsopossiblethathemadetheblade“fromscratch”,i.e.fromironoreorironingots.OthersourcesforcharacterizationsofVõlundrportraythesmithasskilledatsmeltingironaswellashardeningandsharpeningswords.See,forinstance,theexcerptfromÃiñrikssagaafBerninafl4.fromChapter1(page48above),whichdescribesVelentmakingcompletelyfinished,superlativeswordsfromgroundupironfilings.SeeHintonforabriefdiscussionofAnglo-Saxontextsthatdescribedistinctionsbetweendifferentsmithingskills,e.g.acraftsmanskilledinworkingwithgoldandgemsversusaskilledbladesmith,orasmithskilledinrepairingtoolsversusasmithskilledinrepairingweapons(Hinton2003:263).

231

3.4Võlundr’screationsforNíñuñr304 Stanzas20-25and35-36describetheitemsthatVõlundrmakesforNíñuñr,Níñuñr’s

wifeandtheirdaughterduringhisenslavementatSævarstõñ.Stanza20presentsageneral

pictureofVõlundr’sroleasNíñuñr’ssmith:

Sathann,néhannsvaf,ávaltochannslóhamri;[305] vélgorñihannheldrhvattNíñañi.

Drifoungirtveirádÿrsiá,synirNíñañar,ísævarstõñ.(20.1-8)

Hesat,hedidnotsleep,continuously,andheforgedwithhammer,hemadeingeniousdevicesratherquicklyforNíñuñr.Twoyoungonesracedtolookon[the]riches,sonsofNíñuñr,in[the]landing-placeof[the]sea.306

Thekeyverbhereisonceagainslá,“tohammer,forge”,asisalsothecasein5.3,25.7and

36.3.Inthisinstanceat20.2,however,sláappearsincombinationwithahamarr,“hammer”,

asatool.Inthiscontextitisclearthatsláimpliesahammeringactionratherthanthemore

generalcreativemetalworkingactionimpliedby“forge”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.

slá).Theotherverbthatappearshereisgøra,“tomake,build,prepare,produce”(Cleasby-

Vigfusson1957:s.v.göra;LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.gøra;Fritzner1954:s.v.göra).

ThissameverbisusedtodescribethecreationoftoolsinVõluspá7.8andthebuildingof

Níñuñr’ssmithyinVõlundarkviña34.2.Thesecreativeverbsareassociatedwithtwo

artisanalproductions.First,vél,“ingeniousdevices”,isthetermusedtogenerallydescribe

Võlundr’screationsonceheisenslaved.AsLaFargeandTuckersuggest,thetermis

ambiguousbutgenerallycarriesovertonesofguileanddeceit.307Second,instanzatwentythe

sonsofNíñuñrhurryforthefirsttimetoVõlundr’ssmithytoseedÿr,“costly,precious

objects”.308Theverbssláandgøra,aswellasthevélanddÿrthatVõlundrmakes,areall

304Fenfiõturs,“fenof[the]fetter”(24.3,34.7),hasanimportantroletoplayinthesmithingworkshopandthisiswhereVõlundrplacestheheadlessbodiesofNíñuñr’ssons.Thediscussionoffenfiõturs,however,haslittletodowithmycurrentdiscussionoftheobjectsVõlundrmakesforNíñuñr.ForthesakeofmaintainingafluiddiscussionoftheobjectsVõlundrmakesforNíñuñr,mydiscussionoffenfiõtursappearsinAppendix1(seepage279below).305ThisistheonlyinstanceinthePoeticEddainwhichhamarrdoesnotrefertoÃórr’shammer(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.hamarr). 306Sævar=gen.sing.stõñ=“shore,landingplace”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.sær,stõñ).Thereforeitisliterally“inlandingplace/shoreofsea.” 307LaFargeandTuckersuggestthatvélmayimply“toschemeagainst[Níñuñr]”(1992:s.v.vél). 308LaFargeandTuckersuggestthatdÿrmeansa“costly,preciousobject”,althoughtheydoacknowledgethatnoothersuchusageexistsanddÿrregularlyreferstoananimal,especiallydeer(1992:s.v.dÿr).Dronkeexplainsthatscholarshave“commonlytaken[dÿrinthisinstance]asanoncesubstantivaluseoftheneut.pl.ofadj.dÿrr,‘precious(things)’”,acknowledgingthatthis“remainssomewhatsuspect”(1997:316).

232

understoodindirectrelationshiptoNíñuñr,forwhomalltheseartisanalactionsand

productionsareaccomplished.

Stanzas21-23describemoreproductsassociatedwithVõlundr’swork.Atthesmithy

thereisakista,“chest”withlucklar,“keys”(21.1-2,23.5-6).309Withinthiskistaarethree

items:menia,“torques,necklaces,preciousobjects”,310gullrautt,“redgold”,311and

gørsimar,“preciousobjects,treasures”.312Thesecondtimethattheboysgotothesmithy

theyexclaimtoeachother,‘Gõngombaugsiá!’(NeckelandKuhn1962:121),“‘Let’sgosee

rings!’”Thusthereareevidentlytorques,necklaces,ringsandotherpreciousobjectsofred

goldatthesmithy.Võlundrispresumablyresponsibleforthefabricationoftheseitems.

Thereis,however,noexplicitdescriptionofhimmakingtheseobjectsinthesestanzas,asis

thecaseinstanzas5and20,andthenounsusedtodescribetheseitemsaremorespecific

thanthoseusedinstanza20.

UponthereturnofNíñuñr’ssons,Võlundrbeginshisartisanalrevenge.First,he

makestwoskálar,silverdrinkingvessels,outoftheskullsofNíñuñr’ssons.Second,he

makesiarcnasteinar,“preciousstones”,outoftheboys’eyes.313Finally,hemakes

brióstkringlar,“brooches”,outoftheboys’teeth.314Stanzas24-25and35-36containthe

309LocksandkeysarecommonfindsfromViking-ageScandinaviaandareassociatedwithseverallockablecheststhathavebeenfound,somecontainingtools(ArwidssonandBerg1983:7;Haywood2000:123).310LaFargeandTucker(1992:s.v.men). 311LaFargeandTucker(1992:s.v.gull). 312LaFargeandTucker(1992:s.v.gørsimi). 313Iarcnasteinn,asMcKinnellpointsout,

appearsinOldNorseverseonlyhereandinGuñrúnarkviñaI18andGuñrúnarkviñaIII9,inbothofwhichitisusedinavaguewaytodescribearichandexoticjewel;bothmaybederivedfromVõlundarkviña.OEeorcnastanappearsinElene1024andfiveotherinstances,inoneofwhich,PsalmGlossC118:127(Wildhagen1910:316),itglossesLatintopazion;theworddoesnotappearinOldSaxon.(McKinnell1990:4)

314Brjóstkringlaisyetanotherhapaxlegomenon.Thefirstcomponentofthecompound,brjóst-,clearlycorrespondstoONbrjóstn.,“breast,chest”.Thesecondcomponent,-kringla,clearlycorrespondstoONkringlaf.,“disk,circle,orb”(ONP2010:s.v.brjóst;Fritzner1954:s.v.brjóst,kringla;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.bjróst,kringla).Brjóstappearsinafewcompoundsreferringtojewelleryandothergarmentsassociatedwiththechest:brjóstbúnañr,“breastornament,brooch”,brjóstreip,“breast-rope,girdle”.Althoughthesecompoundsareonlysparselyattested(brjóstbúnañrappearsonlytwice,andbrjóstreipjustonce),theydoclearlyestablishapatternforreferringtoornamentsorgarmentsofthechest.Brjóstkringlaconformstothispattern.Dronkepointsoutthatkringla“isnotelsewhererecordedofjewellery”(1997:319).Theprevailinginterpretationisthatbrjóstkringlareferstosomethingcircularthatwaswornuponthechestasadecoration(Fritzner1954:s.v.brjóstkringla;JónHelgason1962:72;Dronke1997:319).Dronkespeculatesthatthe“makingofbroochesoutofhumanteethisnotunrealistic(thoughIhavenotfoundinstancesofit)”(1997:267).JónHelgasonnotesthatsomescholarshavespeculatedthatacircularformofornamentcouldbemadebyjoiningtwojaw-bonestogether,andthattheteethcouldbereplacedwithbeads(1962:72).Iamnotawareofanyinstancesinwhichthissortofornamentisdescribed.AnadditionaldifficultywiththislastinterpretationisthatONtõnn/tönnf.,“tooth”,clearlyreferstotheteeththemselves,eitherhumanoranimal,nottokjálki,“jawbone”(Fritzner1954:s.v.tönn,kjalki;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.tönn,kjalki;LP1931:s.v.kjalki).

233

essentialdetailsofVõlundr’sartisanalrevenge.Iquoteinfullherestanzas24and25,andin

footnotesIcommentuponchangesintherepetitioninstanzas35-36:

Sneiñafhaufuñhúnaãeira, ocundirfenfiõtursfœtrumlagñi; ennãærscálar,erundscõrumvóro, sveiphannútansilfri,seldiNíñañi.(24.1-8)315

“Hecutoff[the]headsoftheirsons,andhehadlaid[their]feetunderneath[the]fenoffetter,andthosecups316,whichwereunder[their]hairs,hecoveredwithoutinsilver,presentedtoNíñuñr.

Ennóraugomiarcnasteina sendihannkunnigrikonoNíñañar; ennórtõnnomtveggiaãeira slóhannbrióstkringlor,sendiBõñvildi.(25.1-8)317

Andfrom[the]eyespreciousstones318hesentto[the]craftywifeofNíñuñr;andfrom[the]teethofthetwoofthemheforgedbrooches,319senttoBõñvildr.

Asisthecasewithstanzas5and20,stanzas24-25and35-36alsodescribeVõlundrintheact

ofcreation.ThedescriptionsofVõlundrmakingitemsoutofNíñuñr’ssonsare,however,not

asfocusedonthedetailsofhistechniqueastheywereearlierinthepoem.Themainverbs

herearesneiña,“tocut”,leggja,“tolay,toplace”,sveipa,“tocover”,slá,“tohammer,to

forge”,selia,“topresent,deliver,handover”,andsenda,“tosend”.Onlysláandsveipa

directlypertaintometalworkinginanytechnicalrespect.Sveipaappearstorefertosomesort

ofcoatingorgildingprocedure(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.sveipa;LaFargeandTucker Kjálkitendstoreferspecificallytothemaxillaandmandibleand,inafewcases,toobjectsthatresembletheshapeofthemandible,i.e.sledgesandskis.Tõnn/tönn,ontheotherhand,formskenningsforstonesuchaslagar-tönn,“sea-tooth”,andfoldar-tönn,“earth-tooth”(LP1931:s.v.tõnn;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.tönn).Furthermore,KjálkafjõrñrisatoponyminLandnámabók:althoughthismayshareoriginswiththenicknameofGeirsteinn(orEysteinn)kjálki,whoclaimsthisarea,itisalsoworthspeculatingthatthetoponymmaybesuggestiveoftheshapeoftheinletorpromontoriesinthearea(ÍF11986:172-3).Thedistinctioninusageisclear:thesebrjóstkringlar,whateverexactlytheyare,incorporatetheindividualteethofNíñuñr’ssons,notnecessarilytheirjawbones. 315Thelastfourhalf-linesofthisstanzaarerepeatedinstanzathirty-five,theprimarychangesbeingthatVõlundrspeaksinthefirst-personandtheverbsendaappearsinsteadofselia. 316Skálf.alsoappearsinAkv35;cf.gull-,õl-skál(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.skál) 317Thisstanzaisrepeatedinthelastfourhalf-linesofstanzathirty-fiveandthefirstfourhalf-linesofstanzathirty-six.ThemajordifferencesherearethatVõlundronceagainusesthefirst-personinhisdirectspeech.HealsoreferstoqvánNíñañarinsteadofkonoNíñañar(35.5-8,36.1-4). 318Dronkenotesthatweare“nottoldhow[Võlundr]fabricatedthesesurrealjewels”fromtheeyesofNíñuñr’ssons(1997:319).Dronkesuggeststhattheactual“makingofjewelsoutofeyes[...]mustbefantasy”,butshenotestheappropriatenessofaliteraryorpoeticcomparisonbetweenjewelsandeyes(1997:267).PoolehaspointedouttomethatEgillSkallagrímssonusessøkk,“jewel”,asthebase-wordinakenningfor“eye”in8.3ofArinbjarnarkviña(pers.comm.;cf.Bjarni2003:157).319Alternatively,“circularbreastornaments”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.brjóstkringla).

234

1992:s.v.sveipa;Fritzner1954:s.v.sveipa).Thelastverb(senda)isrepeatedtwicein

stanzas24-25andthreetimesinstanzas35-36.Incomparisontothedetailsgiveninthe

technicalfeaturesofVõlundr’sprocessinstanza5,theuseoftheverbseliaandtherepetition

oftheverbsendasuggestsadifferentemphasisinthelatterstanzasofthepoem.Thefocus

nowisnotonlyonthetechnicaldetailsofVõlundr’scraftbutalso(andincreasingly)onthe

significanceofeachsetofartefactsastheyaredirectedspecificallytowardsasinglefamily

ofaristocraticrecipientsorpatrons.

ThisshiftinemphasiscorrespondstothechangebetweenVõlundr’ssituationasa

relativelyindependentcraftspersoninstanza5toacraftsmanoperatingexclusivelyforone

royalfamily.InhisresearchintocraftproductioninearlymedievalScandinavia,Johan

CallmerpointsoutthattherewasdemandforVõlundr’s“stronglyspecializedcraft

production”withinamoreexclusiveor“closedorganizationsuchasamajorestate,apetty

kingdomorsomeevenbiggerpoliticalunit”,i.e.asopposedtomoreopensystemsoftrade

(2003:342-3).Thissortofspecializedproduction“suppliedearlymedievalsocietywitha

widerangeofbothfunctionallyimportantandsymbolicallyloadedartefacts,whichthelocal

agrariansocialunitshadnocapacitytoproduce”(Callmer2003:343).Inthelatterhalfof

Võlundarkviña,Võlundrclearlyfunctionswithinthecontextofsuchdemandsasa

commissionedartisandeliveringprestigeandpersonalizedartefactsexclusivelytohis

patrons.

Võlundr’spersonalizationoftheseartefactsis,however,heavilyironicand

subversive.Inparticular,thesmith’scustom-madedeliveriesparodythesocialfunctionof

prestigemetalitemsandtheroleofthekingandqueenwithintheceremonialenvironmentof

thehall.Thesedrinkingvesselsare,forinstance,particularlysignificantwithinthesocio-

historicalcontextofthispoem.ThesecupsareapoignantreminderofNíñuñr’sroleasaking

andthesocialfunctionofagoodkinginmedievalGermaniccultures.Thefunctionofornate,

ceremonialdrinkingvesselsis(orshouldbe)tofacilitatereciprocalexchangesofgiftsand

oathsthatsecurepeaceandprosperousalliances.Essentially,agoodkingshouldhavegreat

amountsofwealth,butheshouldalsobeappropriatelygenerouswiththatwealth,thereby

securingfuturealliances,thefutureofhiskingdomandtheprosperityofhissons.The

235

antithesisofagoodkingisonewhohoardsforhimselfandengagesinpracticesofnegative

reciprocitythatdevastatehispeopleandhiskingdom.320

Manyoftheseassociationsbetweenthekingandtreasurearegroundedintheritual

passingofthemead-cupatceremonialfeasts.321Theroleofpassingthiscupissoimportant,

infact,thatthereisanameforthevocation:byreleinOldEnglish,andbyrliinOldNorse,

bothmeaning“cup-bearer”(Bosworth-Toller1954:s.v.byrele;ONP2010:s.v.byrli).322In

earlymedievalGermanictraditions,ornateandpreciousmead-cupswerepassedaroundthe

king’shallaspartofdrinking,feasting,gift-givingandoath-makingrituals.Inparticular,the

ritualofpassingaroundaceremonialdrinkingvesselwasessentialtothestabilityandorder

ofaking’srule(cf.Enright1996:2-9).323ThedrinkingvesselsthatNíñuñrreceivesfrom

Võlundrarethereforeasignificantsymbolofthisritualofceremonialdrinkinganditssocial

function.

Thesocialfunctionofthesemead-cupritualsispredominantlypatrilinealinfocus.

SeveralpassagesfromtheOldEnglishpoemBeowulf,forexample,demonstratehowthese

mead-cupritualsarefocusedinparticularonsecuringthefutureofHrōñgār’ssons.324

320Negativereciprocityisessentiallytheactionofreceivingortakingsomethingfornothing(cf.Bazelmans1999:28).SeealsoJosBazelmans’sanalysisofweaponsandtherelationshipbetweenlordsandretainersinBeowulf(1999:28;cf.CluniesRoss1994:45-67,103-5,115-22).AllquotationsfromBeowulfaretakenfromtheeditionbyBruceMitchellandFredC.Robinson(2006).SeealsoBeowulf,lines1745-68,forHrōñgār’sadvicetoBeowulfaboutthedifferencesbetweenagood,generouskingandagreedy,miserlyking.InBeowulf,kingHrōñgārhimselfisdescribedincloserelationtoprestigetreasuresandreciprocalgift-giving:sincesbrytta(ll.607),“bestoweroftreasure”,syncgyfan,“treasure-giver”(ll.1012),hordweardhæleãa,“treasure-keeperofwarriors”(ll.1047).Beowulfalsodemonstratestheroleofreciprocalgift-givingovertime.Acknowledgingtheirvoluntaryservice,Hrōñgārgivesornategiftsofgold,silverandirontoBeowulfandhisretainers.AndBeowulf’spresenceisitselfalreadyareciprocalactionthatrecallsHrōñgārsettlingafeudforBeowulf’sfatherbysendingapaymentofmoneyandtreasurestotheWylfings(ll.456-472).Thereciprocityimpliedinthegiftsakinggivesisalsoessentialtothesocialconstructsofindividualandcollectiveidentityaswellascontinuitybetweenpastandpresent(cf.Bazelmans1999:111-5,134,149-53,156-70).Bazelmansevenpointsoutthatthereisastrongassociationbetween“treasure”and“life”inbothOldEnglishandOldNorsetextsandcontexts(1999:160). 321Fordetaileddiscussionsoftherecenthistoryofstudiesofgift-givingandthisritualofthemead-cupinBeowulfandelsewhere(includingadiscussionoftheanthropologicaltheoriesofMarcelMauss,MaxWeiner,ClaudeLevi-StraussandLouisDumont),seeBazelmans’smonograph(1999:1-53). 322Thewordbyreleappearsinline1161ofBeowulf.SkutilsveinnisanotherOldIcelandicwordforcup-bearer.ThiswasthehonourarytitlegiventoSnorriSturlusonbyyoungKingHákon(Faulkes2008:312;cf.Fritzner1954:s.v.skutilsveinn). 323Lines607-641and1008-1231ofBeowulfshowtheceremonialcupbeingpassedaroundseveraltimes,ofteninaparticularsequencethatestablishesthehierarchalorderofkingHrōñgār’shallandtherelationofhiskingdominconnectiontootherkingdoms.324Incontrasttotheprominentmentionoftheirsonshere,Frēawaru,thedaughterofHrōñgārandWealhãēow,isnotmentionedexceptretrospectivelybyBeowulf(ll.2020-69).BeowulfdescribesFrēawaruasfunctioninglikehermother,takingthemead-cuparoundduringtheceremonialfeasting.Frēawaru,alsolikehermother,isafriñusibbfolca,“pledgeofpeaceofthepeople”(ll.2017).InBeowulf’sopinion,herroleasapeace-pledgeinmarriagetoIngeld,Hrōñgār’senemy,willnotbesuccessful.Beowulf’sspeechandhispredictionabout

236

Wealhãēowisdescribedascynnagemyndig,“mindfulofcustoms”(ll.613),325andher

carefullyconstructedspeechesreflectthis.Particularlyfollowingtheperformanceofthe

scop’ssongaboutFinnsburg,Wealhãēow’sspeechdemonstratesherperceptivenatureand

herunderstandingofhowthegiftsandoathsthatareexchangedduringthemead-drinking

andfeastingshouldideallyfunctioninthefuture.Sheisfocusedonsecuringafutureforher

twoyoungsons,HrēñrīcandHrōñmund.Wealhãēowmentionsthemspecificallyaspartof

herofferingofthemead-cuptoBeowulf(ll.1181-9).Sheisconcernedabouttheirfutureand

thefutureofthekingdomtheywillinheritafterHrōñgār’sdeath.Wealhãēowimploresthe

youngBeowulf326andhisownkingtorepayhersonsinthefutureforthegiftsnowbestowed

uponBeowulf.Thismead-cupritualisclearlymeant,inpart,tosecurethepassingofpower

fromafathertohissonsandthesuccessfulmaintenanceofafather’skingdombyhissons

afterthefather’sdeath.327

Thus,inanyothercontext,mead-cupsmadebythelegendarysmithVõlundrwould

beagreatcompliment,agiftofunparalleledvalueandsocialsignificance.Níñuñr,however,

hasnotcommissionedVõlundr’sservicesinanopenlyreciprocalmanner.Võlundrwas

enslavedandrobbedbyNíñuñrbecauseoftheking’slustforwealth,prosperityandpower.

Thekingwishesforsuchwealthandprosperitytobeunilaterallyassociatedwithhis

kingdomandhishall.NíñuñressentiallypresumestoestablishamonopolyonVõlundr’s

productivitythrougharelationshipofnegativereciprocityinwhichthekingexclusively

controlsandexploitsthesmith,takingwhateverhewishesfromhimandgivingnothingin

return.

Võlundr’stransformationofNíñuñr’ssonsintothesedrinkingvesselsisthereforea

subversiveparodyofthesocialfunctionofsuchprestigiousmead-cups.TouseMcKinnell’s

word,Võlundr’srevengeis“dynastic”initsscopeandtheskull-cupsareemblematicofthis

(1990:23).Thereciprocaltransformationaccomplishedbythesmithissimultaneously

Frēawaru’sfutureresemblethesequencefromll.1008-1231wherethecelebratoryspeeches,gift-exchangesandmead-drinkinginHeorotarejuxtaposedtothescop’ssongaboutthetragedyatFinnsburgandHildeburh’ssuffering(asthefriñusibbfolcainthatinstance)assheattendsthefuneralpyreofherbrothersandhersons. 325LikekingHrōñgār,Wealhãēowisalsodescribedincloseassociationswithwealth:goldhroden,“gold-adorned”(ll.614,640),bēaghroden,“ring-adorned”(ll.623).Wealhãēowherselfalsogivesoutprecioustreasures.326BeowulfsitsbetweenWealhãēow’stwosonsatthemead-bench. 327SeealsothedescriptionofBeowulf,sonofScyldScēfing,whoisperceptiveandgenerouswithtreasuresasaprince,whichlaterserveshimwellasking(ll.12-25).Hisfather,Scyld,cameintotheworldfēasceaft(ll.7),“destitute”,andbroughtsurroundingpeoplesunderhisrulebyintimidatingthemandremovingtheirmead-benches(ll.4-7).

237

destructiveandconstructive:theprocessofmakingthecupsinvolvesdestroyingNíñuñr’s

progenyandtransformingthemintothedrinkingvesselsthatarecustomarilyusedtoaffirm

thepatrilinealtraditionthatissovitaltothesuccessofaking’spowerovertime.With

Níñuñr’spatrilinealsuccessiondestroyed,328VõlundrremovesanyhopeofNíñuñr’skingdom

andlineagepersistingbeyondhisdeath.Thegiftofthecupisthereforerendereduseless,and

poignantlyso.ItisasthoughthisgiftatoncesatisfiesanddevastatesNíñuñr’sgreedand

ambition,leavinghimhorrificallyvilialauss,“withoutwish”(31.2).329Thecupsthemselves,

beingcoveredinsilverandcraftedfinelybyVõlundrhimself,willnodoubtoutlastNíñuñr’s

kingdom.Theywillfunctionasmemorialsofthemead-tablefeastingritualsthatarenow

emptyandhopeless,servingonlyasareminderofNíñuñr’simpotence330asaleader,his

greedandhisdisgrace.

Similarly,Võlundrspecificallycreatestheiarcnasteinar,“jewels,preciousstones”,

andthebrjóstkringlar,“brooches”,speciallyforthequeenandBõñvildr.Thesespecially

madeitemsalsocorrespondtothetreatmentofVõlundrinNíñuñr’shallandhisenslaved

roleasanartisan.Thesegiftsre-figure,inparticular,thewordsandactionsofthequeenupon

firstseeingVõlundrinNíñuñr’shall:

‘Erasánúhÿrr,erórholtiferr’[...]‘Tennhánumteygjaz,erhánumertédsverñochannBõñvildarbaugumãeccir;ámuneroaugoormiãeiminomfrána’(16.7-8,17.1-6)

‘Thisoneisnotnowfittingforahousehold,[he]whocomesoutofthewood.

328ThisdestructionisfinalizedwhenBõñvildrvisitsVõlundrtohaveherringrepaired.VõlundrtakesthisopportunitytoseduceandimpregnateBõñvildr,therebyassertingthesmith’sownpatrilinealsuccessionwithinNíñuñr’shall.ThesmithusestheverbbœtatodescribehowmasterfullyhewillrepairBõñvildr’sbrokenring.ThisisthesameringthatVõlundrcloselyassociatedwithhisownwifeandwhichNíñuñrstolefromhim,givingittohisdaughter.Bœtacanmean“torepair”(asinthisinstance),butitisalsousedinthePoeticEddatomean“topaycompensation(foraninjusticeorinjury);tomakeamends”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.bœta).ThisverbfurtherreinforcesthatVõlundr’srepairingofthisring(andhisimpregnationofBõñvildr)issynonymouswithhimmakingamendsforthewrongsperpetratedagainsthim. 329ThesignificanceofVõlundr’srevengeisfurtherreinforcedbythisphrasebeinganechoofvilialaussdescribingVõlundrin11.4.AsMcKinnellsays,“itisgrimlyappropriatethatthetyrantwhosemotivationwasgreedforpreciousobjectsshouldreceivethepaymenthedeservesinsuchobjects,madefromtheskullsofhissons”(1990:22).Inasense,Võlundr“repairs”Níñuñr’sgreedjustasherepairstheringthatBõñvildrbreaks. 330McKinnellsuggeststhatit“isalsopossiblethatVõlundr’sdynasticrevengeonNíñuñrisconnectedwiththeotherobjectofwhichhehasbeendeprived,hissword(Vkv.18,20).Justastheringseemsconnectedwithfemalesexuality,theswordmaybeavirilitysymbol”(1990:23).McKinnellpointstoseveralexamplesfromthesagasandelsewhereinwhichstolenswordssymbolizethe“lossofsexualself-esteem”oftheowner.Hence,“itmayseemjustfor[Võlundr]torepaythiswithanegationofNíñuñr’svirilityandacorrespondingassertionofhisown”(McKinnell1990:23).

238

[...]‘Histeethlungeout,whentheswordisdisplayedbeforehimandherecognizestheringofBõñvildr;[his]eyesarereminiscentofthegleamingserpent.’

Thequeen’sspeechesfunctioninthreewayswithinthepoem.Thefirsttwofunctionshave

primarilytodowiththecharacterizationofthequeen.First,thesespeechesdemonstratethe

queen’sperceptiveness,particularlyinregardstotheidentificationofpotentialthreats(like

Võlundr)tothewellbeingofheroffspring.Second,thequeen’swordsalsomakeitclearthat

sheis“ruthlessandvindictive”,andthatsheisinapositionofpowerwithinNíñuñr’shall

(McKinnell1990:19).AlthoughNíñuñrappearstoberesponsibleforhavingVõlundr

shackledandfortheredistributionofthesmith’swealth,331itisthequeen“whoadvisesthat

Võlundr’ssinewsbecutinordertorenderhimharmless”(McKinnell1990:19).“Advises”is

possiblytoosubdued,andinaccurate:thequeenlikelycommands,intheimperativeplural

(sníñiñandsetiñ),332thatVõlundr’ssinewsbecutandthathebeisolatedintheisland

workshop.Herwordsareenactedwithoutmentionofdebateormediator.McKinnellnotes

thesefirsttwofeaturesandsuggeststhatVõlundr’scustom-madegiftsforthequeenare

“brutallyironic”(1990:20).McKinnellpointsoutthatNíñuñr’squeenis“theobservantone,

soitisappropriatethattheeyesshouldbesenttoher,anditwasshewhocompared

Võlundr’seyestothoseofasnake”(1990:20).333Thisironyisclearlyatworkwithinthe

poem,butitisnecessarytoacknowledgeathirdfunctionofthequeen’swordsbeforethefull

significanceofVõlundr’scustom-madejewelscanbeappreciated.

Thisthird(andperhapstheforemost)functionofthequeen’swordsisasspeech

acts334thatselectivelydefineVõlundrinseveralways.Thequeen’sdescriptionsofVõlundr’s

331TheprosefollowingstanzasixteenstatesthatNíñuñrkonungrgafdóttursinni,Bõñvildi,gullhring,ãannerhanntócafbastinoatVõlundar.Ennhannsiálfrbarsverñit,erVõlundrátti(NeckelandKuhn1962:119),“KingNíñuñrgavehisdaughter,Bõñvildr,[the]goldring,thatonewhichhetookfromtheropeatVõlundr’s[hall].Andhehimselfworethesword,whichVõlundrowned.”Níñuñr’sinterrogationofthesmithinstanzathirteen(seeabove)alsosuggeststhatthekingisappropriatingVõlundr’sgoldassomethingthatbelongstothekingofÚlfdalir.332Theseverbsmayalsobeinthesecondpersonsingular.Ineithercase,theycanstillcarryacommandingtone.333Thequeenisalsodescribedaskunnig,“well-versed,crafty,”asshereceivesthecustom-madejewelsfromVõlundr(25.3,35.7).McKinnellhypothesizesthatif“kunnigmeans‘skilledinforetellingthefuture’,itmustbetakenaspartlyironic,sinceherperceptionthatVõlundrisdangerousisnotmatchedbyherforeknowledgeofhisrevenge”(1990:20). 334Speech-acttheorygenerallyconstrueslanguagewithinitsperformativesocialsituation(liketheactsofdeclaringalegalsentence,makingapromiseorthreateningsomeone)asopposedtotheconstativeuseoflanguage,e.g.tostatefacts.InherintroductiontothefirstvolumeofProlongedEchoes,CluniesRossdiscussesanddrawsuponJ.L.Austin’spioneeringworkinspeech-acttheory(CluniesRoss1994:14-5;cf.Richter1998:1101fn.15).

239

eyesandhisassociationwiththeforestcaneachbeinterpretedinoneoftwoways.Ineachof

thesetwocases,insteadofdefiningVõlundrasthesocializedartisanthatheis,thequeen’s

wordsisolatehimasanuncivilized,threateningandviolentoutlaw.First,thequeenseesthe

smith’sassociationwiththeforestasathreatening,uncivilizedcharacteristic(‘Erasánú

hÿrr,erórholtiferr’).Thisassociationwiththewoodmayconnectthesmithwiththe

untrustworthy,wild,violentandforest-dwellingvargr,“wolf”.InOldNorsepoetry,prose

andlawcodes,vargrcanrefertoathiefandoutlaw,the“breakerofoaths”whois

condemnedtoliveasskóggangsmañr,literally“wood-going-man”.335Thequeen’s

descriptionofVõlundrasekkihÿrr,“notfittingforahousehold”,not“gentle,friendly,

trustworthy”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.hÿrr),clearlyimpliesthese,orsimilar,negative

associations.ButVõlundrisnototherwisecharacterizedasaviolentthieforoutlawatthis

pointinthepoem.Rather,itisNíñuñrwhoisthepredatorythiefandthequeenwhois

ruthlesslyabusive.ThemoreconcreteassociationbetweenVõlundrandtheforestisthat“a

smithneededtolivenearawoodtomakecharcoalforhisfurnace”(Dronke1997:313).336

Thequeen’swordsreinforceastrictlypejorativeinterpretationofthesmithinassociation

withthewood,insteadofthemorepracticalandrealisticassociationtomakingcharcoal.

Second,thequeennotesthesnake-likegleaminVõlundr’seyesasathreatening

feature,perhapsindicativeofpredatorydesignsuponBõñvildr.ThisdescriptionofVõlundr’s

eyesis,however,alsocomparabletoanadmirablefeatureofwarrior-aristocrats.InRígsãula,

forinstance,youngJarl,thearchetypeofawarrior-aristocrat,haseyesthatareadmirably

describedasfollows:õtulvóroaugosemyrmlingi(34.7-8),“fiercewere[his]eyesasa

youngsnake’s.”AccordingtotheprosepreludeofVõlundarkviña,Võlundrandhisbrothers

areprincesoftheSámi.Moreover,asIdiscussinmoredetailbelow,theversesofthepoem

describethesebrothersandtheirsimilarlyaristocraticwiveslivinginwhatappeartobe

aristocratic(i.e.gabled)halls.337ThisinformationsuggeststhatVõlundrisacivilized,even

335cf.Atlamálingrœnlenzcostanza99.5:vágomórscógi(NeckelandKuhn1962:262),“byfighting[them]outof[the]woods”,i.e.tofreesomeonefromoutlawrythroughbattle(cf.LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.2vega).cf.LP(1931:s.v.vargr),Cleasby-Vigfusson(1957:s.v.vargr,skóggangr),Fritzner(1954:s.v.vargr).336SeveralOldNorseprosetextstestifytothepracticeofmengoingaloneintotheforestforseveraldaysatatimetomakecharcoal(ONP2010:s.v.kol).Considerchapter164ofÃiñrekssagaafBern,whereMímirgoesintotheforestforthreedaystomakecharcoal(GuñniJónsson1961:232).Seealsochapter38ofNjálssaga(ÍF121954:100),chapter30ofEgilssaga(ÍF21988:78),chapter1ofÕlkofraÃáttr(ÍF111950:84)andchapter21ofthelawcodeinJónsbók(ÓlafurHalldórsson1904:147-8).337Dronkesuggeststhatálfalióñi,whichdescribesVõlundrat10.3,isbestinterpretedas“leaderofelves”,whichwouldserveasyetanotherpieceofevidenceforVõlundrasanaristocraticfigure(Dronke1997:310-11).Thetermlióñiissomewhatambiguous,however,andthereisequallycompellingevidencetosupport

240

aristocratic,smithandthatthequeen’swordsfunctionasaspeech-actthatre-definesthis

smithasanisolated,uncivilized,unlawfulandthreateningfigure.338Inadditiontoherorders

thatVõlundrbephysicallymaimedandisolated,thequeen’swordsservetoostracizeand

exploitthesmith.Thequeen’scommandshaveVõlundrphysicallymaimedandisolated.The

queen’swordsalsohaveVõlundrsociallyisolatedandcutofffromthereciprocitythatwould

otherwisecharacterizethisartisan’sactivitiesandhisrelationshipswiththekingandqueen

aswellasthecommunityingeneral.Therefore,Võlundr’scustom-madejewelsandbrooches

operateasareplytohowthequeenandkinghavedefinedhisroleasanartisan.Thekingand

queenclearlyengagedthesmithontermsofnegativereciprocity.Inhisrevenge,thesmith

parodieshisroleasanartisancommissionedtoexclusivelyservethekingandqueen.

Võlundrtransformstheirtwosonsintocustom-madeartefactsthatsubversivelyembodythe

termsofthenegativereciprocitytowhichhehasbeensubjected.

3.5ComparativeapproachestoVõlundr’screationsforNíñuñrTheexaminationaboveseemstomethemostappropriateandimmediatelypertinent

methodforinterpretingthegiftsthatVõlundrmakesforNíñuñrandhisqueen.Dronkepoints

out,however,thatthe“makingofdrinkingbowlsfromskullsofenemiesisbynomeans

uniquetoVõlundr”(1997:267).Likewise,JónHelgasonnotesseveralsuggestivelyparallel

motifsinearliersources(1962:71).Iwillnowexaminethesesourceswithparticular

attentiontotheroleoftheartisanandthesocialfunctionofthedrinkingvessels.Where

appropriate,Iwillalsoofferverybriefcommentaryonpossibleconnectionsbetweenthese

sourcesandthecompositionofVõlundarkviñaandotherOldNorsetexts.

TheearliestofthesesuggestiveparallelscomesfromHerodotus’saccountofthe

Scythianpracticeofusingtheskullsofenemiesasdrinkingvessels.Thisisalsooneofthe

mostregularlynotedparallels(Dronke1997:318;JónHelgason1962:71;deVries1952:

184).ThisaccountappearsinBookIV,chapters64-66,ofHerodotus’Histories:

McKinnell’sinterpretation,“memberoftheraceofelves”(cf.McKinnell2001a:331).Theepithetvísiálfa(13.4)issimilarlyambiguousandmaymeaneither“leaderof[the]elves”or“wiseoneof[the]elves”(McKinnell2001a:332).338Thisisnotoverlookingthefactthatthequeenspeaksinasubdued,perhapsprivateway:stiltirõddo,“[she]lowered[her]voice”(16.6).Herspeech-actmayormaynotbeapublicannouncementwithinNíñuñr’shall,butitdoesoperateinthiswayintheperformance(i.e.readingorrecitation)ofthepoem.Võlundr’scustom-madeeye-jewelsandteeth-broochesalsosuggestthatthesmithmighthaveheardthequeen’sdescriptionsofhisowneyesandteeth.Atanyrate,theaudienceofthepoemcertainlyhearsthesewordsandisfreetomakesuchconnectionsbetweenthequeen’sspeechandVõlundr’srevenge.

241

Theircustomsconcerningwarareasfollows.WheneveraScythianslayshisfirstman,hedrinkssomeofhisblood.Hebringstheheadsofallthoseheslaysinbattlebacktotheking,andbybringingbackahead,hereceivesashareofwhateverplunderhehastaken,butifhedoesnotbringbackahead,hereceivesnothing.Heflaystheheadbyfirstcuttinginacirclearoundtheearsandthen,takingholdofit,shakingofftheskin.Hethenscrapesitoutwithanox’sribandworkstheskininhishandsuntilhehassoftenedit,afterwhichheusesitasahandkerchief,whichheproudlyattachestothebridleofhishorse.Andhewhodisplaysthemostskinhandkerchiefsisesteemedasthebestman.ManyScythiansmakecloakstowearfromtheskinsbystitchingthescalpstogetherlikeshepherds’coats.Manyalsotakethehandsfromthecorpsesoftheirenemies,skinthem,andusethemwiththefingernailsstillintactascoversfortheirquivers.Itturnsoutthathumanskinisboththickandtranslucent,infactthemosttranslucentofalltypesofskinbecauseofitswhiteness.ManyScythiansflaytheskinfromtheentirebodiesofmen,stretchthemoverframesofwood,andcarrythemontheirhorsesastheyrideabout.

Thatiswhattheycustomarilydowiththeskins.Theytreattheskulls–notallofthem,butthoseoftheirmosthatedenemies–inthefollowingway.Theysawoffeverythingbelowtheeyebrowsandcleanouteverythingthatremains.Ifapoormanisdoingthis,heonlystretchesanuntannedpieceofoxhidearoundtheoutsideandusesitasis.Butifheiswealthy,henotonlystretchesanoxhidearoundtheoutside,buthegildsitontheinsideaswell,andtheskullisthenusedasadrinkingcup.Theyalsodothistotheskullsoftheirrelativesiftheyhaveadisputeandoneofthemoverpowerstheotherinthepresenceoftheking.Andwhenoutsiderswhoareconsideredimportantcometovisitaman,hebringsouttheseheadsandexplainsthat,thoughthesewerehisrelatives,theybroughtwaruponthefamilyandheoverpoweredthem.Thatishowtheydefineaman’svalor.

Onceeveryyearineachdistrict,thelocalgovernormixeswineinabowlandtheScythianswhointhatyearhavekilledenemiesdrinkfromit.Thosewhohavenotmanagedtoachievethisdonottastethewine,butinsteadsitapartindishonor;indeed,thisisthegreatestdisgraceamongthem.Butanyofthemwhohavekilledaverygreatnumberofmenhavetwocups,anddrinkfromthemboth.(Strassler2007:308)339

339FordiscussionsofpotentiallinksbetweenearlyScandinaviansandtheScythians,aswellastheawarenessofmedievalScandinaviancompilersofHerodotusandaccountsoftheScythians,seeCluniesRoss(2004:412-4),Faulkes(1977:185-6),LittletonandMalcor(2008:2-13).

242

EverettL.Wheelerpointsoutthatthereisarchaeologicalevidenceofworkshopareasthat

wereusedtomaketheseimportantdrinkingvessels:

AtBelskontheVorsklaRiver,whichsomebelieveisHerodotus’jointcityoftheBoudiniandGeloni(4.108-109),theremainsofaworkshopforconvertingskullsintodrinkingbowlswasfound.Useofenemyskullsasdrinkingvesselscanbeseenasasteppetradition.ThepracticeisalsoattributedtotheBulgarsinByzantinesources.(Wheeler2007:754)

Thisaccountandtheassociatedarchaeologicalevidenceprovideconsiderableinsightintothe

roleoftheartisan.Theprevalenceofthispracticeofconvertingenemyskullsintoprestige,

gildeddrinkingvesselsseemstohavecreatedtheneedforcommissionedorenslavedartisans

withskillsinmetalworking.Onamorelocalscale,insmallervillages,itcanbehypothesized

thatindividualsmithscouldhavehadtheroleoftransformingtheseskullsforlocalwarrior-

aristocrats.Thereis,however,nomentionofskilledartisansintheaccountfromHerodotus.

Theaccountmayseemtoimplythattheowneroftheskulldoesthehandiworkofthe

transformationhimself,butthisisnotnecessarilyconclusive.

Theaccountmakesitclearthattheseskull-cupshaveseveralsocialfunctions.Forthe

Scythiansthemotivationbehindconvertingskullsintocupsisbasedinantagonism,

empowermentandsocialstatus.TheScythiansonlyturntheskullsoftheirmostantagonistic

enemiesoradversariesintodrinkingvesselsaspartofacustomrelatedtobattleandfeud.

Thiscustomisalsorelatedtoannualfestivalsatwhichtheskull-cupsfunctionasthebasisof

publicdisplaysofstatus.Theskull-cupsfunctiontodistinguishtheprivilegedand

empoweredfromthosewhoarelessdistinguishedandempowered.Theskull-cupsownedby

asoldieraretheresultofthatsoldier’striumphsinbattle.Skull-cupsdonot,sofaras

Herodotustellsus,functionasgifts.Theannualactivitiesassociatedwiththeskull-cupsalso

functionasongoingreinforcementofdistinctionsinsocialstatus.Thosewhohavemore

skull-cupsandthosewhocanlinetheircupswithgoldareelevatedabove(apparently

throughshameandostracism)thosewhohavefewornoskull-cupsandfromthosewhoare

toopoortolinetheirskull-cupswithgold.Finally,thecustomissanctionedbytheking.In

casesoffamilyfeud,theclaimingofaskullisonlyvalidifdoneaspartofacontestthatthe

kinghimselfwitnesses.

Amuchlateraccountofasingleskull-cupbeingmadeappearsintheeighth-century

HistoriaLangobardorumbyBenedictinemonkPaulusDiaconus(PaultheDeacon).Paul

recountsthat,inabattleduringtheyearAD567,AlboinuskingoftheLombardskilled

243

CunimunduskingoftheGepidsandhadadrinkingvesselmadeoutofhisskull:“Inthis

battleAlboinkilledCunimund,andmadeoutofhishead,whichhecarriedoff,adrinking

goblet.Thiskindofgobletiscalledamongthem‘scala,’butintheLatinlanguage‘patera’”

(Foulke1907:51).AsWilliamFoulkenotes,Paulmayhaveadaptedorinventedthisevent,

sinceitdoesnotappearintheonlyextantversionofPaul’sLangobardsources,theOrigo

GentisLangobardorum(Foulke1907:325,335,339-40).AlboinuslatermarriedRosamund,

Cunimundus’sdaughter.Someyearslater,inadrunkenstate,Alboinuscommanded

Rosamundtodrinkfromthisvessel,andthispromptedRosamundtoavengeherfatherby

plottingAlboinus’sdeath.Paulalsocommentsonthecontemporary(eighth-century)renown

ofAlboin’saccomplishmentsamongsttheBavariansandSaxons:

ButthenameofAlboinwasspreadabroadfarandwide,soillustrious,thatevenuptothistimehisnoblebearingandglory,thegoodfortuneofhiswarsandhiscouragearecelebrated,notonlyamongtheBavariansandtheSaxons,butalsoamongothermenofthesametongueintheirsongs.(Foulke1907:51)

TheonlyexplicitsimilaritybetweentheScythianpracticeandAlboin’sactionisthatboththe

ScythiansandAlboinconverttheskulloftheirenemyintoadrinkingvessel.Thereisno

explicitmentionofpreciousmetalinAlboin’scase,althoughthisisperhapsunderstood.Itis

alsonotclearwhetherAlboinhimselfdoestheworkofconvertingtheskull,orifhehasa

skilledartisandoitforhim.ThereisnoimplicationthatAlboindoesthisaspartofamore

broadlypracticedethnictraditionorsocialstructure.Ifanything,theaccountmayimplythat

hisactions,asking,areexceptional.Theskull-cuplaterfunctionsasareminderto

Cunimundus’sdaughterthatAlboinkilledherfather,andthisinciteshertorevenge.

Inyetanotherskull-cupaccountfromAD811,Kroummos(orKrum),leaderofthe

Bulgarians,transformstheskullofhisbrutalandgreedyenemy,EmperorNikephorosI.This

eventappearsintheChronicleofTheophanesConfessor,whichcoversAD284throughto

AD813.From602to813,“Theophanesisforusaprimarysourceinthesensethatthe

writingsheutilizedhavebeenalmostentirelylost”(MangoandScott1997:v).Theophanes

recountstheeventsofthebattleofPliska,whichwasfoughtbetweenEmperorNikephorosI

andKroummos(orKrum),leaderoftheBulgariansinAD811.NikephorosIisdescribedas

surpassing“allhispredecessorsbyhisgreed,hislicentiousness,hisbarbariccruelty”(Mango

andScott1997:674).HiscityandtreasuryseizedbyNikephoros,Kroummosadmitshis

defeatandasksNikephorostotakewhateverhewishesandleaveinpeace.The“enemyof

244

peace”,however,“wouldnotapproveofpeace”(MangoandScott1997:673).Once

KroummosismadeawareofNikephoros’brutalandgreedynature,hehastheentrancesand

exitsofhiscountryshutwithbarriers.Nikephorosis“dumbfounded”,foretellingofdisaster.

Aftertwodaysoffighting,Nikephorosiskilledonthe26ofJuly:

KroummoscutofftheheadofNikephorosandforseveraldayshungitonapolesoastoexhibitittothetribesthatcamebeforehimandtodishonourus.Afterthat,hebaredtheskull,riveteditontheoutsidewithsilverand,inhispride,madethechieftainsoftheSklaviniansdrinkfromit.(MangoandScott1997:673-4)

Inthisaccounttheskull-cupisonceagainmadefromtheskullofarivalleader.Thiscup

functionsasatriumphanttrophy,anditiscoatedinsilver.AlthoughKroummosdoesmake

thechieftainsoftheSklaviniansdrinkfromthiscup,thereisnosenseofthisbeingpartofa

morebroadlypracticedritual.Greedandbarbarismcertainlyfigureintothecharacterization

ofNikephoros,perhapsbringingsomesenseofjusticetotheconversionofhisskullintoa

drinkingvessel.Thereisnoexplicitmentionofwhetherornotanartisanwascommissioned

totransformtheskull.Kroummoswaslikelyinapositiontocommissionsuchwork.

Anotheraccountofaskull-cupappearsintheRussianPrimaryChronicle,which

relatesthedeathofSvyatoslavIofKievinAD972.Inthetenyearspriortohisdeath,

SvyatoslavIwassuccessfulinconqueringanimpressiveamountofeasternEurope,andin

971hemanagedtotakecontroloftheBulgariancityofPereyslavets“withgreatcourage”

(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:88).ByzantineEmperorJohnITzimiskestriestolearn

aboutSvyatoslav’scharacterbysendinganenvoywithpreciousgifts,“todiscoverwhether

Svyatoslavlikedgoldandsilks”(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:88).This“clever

envoy”isdispatchedwithorderstocarefullyobserveSvyatoslav’sreactiontothegifts:

“Svyatoslav,withoutnoticingthepresents,badehisservantstokeepthem.”Asecondenvoy

isdispatched,thistimewith“aswordandotheraccoutrements”(CrossandSherbowitz-

Wetzor1953:88).TheresponsefromSvyatoslavisdifferent:“ThePrinceacceptedthese

gifts,whichhepraisedandadmired,andreturnedhisgreetingstotheEmperor.[...]Thenthe

boyarsremarked,‘Thismanmustbefierce,sincehepaysnoheedtoriches,butacceptsarms.

Submittotribute’”(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:88-9).Withpeacemadebetween

theRusandtheEmperor,SvyatoslavresolvestoreturntoKievforreinforcements.Onhis

journey,heisattackedbythePechenegsandkilled:

245

Whenspringcamein6480(972),Svyatoslavapproachedthecataracts,whereKurya,PrinceofthePechenegs,attackedhim;andSvyatoslavwaskilled.Thenomadstookhishead,andmadeacupoutofhisskull,overlayingitwithgold,andtheydrankfromit.ButSveinaldreturnedtoYaropolkinKiev.NowalltheyearsofSvyatoslav’sreignweretwenty-eight.(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:90)

Onceagain,theskull-cupmotifherefunctionsbetweenrivalleaders,andtheskullisalso

coatedwithmetal,inthiscasegold.Svyatoslavis,however,characterizedasacourageous

andimpressiveleaderandwarrior.Thereisnosenseofthegreedandbrutalitythat

characterizeNikephorosorNíñuñr.Thisaccountalsoprovidesnodetailsontheroleofthe

artisansthatmightbeinvolvedintransformingtheskullintoagildedcup.Finally,thereis

alsonoinformationtosuggestthatthePechenegsregularlymadesuchcupsordrankfrom

themaspartofregularceremonies.

TherewassubstantialinteractionbetweenScandinaviaandtheearlyRussianstate(cf.

Stang2003:556-8;Pritsak2003:555-6).Itislikelythateventssuchasthedeathof

SvyatoslavwouldhavebeenknownthroughoutnorthernEurope.340Moreover,thestoryof

Svyatoslav’sdeathwaslikelyknowninScandinaviaduringtheyearsimmediatelyfollowing

hisdeath.Svyatoslav’sfirstson,Vladimir,341fledinfearofhisfeudingbrothers,returningin

980“withVarangianallies”toconquerKiev(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:91).

Vladimir’sconnectionstoScandinaviaarewellattested.ÓláfrTryggvasonofNorwaystayed

atVladimir’scourt(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:242).Vladimirhadseveralwives

andmanychildren.OneofhischildrenisYaroslavItheWise,whoruledKievfrom1019to

1054.In1019YaroslavmarriedSwedishprincessIngigerñr.Yaroslav’sson(oneofmany

sonsanddaughtersbyIngigerñr)VsevolodIwasGrandPrinceofKievfrom1076to1077

and1078to1093.VsevolodmarriedarelativeofConstantinein1046andhadasonnamed

VladimirIIMonomakh.VladimirIIMonomakhwasGrandPrinceofKievfrom1113to

1125.In1125VladimirIImarriedGytha,daughterofHaraldGodwinssonKingofEngland.

ThefirstsonofVladimirIIandGythaisMstislavI.MstislavI(HaraldrinNorsesources)

wasGrandPrinceofKievfrom1125to1132.HemarriedChristina,daughterofInge,King

340JonathanShepardnotesthe“Rus’relianceonaxes,broadswordsandshield-wallsduringSviatoslav’sBalkancampaigns,thenamesofcertaincommanders(includingtheberserkr‘Ikmor’[=Ingimarr?])and,backinRus,theoccurrenceofboat-burningsandchambergravesinburialgroundsinurbancentres,attestcloseaffinitiesofthemilitaro-commercialelitewithtacticsandreligiousritespractisedelsewhereintheNordicworld”(Shepard2008:509).341Vladimir(ValdemarintheNorsesources)wasSvyatoslav’sonlyillegitimateson,byMalusha,stewardessofVladimir’sauntOlga(CrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor1953:87).

246

ofSweden,in1095.342ThiscloseinteractionbetweenthelineageofSvyatoslavIandNorse-

speakingareassuggeststhattherewerebothmeansandreasonforthetransmissionofstories

aboutSvyatoslav’sdeathduringthecenturiespriortotherecordingofVõlundarkviñainthe

CodexRegius.

Thereisalsoapossibleparalleltotheskull-cupmotifwithintheCodexRegiusitself

(Dronke1969:135-6;Jón1962:71).AtlamálinGrœnlenzkopreservesseveraldetailswhich

suggestthatthispoemwaslikelycomposedintheNorsecolonyonGreenland(perhapsinthe

eleventhoreventwelfthcentury),thereforemakingitdecidedlylaterinprovenancethan

VõlundarkviñaandVõluspá(Dronke1969:107-11).Instanzas82-3ofAtlamálin

Grœnlenzko,GuñrúnGjúkadóttur,wifeofkingAtli,killstheirtwosonsandturnstheirskulls

intodrinkingvessels.Atthefuneralfeastforherbrothers,whomAtlihadkilled,Guñrúnthen

hasherhusbanddrinkfromthesevesselswhilealsoservinghimtheroastedheartsoftheir

sons:

‘Magahefirãúãinnamist,semãúsíztscyldir;hausaveizãúãeirahafñaatõlscálom,drÿgñaecãérsvádryccio:dreyrablettecãeira.’(82.1-6)

‘Youhavelostyoursons,notatallasyoushouldhave.Youhavetheirskulls,youknow,asdrinkingvessels.Ipreparedyourdrinkthus:withtheirbloodImixedit.’

‘Tócecãeirahiõrtoocáteinisteictac,seldaecãérsíñan,sagñag,atkálfsværi;einnãúãvíollir,ecciréttuleifa,tõggtutíñliga,trúñirveliõxlom.’(83.1-8)

‘ItooktheirheartsandIroastedthemonaspit,thenIgavethemtoyou,saidthat[it]wascalf’s[flesh]:youalonewereresponsibleforthat,youdecidednottoleave[any],youchewedavidly,trustedfullyin[your]molars.’

TheparaphraseofthiseventinSkáldskaparmálincludesarelativelycompletesurveyofthe

sequencesbelongingtothelegendarynarrativeoftheNiflungsandthegoldtreasurethathas

itsoriginswiththegods(Faulkes1998a:46-51).343Inhisquesttofindthelocationofthe

NiflunggoldintheRhine,AtlikillsHõgniandGunnar,Guñrún’sbrothersandtheonlytwo

peoplewhoknowthelastlocationofthislegendarygoldtreasure.Thisparaphrasein

342ThisinformationisassembledfromPritsak(2003:555-6)andthe“GenealogyoftheRurikidsinthePeriodCoveredbythePrimaryChronicle”,whichisfoundattheveryendofCrossandSherbowitz-Wetzor’smonograph. 343Võlsungasagaalsopresentsthisfeastscene,althoughwithfewerdetails(Byock1990:103-5;GuñniandBjarni2010:ch.38).

247

SkáldskaparmálalsoincludestheeventsdescribedinthisexcerptfromAtlamálin

Grœnlenzko:

LitlusíñardrapGuñrúntvásonusínaoklétgerameñgullioksilfriborñkerafhausumãeira,okãávargerterfiNiflunga.AtãeiraveizlulétGuñrúnskenkjaAtlakonungimeñãeimborñkerummjõñokvarblanditviñblóñisveinanna,enhjõrtuãeiraléthonsteikjaokfákonungiateta.Enerãatvargertãásagñihonhonumsjálfummeñmõrgumófõgrumorñum.Eigiskortiãaráfenginnmjóñsváatflestfólksofnañiãarsemsat.ÁãeirinóttgekkhontilkonungserhannsvafokmeñhennisonrHõgnaokváguathonum.Ãatvarhansbani.(Faulkes1998a:49)

SoonafterwardsGuñrúnkilledhertwosonsandhadmade,withgoldandsilver,gobletsoutoftheirskulls,andthenwasheldafuneralfeastfortheNiflungar.AtthisfeastGuñrúnservedmeadtokingAtliinthosegobletsand[themead]wasmixedwith[the]bloodoftheboys,andtheirheartsshehadroastedandgiventothekingtoeat.Andwhenthatwasfinishedthenshespoketohiminpersonwithmanyunpleasantwords.Therewasnoshortagethereofstrongmeadsothatnearlyallpeopleslepttherewheretheysat.DuringthatnightshewenttothekingwherehesleptandhersonHõgni[went]withherandstruckathim.Thatwashisdeath.

ItmaybeimpliedthattheskullsareconvertedintometalgobletsinAtlamálinGrœnlenzko,

butthereisnoexplicitmentionofmetal.TheparaphraseinSkáldskaparmálexplicitly

associatessilverandgoldwiththegoblets.Thetermusedhereisborñker,“drinkingvessel,

beaker,goblet”(ONP2010:s.v.borñ-ker).Inthirteenofthethirty-sixproseattestationsfor

borñkerthetermreferstoadrinkingvesselofgoldorsilver,andinonecasetheborñkerhas

insetgimsteinar,“preciousstones”(ONP2010:s.v.borñ-ker).NeitherSkáldskaparmálnor

AtlamálinGrœnlenzkoprovideanydetailsorimplicationsabouttheroleoftheartisanwho

mayhavemadetheseskull-cups.DronkesuggeststhatkingAlboin“wouldhavesmithsathis

commandwhocouldturnhisfather-in-law’sskullintoagoblet”,butthatthiswouldbe

“inappropriateforGuñrún”todoherself(1969:135-6).Iseenoreasonwhythisshouldbe

consideredinappropriate:Guñrúnisclearlyanaristocraticqueenwithpowerandagencyof

herown,andasamemberoftheNiflunglineageshedoesnotshyawayfromactivityand

responsibility,covertorotherwise.Althoughthereisnosuchdetailinthepoemonewayor

theother,itwouldnotbeoutofcharacter,noratallunlikely,forGuñrúntoorderasmithto

transformhersons’skullsintogoblets.

248

Theskull-cupsinAtlamálinGrœnlenzkofunctionaspartofarevengeplotmeantto

disgraceAtlianddestroyhisprogeny.Therevengeisaccomplishedatapublicmemorial

feastforGuñrún’sbrothers.Aspartofthisrevenge,GuñrúnalsohasAtliunwittingly

consumethebloodoftheirsons,mixedintohisdrink,andtheheartsoftheirsons.Itmightbe

consideredironicthatAtli’squesttofindtheRhine-goldandhiskillingofHõgniandGunnar

resultinGuñrúnturninghisownprogenyintogildeddrinkingvesselstosatisfyhisappetite

forbothfoodandwealth.

TheseaccountspresentgeneralparallelstoVõlundarkviña,atleastinsofarasskulls

areconvertedintodrinkingvessels.TheaccountfromHistoriaLangobardorumisimportant

inthatitmaytestifytothecirculationofthismotif(ifitwaspartofAlboin’swidely-

circulatingfame)amongsttheSaxonsandtheBavariansduringtheeighthcentury.Inother

words,themotifofaskullbeingtransformedintoadrinkingvesselmighthavebeenfamiliar

duringtheperiodinwhichanearlierformoftheextantVõlundarkviñanarrativewaslikewise

circulating.Paul’scitationoftheword“scala”issuggestivelysimilartothewordscálasit

appearsinVõlundarkviña.AsisthecaseinVõlundarkviña,intheOldNorsecorpustheword

skálprimarilyreferstobowlsorcups(gullscálarinAtlakviñaingrœnlenzco10.3)usedto

containdrink(Fritzner1954:s.v.skál;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.skál).344AsdeVries

notes,thesuggestionhasbeenmadethatONskáleitherhasanoriginalsenseorcomesfrom

anIndo-Europeanrootmeaningthetoppartoftheskull(thecalvaria)asdistinctfromtherest

oftheskull(deVries1977:s.v.skál).deVriesalsosuggeststhatskálisoneofseveralwords

thatappeartoberelatedtosax,withrootformsmeaning“thethingthatcutsin,”thatalso

refertoutensilsorbowlsmadeofmetal,woodorwovenmaterial(deVries1977:s.v.sax,

skál,skalli,skel).deVriesalsopointsout,however,thatitshouldnotbeassumedthatthisis

evidenceofageneralpracticeofmakingdrinkingcupsfromskulls(deVries1977:s.v.skál).

Herodotus’saccountoftheScythianpracticeis,asDronkepointsout,a“most

detaileddescriptionoftheconversionofenemyskullsintodrinkingvessels”(1997:318).

Andthesedetailsdoseemsimilartothemuchmoreconciselydescribeddistinctionbetween

thecraniaofNíñuñr’ssonsandtheoverlayingscalps:ennãærscálar,erundscõrumvóro,/

sveiphannútansilfri,seldiNíñañi(24.5-8),“andthosecups,whichwereunder[their]hairs,

hecoveredwithoutinsilver,presentedtoNíñuñr.”Theanatomicalandprocedural

344Thesecondaryusageofskálrefersto“scales”(Fritzner1954:s.v.skál;Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.skál).

249

similaritiesheremaysuggestsomesortofdistantrelationbetweenthetraditionsdescribedin

HerodotusandtheactionsofVõlundr.345TheHistoriaLangobardorumandTheophane’s

chroniclepresentamuchcloser(historically,geographicallyandlinguistically)paralleltothe

motifofskullsasdrinkingvesselsinVõlundarkviña.TheRussianPrimaryChroniclehasan

evencloserrelationshiptothecontextsinwhichVõlundarkviñamightoriginallyhavebeen

composedand,later,written.

Theartisanalprocedureoftransformingaskullintoagildeddrinkingvesselis

certainlyacloseparallelacrossallthesesources.Thereare,however,severalinconsistencies

inhowthismotiffunctionsinVõlundarkviñaasopposedtotheseothersources.The

motivation,patternofbehaviour,andsocialfunctionoftheskull-cupsareonlysimilarinthe

mostgeneralways.Võlundr’sactionsareprimarilyartisanalincontextandexpression:the

smithisportrayedasanartisanwhosubversivelyparodiesthesignificanceofcustom-made

artefactsforakingandqueenaswellastheroleofartisanalproductsinsocialcustomsmore

generally.Thissmith’sactionsare,therefore,similartothesesourcesonlyinsofarasNíñuñr

andhisfamilyareconsideredVõlundr’senemies,andonlyinsofarasheconvertstheskulls

ofhisenemiesintoprestigiousgildeddrinkingvessels.Võlundrdoesnotkeeptheskullsfor

himselfastrophies.Thisisnotanactionthatfunctionsaspartofasanctionedsystemof

affirmingestablishedsocialdistinctionsbetweentheempoweredandun-empowered.

Võlundrmakestheskull-cupsaspartofhissubversiverevenge.Võlundr’sconversionofthe

skullsisaprivateactionthathelaterpubliclydeclares.Thememorialfunctionoftheskull-

cupsisperhapssimilarforNíñuñrandhisfamilyaswellasforRosamundandAtli.The

skull-cupsfunctionforNíñuñrasahorrificreminderofthemurderofhissons.Similarly,the

skull-cupthatAlboinmakesremindsRosamundofherfather’sdeathinbattle.Rosamund’s

situationasthewifeofherfather’skillermaybesimilartothecomplicationscausedby

Võlundr’simpregnationofBõñvildr.TheparallelsarestrongestinregardtoAtlamálin

Grœnlenzko,wherethemotifoftheskull-cupsalsoinvolvesadynasticrevenge.Thelater

dateofAtlamálinGrœnlenzko,however,likelymeansthatthemotifisreflexiveof

Võlundarkviña.Moreover,AtlamálinGrœnlenzkocontainsnothingofthefocusuponthe

roleoftheartisanasitappearsinVõlundarkviña.

345Theshapeoftheskullitselfmayalso,however,dictatethatthepartofitunderthescalpfunctionsbestasadrinkingvessel.

250

Võlundarkviñamayexhibitanawarenessofthepracticeoftransformingskullsinto

ornatedrinkingvessels.However,thispoemtreatsthemotifspecificallyasitrelatestothe

smith’sownsocialsituationasanartisanratherthanasanactionperformedbyakingora

warrioragainsthisenemies.Võlundr’sactionsarenotproperlyparalleltoanyofthese

sources.WhatVõlundrdoestoNíñuñr’ssonsisnotpartofaculturaltraditionorpublicly

sanctionedpractice.Unlikethesesources,Võlundrdoesnotkeepthetrophiesforhimself,but

rathergivesthemtohispatrons/captorsandleavesempty-handed.Thisisprimarilyaparody

oftheartisanal.Võlundarkviñapresentsascathingcommentaryuponthesocialeffectsofthe

inappropriatedesirefortheartisanal.AsCallmersuggests,Võlundarkviñahasacertain

didacticqualitytoit:

Itstressesboththeimportanceoftheskilledcraftsmenandtheirexposuretothearbitrarinessofpoweroflocalrulers.Themainmotifofthemythaimsatdrasticallydemonstratingnecessaryrestraintinhandlingtheskilledcraftsmen.Todemandcompletesubmissionandtoestablishserfdomleadstototalcatastrophe.Itismostimportanttoaccepttheindependenceofthecraftsmanandtoreacharespectfulagreementwhichisadvantageousforbothsides.Thereasonforthisnecessityistheimportanceofobjectsofgreatprestigewhichcouldonlybeproducedbyindividualswieldingexclusiveknowledgeofhowthespecializedcraftscouldbeexecutedwithcompletemastery.Theexistenceofthisrelationshipgivesawelcomeinsightintopowerrelationshipsofgreatcomplexity.Italsoshowsusveryclearlythatthemostlysimplemodelsofpowerrelationshipsinearlymedievalsocietyareinadequate.Perhapssymbiosisandbalancebetweencraftsmenandrulersbetterdescribetherelationship.(Callmer2003:358)

Võlundarkviñaisbasedinanunderstandingoftherelationshipbetweenskilledartisansand

socialelites,andthetensionsthatcanariseoutofthisrelationship.Võlundr’srevenge

functionsasasubversiveparodyofthesocialnetworksofgift-giving,tradeandproductionin

earlymedievalScandinaviaandAnglo-ScandinavianEngland.

3.6Performanceofspatial,networkedrelationsTheprecedingchaptershaveexaminedtheevidenceofsmithingmotifswithin

Võluspáinrelationtoarchaeologicalevidenceandstudiesthatapplycentral-placetheoryto

earlymedievalScandinavia.IwillnowbrieflyexaminethenarrativeofVõlundarkviñain

relationtocraftingmotifsandspatialconceptsandnetworks.Thisexaminationreinforces

251

thatthebasisforVõlundr’sactionsisbestunderstoodasastatementabouttherelations

betweencraftspeopleandaristocraticpowerinthemulti-functionalcentral-placecomplex.

3.7ThestructuresassociatedwithVõlundr,hisbrothersandtheswan-maidens

Võlundarkviñaissetintwosettlementlocations,thefirstbeingthesettlementof

Võlundr,hisbrothersandtheirwives,andthesecondbeingNíñuñr’ssettlement.Thefirst

suchsettlementislocatedonthesævarstrõnd,“beachofalake”,346ofÚlfsiárinÚlfsdalir

(1.5,5.2,6.4,13.6).Thislocationischaracterizedratherdifferentlyintheprosepreludeand

intheverse.First,intheproseprelude,thereissaidtobeahús,“houseorfarmstead”,347

whichthethreebrothersgøra,“build”(NeckelandKuhn1962:116).Then,alsointheprose

prelude,thereissaidtobeaskáli,“dwelling,house”,wherethebrotherslivewiththeswan-

maidens(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.skáli).Skálicanalsoreferto“ahut,shed”,

structuresputupprimarilyfortemporaryuse(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.skáli).Cleasby-

Vigfussonsuggeststhatthisis“theearliestNorsesense,anditisstillsousedinNorway”

(1957:s.v.skáli).Insomecompoundshúsmayalsorefertosuchhutsoroutbuildings

(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.húsII).Thesecondarymeaningofskáli,however,is“hall”,

anditappearsinseveralcompoundwordsthatrefertoalarge,oftenceremonialandpublic

space(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.skáli).Andthetermmayalsorefertotheentrance

chamberforalargehall(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.skáli).Fritznersuggeststhatthe

primarymeaningofskáliis“alargeroom”,equivalenttothemainroominalargehall

(1954:s.v.skáli,setstofa,sethús).Fromthelimitedandambiguousinformationgiveninthis

proseprelude,itispossiblethatthethreebrothersfirstestablisharathertemporary

settlement.Itisalsopossiblethattheyestablish(eitherimmediatelyoratsomelaterdate)

somethingmorepermanent.Itispossiblethatthisestablishment,whichislatercalledaskáli,

mayhavegrownorsomehowchangedbythetimetheswan-maidensarrive.

Intheverse,however,itisnotuntilafterthedepartureoftheswan-maidensthata

descriptionismadeofthedwellingsofthebrothers.Instanzafour,whenthebrothersreturn 346cf.LaFargeandTucker(1992:s.v.strõnd) 347Itisdifficulttodetermineifhúsn.issingularorpluralhere.LaFargeandTuckersuggestthatwithinthePoeticEddahúsinthesingularittendstomean“house”,whileinpluralittendstomean“farmstead”(1992:s.v.hús).Elsewherethesingularhúscanrefertoa“room”,i.e.abuildingwithonlyonesingle-roomorasingleroomwithinabuildingthatcontainsmultipledivisions(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.hús;Fritzner1954:s.v.hús1.andhús2.).Thesingularcanalsorefertoamorefortifiedbuilding(Fritzner1954:s.v.hús4.).Thepluralalsoappearstomoregenerallyreferto“agroupofbuildings”(Cleasby-Vigfusson1957:s.v.húsII.).

252

tofindtheirwivesgone,theycomebacktotheirsalir,“halls”,“buildings”or“rooms”.348

Thesesalirlikelyrefertoacomplexofbuildings,i.e.severalhalls.349Herethebrothers

gengoútocinnocumsáz(4.5-6),“wentoutandinandlookedabout.”Thisdescription

appearstoimplyrepetitivesearchingofmultipledistinctspaces,perhapsevenoutof

disbeliefordespondencyatthesuddendisappearanceoftheirwives.Italsoimpliesseveral

distinctbuildings.Instanzafive,Võlundralsositsaloneinoneofthesesalir,“buildings,

rooms”,creatingsevenhundredringsandcookinghismeals.

Instanzaseven,Níñuñr’smendismountfromtheirhorsesatthegafl,“gable”,ofthis

hallandtheygengoinnãañanendlangansal(7.3-4),“walkedinfromtherethelengthofthe

hall.”Thissuggestsaratherexpansiveinteriorthatisappropriatetoalong-hallwithatleast

onegabledentrancechamber.Thisisnotnecessarilyanythingasmonumentalasthegreat

hallsatLejreandGudme(Jørgensen2003:176-7,181-2;VangPetersen1994:37),butit

doesimplyarelativelylargehallstructurewithagabledentrance.350Thisisalsothefirstof

threetimesthisphrase(endlangansal)isrepeatedinthepoem:itisrepeatedtwicemore

whenNíñuñr’squeentraversestheceremonialspaceofthehall,oncebeforeVõlundr’s

maiming(16.2)andonceafterVõlundr’srevenge(30.4).Theopen,ceremonialspaceofthe

longrectangularhallclearlyservesasasignificant,recurringmotifinVõlundarkviña.

Theterminologyusedtorefertothesestructuresis,however,ambiguousanditis

difficulttodetermineexactlywhatmightbeimplied.Itispossiblethatadifferent

understandingoftheselivingspacesispresentedinthethirteenth-centuryeditor’sprose

(wherehúsandskáliareused)andintheolderversesofthepoem(wheresalrisused).As

outlinedabove,LaFargeandTuckersuggestthathúsmayhaveaslightlydifferentmeaning

fromsalrwithinthePoeticEdda(1992:s.v.hús,salr).OutsideofthePoeticEdda,however,

húsandsalrappeartoberelativelyinterchangeableterms.Inchapter14ofGylfaginning,for

example,thetermshúsandsalraresimultaneouslyusedtorefertothesamestructures

(Faulkes2000:15).Itcouldalsomakesense,however,thatthefirstsettlementestablishedby

thebrothersmighthavedevelopedovertime.Presumablytheyfirstoccupiedthelocationfor

348Inthesingular,salrdenotes“hall,houseconsistingofoneroom”,butintheplural(ashere)“itdenotesthewholecomplexofbuildings”(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.salr).SeealsoBrink’sdiscussionofsalinliterary,archaeologicalandtoponymiccontexts(1996:255-8). 349Salirmayalsorefertomultipleroomswithinalargerhall(LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.salr).350SeealsoSöderberg’sdiscussionofthemultiplegabledchambersassociatedwiththevariousphasesofthehallbuildingsatJärrestad(2003:288-9).Asmithingworkshopwascontainedinasmallhousesometenmetressouth-westofthishall(Söderberg2003:297-8).

253

sometimebeforetheswan-maidensappeared.Thethreecouplesthenlivethereforeight

yearsbeforethepoemitselfoffersanydescriptionoftheirhabitations.Originallythebrothers

mayhaveconstructedasettlementthattheyintendedtouseperiodicallyortemporarilyas

partoftheirseasonal,nomadichuntinglifestyle.ItmustalsobeconsideredthatVõlundr(and

perhapsSlagfiñr)andtheswan-maidensareassociatedwithcrafting.Perhapsthissettlement

isasmallbutdevelopingworkshopcommunitylikeTissø,HelgøorÅhus,351whereother

individualcraftspeopleorgroupstemporarilyresideandcollaborateontheiritinerant

journeys(Callmer2002:142,155).Alternatively,itmaybeanaristocratic,multi-functional

centralplacelikeHeorotinBeowulf(ll.64-85.).ThebrothersarealsoprincesoftheSámi(at

leastaccordingtotheproseprelude),andtheswan-maidensappeartohavearistocratic

connectionsalso.352Sothismaybeintendedfromthebeginningastheirownprestigious

settlement,whichtheyestablishasamorepermanentlyoccupiedandmulti-functional

central-placecomplexwherespinning,smithing,fishing,huntingaswellasfeastingand

otheractivitiescouldtakeplace.Wearetoldnothingofothervisitorsorinhabitantsinthe

area,andverylittleabouttheactivitiesandfunctionsofthesite.Thisis,however,nottosay

thatsuchthingswerenotunderstood.InVõlundarkviñathissettlementsiteissuggestively

relatedtorefinedcraftsmanship,aristocraticstatus,themarriagebond,anditinerancy.The

threebrothersmarryandremainthereforatleasteightyears,presumablygoingouton

frequenthuntingexpeditionswhiletheirwivesspinbytheshoreofthelake.Võlundrremains

beyondtheseeightyears,forhoweverlongittakesNíñuñrtonoticetheisolatedpresenceof

thiswealthyandskilledcraftsperson.Thepoemisnotforthcomingondetailsthatcouldform

thebasisofadecisiveinterpretation.Itissuggestive,however,thatinstanzasevenVõlundr

issaidtoliveinarelativelylargehallwithagabledentrance.Isthisthehall(oroneofthe

halls)thatheandhisbrothersfirstbuiltovereightyearsago?Oristhisalateradditiontothe

complextheyfirststarted?Onceagain,thedetailsarenotforthcoming.

Itisdistinctlyunusual,however,thatVõlundroccupiessuchaspacebyhimself.As

thearchaeologicalandanthropologicalevidenceshows,evenamodestlylargehallofthis

sortwasclearlythehallmarkofanimportantsettlementwithinalargercentral-place

complex.Thehallmayhavehadseveralinteriordivisions.Itwouldalsohavehadseveral

351AlthoughbothTissøandÅhuslikelyfunctionedasworkshopsitesforitinerantcraftspeople,thetwositesaremarkedlydifferentinthatTissøclearlyhadacentralhallwithcultfunctionsattachedtoit.Åhusdidnot.Thus,ifthepoemimpliesthatthefirstsettlementofthebrothersisassociatedwithalargeceremonialhall,thenthecomparisontoTissøismoreappropriate. 352InstanzafifteenÕlrúnissaidtobeKiársdóttir,“Caesar’sdaughter”(NeckelandKuhn1962:119).

254

associatedoutbuildingsattheveryleast,andlikelyanagrarianspaceaswell.Thehallwould

alsobeassociatedwithasurroundingnetworkofsmallerfarms,andprobablyevenother

halls,eachwithitsowncomplexofbuildingsandspaces.Võlundr’sisolationinsuchaspace

isstriking.Thisisolationmaysuggestthatamoredevastatingeventoccurredthanthesudden

departureofthethreeswan-maidensoftheirownaccord.

3.8ThestructuresassociatedwithNíñuñrandhisqueenTheothersettlementthatisdescribedinthepoemisNíñuñr’s.Thissettlementisalso

introducedwiththetermsalr.Instanzasixteenthequeenentersthishalljustasthewarriors

firstenteredVõlundr’shall:Honinnumgeccennlangansal,/stóñágólfi[353],stiltirõddo

(16.3-6),“Shewentinalongthelengthofthehall,stoodatthehallway,lowered[her]voice.”

Onthisoccasion,therepeatedendlangansalphraseonceagainimpliesalarge,openinterior

space,oneinwhichthequeenisgazeduponasshewalksdownthelengthofthehalljustas

thepoethashisaudiencegazeuponher.Sotooitseemsshemustkeephervoicedownto

avoidbeingheardwithintheopen,publicspaceofthehall.InthiscontextVõlundrisno

longerassociatedwithhisownhall:suddenlyheisinterpretedasthethreateningoneerór

holtiferr(16.8),“whocomesoutofthewood.”354Níñuñr’shallappearsagaininstanzas

twenty-two,twenty-three,thirtyandthirty-three.Fromtheseandotherinstancesitisclear

thatNíñuñr’shallispopulatedbyanarrayofmeyiar(22.5),“maidsorslavewomen”,salãióñ

(22.6),“house-people,domestics,servants”,apreferredslaveoftheking,355severalarmed

seggir(6.5),“warriors”,aswellasaristocraticbræñr(23.3),“brothers”.Níñuñrclearly

presidesoveranaristocratichallwithmanyservantsandwarriors.

ThepoemalsomakesitclearthatNíñuñrhasestablishedthishallwithinalarger

context,i.e.amulti-functionalcentral-placecomplex.Asisthecaseatarchaeologicalsites

likeTissø(cf.Jørgensen2003:181-99),andinEgilssaga,356Níñuñrbuiltafunctional

smithingworkshopinassociationwithhismainhall,butatsomedistancefromthismain

residence.Instanzathirty-fourVõlundrhimselfcommandsNíñuñrtogotothesmithy:Gacc 353LaFargeandTuckersuggestgólfcanmean“1.sectionofahousecreatedbythepositionoftheroofsupports(Grm.24).2.themiddleareaofthehousebetweenthetwoflet,boundedbyrowsofroofsupports:hallway,floor,sometimeswithflagstones(Vm.9,11,etc.,Hym.14,etc.).3.flooringeneral(Rã.)”(1992:s.v.gólf). 354AsImentionabove(seefootnote336onpage239),thisassociationwiththeforestmaybeinterpretedintermsofthesmith’sneedforconvenientaccesstowoodformakingcharcoal.SeealsothediscussionofJárnviñrandtheimportanceofforestsasasourceoffuelforsmithinginChapter2.355“‘Ãacráñr,ãrællminninnbezti’”(39.1-2),“‘Ãacráñr,thebestslaveofmine.’” 356Asdiscussedabove,Skalla-Grímrhasasmithyestablishedsomedistancefromhismainresidence(ÍF21988:78-9).

255

ãútilsmiñio,ãeirarerãúgorñir(34.1-2),“Yougotothesmithy,thatonewhichyou[i.e.

Níñuñr]built.”Thisworkshopislocatedísævarstõñ,“atthelandingplaceof[the]sea”

(20.8).Thislocationappearstobeestablishedontheshoreofabodyofwater.Itmaybenear

anappropriatelandingsiteforships,makingitanidealtradingandproductionsite.The

workshopalsoappearstobeisolatedonanisland,ey(29.8)orhólmr(40.4,41.4),ofsome

sort,perhapsatidalislandthatissometimesconnectedtothemainlandatlowtide(Dronke

1997:326;LaFargeandTucker1992:s.v.ey,hólmr).357Thisreferencetothesmithing

workshopassomethingwhichNíñuñrbuiltsuggeststheideaofamulti-functionalcentral-

placecomplex.ItisperhapsimpliedthatNíñuñr’ssettlementfollowsapatternof

developmentnotunlikethatillustratedbyTissø,orthatsuchisthehopeoftheking.This

progressionbeginswithamodesthall,asmalllivestockyard,amodestculticspaceor

buildingsituatedclosetothehall,andaworkshopbuildingsituatedattheperipheryofthe

fencedyard.Thismainfarmsteadgrowsoverthecourseofseveralgenerationsintoan

influentialcentral-placecomplexwithamuchlargerhallandculticbuildingaswellasan

expansiveworkshopareaandmarketexpandingtothesouthalongtheshoreofalake.Within

VõlundarkviñatheimpressionisdefinitelythatNíñuñrhasestablishedaworkshopinrelation

tohishall.

Thereferencetoasalgarñr,“courtyard”,mayalsosuggestthatthekingestablished

somesortofcentralagrarian,ceremonialorculticspaceindirectassociationwithhishall.

FollowingVõlundr’srevenge,thequeenonceagainentersthehallandwalksthelengthofit.

Butthekingisnottherenow.Thehallisempty:

ÚtistendrkunnigqvánNíñañr, ochoninnumgeccendlangansal; ennhannásalgarñsettizathvílaz(30.1-6)

OutsidestandsthewisewifeofNíñuñr,andinshewentalongthelengthofthehall;butheinthecourtyardsathimselftorest.

Níñuñrmaybesittingatachamberusedasanentrancetohishall.Hemayalsobesittingin

thecentralcourtyardformedbyseverallargehalls,asintheTrelleborgformation(Haywood

2000:93-4).Thissalgarñ,ifitcanbeinterpretedasacentralopenspace,mightalsobe

comparedtothesacralspacesthatareoftenfoundindirectrelationtolargehalls.Thepoem

is,onceagain,notforthcomingonsuchdetails.Atanyrate,therepeatedinnumgecc

357KennethCameronnotestheprominenceofONhólmrintoponymsinEngland,suggestingthistermmightalsohavereferredtoanislandorareaof“drylandinafen”(1961:79).

256

endlangansalphraseispoignanthere.Itreinforcestheemptinessofthehall,aswasthecase

withVõlundrthefirsttimethisphraseappeared.Thisrepetitionalsoreinforcestheking’s

avoidanceofthepublicandceremonialspaceinsidethehall:nowthathissonsaregonethe

socialfunctionofthehallislosttohim.

Asfarastheterminologyofceremonialhallsisconcerned,andtheroleofoathsand

mead-cupswithinthosehalls,itissignificantthatthepoemconcludesinVõlundr’swords.

Beforerevealinghisrevenge(andthenatureofthedrinkingvessels)totheking,thesmith

speakscommandinglyoverNíñuñr.Võlundrextractsoathsfromthekingwithinhisownhall,

ensuringthatthekingwillnotharmVõlundr’snewwife,whoisnowpregnantwith

Võlundr’schildwithinNíñuñr’sownhall:

‘Eiñascaltuméráñrallavinna, atscipsborñiocatscialdarrõnd,

atmarsbœgiocatmækisegg,atãúqveliatqvánVõlundarnébrúñiminniatbanaverñir,ãóttvérqváneigim,ãáerãérkunniñ,eñaióñeigiminnanhallar.’(33.1-14)

‘Oathsmustyoutomefirstswear,by[the]sideof[the]shipandby[the]metalrimof[the]shield,by[the]shoulderof[the]horseandby[the]bladeof[the]sword,thatyouwillnotkill[the]wifeofVõlundr,norbecometheslayerofmybride,evenifwehaveawifewhoistoyouknown,and[evenifwe]haveachildwithin[your]hall.’

Võlundr’sspeechexhibitsseveralimportantstatementsaboutthebalanceofpowerin

Níñuñr’shall.Onecouldsaythatthetableshavebeenturnedwithinthishall.ItisVõlundr

whoordersthekingaroundnow,notviceversa:‘Eiñascaltuméráñrallavinna[...]Gaccãú

tilsmiñio’(33.1-2,34.1),“‘Oathsmustyoutomefirstswear[...]Yougoto[the]smithy.’”

Võlundralsousesthewordhõll/hall,“hall”,whichisusednowhereelseinthepoem.358Itis

clearthatVõlundrhasliterally,figurativelyandsymbolicallyundonethepowerstructurethat

heldtogetherthemulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexthatNíñuñrandhiswifehad

established.

Insummary,althoughmuchoftheinformationaboutceremonialorresidential

structuresinVõlundarkviñaiseitherambiguousorlacking,itisclearthatVõlundrand

358Hõllisacommonenoughtermforahall(Fritzner1954:s.v.hõll;ONP2010:s.v.hõll;Brink1996:251-5).Itisinterestingthatitshouldbeusedonlyonce,andonthisoccasion,inthepoem,particularlysinceitisnotneededforeitheralliterationormetre:salr(gen.sing.salar),“hall”,couldworkjustaswellhereasithaselsewhereinthepoem.

257

especiallyNíñuñrareassociatedwithrelativelylarge,likelyceremonialhalls.Asthe

archaeologicalevidencefromearlymedievalScandinaviashows,hallslikethisgenerally

functionedwithinmulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexes.Thesehallsweresituatedin

immediaterelationtosacralspaces,agrarianspacesandworkshopspaces.Somesettlement

sites,particularlythoseonshoresornearwaterways(asisthecasewithbothVõlundr’shall

andNíñuñr’s),alsodevelopedextensiveworkshopandtradingareasthatweredistinctfrom

thecentral,aristocraticcomplex.

3.9Conclusion:smithingandartisanalmotifsinVõlundarkviñaVõlundarkviñaportraysVõlundr’srevengeasanartisanalaswellassocialstatement.

Theimportanceofartisanalthemesanddetailsinthepoemisfirstestablishedinthedetailed

descriptionsinstanzasoneandfive.Thisartisanalthemeisapparentinthedescriptionofthe

swan-maidensspinningfinelinensandinSlagfiñr’sname.Ofcourse,theartisanalismost

stronglyassociatedwithVõlundrhimself.Thereputationofthissmithprecedeshiminthe

Germanictradition.TheremarkabletechnicaldetailinthispoemreinforcesthatVõlundris

skilledinworkingwithpreciousstones,bone,gold,silver,ironandsteel.Thepoemclearly

emphasizestheimportanceofboththetechnicalactionsofthesmithaswellasthebodyof

knowledgeandskillpossessedonlybythesmith.ThelasthalfofVõlundarkviña,however,

presentsthesmithasanartisandeliveringprestigeitemstoaparticularqueenandking.

Avenginghismistreatmentinthisrelationshipofnegativereciprocity,Võlundrreturnsthe

skullsofNíñuñr’ssonstothekingasaparodyoftheusualroleofanartisancommissioned

toproducecustom-madeitemsforapatron.Võlundr’scustom-madeitemsfunctionasa

devastatingparodyofthesignificanceofmead-cupsandornatetreasureinpatrilineal

feasting,gift-givingandoath-makingritualswithinthearistocratichall.

Võlundarkviñademonstratesthedestructionandabusethatresultfromactingupon

thecovetousdesiretounilaterallycontrol,first,skilledcraftspeopleofdifferentethnicor

socialextractionand,second,thedistributionofvaluablegoodsthatdefineandmaintain

socialstructureandpowerwithinearlymedievalScandinavia.Themastersmiths,the

võlundar,couldhelptoestablishandmaintaincultural,aristocratic,spiritual,militaryand

agrariandistinctionsandprowessinthecentral-placecomplexeswithinwhichtheyworked.

Theycouldalsothreatentoundothem.Võlundarkviñademonstratesthesepossibilities,as

wellasthechallengesofsymbioticallysustainingfamilialandcommunalstructuresfrom

258

boththearistocratic,colonialSwedishperspectiveandthearistocratic,crafting,hunting,

itinerantindigenousSámiperspective.

259

Conclusion:theroleofsmithingmotifsinVõluspá7,40andVõlundarkviña

InthisdissertationIhaveexaminedsmithingmotifsandsmith-figuresintheOld

NorsepoemsVõluspáandVõlundarkviña.Thesemotifscanbecaptivatingandenigmatic,

andmanyscholarshaveattemptedtoexplaintheroleofsmithingmotifsandsmith-figures

withintheseandothermythologicalandlegendarynarratives.Thisstudyhasattemptedto

showhowthesemotifsandfiguresfunctioninrelationtothetechnicalfeaturesandsocial

contextsofsmithingworkinthecommunitiesandculturesduringtheperiodinwhichextant

sourcesfortheOldNorsemythswerecomposedandcirculated.

AsthefirstpoeminthePoeticEddaandoneofthechiefsourcesforOldNorse

mythologicalfiguresandnarratives,Võluspáisanimportantpoeminwhichmetalworking

andothercraftingmotifsplayakeyrole.Inparticular,keymetalworkingmotifsappearin

stanzas7and40.Instanza7ofVõluspátheÆsirestablishaflar,“forges/furnaces”,aspartof

theirfirstsettlement.Theseaflarrefertotheforges,andpossiblyfurnaces,thatareina

workshoparea(orseveralworkshopareas)inexclusiveassociationwiththefirstsettlement

oftheÆsir.Võluspá7portrayssmithingworkshopsasfoundationalpartsofamulti-

functionalcentral-placecomplex.Bothlarge-scaleevidence(liketheevidencegatheredby

archaeologicalinvestigationsofsettlementpatternsandnetworksthroughoutmedieval

Scandinavia)andsmall-scaleevidence(liketheforge-stonefromSnaptunandtheshort

descriptionsfromVõluspá7andGylfaginning14)suggestthatwearejustifiedininterpreting

“thearchaeologicalandthewrittenrecordasdifferentexpressionsofasinglecosmological

model”(Hedeager2002:3).Smithingactivitiesandfacilitiesareintegralaspectsofboththe

mythologicalidealandhistoricalrealityofacentral-placecomplex.

Furthermore,thiscombinedevidencefromthearchaeologicalandwrittensources

showsthatmetalworkingspacesareunderstoodasdistinctfromaristocratichallsandsacral

spaceswithinthecentral-placecomplex.Thehierarchalandspatialorganizationoflarger

central-placecomplexesinthearchaeologicalrecordcorrespondstotheorderingof

foundationaleventsinVõluspá7andGylfaginning14.Smithingfacilitiesareunderstoodas

productivespaceswhilethetún,“courtyard”,thehõrgr,“outdoorplaceofworship”,andthe

hof,“enclosedsacralspace”,areunderstoodasdistinctaristocraticorsacralspaces.

260

Võluspástanza40introducestheenigmaticmythologicaltoponymJárnviñr,“Iron-

wood”.Thistoponymreflectsapan-Scandinaviantopographicalconceptassociatedwiththe

OldNorsewordrauñi,“bogiron”,whichidentifiesbogirondepositsinrelationtosettlement

contextsandtheotherresources(particularlywood)neededtosmeltiron.Járnviñrshows

closemorphologicalandsemanticparallelstoseveraltoponyms(Jarnwith,Isarnhoand

possiblyJerrishoe)onthesouthernJutlandpeninsulaaroundHedeby.Thereisevidencein

thisareaofmulti-functionalcentral-placecomplexes,manyofwhichwereassociatedwith

bogironsmeltingandothercrafts.Therefore,Járnviñrisbothpartofapan-Scandinavian

topographicalconceptofbogironresourcesandalsoconnectedtoaconcentrationof

morphologicallyparalleltoponymsonthesouthernJutlandpeninsula.Themythological

toponymJárnviñrmaybeunderstoodas“woodlandwithornearbogironresources.”

Finally,VõlundarkviñaclearlyportraysVõlundr’srevengeasbothanartisanaland

socialstatement.Võlundr’ssocialidentityasahighlyqualifiedartisanisrepeatedly

emphasizedthroughoutthefirsthalfofthepoem,withreferencestobothhistechnicalskill

andhisadvancedknowledge.ThelasthalfofVõlundarkviña,however,presentsthesmithas

anabusedartisandeliveringprestigeitemsexclusivelytoaparticularqueenandking.

Võlundravengeshismistreatmentthroughadevastatingsubversionofthesignificanceof

artisanalproducts(e.g.mead-cupsandornatetreasures)inpatrilinealfeasting,gift-givingand

oath-makingritualswithinthearistocratichall.

IbeganthisdissertationbyquotingJohnHinesandhisperspectiveon

interdisciplinarystudiesofprehistoricScandinavia.Hinespointsoutthat“[e]xplaining,orat

leastseekingsomewayofcomprehendingdiversity,isquitedifferentfromreducingdiverse

phenomenatoasingleexplanation”(1989:195).Thesmithingmotifsandsmith-figuresof

OldNorsemythologypresentacomplexbutintegratedpictureofthecommunitiesand

culturesofViking-ageScandinavia.Myresearchshowsseveralconcretewaysinwhichthese

motifscanbeunderstood,andlaysthegroundworkforfurtherresearchintotheimplications

oftheseconclusions.Iwillbrieflyoutlinesomeofthesepotentialareasofresearch,although

itisimportantthatanyfurtherresearchdoesnotoverlookeitherthediversityorthe

complexityoftheseconclusionsinanattempttoformulateacomprehensivesystemof

interpretation.

Inmyopinion,themostenigmaticfeatureofmyresearchistheroleofthefemale

trollswholiveinJárnviñrandappeartobecloselyconnectedtothisforest.Moreover,Ifind

261

itcuriousthatthetroll-shaped359creaturesraisedbyinaldnainJárnviñrareunderstoodin

suchanantagonisticanddestructive(literallyapocalyptic)way.AsIhaveshown,Járnviñr

itselfiscloselyassociatedwithbogironresourcesandbogironsmelting.Thisnetworkof

associationsbetweenbogiron,Járnviñrandtroll-womendoesnotnecessarilyimplythatthe

troll-womenthemselvesareassociatedwithbogironresourcesorsmeltingactivities.Itis,

however,highlysuggestivethatthesecreaturesaresocloselylinkedtoJárnviñrandthat

manyoftheirnames(severalofwhichformaconcentratedgrouprelatedtoJárnviñr)are

usedpoeticallytorefertoaxesandotherobjectsmadeofiron.Themostplausible

interpretationisthattherewasaculturaltraditionofreferringtocertaintoolsandweaponsas

giantessesorfemaletrolls,andthatsomeofthesetoolsandweaponswereparticularly

associatedwiththeactivitiesrelatedtobogironprocessing.Intheexcursusfollowing

Chapter2Ioutlinedhowthesenamesforfemaletrollsmayperhapsrelate,notonlytobattle

contexts,butalsotocraftingcontexts.Thisdoesnotnecessarilyexplaintheantagonisticand

destructiveassociationswithinaldna,butitisanareawhereIthinkfurtherresearchcould

provefruitful.

ManystudiessuggestthatinteractionsbetweentheÆsirandthegiantsconformto

patternsofnegativereciprocityandgenderedoppositions(cf.CluniesRoss1994;Mundal

2002).IhavepointedoutthatthedisjunctioninherentintherelevantsequencesinVõluspá

complicatessuchclosecausalanalyses(McKinnell1993:714;Sigurñur1978:25-6).Thus,I

believethatmoregeneralanalysesofoppositional(butnotnecessarilycausal)patternscould

alsoleadtoinsightfulconclusions.Forexample,inlightofthedistinctroleofironinthese

contexts,asopposedtogold(particularlysinceironwastheonlyoreextractedandrefined

locallywhilegoldwasimported),Isuggestthatfurtherresearchintotherelativecultural

significanceofvariousmetalscouldbeenlightening.

Lindowsuggeststhat,“[c]raftsmanshipispowerful,anditseparatesthebearersof

culturefromallthoseoutsideculturewhothreatenit”(1994b:503).Productiveworkshops

wereanessentialfeatureofinfluentialcentral-placecomplexesinearlymedieval

Scandinavia.VõluspáandVõlundarkviñademonstrateOldNorseconceptsoftheroleof

theseworkshopsandtheskilledcraftsmenwhofrequentedtheseworkshopswithinbroader

settlementcommunitiesandtradingnetworks.Bothmythologicalnarrativesalsoshowhow

skilledsmithsandthedistributionofprestigiousmetalartefactsservedtoestablishand

359ítrollshami(Vsp40.8)

262

maintainsocialstructureinearlymedievalScandinavia.Võlundarkviñainparticular(also

Võluspámoregenerally)illustratesthedestructionthatresultsfromactinguponthedesireto

imposeunilateralcontrolonskilledsmithsandtheircreations.

263

BibliographyAbdinghoff,T.,F.Albers,C.Hoffmann,D.Horstmann,A.Jockenhövel,IKeesmann,O.Overbeck,

B. Trier, C. Willms, 2009: Archaeological investigations on the beginning of blast furnace-technology in central Europe. 2009 Abtellung für Ur- und Frühgeschichtliche Archäologie.<http://www.uni-muenster.de/UrFruehGeschichte/forschen/maerkischessauerland_engl.html>Accessed17June2010.

ADACVerlag,2000:Schleswig-Holstein,Hamburg:ADACFreizeitAtlas.München:ADACVerlag.ADAC Verlag, 2004: ADAC Stadtatlas: Schleswig-Holsteinische Westküste. München: ADAC

Verlag.AdamofBremen,1876:GestaHammaburgensisecclesiaepontificum:exrecencioneLappenbergii.

Hannoverae:Hahniani.AdamofBremen,1959:Historyof thearchbishopsofHamburg-Bremen.Trans.FrancisJ.Tschan.

NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.Ahlmann,HansW:son,ed.1976:Norden i textochkartor.Stockholm:Generalstabens litografiska

anstaltsforlag.Ambrosiani,Björn,1993:Birka. In:MedievalScandinavia:anencyclopedia.Eds.PhillipPlusiano

andKirstenWolf.NewYork:Garland.Pp.43-4.Andersen,Mikael,1993:Tools.In:MedievalScandinavia:anencyclopedia.Eds.PhillipPlusianoand

KirstenWolf.NewYork:Garland.Pp.645-6.Andersson, Kent, 1993a: Romartida Guldsmide i Norden. I. Katalog. Uppsala: Societas

ArchaeologicaUpsaliensis.Andersson, Kent, 1993b: Romartida Guldsmide i Norden. II. Fingerringar. Occasional Papers in

Archaeology6.Uppsala:SocietasArchaeologicaUpsaliensis.Andersson, Kent, 1995: Romartida Guldsmide i Norden. III.Övriga smycken, teknisk analys och

verkstadsgrupper.Diss.Aun21.Uppsala:DepartmentofArchaeology,UppsalaUniversity.Andersson,TheodoreM.,1968:SomeAmbiguitiesinGíslasaga:ABalanceSheet.In:Bibliography

ofOldNorse-IcelandicStudies.Copenhagen:Munksgaard.Pp.7-42.Árb.Fornl.1908=Árbókhinsíslenzkafornleifafélags1908.Reykjavík:Ísafoldarprentsmiñju.Armbruster, Barbara Regine, 2002: Die Preßmodel von Haithabu. In: Haithabu und die frühe

Stadtentwicklung imnördlichenEuropa.Eds.KlausBrandt,MichaelMüller-WilleandChristianRadtke.Neumünster:WachholtzVerlag.Pp.219-280.

Árni Björnsson ed., 1969: Laurentius saga biskups. Rit Handritastofnunar Íslands 3. Reykavík:HandritastofnunÍslands.

Arrhenius,BirgitandHelenaFennöMuyingo,2003:Ironartefacts.In:BorginLofoten:Achieftain’sfarm in North Norway. Eds. Gerd Stamsø Munch, Olave Sverre Johansen, Else Roesdahl.Trondheim:TapirAcademicPress.Pp.167-97.

Arwidsson,GretaandGöstaBerg,1983:TheMastermyrfind:avikingagetoolchestfromGotland.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell.

Barndon, Randi, 1996: Mental and material aspects of iron working. A cultural comparativeperspective,In:AspectsofAfricanarchaeology.Eds.G.PwitiandR.Soper.Harare:UniversityofZimbabwePublications.Pp.761-772.

Barndon,Randi,2001:Mastersofmetallurgy–Mastersofmetaphors:IronworkingamongtheFipaandthePangwaofSouthwestTanzania.UnpublishedDrArtthesis.Bergen:UniversityofBergen.

Barndon,Randi,2004a:Adiscussionofmagicandmedicines inEastAfrican ironworking.Actorsandartefactsintechnology.In:NorwegianArchaeologicalReports37.1.Pp.21-40.

Barndon,Randi,2004b:Anethnoarchaeologicalstudyofiron-smeltingpracticesamongthePangwaandFipainTanzania.In:CambridgeMonographsinAfricanArchaeology61.BARInternationalSeries1308.Oxford:OxbowBooks.

Barndon,Randi, 2006:Myth andMetallurgy, In:OldNorseReligion in Long-Term Perspectives:Origins,ChangesandInteractions,AnInternationalConferenceinLund,Sweden,June3-7,2004.Eds.Anders Andren,Kristina Jennbert,CatharinaRaudvere. Lund, Sweden: Nordic AcademicPress.Pp.99-103.

Bayley, Justine, 1991: Anglo-Saxon Non-Ferrous Metalworking: A Survey. World Archaeology.

264

23.1.Pp.115-130.Bazelmans,Jos,1999:ByWeaponsMadeWorthy:Lords,retainersandtheirrelationshipinBeowulf.

Amsterdam:AmsterdamUniversityPress.Bek-Pedersen,Karen,2009:FateandWeaving:JustificationofaMetaphor.In:VikingandMedieval

Scandinavia.5.Pp.23-39.Bencard,Mogens,LiseBenderJørgensenandHelgeBrinchMadsen,1990:RibeExcavations1970-

76.Vol.4.Trans.JohnHines.Esbjerg:SydjyskUniversitetsforlag.Benson,LarryD.ed.,1987:TheRiversideChaucer.3rdedn.NewYork:HoughtonMifflin.Berger,Dieter,1993:GeographischeNamen inDeutschland:HerkunftundBedeutungderNamen

vonLändern,Städten,BergenundGewässern.Mannheim:Dudenverlag.Bergman, Lena Thålin, 2005: Weapons in Helgö. In: Excavations at Helgö XV: Weapon

Investigations, Helgö and the Swedish Hinterland. Eds. Lena Thålin Bergman and BirgitArrhenius.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell.Pp.11-23

Bergman,LenaThålin,andBirgitArrhenius,2005:ExcavationsatHelgöXV:WeaponInvestigations,HelgöandtheSwedishHinterland.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell.

Bergstøl, Jostein, 2002: Iron technology andmagic in IronAge Norway. In:Metals and society:PapersfromasessionheldattheEuropeanAssociationofArchaeologistsSixthAnnualMeetinginLisbon2000.BARInternationalSeries,1061.Oxford:Archaeopress.Pp.77-82.

Bertelsen,Henriked.,1905-1911:ÃiñrikssagaafBern.Samfundet tiludgivelseafgammelnordisklitteratur34,2vols.Copenhagen:Møller.

Bjarni Einarsson ed., 2003: Egils saga Skalla-Grímssonar. London: Viking Society for NorthernResearch.

BjörnSigfússon,1958:TværgerñirFlóamannasögu.In:SagaII(1954-58).Pp.429-51.Bosworth,JosephandT.NorthcoteTollereds.,1954 [1898]:AnAnglo-Saxondictionary:basedon

the manuscript collections of the late Joseph Bosworth, edited and enlarged by T. NorthcoteToller.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Brady, Caroline, 1979: ‘Weapons’ in Beowulf: an analysis of the nominal compounds and anevaluation of the poet’s use of them. In: Anglo-Saxon England. 8. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.Pp.79-141.

Breuning-Madsen,Henrik,JørnRønsboandMadsK.Holst,2000:ComparisonofthecompositionofironpansinDanishburialmoundswithbogironandspodicmaterial.In:Catena39.Pp.1-9.

Brink,Stefan,1996:PoliticalandSocialStructuresinEarlyScandinavia.ASettlement-historicalPre-studyoftheCentralPlace.In:Tor:JournalofArchaeology28.Pp.235-281.

Brink,Stefan,1999:SocialorderintheearlyScandinavianLandscape.In:SettlementandLandscape:ProceedingsofaconferenceinÅrhus,Denmark,May4-71998.Eds.CharlotteFabechandJytteRingtved.Moesgård.Højbjerg:JutlandArchaeologicalSociety.Pp.423-40.

Brink,Stefan,2008:NamingtheLand.In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrinkincollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.57-66.

Brink,Stefan,2008:WhoweretheVikings?In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrinkincollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.4-7.

Bugge,Sophus,1867:NorrœnFornkvæñi. ÍslandskSamlingafFolkeligeOldtidsdigteomNordensGuder og Heroer lmindelig kaldet Sæmundar Edda hins fróña. Christiania: P. T. MallingsForlagsboghandel.

Burström,Mats, 1990: Järnframställning och gravritual: en strukturalistisk tolkning av järnslagg ivikingatidagravariGästrikland,In:Fornvännen85.Pp.261-71.

Byock, JesseL. trans., 1990:Sagaof theVolsungs:TheNorseEpic of Sigurd theDragonSlayer.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Callmer,Johan,2002:North-EuropeantradingcentresandtheEarlyMedievalcraftsman.CraftsmenatÅhus,north-easternScania,Sweden,ca.AD750-850+.In:CentralPlacesintheMigrationandtheMerovingian Periods: papers from the 52nd Sachsensymposium, Lund, August 2001. ActaarchaeologicaLundensia39.Uppåkrastudier6.Eds.BirgittaHårdhandLarsLarsson.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiskell.Pp.125-157.

Callmer,Johan,2003:Wayland.AnessayoncraftproductionintheEarlyandHighMiddleAgesinScandinavia.In:Centrality–Regionality:thesocialstructureofsouthernSwedenduringtheIronAge.Papersoriginallypresentedataconferenceheld inJanuary2001.Eds.LarsLarssonand

265

Birgitta Hårdh. Acta archaeological Lundensia 40. Uppåkrastudier 7. Stockholm: Almqvist &Wiksell.Pp.337-361.

Callmer,Johan,2008:Scandinaviaand theContinent in theVikingAge. In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.439-52.

Cameron,Kenneth1961:EnglishPlaceNames.London:Redwood.Campbell,Alistair,1972:AnAnglo-SaxonDictionarybasedonthemanuscriptcollectionsofJoseph

Bosworth: Enlarged Addenda and Corrigenda by Alistair Campbell to the Supplement by T.NorthcoteToller.Oxford:Clarendon.

Carlsson,Dan,2008:Ridanæs:aVikingAgeportoftradeatFröjel,Gotland.In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.131-4.

Christensen, Tom, 1994: Lejrehallen. In: Kongehallen fra Lejre: et rekonstruktionsprojekt.Internationalworkshop25-27november1993påHistorisk-ArkæologiskForsøgscenter,Lejre,omrekonstruktionenafvikingehallenfraGl.Lejreogetvikingetidsmiljø.Ed.Anne-ChristineLarsen.Lejre:Historisk-ArkæologiskForsøgscenter.Pp.17-26.

Christensen,Tom,2008:LejreandRoskilde.In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.121-5.

Clausen,Wilhelm,1980[1939]:EggebekerHeimatbuch:EineChronikd.DörferEggebek,Jerrishoe,Keelbeck-Tornschau, Langstedt, u. Esperstoft-Hünding. Hamburg: VerlagsbuchbindereiLadstetter.

Cleasby-Vigfusson=Cleasby,RichardandGudbrandVigfusson,1957[1874]:AnIcelandic-EnglishDictionary, initiated byRichardCleasby. Subsequently rev., enl., and completed byGudbrandVigfusson.2ndedn.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

CluniesRoss,Margaret,1981:An interpretationof themythofÃórr’sencounterwithGeirrøñrandhis daughters. In: Specvlvm Norroenvm: Norse Studies in Memory of Gabriel Turville-Petre.Odense:OdenseUniversityPress.Pp.370-391.

CluniesRoss,Margaret andB.K.Martin,1986:Narrative structures and intertextuality inSnorraEdda: the exampleofÃórr’s encounterwithGeirrøñr. In:StructureandMeaning inOldNorseLiterature:NewAppraoches toTextualAnalysisandLiteraryCriticism.Eds.JohnLindow,LarsLönnrothandGerdWolfgangWeber.Odense:OdenseUniversityPress.Pp.56-72.

CluniesRoss,Margaret,1987:Skáldskaparmál:SnorriSturluson’sarspoeticaandmedievaltheoriesoflanguage.Odense:OdenseUniversityPress.

CluniesRoss,Margaret, 1994: Prolonged echoes:OldNorsemyths inmedievalNorthern society.VikingCollection7.Odense:OdenseUniversityPress.

CluniesRoss,Margaret,2005:AHistoryofOldNorsePoetryandPoetics.Cambridge:D.S.BrewerCOD = Canadian Oxford Dictionary, 2005:

<http://www.oxfordreference.com.proxy2.lib.uwo.ca:2048/views/BOOK_SEARCH.html?book=t150>Ed.KatherineBarber.Accessed7June2010.

Cretu,CristianandElmavanderLingen,1999:ColouredGoldAlloys.In:GoldBulletin32(4).Pp.115-26.

Crumlin-Pedersen, Ole, 1997: Viking-Age Ships and Shipbuilding in Hedeby/Haithabu andSchleswig.ShipsandBoatsoftheNorth.Vol.2.Odense:OABTryk.

Degn,Christian,1994:Schleswig-Holstein: eineLandesgeschichte,historischerAtlas.Neumünster:Wachholtz.

Degn, Christian and Uwe Muuß, 1966: Topographischer Atlas Schleswig-Holstein. Neumünster:Wachholtz.

Dieterle,RichardL.,1987:TheMetallurgicalCodeoftheVõlundarkviñaandItsTheoreticalImport.In:HistoryofReligions.27.1.Pp.1-31.

Dillman,Francois-Xavier,2006:Lesmagiciensdansl’Islandeancienne:Étudessurlareprésentationde lamagie islandaise etde sesagentsdans les sources littéraires norroises.ActaAcademiaeRegiaeGustaviAdolphi92.Uppsala:Kungl.GustavAdolfsAkademienförsvenskfolkkultur.

Doane,A.N.,1991:TheSaxonGenesis:AnEditionoftheWestSaxonGenesisBandtheOldSaxonVaticanGenesis.Madison,WI.:TheUniversityofWisconsinPress.

Douay-RheimsBible1941=TheHolyBible:theCatholicBible,Douay-Rheimsversion, translatedfromtheLatinVulgateanddiligentlycomparedwiththeHebrew,Greekandothereds.NewYork:Benziger.

266

Dreibrodt,S.,O.Nelle, I.Lütjens,A.Mitusov, I.ClausenandH.-R.Bork.,2009: Investigationsofburied soils and colluvial layers around Bronze Age burial mounds at Bornhöved (northernGermany): an approach to test the hypothesis of ’landscape openness’ by the incidence ofcolluviation.In:TheHolocene19.3.Pp.487-97.

Dronke, Ursula ed., comm., and trans., 1969: The Poetic Edda, vol. 1 Heroic Poems. Oxford:Clarendon.

Dronke,Ursulaed.,comm.,and trans.,1997:ThePoeticEdda,vol.2MythologicalPoems.Oxford:Clarendon.

Duczko,Wladyslaw,1985:TheFiligreeandgranulationworkof theVikingPeriod:Ananalysisofthe material from Björkö. Birka: Untersuchungen und Studien V. Stockholm: Almqvist andWiksellInternational.

Einarson,Leif,2009:Whichcamefirst–thesmithortheshaman?Võlundarkviña,craftspeopleandcentralplacecomplexes.In:PreprintpapersofThe14thInternationalSagaConference:Uppsala,9th-15thAugust2009.Volume1.PapersfromtheDepartmentofHumanitiesandSocialSciences14. Ed. Agneta Ney, Henrik Williams and Fredrik Charpentier Ljungqvist. Gävle: GävleUniversityPress.Pp.221-8.

Eliade,Mircea, 1964: Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Trans.WillardR. Trask.NewYork:Pantheon.

Eliade,Mircea,1978:TheForgeandTheCrucible.2ndEdn.Trans.S.Corrin.Chicago:UniversityPressofChicago.

EllisDavidson,H.R.,1958:WelandtheSmith.In:Folklore69.3.Pp.145-159.EllisDavidson,H.R.,1962:TheSword inAnglo-SaxonEngland: ItsArchaeologyandLiterature.

Oxford:Clarendon.EllisDavidson,H.R.,1965:Thor’sHammer.In:Folklore76.1.Pp.1-15.Elton,Olivertrans.,1890:TheLifeofLaurenceBishopofHólarinIceland.London:Rivingtons.Erlenkeuser,H.,andH.Willkomm,1997: 14C-DatierungenvonHolzkohleprobenderAusgrabungen

in Joldelund. In: Frühe Eisengewinnung in Joldelund, Kr. Nordfriesland: Ein Betrag zurSiedlungs- und Technikgeschichte Schleswig-Holsteins. Teil 1. Ed. Hauke Jöns. Bonn: InKommissionbeiR.Habeit.Pp.197-215.

Espelund,Arne,1997:TheEvenstadprocess:description,excavation,experimentandmetallurgicalevaluation. In: Early iron production: archaeology, technology and experiments. ed. LarsChr.Nørbach.Lejre:Historisk-ArkæologiskForsøgscenter.Pp.47-59.

Evenstad,Ole,1790[2010]:ATreatiseonironoreasfoundinthebogsandswampsofNorwayandtheprocessofturningitintoironandsteel.AnAward-winningDiscoursewhichwonthe2ndGoldMedal of the Royal Agricultural Society in the Year 1782. Trans. and ed. Birgitta LinderothWallace. <http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/sites/vinland/lanseauxmeadows/ironworking/4248en.html>.Accessedon7March2010.

Falk,H.S.andAlfTorp,1910:Norwegisch-DänischesEtymologischesWörterbuch.Vol.1 (A-O).Heidelberg:CarlWinter’sUniversitätsbuchhandlung.

Farbregd, Oddmunn, 1993: Kremasjon – gåtefull gravskikk: elden, døden og metallet, In: Spor1993/1.Pp.8-11.

Faulkes,Anthony,1977:TheGenealogiesandRegnalLists inaManuscript inResen’sLibrary. In:Sjötíu ritgerñi helgañar Jakobi Benediktssyni 20. júlí 1977. Reykjavík: Stofnun ArnaMagnússonar.Pp.177-90.

Faulkes, Anthony ed., 1998a: Snorri Sturluson, Edda: Skáldskaparmál:1. Introduction, Text andNotes.London:VikingSocietyforNorthernResearch.

Faulkes, Anthony ed., 1998b: Snorri Sturluson, Edda: Skáldskaparmál: 2. Glossary and Index ofNames.London:VikingSocietyforNorthernResearch.

Faulkes,Anthonyed.,2000:SnorriSturlusson,Edda:PrologueandGylfaginning.London:VikingSocietyforNorthernResearch.

Faulkes,Anthonytrans.&ed.,2001a:Edda.London:J.M.Dent.Faulkes,Anthonytrans.&ed.,2001b:ThreeIcelandicOutlawSagas:TheSagaofGisli,TheSagaof

Grettir,TheSagaofHord.London:Everyman.Faulkes,Anthony2008:SnorriSturluson:hislifeandwork,In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,

267

incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.311-314.Fellows-Jensen,Gillianed.,1962:HemingsãáttrÁslákssonar.EditionesArnamagnæanæ:SeriesB3.

Copenhagen:Munksgaard.Fidjestøl, Bjarne, 1999: The Dating of Eddic Poetry: a historical survey and methodological

investigation.Ed.OddEinarHaugen.Copenhagen:C.A.ReitzelsForlag.FinnurJónssoned.,1894:EgilssagaSkallagrímssonar;nebstdengrösserenGedichtenEgils.Halle

A.S.:Niemeyer.FinnurJónssoned.,1916:Eirspennill–Am47fol–Nóregskonungasõgur:Magnúsgóñi–Hákon

gamli.Christiania:Grøndahl.Firchow, Evelyn Scherabon, ed. and trans., 1992: The Old Norse Elucidarius: original text and

Englishtranslation.Columbia,SouthCarolina:CamdenHouse.Firchow,EvelynScherabonandKaarenGrimstadeds.,1989:Elucidarius inOldNorseTranslation.

Rit36.Reykjavík:StofnunÁrnaMagnüssonar.Fjaestad,Monica, 1995: TheConservation andCare of the Finds fromBirka, Excavation Season

1990.In:Excavations intheBlackEarth1990.BirkaStudies2.Eds.BjörnAbrosianiandHelenClarke.Stockholm:Birkaproject forRiksantikvarieämbetet and StatensHistoriskaMuseer.Pp.98-106.

Fossier,Robert,1988:PeasantLifeintheMedievalWest.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Foulke,WilliamDudley trans.anded.,1907:Historyof theLangobardsbyPaul theDeacon:with

explanatory and criticalnotes, abiographyof the author, and an accountof the sourcesof thehistory.Philadelphia:DepartmentofHistory,UniversityofPhiledelphia.

Frank,Roberta,1986:HandToolsandPowerToolsinEilífr’sÃórsdrápa.In:StructureandMeaninginOldNorse Literature:New approaches to textual analysis and literary criticism. Eds. JohnLindow,LarsLönnrothandGerdWolfgangWeber.Odense:OdenseUniversityPress,Pp.94–109.

Fritzner,Johan,1954[1867]:OrdbogoverdetgamlenorskesprogI-IV.Oslo:Kristiania.Gade,K.E.ed.,InPress:EinarSkúlason,Øxarflokkr.In:SPSMA.Gansum,Terje,2004:Role theBones– from Iron toSteel. In:NorwegianArchaeologicalReview.

37.1.Pp.41-57.GeodætiskInstitut1947:UppdrátturÍslands1:250000.Copenhagen:GeodætiskInstitut.GeodætiskInstitut1978:Dänemark1:500002cmKort.Copenhagen:GoedætiskInstitut.Die Geschichte der Gemeinde Jersbek 2010: <http://www.bargteheide-

land.eu/wwwpub/gemeinden/jersbek/jersbek_geschichte.php>Accessed30July2010.Geselowitz,MichaelN.,1995:Review:Hedeager,Lotte. Iron-ageSocieties: from tribe to state in

northernEurope,500BCtoAD700.In:JournalofInterdisciplinaryHistory,Vol.25,No.3.Pp.453-454.

Goetz,Hans-Werner,2001:ConceptsofrealmandfrontiersfromLateAntiquitytotheEarlyMiddleAges:somepreliminary remarks. In:TheTransformationofFrontiers fromLateAntiquityto theCarolingians.Eds.WaltherPool,IanN.WoodandHelmutReimitz.Leiden:Brill.Pp.73-82.

Gordon,E.V.,1971:AnIntroductiontoOldNorse.2nded.rev.byA.R.Taylor.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Gover,J.E.B.,A.MawerandF.M.Stenton,1933:ThePlace-NamesofNorthhamtonshire.EnglishPlace-NameSociety.Vol.X.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Grimstad, Kaaren, 1983: The Revenge of Võlundr. In: Edda: a collection of essays. Eds. R. J.GlendinningandHaraldurBessason.Winnipeg:UniversityofManitobaPress.Pp.187-209.

Guñbrandur Vigfússon and Frederick York Powell eds. and trans., 1905: Orgines islandicae: acollection of themore important sagas and other nativewritings relating to the settlement andearlyhistoryofIceland.Oxford:Clarendon.

Guñni Jónsson ed., 1948: Annálar og nafnaskrá. Reykjavík: Íslendingasagnaútgáfan,Haukadalsútgáfan.

GuñniJónssoned.,1961:ÃiñrekssagaafBern:FyrriHluti.Reykjavík:Íslendingasagnaútgáfan.Guñni Jónsson and Bjarni Vilhjálmsson eds., 2010: Völsunga saga. 25 September 2010.

<http://www.heimskringla.no/wiki/Völsunga_saga>.Accessed30October2010.GuñrúnNordal,2001:Toolsof literacy: the roleof skaldicverse in Icelandic textualcultureof the

twelfthandthirteenthcenturies.Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.”guld ring”, Sök i samlingarna (beta), 2010: Historiska Museet, Stockholm.

268

<http://mis.historiska.se/mis/sok/start.asp>Accessed20October2010.Guldrummet(museumexhibit),2007:HistoriskaMuseets.Narvavägen13-1711484Stockholm.16

September2007.Gunnell,Terry,2005:EddicPoetry.In:Acompanion toOld-Norse-Icelandicliteratureandculture.

Ed.RoryMcTurk.Malden:Blackwell.Pp.82-100.Haaland,Randi,2004:Technology,Transformation andSymbolism:EthnographicPerspectiveson

EuropeanIronWorking,In:NorwegianArchaeologicalReview37.1.Pp.1-19.Haaland,Randi,2006: Iron in themaking -Technologyandsymbolism:Ethnographicperspectives

onEuropeanironworking,In:OldNorseReligioninLong-TermPerspectives:Origins,Changesand Interactions, An International Conference in Lund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004. Eds. AndersAndrén,Kristina Jennbert,CatharinaRaudvere.Lund,Sweden:NordicAcademicPress.Pp.79-85.

Hagen,Anders,1953:Studier iJernalderensGårdssamfund.UniversitetetsOldsaksamlingsSkrifter,BindIV.Oslo:NorgesAlmenvitenskapeligeForskningsråd.

Hall,MarkEdward,1995:VikingAgeIronworking:theevidencefromOldNorseliterature.In:TheWritten and theWrought: complementary sources in historical anthropology. Ed.Mary EllinD’Agostino.KroeberAnthropologicalSocietyPapers79.Pp.195-203.

Hall,Richard,2007:ExploringtheworldoftheVikings.London:ThamesandHudson.Hårdh,Birgitta,2002:Uppåkrain theMigrationandMerovingianPeriods.In:CentralPlacesinthe

MigrationandtheMerovingianPeriods:papersfromthe52ndSachsensymposium,Lund,August2001. Acta archaeologica Lundensia 39. Uppåkrastudier 6. Eds. B. Hårdh and L. Larsson.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiskell.Pp.41-54.

Hardt,Matthias, 2001a: Hesse, Elbe, Saale and the Frontiers of the Carolingian Empire. In: TheTransformationofFrontiers fromLateAntiquity to theCarolingians.Eds.WaltherPool, IanN.WoodandHelmutReimitz.Leiden:Brill.Pp.219-32.

Hardt,Matthias, 2001b: Limes Saxoniae. In: Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde. 18.Berlin:2001.Pp.442-6.

Härke,Heinrich,1990:‘WarriorGraves’?TheBackgroundoftheAnglo-SaxonWeaponBurialRite.In:PastandPresent.126.Pp.22-43.

Harris, Joseph,1983:EddicPoetryasOralPoetry:TheEvidenceofParallelPassages in theHelgiPoems for Questions of Composition and Performance. In: Edda: a collection of essays. Ed.RobertJ.Glendinning.Winnipeg:UniversityofManitobaPress.Pp.210-42.

Hasseloff,Günther,1938:DerGalgenbergvonItzehoe.EinGrabhügelausderälterenBronzezeit.In:Offa3.Pp.18-84.

Hatt,Gudmund,1954:Review:StudieriJernalderensGårdssamfund,byAndersHagen.In:AmericanAnthropologist56.3.Pp.522-5.

Hauglid,Roar,1969:NorskeStavkirker.Oslo:DreyersForlag.Hayeur-Smith,Michele,1999:SilfursmiñurinnáSílastöñum.In:ÁrbókhinsíslenzkaFornleifaflélags.

95.Pp.191-202.Haymes, Edward R. trans., 1988: The Saga of Thidrek of Bern. Garland Library of Medieval

Literature.Vol.56,SeriesB.NewYork:Garland.Haywood,John,2000:EncyclopediaoftheVikingAge.London:ThamesandHudson.Hedeager,Lotte,1992: Iron-AgeSocieties:FromTribetoStateinNorthernEurope,500BC toAD

700.Trans.JohnHines.Oxford:Blackwell.Hedeager, Lotte, 2001: Asgard reconstructed? Gudme – a ‘central place’ in the North. In:

Topographiesofpower in the earlyMiddleAges: the transformationof theRomanworld.Eds.MaykeDeJong,CarinevanRhijnandFrancisTheuws.Boston:Brill.Pp.467-508.

Hedeager,Lotte,2002:Scandinavian‘CentralPlaces’inacosmologicalsetting.In:CentralPlacesintheMigration and theMerovingian Periods: papers from the 52nd Sachsensymposium, Lund,August2001.ActaarchaeologicaLundensia39.Uppåkrastudier6.Eds.B.HårdhandL.Larsson.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiskell.Pp.3-18.

Hedeager,Lotte,2008:ScandinaviabeforetheVikingAge.In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.11-22.

Hedenstierna-Jonson,Charlotte,2006:TheBirkaWarrior:Thematerialcultureofamartialsociety.Stockholm:StockholmUniversityPress.

269

Hedenstierna-Jonson, Charlotte and Lena Holmquist Olausson, 2006: The Oriental Mounts fromBirka’sGarrison:Anexpressionofwarriorrankandstatus.In:TheBirkaWarrior:Thematerialculture of a martial society. Charlotte Hedenstierna-Jonson. Stockholm: Stockholm UniversityPress.Pp.VI.1-85.

Heide, Eldar, 2006: Spinning seiñr. In:Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins,Changes and Interactions,An InternationalConference inLund, Sweden, June 3-7, 2004. Eds.AndersAndrén,Kristina Jennbert,CatharinaRaudvere.Lund,Sweden:NordicAcademicPress.Pp.164-69.

Heldt,Johannes,1998:Vor-undfrühgeschichtlicheBedeutungdesDorfesTorsballig.In:ChronikderOrsteileHavetoftloitundTorsballig.Ed.GemeindeHavetoftloit.Husum:HusumDruck-undVerlagsgesellschaft.Pp.11-16.

HermannPálsson1996:Võluspá:TheSybil’sProphecy.Edinburgh:LockhartenPress.Herman Pálsson, 2000: Odinic echoes inGísla Saga. In: Gudar På Jorden – Fetskrift Till Lars

Lönnroth.Stockholm:BrutusÖstlingsBokförlagSymposion.Pp.97-118.Herschend,Frands,1997:Livetihallen:trefallstudieridenyngrejärnålderensaristokrati.Uppsala:

Institutionenförarkeologiochantikhistoria,Uppsalauniversitet.Herschend,FrandsandDortheKaldalMikkelsen,2003:ThemainbuildingatBorg(I:1).In:Borgin

Lofoten:Achieftain’s farminNorthNorway.Eds.GerdStamsøMunch,OlaveSverreJohansen,ElseRoesdahl.Trondheim:TapirAcademicPress.Pp.41-76.

Heydermann, Berndt and Jutta Müller-Karch, 1980: Biologischer Atlas Schleswig-Holstein:LebensgemeinschaftendesLandes.Neumünster:K.WachholtzVerlag.

Hill,David, 2001:Appendix 3.A ShortGazetteer of PostulatedContinentalWics. In:Wics: TheEarly Mediaeval Trading Centres of Northern Europe. Eds. David Hill and Robert Cowie.Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress.Pp.104-110.

Hines, John, 1989: Ritual Hoarding in Migration-period Scandinavia: a review of recentinterpretations. In:Proceedingsof thePrehistoricSociety.55.London:Prehistoric Society.Pp.193-206.

Hines,John,2003:Mythandreality:thecontributionofarchaeology.In:OldNorsemyths,literatureandsociety.Ed.MargaretCluniesRoss.Odense:UniversityPressofSouthernDenmark.Pp.19-39.

Hingst, Hans, 1969: Ein Eisenverhüttungsrevier im Staatforst Flensburg. In: Siedlung, Burg undStadt:StudienzuihrenAnfängen.Eds.OttoKarl-HeinzandJoachimHerrmann.Berlin:DeutscheAkademiederWissenschaftenzuBerlin.SchriftenderSektion fürVor-undFrühgeschichte25.Pp.423-37.

Hingst,Hans,1970:VorgeschichtlicheEisenverhüttungaufdemNeumünsteranerSander. In:FrüheMenschheitundUmwelt.Fundamenta:MonographienzurUrgeschichte.Bd.2.Eds.KarlGripp,RudolfSchütrtumpf,HermannSchwabedissen.Köln:Böhlau.Pp.423-52.

Hingst,Hans,1973:EineKaiserzeitlicheWaldschmiedeinSüderschmedeby,Kr.Flensburg.In:Offa30.Pp.249-50.

Hingst, Hans, 1974: Mittelalterliche Eisenverhüttungsanlagen aus Handewitt, Kr. Schleswig-Flensburg.In:Offa31.Pp.152-3.

Hinton,DavidA.,2003:Anglo-SaxonSmithsandMyths.In:TextualandMaterialCultureinAnglo-SaxonEngland:ThomasNorthcoteTollerandtheTollerMemorialLectures.Ed.DonaldScragg.Cambridge:D.S.Brewer.Pp.261-282.

Hjärthner-Holdar,Eva,KristinaLammandBenteMagnus,2002:MetalworkingandCentralPlaces.In: Central Places in the Migration and the Merovingian Periods: papers from the 52ndSachsensymposium,Lund,August2001.ActaarchaeologicaLundensia39.Uppåkrastudier6.Eds.BirgittaHårdhandLarsLarsson.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiskell.Pp.159-183.

Hoftun, Oddgeir,Gérard Franceschi (photo.), and Asger Jorn (design), 2002: Stavkirkene: og detnorskemiddelaldersamfunnet.København:Borgen.

Holand, Ingegerd,2003:Findscollectionanddocumentation,distributionand function. In:Borg inLofoten:Achieftain’s farminNorthNorway.Eds.GerdStamsøMunch,OlaveSverreJohansen,ElseRoesdahl.Trondheim:TapirAcademicPress.Pp.131-40.

Holm-Olsen,Ludviged.,1945:Konungsskuggsiá.Oslo:IkommisjonhosJacobDybwad,institutt.HolmquistOlausson,Lena,1993:AspectsonBirka: Investigationsand surveys1976-1989.Theses

270

andPapersinArchaeologyB:3.Stockholm:ArchaeologicalResearchLaboratory.Holtsmark,Anne,1951:StudiesintheGíslaSaga.In:StudiaNorvegica6.Oslo:Johansen&Neilsen.Holtsmark,Anne, 1969: Iñavõllr. In:Festschrift fürKonstantinReichardt.Eds.ChristianGellinek

andHerwigZauchenberger.Bern:FranckeVerlag.Pp.98-102.Howlett,D.R.,1997:BritishBooksinBiblicalStyle.Chippenham,Wilts.:FourCourtsPress.Hrisoulas,Jim,1987:TheCompleteBladesmith.Boulder,CO.:Paladin.Indrebø,Gustaved.,1920:SverrissagaetterCodexAM3274°.Kristiania:Dybwad.Institut für Landeskunde, 1970: Deutsche Landschaften – Bau und Formen. Frankfurt amMain:

InstitutfurLandeskunde.ÍF=ÍslenzkFornrit:ÍslenzkFornrit1,1986:Íslendingabók,Landnámabók.Reykjavík:Hiñíslenzkafornritafélag.ÍslenzkFornrit2,1988:EgilssagaSkalla-Grímssonar.Ed.SigurñurNordal.Reykjavík:Hiñíslenzka

fornritafélag.ÍslenzkFornrit4,1985:Eyrbyggjasaga.Ed.EinarÓl.SveinssonandMatthíasÃórñarson.Reykjavík:

Hiñíslenzkafornritafélag.Íslenzk Fornrit 6, 1988 [1943]: Vestfirñinga sögur. Ed. Björn K. Ãórólfsson and Guñni Jónsson.

Reykjavík:Hiñíslenzkafornritafélag.ÍslenzkFornrit7,1936:GrettissagaÁsmundarsonar /Bandamannasaga/OddsãáttrÓfeigssonar.

Ed.GuñniJónsson.Reykjavík:Hiñíslenzkafornritafélag.Íslenzk Fornrit 11, 1950: Austfirñinga sõgur. Ed. Jón Jóhannesson. Reykjavík: Hiñ íslenzka

fornritafélag.Íslenzk Fornrit 12, 1954: Brennu-Njáls saga. Ed. Einar Ól. Sveinsson. Reykjavík: Hiñ íslenzka

fornritafélag.ÍslenzkFornrit13,1991:HarñarSaga.Reykjavík:Hiñíslenzkafornritafélag.Íslenzk Fornrit 35, 1982: Danakonunga sõgur. Ed. Bjarni Guñnason. Reykjavík: Hiñ íslenzka

fornritafélag.Jacobsson,Bengt,2002:TrelleborgandtheSouthernPlainduringtheIronAge:AStudyofaCoastal

Area in South-West Scania, Sweden. In: Centrality – Regionality: The Social Structure ofSouthernSwedenduring the IronAge.Uppåkrastudier7.Eds.LarsLarssonandBirgittaHårdh.Pp.191-221

Jardine, SirWilliam, 1866:Birds ofGreat Britain and Ireland. TheNaturalist’s LibraryVol. III.London:HenryG.Bohn.

Jensen,Stig,1991:RibezurWikingerzeit.Ribe:DenantikvariskeSamling.Jiriczek,Otto Luitpold, ed., 1893:DieBósa-saga in zwei fassungen, nebst proben aus denBósa-

rimur.Strassburg:K.J.Trübner.Johansen,Arne,1973:IronProductionasaFactorintheSettlementHistoryoftheMountainValleys

SurroundingHardangervidda.In:NorwegianArchaeologicalReview.6.1.Pp.84-101.Johansen, Olave Sverre and Gerd StamsøMunch, 2003: Introduction and Summary. In: Borg in

Lofoten:Achieftain’s farminNorthNorway.Eds.GerdStamsøMunch,OlaveSverreJohansen,ElseRoesdahl.Trondheim:TapirAcademicPress.Pp.11-18.

Johnston,George trans.,1963:TheSagaofGisli.WithnotesandanessayonTheSagaofGislibyPeterFoote.London:AldinePress.

JónHelgason,1962:TværKviñurFornar:VõlundarkviñaogAtlakviñameñ skÿringum.Reykjavík:Heimskringla.

Jón Sigurñsson and Guñbrandur Vigfússon eds., 1858: Biskupa sögur 1. Kaupmannahöfn:prentsmiñjuS.L.Möllers.

Jöns,Hauke, 1999: Ironproduction inNorthernGermanyduring the IronAge. In:SettlementandLandscape: Proceedings of a conference in Århus, Denmark, May 4-7 1998. Eds. CharlotteFabechandJytteRingtved.Moesgård,Højbjerg:JutlandArchaeologicalSociety.Pp.249-60.

Jørgensen,Lars,1995:ThewarrioraristocracyofGudme:The emergenceof landedaristocracy inLate IronAgeDenmark? In:ProduksjonogSamfunn:om erverv, spesialiseringogbosetning iNorden i 1. årtusen e.Kr.: beretning fra 2. nordiske jernaldersymposium på GranavoldenGjæstgiveri7-10mai1992.Ed.H.G.Resi.Pp.205-220.

Jørgensen, Lars, 2003:Manor andMarket at Lake Tissø in the Sixth to EleventhCenturies: TheDanish’Productive’Sites.In:MarketsinearlymedievalEurope:tradingand’ProductiveSites’c.

271

650-850.Eds.TimPestellandCatharinaUlmschneider.Macclesfield:Windgather.Pp.175-207.Kalinke,MarianneE.,1996:TheBook ofReykjahólar: the lastof the greatmedieval legendaries.

Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress.Kaufmann, Henning, 1965: Untersuchungen zu altdeutschen Rufnamen.München: Wilhelm Fink

Verlag.Kehoe, Alice Beck, 2000. Shamans and Religion: An Anthropological Exploration in Critical

Thinking.LongGrove:WavelandPress.Kemble,J.M.ed.,1964:ChartaeAnglosaxonicae.In:CodexDiplomaticusAeviSaxonici5.Londini:

SumptibusSocietatis.Keyser, R, P. A. Munch and C. R. Unger eds., 1848: Speculum regale: Konungs skuggsjá.

Christiania:CarlC.Werner.Kightley,MichaelR.,2009:RacialAnglo-Saxonisms:FromScholarshiptoFictioninEngland,1850-

1960.Diss.London,Ontario:SchoolofGraduateandPostdoctoralStudies,UniversityofWesternOntario.

Kjærum,PoulandAgneteRikkeOlseneds.,1990:OldtidensAnsigt:FacesofthePast.Copenhagen:DetkongeligNordiskeOldskrifteselskab.

Konrad Gíslason ed., 1846: Tvær sögur af Gísla Sÿrssyni. Udgivne af det Nordiske Literatur-Samfund.Kjøbenhavn:TryktiibrødreneBerlingsbogtrykkeri,

Kraig, Bruce, 1994: Review: Hedeager, Lotte. Iron-age Societies: from tribe to state in northernEurope,500BCtoAD700.In:TheAmericanHistoricalReview,Vol.99,No.1.Pp.208-209

Kroman, Erik ed., 1951:Danmarks gamle købstadlovgivning. Bind I: Sønderjylland. København:RosenkildeogBagger.

Kyhlberg,Ola,1988:Spatialpatterns–socialstructures.In:ThirteenStudiesonHelgö.TheMusuemofNationalAntiquities,Stockholm,Studies7.Stockholm:Statenshistoriskamuseum.Pp.77-88.

LaFarge,BeatriceandJohnTuckereds.,1992:GlossarytothePoeticEdda:basedonHansKuhn’sKurzesWörterbuch.Heidelberg:Winter.

Lamm,Kristina,1988:Helgö–internationaltradingcentre,localmarketorfarmingcommunity?In:Thirteen Studies on Helgö. The Musuem of National Antiquities, Stockholm, Studies 7.Stockholm:Statenshistoriskamuseum.Pp.89-99.

Landnámssetur Íslands, 2010: Egils Saga Revealed. <http://english.landnam.is/default.asp?sid_id=27658&tre_rod=002%7C003%7C&tId=1> Accessed5March2010.

Larrington,Carolynetrans.,1996:ThePoeticEdda.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Larsson,LisaK.,2005:Hillsof theAncestors:death, forgingand sacrificeon twoSwedishburial

sites.In:DealingwiththeDead:ArchaeologicalPerspectivesonPrehistoricScandinavianBurialRitual.Eds.ToreArteliusandFrederikSvanberg.Stockholm:NationalHeritageBoard.Pp.99-124.

Lauritsen,Louise,2009:Etunikt fundafOdin fraLejre. In:RoskildeAvis,13November2009.<http://roskilde.lokalavisen.dk/et-unikt-fund-af-odin-fra-lejre/20091113/artikler/711139709>Accessed10August2010.

Lawenius, Petter, 2007: Features. In: Uppåkra: a prehistoric central place in Scania, Sweden.Graphics, design and layoutbyPeterMinorsson.Web design and flash programmingbyBjörnPetersson. Produced in collaboration with Lars Larsson, professor in archaeology at LundUniversity.2007<http://www.uppakra.se/backup/eng/fasta_strukturer_eng.htm>Accessed3June2009.

Leche,V.,B.Meijer, J. F.Nyström,K.Warburg andT.Westrin eds.,1905:NordiskFamiljebok:Konversationslexikon och Realencyklopedi. 3rd edn. Stockholm: Nordisk familjeboks förlagsaktiebolag.<http://runeberg.org/nfbc>Accessed3July2010.

deLeeuwvanWeenen,Andreaed.&ed.facs.,1993:ÍHquarto3.TheIcelandicHomilyBook:Perg.154°intheRoyalLibrary,Stockholm.Reykjavík:HandritastofnunÍslands.

LejreHistoriskeForening,2010:Grydehøj,Fredningsnummer3226-72,Sognebeskrivelse020409-06.<http://www.lejre-historiske-forening.dk/Billeder%20og%20gallerier/Olav%20Sejeroes%20gallerier/Gravhoje%20i%20Lejre/Grydehoj.pdf>Accessed19September2010.

Lethbridge,Emily,2000:Curses!Swords,SpearsandtheSupernaturalintheVersionsofGíslasaga

272

Súrssonar.In:TheThirteenthInternationalSagaConference,DurhamandYork,6th-12thAugust,2006: Pre-prints of Conference Papers.<http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/lethbridge.htm>Accessed3June2009.

Levy, JanetE.,1993:Review:Hedeager,Lotte. Iron-ageSocieties: from tribe to state innorthernEurope,500BCtoAD700.In:AmericanAnthropologist,NewSeries,Vol.95,No.3.Pp.750-751.

Lewis,Samuel,1845:ATopographicalDictionaryofEngland.5thEdn.Vol. III.London:S.Lewisandco.

Lindow,John,1994a:BloodfeudandScandinavianMythology.In:Alvíssmál4.Pp.51-68.Lindow,John,1994b:Thor’shamarr. In:JournalofEnglishandGermanicPhilology.October.Pp.

485-503.Lindow,John,1996Thor’sDuelwithHrungnir.In:Alvíssmál6.Pp.3-20.Lindow,John,2000:Thor’sVisittoÚtgarñaloki,In:OralTradition15.1.Pp.170-186.Lindow, John,2002:NorseMythology:aguide to thegods,heroes, ritualsandbeliefs.NewYork:

OxfordUniversityPress.Littleton, C. Scott and Linda A. Malcor, 2008: The Germanic Sword In The Tree: Parallel

Development Or Diffusion? In: The Heroic Age: A Journal of Early Medieval NorthwesternEurope.Issue11.Pp.1-16.

Ljungkvist, John,2008:Handicrafts. In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink, incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.186-92.

Lönnroth,LarsandSvenDelblanc,1993:DenSvenskaLitteraturen.1,FrånForntid tillFrihetstid:800-1718.Stockholm:BonnierAlba.

Loth, Agnete ed., 1960: Gísla saga Súrssonar. In: Membrana Regia Deperdita. Copenhagen:EditionesArnamagnæanæA5.Pp.1–80.

Loth,Agneteed.,1962:LateMedievalIcelandicRomances1.Kobehaven:J.B.Dodsworth.Loth, Agnete ed., 1969: Reykjahólabók: Islandske helgenlegender 1-2. EditionesArnamagnæanæ:

SeriesA15-16.Copenhagen:DetArnamagnæanskeinstitut.LP 1860 = Sveinbjörn Egilsson, 1860: Lexicon poeticum antiquæ linguæ septentrionalis.Hafniæ:

TypisJ.D.Qvist&Comp.LP1931=FinnurJónsson,1931:Lexiconpoeticumantiquælinguæseptentrionalis:ordbogoverdet

norsk-islandskeskjaldesprog.2nded.Copenhagen:Møller.Lund, Julie,2005:ThresholdsandPassages:TheMeaningsofBridgesandCrossings in theViking

AgeandEarlyMiddleAges.In:VikingandMedievalScandinavia1.Pp.109–36.MagnusMagnusson,1976:HammeroftheNorth.London:Orbis.MagnusMagnussonandHermannPálsson,1966: Introduction. In:SnorriSturluson,KingHarald’s

Saga:HaraldHardradiofNorway.London:Penguin.Pp.9-39.Mango, Cyril and Roger Scott eds. and trans., 1997: The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor:

ByzantineandNearEasternHistoryAD284-813.Oxford:ClarendonPress.Markewitz, Darrell, 2007: Overview of experimental variables. 22 December 2007.

<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/smeltvariables.html>Accessed7June2010.Markewitz, Darrell, 2007: Smelters and Archaeology – Some Questions. 31 July 2007. <

http://warehamforgeblog.blogspot.com/2007/07/smelters-archaeology-some-questions.html>Accessed7June2010.

Markewitz, Darrell, 2008: Bellows Reconstruction 2. 25 January 2008.<http://warehamforgeblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/bellows-reconstruction-2.html>Accessed7June2010.

Markewitz,Darrell,2008:IronSmeltingSeminaratThy:experimentalironsmeltingattheHeltborgMuseum, Denmark, April 29 – May 5, 2008, an overview. 2008.<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/HELTBORG/index.html>Accessed7June2010.

Markewitz,Darrell,2008:WorkingtowardsanIcelandicVikingAgeSmeltBasedontheremainsatHals: Prepared with the assistance of Kevin Smith and Neil Peterson.<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/HALS/index.html>Accessed10August2010.

Markewitz,Darrell,2009:IronSmeltData–ExperimentalIronSmelts2001toNovember2008.15January2009.<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/smeltdata.html>Accessed7June2010.

Markewitz, Darrell, 2009: Smelt Report – Vinland 3 / November 7, 2009.<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/LAM/Vinland3/report11-09.html> Accessed 10

273

August2010.Markewitz, Darrell, 2009: Vinland Iron Smelt. 1 June 2009.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VapWvn23iQI&feature=player_embedded> Accessed 16August2010.

Markewitz, Darrell, 2010: Currency Bar from DARC Iron. 26 June 2010.<http://warehamforgeblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/currency-bar-from-darc-iron.html>Accessed 23August2010.

Markewitz, Darrell, 2010: Vinland 4 – June 12, 2010.<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/LAM/Vinland4/report6-10.html> Accessed 11September2010.

Markewitz, Darrell, 2010: Experimental Iron Smelting. 4 December 2010.<http://www.warehamforge.ca/ironsmelting/index.html>Accessed8December2010.

Martens, Irmelin, 1978: SomeReflections on theClassification of Prehistoric andMedieval Iron-smeltingFurnaces.In:NorwegianArchaeologicalReview.11.1.Pp.27-36.

McGovern, Thomas H., Orri Vésteinsson, Adolf Friñriksson,Mike Church, Ian Lawson, Ian A.Simpson,ArniEinarsson,AndyDugmore,GordonCook,SophiaPerdikaris,Kevin J.Edwards,AmandaM.Thomson,W.PaulAdderley,AnthonyNewton,GavinLucas,RagnarEdvardsson,OscarAldred,andElaineDunbar,2007:LandscapesofSettlementinNorthernIceland:HistoricalEcology of Human Impact and Climate Fluctuation on the Millennial Scale. In: AmericanAnthropologist,109.1.Pp.27-51.

McKinnell,John,1990:TheContextofVõlundarkviña.In:Saga-BookXXIII.Pp.1-27.McKinnell, John,1993:Võluspá In:MedievalScandinavia:anencyclopedia.Eds.PhillipPlusiano

andKirstenWolf.NewYork:Garland.Pp.713-5.McKinnell,John,2001a:Eddicpoetry inAnglo-ScandinaviannorthernEngland.In:Vikingsandthe

Danelaw:SelectPapersfromtheProceedingsoftheThirteenthVikingCongress,NottinghamandYork,21-30August1997.Eds.JamesGraham-Campbell,RichardHall,JudithJeschandDavidN.Parsons.Oxford:OxbowBooks.Pp.327-44.

McKinnell,John,2001b:OnHeiñr.In:Saga-Book25.Pp.394-417.Mikkelsen,DortheKaldal,1999:Singlefarmorvillage?Reflectionsonthesettlementstructureofthe

IronAgeandVikingPeriod.In:SettlementandLandscape:ProceedingsofaconferenceinÅrhus,Denmark,May4-71998.Eds.CharlotteFabechandJytteRingtved.Moesgård,Højbjerg:JutlandArchaeologicalSociety.Pp.177-93.

Milisauskas,SarunasandJanuszKruk,2002:MiddleNeolithicContinuity,Diversity,InnovationsandGreaterComplexity, 5500/5000-3500/3000BC. In: European prehistory: a survey.NewYork:KluwerAcademic/PlenumPublishers.Pp.193-246.

Militärgeographisches Amt, 1963: Deutschland 1:500000 Ausgabe 2-DMG, Serie M 745. Bonn:MilitärgeographischeDienststelleundMilitärgeographischesAmt.

Mills,A.D.,1991:ADictionaryofEnglishPlace-Names.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Mitchell,Stephen,1997:NordicWitchcraftinTransition:Impotence,Heresy,andDiabolismin14th-

centuryBergen.In:Scandia63.1.Pp.17-33.Mitchell,BruceandFredC.Robinson,2006:Beowulf:aneditionwithrelevantshortertexts.Malden

MA:Blackwell.Moseng, Ole Georg, 1992: The Dragon in the Hole: TheMyths about Akersberg andMedieval

MininginNorway.In:CollegiumMedievale1-2.Pp.45-72.Motz,Lotte,1977:TheCraftsmanintheMound,In:Folklore.88.1.Pp.46-60.Motz,Lotte,1981:GiantessesandtheirNames.In:FrühmittelalterlicheStudien15.Pp.495-511.Motz, Lotte, 1983: The Wise One of the Mountain: Form, Function, and Significance of the

SubterraneanSmith:AStudyinFolklore.Göppingen:KümmerleVerlag.Motz, Lotte, 1993: The host of Dvalinn: Thoughts on Some Dwarf-names in Old Icelandic. In:

CollegiumMedievale1.Pp.81-96.Müllenhoff,Karl,1891:DeutscheAltertumskunde.Vol.5.Weidmann:Berlin.Müller,Ulrich,2010:Die”KielerSchule”–Ur-undfrühgeschichtlichForschungzwischen1927und

1945. <http://www.ufg.uni-kiel.de/bereiche/dateienInstitut/ns_kiel.pdf> Accessed 7 November2010.

Müller-Wille, Michael 1993: Hedeby. In: Medieval Scandinavia: an encyclopedia. Eds. Phillip

274

PlusianoandKirstenWolf.NewYork:Garland.Pp.275.Mundal,Else, 1993:Norns. In:MedievalScandinavia: an encyclopedia.Eds.PhillipPlusiano and

KirstenWolf.NewYork:Garland.Pp.625.Mundal,Else,2002:Austrsat inaldna...Giantessesandfemalepower inVõluspá,In:Mythological

Women:Studies inMemoryofLotteMotz,1922-1997.StudiaMedievaliaSeptentrionaliaBd.7.Eds.RudolfSimekandWilhelmHeizmann.Wien:Fassebaender.Pp.185-95.

Myhre,Bjørn,2000:TheEarlyVikingAgeinNorway.In:ActaArchaeologica71.Pp.35-47.Neckel,Gustav,andHansKuhneds.,1962:Edda.DieLiederdesCodexRegiusnebstverwandten

Denkmälern.1.Text.Heidelberg:CarlWinter,Universitätsverlag.Neckel,Gustav ed., 1968: Edda.Die Lieder desCodexRegius nebst verwandtenDenkmälern. II.

KurzesWörterbuchvonHansKuhn.Heidelberg:CarlWinter,Universitätsverlag.Nedoma,Robert, 1988:Die bildlichen und schriftlichenDenkmäler derWielandsage.Göppingen:

KümmerleVerlag.Nedoma, Robert, 1990: The Legend of Wayland in Deor. In: Zeitschrift für Anglistik und

Amerikanistik38.Pp.129-45.Nerman,Birger,1982[1931]:ThePoeticEddainthelightofarchaeology.Coventry:VikingSociety

forNorthernResearch.Nielsen, JensN., 2002:Bejsebakken, a central site nearAalborg inNorthern Jutland. In:Central

Places in theMigrationand theMerovingianPeriods:papers from the52ndSachsensymposium,Lund,August2001.ActaarchaeologicaLundensia39.Uppåkrastudier6.Eds.B.Hårdh andL.Larsson.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiskell.Pp.197-213.

Nielsen, JensN.,2008:Sebbersund. In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink, incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.135-9.

Nordanskog,Gunnar, 2003:TheVolsung legend inNorwegian StaveChurchPotrals:meaninglessdecorationorconscioususe?In:ScandinaviaandChristianEuropeintheMiddleAges.Papersofthe 12th International Saga Conference Bonn/Germany, 28th July-2nd August 2003. Eds. R.SimekandJ.Meurer.Bonne:HausdruckereiderUniversitätBonn.Pp.393-402.

Nordanskog,Gunnar2007:Misconceptions concerningpaganism and folklore inmedieval art: theRogslösa example. In: Old Norse Religion in Long-Term Perspectives: Origins, Changes andInteractions,AnInternationalConferenceinLund,Sweden,June3-7,2004.Eds.AndersAndren,KristinaJennbert,CatharinaRaudvere.Lund,Sweden:NordicAcademicPress.Pp.308-12.

NordisktidsskriftforOldkyndighed,1832.Kjøbenhavn:J.D.Quist.Nørbach,LarsChristian,1999:Organising ironproduction and settlement inNorthwesternEurope

during the Iron Age. In: Settlement and Landscape: Proceedings of a conference in Århus,Denmark,May4-71998.Eds.CharlotteFabechandJytteRingtved.Moesgård,Højbjerg:JutlandArchaeologicalSociety.Pp.237-47.

OED=OxfordEnglishDictionary, 2010: <http://www.oed.com.proxy1.lib.uwo.ca:2048/>OxfordUniversityPress.Accessed14December2010.

Ohlsson, Tom, 1976: The Löddeköpinge investigation I. The settlement at Vikhögsvägen. In:MeddelandenfranLundsuniversitetshistoriskamuseum1975-1976.PapersoftheArchaeologicalInstitute,UniversityofLund.NewSeriesVol.I.Lund:UniversityofLund.Pp.59-161.

ÓlafurHalldórssoned.,1904: Jónsbók:KongMagnusHakonssonsLovbog for IslandvedtagetpaaAltinget1281ogRéttarbœtr:DeforIslandgivneRetterbøderaf1294,1305og1314.København:Køvenhavnsuniversitet.

Olsen, Magnus, 1926: Ættegård og Helligdom: Norske Stedsnavn Sosialt og ReligionshistoriskBelyst.Oslo:H.Aschehoug&co.

ONP2010=OrdbogoverdetNorrøneProsasprog–ADictionaryofOldNorseProse.KøbenhavnsUniversitet.June2010.<http://dataonp.hum.ku.dk/index_e.html>Accessed10December2010.

Orchard, Andy, 2002: Cassell’s Dictionary of Norse Myth and Legend. Croydon, Surrey:Bookmarque.

Orri Vésteinsson, 2005: Archaeology of Economy and Society. In: A companion to Old Norse-Icelandicliteratureandculture.Ed.RoryMcTurk.Malden:Blackwell.Pp.7-26.

Orton,Peter,2005:PaganMythandReligion.In:AcompaniontoOldNorse-Icelandicliteratureandculture.Ed.RoryMcTurk.Malden:Blackwell.Pp.302-19.

PálmiPálsson ed.,1883:Króka-Refs sagaogKróka-Refs rímur.Samfund tiludgivelse afgammel

275

nordisklitteratur10.København:S.L.MøllersBogtrykkeri.Pedersen,Anne,2008:VikingWeaponry. In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink, incollaboration

withNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.204-11.Perkins,Richard,1969:AMedieval IcelandicRowingChant. In:MedievalScandinavia2.Pp.92-

101.Poole, Russell, 2007: Myth and Ritual in Eyvindr skáldaspillir's Háleygjatal, In: Learning and

Understanding in the Old NorseWorld: Essays in Honour ofMargaretClunies Ross. Eds. J.Quinn,T.Wills,K.Heslop,andA.Hansen.Turnhout:Brepols.Pp.153-76.

Prescott, Christopher, 2000: Symbolic Metallurgy - Assessing Early Metallurgic Processes in aPeriphery. In: Form-Function-Context: material culture studies in Scandinavian archaeology.Eds.DeborahOlaussonandHelleVandkilde.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell.Pp.213-25.

Price,Neil S., 2002: The VikingWay: Religion andWar in Late Iron Age Scandinavia.Uppsala:DepartmentofArchaeologyandAncientHistory.

Pulsiano,Philip,andKirstenWolfeds.,1993:MedievalScandinavia:anencyclopedia.NewYork:Garland.

Raymond,Robert,1984:OutoftheFieryFurnace:TheImpactofMetalsontheHistoryofMankind.Melbourne:MacMillan.

Richter,DavidH.ed.,1998:TheCriticalTradition:ClassicTextsandContemporaryTrends.2ndedn.Boston:Bedford.

Ros,Jonas,2002:Sigtunaochfolklanden:DentidigaSigtunamyntningenochdenpolitiskageografin.In:Fornvännen.Pp.161-75.

Roesdahl,ElseandDavidM.Wilson,2003:Terminology.In:BorginLofoten:Achieftain’sfarminNorthNorway. Eds. Gerd StamsøMunch, Olave Sverre Johansen, Else Roesdahl. Trondheim:TapirAcademicPress.Pp.19-20.

Roesdahl,Else,2008:TheemergenceofDenmarkandthereignofHaraldBluetooth.In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,incollaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.652-64.

Rostoker,William and BennetBronson, 1990: Pre-Industrial Iron: its technology and ethnology.Philadelphia:Archeomaterials.

Sachse, Manfred, 1993: Damascus Steel: Myth, History, Technology, Applications. Düsseldorf:VerlagStahleisen.

Sander,Birgitta,1997:ExcavationsatHelgöXIII:Cemetery116.Stockholm:AlmqvistandWiksell.Sandnes,JørnandOlaStemshaug,1980:NorskStadnamnleksikon.Oslo:DetNorskeSamlagetSandvik,GudmundandJónViñarSigurñsson,2005:Laws.In:ACompaniontoOldNorse-Icelandic

LiteratureandCulture.Ed.RoryMcTurk.Malden,MA.:Blackwell.Pp.223-44.Sawyer,Birgit, 2000: TheViking-age rune-stones: custom and commemoration in earlymedieval

Scandinavia.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Schlosser, Hans, 2001: Using the Fire. 21 October 2001.

<http://www.beautifuliron.com/usingthe.htm>Accessed21June2010.Scott,ForrestS.ed.,2003:Eyrbyggjasaga:thevellumtradition.Copenhagen:C.A.ReitzelsForlag.Shepard,Jonathan,2008:TheVikingRusandByzantium.In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink,in

collaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.496-516.Short, William R., 1996-2010: Hurstwic: Iron Production in the Norse Era.

<http://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text/bog_iron.htm>Accessed15January2010.

SigurñurNordal ed.,1978:Võluspá.Trans.B.S.Benedikz and JohnMcKinnell.Durham:DurhamandSt.AndrewsMedievalTexts.

SigurñurNordaled.,1980:Võluspá.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.Sindbæk,SørenM.,2009:OpenAccess,NodalPoints,andCentralPlaces:Maritimecommunication

andlocationalprinciplesforcoastalsitesinsouthScandinavia,c.400-1200.In:EstonianJournalofArchaeology13.2.Pp.93-109.

Sisam,Kennethed.,1955:FourteenthCenturyVerseandProse.Oxford:Clarendon.Skj. = Finnur Jónsson, 1967-73:DenNorsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning, AI (1967), AII (1967), BI

(1973),BII(1973).København:RosenkildeogBagger.Skre, Dagfinn, 2008: Kaupang – ’Skíringssalr.’ In: The Viking World. Ed. Stefan Brink, in

collaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.112-20.

276

Smith,A.H. ed., 1961a: The Place-Names of theWestRiding ofYorkshire: Part I –Lower andUpper Strafforth and Staincross Wapentakes. English Place-Name Society. Vol. XXX.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Smith,A.H.ed.,1961b:ThePlace-Namesof theWestRidingofYorkshire:Part II–Osgoldcrossand Agbrigg Wapentakes. English Place-Name Society. Vol. XXXI. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Smith,A.H.ed.,1961c:ThePlace-NamesoftheWestRidingofYorkshire:PartVI–EastandWestStaincliffe and Ewcross Wapentakes. English Place-Name Society. Vol. XXXV. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Smith,A.H.ed.,1970:EnglishPlace-NameElements:PartII–TheelementsJafn-Ytry,IndexandMaps.EnglishPlace-NameSociety.Vol.XXVI.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Smith, C. T., 1978: An Historical Geography ofWestern Europe Before 1800: Revised Edition.London:Longman.

Smith, Kevin, 1995: The Settlement of Iceland in Archaeological and Historical Perspective. In:WorldArchaeology,26.3.Pp.319-347.

Smith,Kevin,2005:Ore,Fire,Hammer,Sickle:IronProduction inVikingAgeandEarlyMedievalIceland.In:Deremetallica:theusesofmetalintheMiddleAges.Ed.RobertO.Bork.Aldershot:Ashgate.Pp.183-206.

Sørensen, Palle Østergaard, 1994: Gudmehallerne: Kongeligt byggeri fra jernalderen. In:NationalmuseetsArbejdsmark.Pp.25-39.

SPSMA=SkaldicPoetryof theScandinavianMiddleAges:Eds.MargaretCluniesRoss,KariEllenGade, Guñrún Nordal, EdithMarold and DianaWhaley. Vols. 2 (2009), 7 (2007). Turnhout:Brepols.Onlinedatabase (2001-2010)<http://www.skaldic.arts.usyd.edu.au/db.php?table=home>Accessed3August2010.

Stark, Joachim, 1988: Haithabu-Schleswig-Danewerk: Aspekte einer ForschungsgeschichtemittelalterlicherAnlageninSchleswig-Holstein.Oxford:B.A.R.

Stefán Karlsson, 1964: Aldur Hauksbókar. In: Fróñskaparrit, Annales Societatis ScientiarumFæroensis13.Pp.114-21.

Steinsland, Gro, 1991: Det hellige bryllup og norrøn kongeideologi: En undersøkelse avhierogamimyteniSkírnismál,Ynglingatal,HáleygjatalogHyndluljóñ.Diss.Oslo:Solumforlag.

Steinsland,Gro,2005:TheLateIronAgeWorldviewandtheConceptof’Utmark.’In:Utmark:theoutfield as industry and ideology in the late Iron Age and theMiddle Ages. Eds. I. Hom, S.InnselsetandI.Øye.UBASInternational.Bergen:UniversityofBergen.Pp.137-46.

Stenvik,LarsF.,2003:IronProductioninScandinavianArchaeology.In:NorwegianArchaeologicalReview,36:2.Pp.119-134.

Stephany, Timothy J., 2010: Interpreting the Gotland Memorial Stones.<http://timothystephany.com/papers/Article-GotlandStones_ver2b.pdf> Accessed 10 December2010.

Stilborg, Ole, 2003: Late Iron Age Metal Craft Ceramics at Uppåkra. In: Fler fynd i centrum:materialstudier iochkringUppåkra.Ed.BirgittaHårdh.ActaarchaeologicalLundensia,No.8.Lund:Almqvist&Wiksell.Pp.137-164.

Storm,Gustaved.,1885:NorgesGamleLoveindtil1387,Vol.4.Christiania:Grøndahl.Storm,Gustaved.,1888:IslandskeAnnalerindtil1578.Christiania:Grøndahl.Strassler,RobertB.ed.,2007:ThelandmarkHerodotus:thehistories.Trans.AndreaL.Purvis.New

York:PantheonBooks.Svanhildur Óskarsdóttir, 2005: Prose of Christian Instruction. In: A Companion to Old Norse-

IcelandicLiteratureandCulture.Ed.RoryMcTurk.Malden,MA.:Blackwell.Pp.338-53.SverrirTómasson,1993:Formálimálfræñiritgerñannafjögurra íWormsbók.In:Íslensktmál15.Pp.

228-31.Sverrir Tómasson, 2006:Old Icelandic Prose. In: A history of Icelandic Literature. Ed.Daisy L.

Neijmann,Trans.GunnãórunnGuñmundsdóttir.Lincoln:UniversityofNebraskaPress.Pp. 64-173.

Söderberg, Bengt, 2003: Integrating Power: Some Aspects of a Magnate’s Farm and PresumedCentral Place in Järrestad,South-EastScania. In:Centrality-regionality: the social structureofsouthern Sweden during the Iron Age. Eds. Lars Larsson and Birgitta Haardh. Stockholm:

277

AlmqvistandWiksell.Pp.283-310.Tate,GeorgeS.ed.,2007:Líknarbraut.In:SPSMAVII,Part1.Pp.228-86.Toller,T.Northcote,1955[1921]:AnAnglo-SaxonDictionarybasedonthemanuscriptcollectionsof

thelateJosephBosworth:Supplement.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Tolley,Clive,2006:TheShamanicSeancePresented in theHistoriaNorwegiae. In:TheThirteenth

International Saga Conference: Durham and York, 6-12 Aug. 2006.<http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/tolley.htm>Accessed12March2009.

Tolley,Clive,2009:ShamanisminNorseMythandMagicVol.1.FolkloreFellowsCommunicationsVol.296.Helsinki:SuomalainenTiedeakatemia,AcademiaScientiarumFennica.

Toma`s, Estanislau, 1999: TheCatalan process for the direct production ofmalleable iron and itsspreadtoEuropeandtheAmericas.In:ContributionstoScience1(2).Pp.225-232.

Trotzig,Gustaf,1991:CraftsmanshipandFunction:A studyofmetalvessels found inVikingAgetombsontheislandofGotland,Sweden.Stockholm:StatensHistoriskaMuseum.

Turville-Petre,Gabriel,1975:MythandReligionoftheNorth.Connecticut:GreenwoodPress.Turville-Petre,Gabriel,1976:ScaldicPoetry.Oxford:Clarendon.Tylecote,R.F.,1971:ObservationsonCyprioteCopper-Smelting. In:Reportof theDepartmentof

Antiquities,Cyprus.Pp.53-8.Tylecote,R.F.,1976:AHistoryofMetallurgy.London:TheMetalsSociety.Tylecote, R.F., 1986: The prehistory of metallurgy in the British Isles. London: The Institute of

Metals.Tylecote,R.F.,1987:TheearlyhistoryofmetallurgyinEurope.NewYork:Longman.Udolph, Jürgen, 1994: Namenskundliche Studien zum Germanenproblem. In: Reallexikon der

germanischen Altertumskunde Bd. 9. Eds. Johannes Hoops, C.J. Becker, Heinrich Beck. NewYork:deGruyter.

Unger,C.R.ed.,1853:SagaÃiñriksKonungsafBern.Christiania:FeilbergandLandmarksForlag.Unger,C.R.ed.,1862:Stjõrn:GammelnorskBibelhistorie fraVerdensSkabelse tildetbabyloniske

Fangenskab.Cristiania:FeilbergandLandmark.Unger, C.R. ed., 1877: Heilagra Manna Søgur: Fortællinger og Legender om hellige Mænd og

Kvinder.Christiania:TrykthosB.M.Bentzen.Valk,Heiki,2008:TheVikingsand theEasternBaltic. In:TheVikingWorld.Ed.StefanBrink, in

collaborationwithNeilPrice.NewYork:Routledge.Pp.485-95.VangPetersen,Peter,1994:ExcavationsatsitesoftreasuretroveatGudme.In:Thearchaeologyof

GudmeandLundeborg:paperspresentedataconferenceatSvendborg,October1991.Eds.P.O.Nielsen,K.RandsborgandH.Thrane.Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag.Pp.30-40.

VésteinnÓlason,1998:DialogueswiththeVikingAge:NarrationandRepresentationintheSagasoftheIcelanders.Trans.AndrewWawn.Reykjavík:Heimskringla,MálogMenning.

Vikingar (museum exhibit), 2007: HistoriskaMuseets. Narvavägen 13-17 114 84 Stockholm. 16September2007.

deVries, Jan 1952:Bemerkungen zurWielandsage. In: Edda, Skalden, Saga.Festschrift zum 70.GeburtstagvonFelixGenzmer.Ed.H.Schneider.Heidelberg:C.Winter.Pp.173-99.

deVries,Jan,1977[1962]:AltnordischesetymologischesWörterbuch.Leiden:E.J.Brill.VulgateBible1987=BibliorumSacrorumlatinaeversionesantiquae:seu,Vetusitalica,etcaeterae

quaecunqueincodicibusmss.&antiquorumlibrisreperiripotuerunt:quaecumVulgatalatina,&cumtextugraecocomparantur.VincentdeLaRue,PierreSabatier.Turnhout,Belgium:Brepols.

Wallace,BirgittaLinderoth,2006:WestwardVikings:thesagaofL’AnseauxMeadows.St.John’s:HistoricSitesAssociationofNewfoundlandandLabrador.

Wheeler, Everett L., 2007:Appendix E: Herodotus and theBlack SeaRegion. In: The landmarkHerodotus: thehistories.Ed.RobertB.Strassler,Trans.AndreaL.Purvis.NewYork:PantheonBooks.Pp.748-55.

Watt,Margrethe,2004:Thegold-figure foils (Guldgubbar) fromUppåkra. In:ActaarchaeologicaLundensia.Pp.167-221.

Webster, Jane, 1994:Review:Hedeager, Lotte. Iron-age Societies: from tribe to state in northernEurope,500BCtoAD700.In:Man,NewSeries,29.2.Pp.467-468

Webster,Leslie,2006:ArchaeologyandBeowulf.In:Beowulf:aneditionwithrelevantshortertexts.BruceMitchellandFredC.Robinson.MaldenMA:Blackwell.Pp.183-194.

278

Wegener, C. F., 1850: Von der Landeshoheit über das alte Rendsburg auf der Eiderinsel.Køpenhagen:UniversitätsbuchhändlerC.A.ReitzelsVerlag.

Westerbergh,Ulla, 1968:Glossarium tillMedeltidslatinet i Sverige.Vol. I, Fasc. I,A-attinentiae.Stockholm:Almqvist&Wiksell.

Westphalen,Petra,2002:DieEisenfundevonHaithabu.Neumünster:WachholtzVerlag.Whaley,Diana,1998:ThePoetryofArnórrjarlaskáld:aneditionandstudy.Turnhout:Brepols.Whynne-Hammond, Charles, 2007 [2005]: English Place-Names Explained. Newbury, Berkshire:

CountrysideBooks.Wiechmann,Ralf,2007:HedebyandItsHinterland:ALocalNumismaticRegion.In:SilverEconomy

in theVikingAge.Eds.JamesGraham-CampbellandGarethWilliams.WalnutCreek,CA.:LeftCoastPress.Pp.29-48.

Williamson,Craig ed. and trans., 1977:TheOldEnglish riddles of the Exeter book.ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress.

Willson,Kendra, 2006:Króka-Refs saga as science fiction:Technology,magic and thematerialisthero. In:TheThirteenth InternationalSagaConference.DurhamandYork,6th-12August,2006:Pre-print of Conference Papers. <http://www.dur.ac.uk/medieval.www/sagaconf/willson.htm>Accessedon10August,2010.

Wolfram, Herwig, 2001: The creation of the Carolingian frontier-system c. 800. In: TheTransformationofFrontiers from LateAntiquity to theCarolingians.Eds.WalterPohl, IanN.WoodandHelmutReimitz.Leiden:Brill.Pp.233-45.

Yrwing,Hugo,1993.Gotland.In:MedievalScandinavia:anencyclopedia.Eds.PhillipPlusianoandKirstenWolf.NewYork:Garland.Pp.234.

Zachrisson,Torun,2004:TheHolinessofHelgö. In:ExcavationsatHelgöXVI:ExoticandSacralFindsfromHelgö.Pp.143-175.

279

Appendix1:Discussionoffenfiõtursfrom24.3and34.7ofVõlundarkviña

24.3and34.7ofVõlundarkviñamentionsomethingcalledfenfiõturs,which

translatesliterallyas“fenofthefetter”.ThisiswhereVõlundrhidesthedecapitatedbodies

ofNíñuñr’ssons.Fenfiõtursisamysteriousreferenceandalthoughseveralfairlysound

interpretationshavebeenofferedofeachword,themainchallengeisexplainingonewordin

relationtotheother.Dronkesuggeststhata“literaltranslationhasnomeaningforus:‘wet

ground,swamp,ofthefetter.’Fiõtursiseitherbasedonascribalerror(sofirmlyembedded

thatitisrepeated,asifmeaningful),orithasatechnicalsenserelatingtotheequipmentofa

forgewhichwedonotknowfromONorOErecords”(1997:317).Fjõturrhasbeen

interpretedasreferringtosomesortofrestraintthatholdsthebellowsinplaceorsomesort

ofstructuralsupportforthebellows.Cleasby-Vigfusson,forinstance,suggeststhatthisterm

referstotheironstrapsthatsecurethesmith’sbellows(1874:s.v.fjöturr).Toexplainthis

interpretation,comparisonshavebeenmadetoVelentinÃiñrikssagaafBernhidinghis

prizedswordunderhisaflhella,“forgestone”(cf.afl37above;Dronke1997:317-8;Unger

1853:95).Thisaflhellaclearlycorrespondstothearchaeologicalfindsofforge-stonesmeant

toactasshields,protectingthebellowsfromtheheatoftheforge(Bergstøl2001:79).Itdoes

seempossiblethatVõlundr,likehiscounterpartVelent,coulduseahidingplaceundera

forge-stone.ThepitinVkvis,however,alsodescribedasafen,“wetland,marsh,bog”,and

thisdoesnotappeartobethesameasthepitinÃiñrikssagaafBern.Thepitinthesagadoes

notseemtoresembleabog,forVelentstoreshisbestswordthereandpresumablyheknows

enoughaboutcaringforswordstonotselectanenvironment(likeabog)thatmaybe

conducivetorustingorotherdamage.

Thesuggestionthatthisisa“temperingpool”isattractiveinthatitmightatleast

makesensetohidebodiesinalargepoolofwater.LaFargeandTuckersuggestthatfen

fiõtursrefersto“muddywaterbesidethesupportforthebellows,asmith’stemperingpool”

(1992:s.v.fen).WeknowVõlundrisskilledintemperingsteel(18.1-8).Althoughthereisno

referencetohimproducingtemperedweaponsorironobjectsofanysortforNíñuñr,itwould

notbeunusualfortheworkshoptobeequippedtoproduceweaponry.Thedescriptionsinthe

poemdo,however,reinforcethatVõlundris,forthemostpartatleast,makingitemsof

precious,non-ferrousmetalsduringhisenslavement.

280

BothDronkeandRichardDieterletakenoteofthesuggestionthatfiõturscouldbe

etymologicallyconnectedwiththeGermantermFesselgruebn,“fetter-pit”(Dronke1997:

317-8;Dieterle1987:6-7).Thistermdenotes“apitinthefurnacewithanairholeforthe

uptakeofheat,whichanswerstotheorepitofthetypicalfurnace.The“fetter-pit,”then,isso

calledbecauseitisthesiteatwhichthechargeisheldinplace”(Dieterle1987:7).Although

thissuggestioncouldperhapsmakesenseetymologically,itmakeslittlesensesemantically.

Inordertopreventthe“charge”orfuellayersfromfallingandtherebyinhibitingthe

collectionofslagandrefinedmetal,thepitatthebaseofafurnaceisinsomecasesfilled

withstraworwood.Idonotseehowthispitiseitherfunctionallyorstructurallyparallelto

theshacklesthatareplacedonVõlundr’sankles.FromthephotosIhaveseenofindividual

piecesofslag,Idonotnoteanyresemblancetoshackles.AsDronkepointsout,“tomeet

fiõturrinthesamepoemwiththedistinctsensesof‘fetter’(12.8)and‘forge-well’[or‘fetter-

pit’]isdisconcerting”(1997:318).Dieterlealsopointsoutthatthepitatthebaseofafurnace

“ishardlywheretheboyswouldhavebeenburied,sinceitisasmallareainsidethefurnace

andbearslittleresemblancetoafen”(1987:7).

Dieterlealsosuggeststhataslag-pit,accumulatingtheliquatedwastefrombogiron

smelting,mightbeconsideredparalleltoafen:

Likepeatinabog,theliquidrefuseofthesmeltingoperationswouldcometorestinalow-lyingdepression.Yetthemostcompellingreasonforitsbeingcalleda“fen”liesnotsomuchinitsappearanceasinthenatureoftheslagthatfilledit:forthetypicalsourceoforeinIronAgeScandinavia,andstilltodayinsomeruralareas,liesintheirondepositsfoundinpeatbogs.Thustheslagthatfilledthebaysinfrontofthefurnace,wheretheArdreVIIIstoneshowstheheadlessbodiesofthesonsofNíñuñrtohavelain,isthestuffofthepeatbogandis,inaveryrealsense,afenitself.(Dieterle1987:7)

Dieterleconnectsthishypothesistohispreviousinterpretationthatthepitinsidethefurnace

couldbeunderstoodasa“fetter-pit”.Heconcludesthat“thefetter-pithasaminiaturefen

intowhichitdrains,thusgivingrisetothename“fenofthefetter(-pit)”(1987:8).Dieterle

iscorrecttopointouthowslagmightaccumulateinalow-lyingdepressionspecificallydug

outforthatpurpose.Heisalsocorrecttopointoutthatironwasmostlyrefinedfrombogiron

ore.Dieterle’sinterpretationoftheArdreVIIIstoneis,however,questionable.Thisstone

doesshowtwoheadlessbodiesimmediatelytotherightofasemi-enclosedstructure.This

structure,however,containstongsandhammers,whichhardlysuggeststhatthestructureis

281

itselfbestunderstoodasafurnace.Suchtoolswouldbekeptinsideaworkshop,notinsidea

furnace.Thereisalsonoevidencetosuggestthatthewasteslagfromsuchfurnaceswas

understoodasbeingatallsimilartoabog.Indeed,thewasteslagisahard,metallic

substanceandmayinmanywaysseemquitedistinctfromthebogwhichoriginallycontained

therawironore.ThisinterpretationalsodependsuponVõlundrperformingironsmelting

frombogiron.TheportrayalofVelentinÃiñrikssagaafBernshowsasmithcapableof

performingsuchprocesseswithgreatsuccess.Võlundr,asIhavealreadypointedout,clearly

hastheskillsnecessarytohardenandsharpenasword,butthereisnomentionofVõlundr

refiningironoreormakingironobjectsforNíñuñr.Võlundrismoreregularlyassociated

withgoldandsilverinthispoem.Dieterlesuggeststhattheprocessofsmeltingsilverorgold

requiresasimilarseparationofthewastebyproductsfromtherefinedmetal(1987:8n.24).

Tomyknowledge,neithergoldnorsilverhadanyassociationswithorecomingfrombogs.

Dieterlesuggeststhatthe“occasionaluseofpeatasfuel,orasanorganicreductionagent,

wouldgivetheslagthesameidentity”(1987:8n.24).Thisishighlyspeculative.

Ihavenoconclusivealternativeinterpretationstoofferforfenfiõturs.360The

suggestionofaquenchingpoolnearsomesortofstructuralrestraintassociatedwithsmithing

seemstomakethemostsense,giventhecurrentoptionsandunderstandingofthetermsand

theircontext.Somesortofawasteheapalsoseemslikeaplausiblelocationforthesebodies,

andthearchaeologicalevidenceshowsthatpilesofwasteslagandothermaterialscouldbe

quitelarge,e.g.30by40metresandupto1.5metresthick(Johansen1973:95;Smith2005:

187).Boththesewasteheaps(atleastthelargerones)andquenchingare,however,primarily

associatedwithironsmelting,blacksmithingandblade-smithing.Thereisnomentionof

VõlundrmakingironobjectsforNíñ¨uñr,althoughthissmithcertainlypossessestheseskills.

Asdiscussedabove(seepage48),Võlundrischaracterizedasskilledinsmeltingoutsideof

thispoem.InVõlundarkviña(seepage230above),thissmithissaidtoownaswordandhe

claimstohavetheskillstohardenandmakeit.Soitispossiblethatblacksmithingand

perhapsironsmeltingareassociatedwithVõlundrinthispoemeventhoughthisisnot

explicitlymadeclear.

360TheonlyalternativeIhaveconsideredisthatsomesortoffoot-operatedpot-bellowsmighthavebeenimplied,andthatthe“fetters”inthiscasearesomesortofstrapsorbucklesthatsecurethefeettothebellows.ThisinterpretationseemsappropriateinasmuchastheotherusageoffjõtrinthepoemreferstotheshacklesonVõlundr’sfeet(11.7).Suchpot-bellowswereinuseasearlyas1500BCinEgyptbutextantillustrationsshowthathand-heldropeswereusedtore-inflatethebellows,notanysortoffoot-straps(cf.Raymond1984:28,31).Ihavenosuggestionforhowthisspeculativeinterpretationmightconnectfjõtrtofen.

282

Curriculum Vitae (selected portions):

Leif Einarson Post-secondary Educationand Degrees:

TheUniversityofWesternOntarioLondon,Ontario,Canada2005-2011Ph.D.

TheUniversityofWesternOntarioLondon,Ontario,Canada2004-2005M.A.

TheUniversityCollegeoftheFraserValleyAbbotsford,BritishColumbia,Canada2000-2004B.A.(Hons.)

HonoursandAwards:

GraduateThesisResearchAward FacultyofArtsandHumanitiesAlumniGraduateAward

MaryRoutledgeFellowship 2009-2010

ProvinceofOntarioGraduateScholarship NominationforGraduateStudentTeachingAward 2008-2009

SocialSciencesandHumanitiesResearchCouncil(SSHRC)CandadianGraduateScholarship–Doctoral

2005-2008

MaryRoutledgeFellowship2007

SocialScienceandHumanitiesResearchCouncil(SSHRC)CanadianGraduateScholarship–Master’s2004-2005

NominationforGraduateStudentTeachingAward2004-2005

UniversityCollegeoftheFraserValleyDean’sMedalofExcellence2004

283

WorkExperience: Instructor

ML100E:DiscoveringtheMiddleAges MedievalStudiesProgram,WilfridLaurierUniversity

2011

InstructorEnglish3114:MedievalLanguageandLiteratureEnglishDepartment,UniversityofWesternOntario

2009-2010

TeachingAssistantEnglish3114:MedievalLanguageandLiteratureEnglishDepartment,UniversityofWesternOntario2008-2009

TeachingAssistantEnglish2072:FantasyLiteratureEnglishDepartment,UniversityofWesternOntario2008

TeachingAssistantEnglish2072:FantasyLiteratureEnglishDepartment,UniversityofWesternOntario2006

TeachingAssistantEnglish2250:IntroductiontoCulturalStudiesEnglishDepartment,UniversityofWesternOntario2005

TeachingAssistantEnglish2033:Children’sLiteratureEnglishDepartment,UniversityofWesternOntario2004-2005

284

RefereedPublications:2009:Whichcamefirst–thesmithortheshaman?Võlundarkviña,craftspeopleandcentral

placecomplexes.In:PreprintpapersofThe14thInternationalSagaConference:Uppsala,9th-15thAugust2009”Volume1.Eds.AgnetaNey,HenrikWilliamsandFredrikCharpentierLjungqvist.Gävle:GävleUniversityPress,2009.221-228.

2009:Theun-quietpoem:bpnichol’sre-soundingculturalgeographies.In:OpenLetter.13.8.Pp.37-49.

ConferencePresentations(RelatedtoDoctoralResearch):“Thesmithasafigureofcommunicationandconnection.”InternationalMedievalCongress.

InternationalSocietyofAnglo-Saxonists.UniversityofLeeds,Leeds,UnitedKingdom.13-16July2009.

“Thecapitalconnector:themanyfacesofthemetal-smithinmedievalScandinavia.”CongressoftheHumanitiesandSocialSciences.AssociationfortheAdvancementofScandinavianStudiesinCanada.CarltonUniversity,Ottawa,ON.23-31May2009.

“ThefigureofthesmithandthecentralplaceinVõlundarkviña.”EnglishDepartmentColloquium.UniversityofWesternOntario,London,ON.7April2009.