Bracteate Inscriptions and
Context Analysis in the Light
of Alternatives to Hauck’s
Iconographic Interpretations
Nancy L. Wiker
Abstract
Runic inscriptions on Scandinavian Migration Period gold bracteates have
long been considered problematic. Although many of them are readable, only
a few are interpretable. One of the major questions about bracteate texts is
whether they are related to the images depicted on the pieces. During the past
quarter century, these inscriptions have been interpreted chiely on the basis of
Karl Hauck’s identiication of the major igure depicted on bracteates as Odin.
However, there are other interpretations of the pictures that may also assist
our understanding of the texts. his paper examines some of these alternative
explanations of bracteate imagery, with particular reference to how the objects
were used and by whom, the aim being to arrive at a beter understanding of
the inscriptions.
Keywords: bracteates, Migration Period, older runic inscriptions, iconography,
imagery
I
nscriptions are not essential to Scandinavian Migration Period (ithand sixth-century) bracteates, yet writing in some form appears on
about twenty per cent of these gold pendants, which have been discovered
in Scandinavia and throughout northern and central Europe. According to
Morten Axboe’s list of December 2010, 1003 bracteates were then known,
including 222 with inscriptions from a total of 153 unique dies (2011,
Wicker, Nancy L. “Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis in the Light of
Alternatives to Hauck’s Iconographic Interpretations.”
Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 5 (2014, publ. 2015): 25–43.
© 2015 Nancy L. Wicker.
his is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Atribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
26 • Nancy L. Wicker
296).1 he texts are mostly writen in the older futhark, but sometimes
use corrupted or imitation leters based on inscriptions appearing on Late
Roman coins and medallions, which are presumably the models for the
Scandinavian objects. While many of the inscriptions are readable.—.that
is, we can identify individual runes and Roman leters.—.only a few of
them are semantically interpretable. he texts do not serve as necessary
captions to the pictures, yet one of the central questions about bracteates is
whether the writing is related in some evocative way to the images on the
objects. In this paper I discuss various interpretations of pictorial images
on bracteates that may contribute to our understanding of the writing on
them. Ater a brief summary of early interpretations of bracteates and
their inscriptions, as well as of the basic tenets of Karl Hauck’s iconology,
I highlight other (mostly recent) interpretations of bracteate imagery. I
examine these new analyses, not to accept them uncritically as deinitive
explanations of the meaning of the bracteates, but instead to consider
whether they may assist our understanding of the inscriptions and the use
to which these objects were put.
I advocate that we take into consideration the various contexts in which
bracteates have been discovered, in the hope that this will shed additional
light upon the meaning of their images and their inscriptions. In addition
to drawing atention to a variety of recent iconographic interpretations,
I emphasize that not all bracteates were made, used, or deposited in the
same way.—.thus the objects and their inscriptions most probably did
not “mean” the same everywhere, and at all times and to all people who
encountered them. Before presenting various explanations of bracteate
imagery and inscriptions, I review basic information about the objects
and their texts.
Bracteate classiication and iconography
he nineteenth-century forefathers of bracteate research, including C.
J. homsen (1855), Oscar Montelius (1869), and Bernhard Salin (1895),
focused on classifying these artifacts according to details of the images
depicted in the central stamped ield. Ater homsen had divided them
into Types A–H, Montelius recognized that Types A through D as well
1
I present this paper largely as it was writen in 2010, but have updated the counts to include
new discoveries, according to the latest published numbers. Of course, with additional
inds the numbers continue to climb. I would like to thank Professor Dr. Klaus Düwel,
University of Götingen, for suggestions of additional works that have been included here.
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 27
as Type F date to the Migration Period (ith and sixth centuries A.D.),
whereas the others.—.Types E, G, and H.—.are later. In this paper, I will
examine only the Migration Period examples, which include Type A
with a man’s head, Type B with standing human igures, Type C with a
man’s head and a horse-like animal, Type D with a dragon-like animal,
and Type F with a horse-like animal but no human. Further reinements
to bracteate categories were made by Herje Öberg (1942) and Mogens
B. Mackeprang (1952), but the conventional typological classiication of
bracteates continues to be used, even in the most recent corpus of these
objects compiled by Karl Hauck (IK, 1.1–3.2; Heizmann and Axboe 2011).
Although there are examples with anomalous imagery that do not easily
it into the established categories, these type-descriptions constitute a
general framework that is widely understood and which provides the
basis upon which interpretative theories have been launched.
hroughout the history of bracteate research, many suggestions for the
identiication of pictorial motifs on these artifacts have been advanced. Although several scholars, including Montelius (1900, 76), Salin (1904, 220)
and Sune Ambrosiani (1907, 22) realized that Late Roman and Byzantine
medallions were the models for bracteates, they focused chiely on later
medieval Eddic and saga texts rather than earlier Roman sources as the key
to understanding the pictorial imagery on the objects. Ambrosiani (1907,
39–42) championed the importance of the Emperor cult for the formation of
one devoted to Odin, and proposed that bracteate images merge the idea of
the emperor as god with the concept of the Germanic deity. Both Jens Jacob
Worsaae (1870) and Salin (1895) identiied the humanoid igure displayed
together with a four-legged, horned animal on Type C bracteates as hor
with his goat, whereas Salin saw this same igure and animal combination,
when a bird is included in the scene, as Odin riding his horse Sleipnir. Knut
Stjerna (1906) related bracteate imagery to descriptions of the dragon and
combat in Beowulf. Worsaae (1870) and Olov Janse (1922, 120) perceived
connections to Sigurd the Dragon-Slayer and Atila the Hun. Erik Oxenstierna (1956, 36) identiied the picture on a piece from Trollhätan (IK 190)
as a representation of the scene described by Snorri Sturluson in his Prose
Edda that tells of the Fenris wolf biting of Tyr’s hand, an interpretation
that has been accepted by most scholars. Even more recently, researchers,
including Heinrich Beck (2001), have continued to turn to Old Norse Eddic
and saga sources to interpret tableaus on bracteates. Yet, the extensive
scholarship on these objects aforded only a piecemeal interpretation of
them until Karl Hauck sought to gather the myriad representations on
bracteates into one coherent interpretive system.
Futhark 5 (2014)
28 • Nancy L. Wicker
For the past forty years, Hauck’s writings have dominated the ield of
bracteate studies (see the bibliography in Heizmann and Axboe 2011). He
uses a method he calls Kontext-Ikonographie, by which he examines the
images not in isolation but in conjunction with inscriptions, later texts,
place-names, image traditions, archaeology, and motif details such as igure
atributes and gestures (Hauck 1975). Hauck (1992, 111–27) identiies the
major igure depicted on Migration Period bracteates as Odin and claims
that Type C bracteates that show a horse-like animal with a bent leg
are the pictorial equivalent of the Old High German second Merseburg
charm, a ninth- or tenth-century source that describes how Odin healed
the injured hoof of a foal (perhaps Balder’s although he is not named;
Hauck 1970). Also central to Hauck’s argument is his proposal that Type
C examples show Odin blowing his healing breath into the ear of Balder’s
foal (Hauck 1980). Continuing the theme of healing practices, he connects
Type B bracteates that exhibit three standing humanoid igures with
the death of Balder (Hauck 1998a). He also links the images on a small
group of Type F bracteates.—.which have horse-like animals but no human
igures.—.to his interpretations of Odin on Types A, B, and C (Hauck 1986).
While many scholars have taken litle notice of the Type D pieces, Hauck
(1977) manages to connect the imagery on these, which display animals
in an abstracted style but without humans, to the theme of the Midgard
Serpent and Ragnarok. Hauck’s eforts to describe a uniied system that
could explain the pictorial elements on all Migration Period bracteates
brings systematization to the interpretation of their images and has also
initiated atempts to relate the imagery to the inscriptions they bear.
Bracteate inscriptions and imagery
he number of pages writen about bracteate imagery exceeds by far the
literature on the texts, yet Klaus Düwel (1992, 34) stresses the importance
of the inscriptions by noting that if we disregard all Type D bracteates,2
as many as 38.5% of the remaining Migration Period bracteate dies have
inscriptions. he leters and runes were an integral part of the die used
to stamp multiple one-sided golden disks; thus they contrast with oneof-a-kind incised or engraved inscriptions on ibulae and other portable
objects, which could have been made any time ater manufacture. he
one-sided production technique and the small size of bracteates (typically
2
The irst Type D bracteate with runes was discovered at Stavnsager near Randers in 2012
(see Imer 2012).
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 29
2 to 3 cm in diameter) are important to keep in mind as we consider the
complexities involved in reading and transcribing the inscriptions (Wicker
2006, 415). I cannot begin here to summarize the vast literature on runic
inscriptions on these pieces; instead I focus on some of the interpretations
that relate texts to pictures and thus enlighten us about the use of these
artifacts.
he modern study of bracteate texts began with Wolfgang Krause’s
(1966, 236–76) division of them into “magic formula” and “runemaster”
groups. his still forms the basis of our categorizations, although those in
his “magic” group (including ones with the words alu, auja, *ehwaʀ, laukaʀ,
and laþu) are now usually referred to as “formula” or “charm” inscriptions.
he formula and runemaster texts, along with whole or partial futharks,
comprise the majority of bracteate inscriptions. In addition to personal
names, formula words, and elements of the futhark, the few (a dozen or
so) other semantically interpretable texts have received a great deal of
atention.
hat bracteates were actually worn as pendant jewellery can be determined from signs of wear on their suspension loops and from their discovery in burials in association with beads found on the deceased’s chest.
A few bracteate texts also lend credence to the idea that the objects had an
amuletic function; the clearest example is gibu auja, part of the inscription
on two die-identical pieces from Køge (IK 98), interpreted by Düwel (2008,
49) as “[ich] gebe Glück (oder: Schutz)” (‘I give luck [or protection]’). his
text also its readily with Hauck’s (1998b) emphasis on the healing function
of bracteates. Yet the Køge piece, and several others, raise questions about
the use of ‘I’ in inscriptions. We do not know whether ‘I’ refers to (1) the
goldsmith who made the object, (2) the person (the so-called runemaster)
who designed the writen message (who might be the same as the one
who made the object itself), (3) one of the igures depicted on the piece,
or (4) the object itself. Hauck even proposes (1998c) that some bracteates,
including Tjurkö 1 (IK 184), show Odin holding a bracteate; thus, the
object is self-referential. here is no consensus, and it is still a question
whether names on bracteates are sacred or profane.
Düwel (2008, 47–52) divides Krause’s runemaster group into “divine”
and “mortal” subgroups. His interpretations follow Hauck’s iconographic
identiication, and he regards Odin as the divine runemaster, but he oten
relegates bracteates that are diicult to interpret according to Hauck’s
model to the mortal group. Critical to the discussion about names are the
runes on an example from Fyn (IK 58), which have been read as either
houaR (DR, Text, cols. 522.f.) or horaz (Antonsen 1975, 62; R and z are
Futhark 5 (2014)
30 • Nancy L. Wicker
equivalent). Detlev Ellmers (1972) interprets the inscription as ‘the High
One,’ a byname of Odin, an identiication that becomes a key element in
Hauck’s thesis that Type C bracteates depict Odin. He notes that various
bynames of Odin appear on bracteates displaying a man with a spear
(pp. 225–30). One may ask, then, whether also a bracteate with a spear
but lacking runes may represent Odin. In fact, Hauck identiies the igure
on all Type C examples, even those lacking a spear and runes, as Odin;
thus, the inscription is not essential to his interpretation. Elmer Antonsen
(2002, 14) cautioned that nowhere on bracteates or in any other inscriptions in the older futhark is Odin or any other god speciically named.
While it can be argued that there may have been an injunction against
utering a god’s name, it is diicult to build an argument about the sacral
quality of bracteates on the absence of a name.
A cautious approach to magic interpretations.—.quite diferent from
Krause’s.—.is taken by Düwel (1988), who fruitfully investigates incantations and charms in Late Antique papyri for parallels to runic formula
words and futhark inscriptions. He examines how the formula words
appear in contractions, anagrams, palindromes, and other word-play
devices (Düwel 1992, 39). A word that appears frequently on bracteates.—.and possibly in various abbreviated forms.—.is laukaʀ ‘leek’,
which is examined by Wilhelm Heizmann (1987, 145–53). he plant’s
characteristics of protection and fertility are consistent with the theme
of healing Balder’s horse on Type C bracteates proposed by Hauck. In
addition, the positioning of the inscription laukaʀ along the leg of the
horse-like animal (or alternatively by the head of Odin), as on an example
from Börringe (IK 26), reinforces the therapeutic power of the plant,
according to Düwel and Heizmann (2006, 20). On the Börringe piece, the
picture and text are in close contact, but I would counter their seductive
proposal by reminding the reader that the laukaʀ texts are simply located
on the perimeter of the piece in the same position as Latin inscriptions
on the coins and medallions that were the models for bracteates. Düwel
and Hauck (2006, 20, 44) also suggest that the futhark is placed adjacent
to an area that needs to be cured, usually the animal’s limbs. However,
again I would contend that futhark inscriptions that trace the perimeter of
bracteates merely imitate numismatic prototypes in their placement and
that they do not provide evidence that the inscriptions were intentionally
placed next to the body parts. Another more explicit example connecting
text and picture is proposed by Ellmers (1972, 233), who links the picture
of the horse with the rune e, interpreting it as a Begrifsrune (‘ideograph’)
standing for e(hwaʀ) ‘horse’, in the light of the occurrence of forms such as
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 31
ehe, ehaR, and ehwu. his combination of word and image appears on the
largest of all bracteates from Åsum (IK 11). Although the idea of one-toone correspondence between word and image is supericially atractive,
it cannot be matched by any other examples. here are, however, other
interpretations of inscriptions that are less tied to speciic pairings of this
kind.
As noted previously, Klaus Düwel (1992) examines Late Antique sources
for the use of magic, in an efort to understand how runic words may have
been used. He is, however, not the only scholar to turn to late Roman
sources for comparative material. Elmar Seebold (1992, 304–07; 1994, 615–
18) focuses on how bracteates continue the function of Roman medallions
ater the later cease to be available in Scandinavia. He maintains that
the early bracteate pictures show the transformation of a speciic Roman
emperor into an ideal Germanic king rather than a speciic leader, and he
interprets the inscriptions alu and laþu as ‘festival’ and ‘invitation’ in the
context of gits from leaders to their followers. While he acknowledges
that the king may carry out sacral roles and that some bracteate writings
refer to consecration, he minimizes the connection of the objects with
the cultic or divine sphere (Seebold 1994, 617.f.). In a later paper (Seebold
1998, 272, 295), he cautions that runes and pictures on bracteates are oten
freely combined. However, he also thinks that examining inscription and
imagery together can be productive, especially in cases where runes and
pictures are unclear. Overall, he continues to envisage bracteates as gits
made by a secular leader, following the Roman example. Anders Andrén
(1991, 248–52) also refers to the Roman genesis of bracteates to interpret
the enigmatic formula words on them. He compares laþu, laukaʀ, and alu
to Latin dominus, pius, and felix, seeing them not as direct translations,
but as a transformation of the meanings to elicit similar ideas when they
were incorporated into a Germanic world view. he question still remains
whether runes and pictures are linked. It is, however, possible that further
investigation into the iconography of bracteates may help us interpret not
only the imagery but also the inscriptions.
Alternative interpretations of bracteate iconography
Karl Hauck’s analysis of bracteates has been widely promulgated and
tends to overshadow other suggestions. However, during the past twenty
years, several scholars have questioned his iconographic scheme, while
others have modiied it and called for a multivalent interpretation of bracteate iconography.
Futhark 5 (2014)
32 • Nancy L. Wicker
Edgar Polomé (1994) was one of the irst to challenge openly Hauck’s
identiication of the unnamed igure on bracteates as Odin. In addition, he
demonstrated that Loki’s supposed involvement with Balder’s death was
a late development in Nordic mythology, dependent upon contact with
Christianity; thus he disputes Hauck’s identiication of Balder and Loki
on the ith- and sixth-century Drei-Göter bracteates (Polomé 1994, 101.f.).
Kathleen Starkey (1999) also casts doubt upon Hauck’s interpretation of
the central igure on bracteates as Odin, and she inds Hauck’s designation of Odin as a healing god problematic. She considers many details
of Hauck’s iconographic interpretation dubious, questioning why bracteates typically show one bird rather than two, as would be expected
if Odin’s two ravens were being portrayed (Starkey 1999, 381.f.). Lote
Hedeager (1997) agrees with Hauck that Odin is represented on these
objects, but she interprets them as evidence of Odinic shamanism rather
than healing magic seen through the lens of the second Merseburg charm.
She proposes that bracteate images depict Odin as a shaman riding to the
Other World with his avian helping spirits (even though only one bird is
depicted on most bracteates). According to Hedeager (1999), shamanism
can be identiied generally in animal-style ornament and speciically in
bracteate imagery, where ecstasy and a journey to the Other World are
represented. None of these challengers to Hauck proposes an alternative
interpretation of the iconography that departs from a dependence on
Eddic and saga texts.
In contrast, Johan Adetorp (2008) breaks new ground and analyzes
bracteates in the context of Celtic sources, both visual and textual. Instead
of identifying speciic Celtic gods and myths on these objects (Adetorp
2008, 29–32), he atempts to draw from the common background of the
Celtic and Germanic worlds, thus looking to earlier material to analyze
bracteate imagery instead of examining later Old Norse sources as Hauck
and his associates do. he proposal that Celtic and Germanic cultures had
much in common is also examined by Peter S. Wells (2001), and Adetorp
points out that both cultures focus on the representation of human heads
of exaggerated size. He recognizes both fertility and earth symbolism in
bracteate imagery and views Type C examples as sun-amulets (Adetorp
2008, 232–34), an explanation already ofered by Carl-Axel Moberg
(1952) for bracteates with border designs that radiate outward from the
center. At times it seems that Adetorp strains to propose something new,
anything new, as when he claims that the ears of the riders can also be
considered horns (pp. 198–202). It is unfortunate, too, that he makes
factual mistakes, such as claiming that some Gotlandic bracteates had
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 33
their suspension loops and borders cut of to be used as Charon’s obols
(p. 235), whereas in fact these pieces never had such atachments (Lamm
and Axboe 1989). Returning to the issue of whether bracteate images are
related to their inscriptions, Adetorp admits that an example in a grave
may depict an image (not a portrait) of a deceased leader, but he insists
that the inscriptions do not name a particular person (pp. 236.f.). In much
of his argumentation, Adetorp tries to appeal to scholars of various camps,
and his study may open up discussion between Celticists and Germanists.
Other scholars have turned to classical Mediterranean and ancient Near
Eastern models for clues to the meaning of bracteate imagery. Anders
Kalif, an archaeologist, and Olof Sundqvist, a historian of religions, trace
similarities between the Mithras and Odin cults in bracteate iconography
(Kalif and Sundqvist 2004). hey suggest that the Iron Age Scandinavian
cult of Odin was afected when it came into contact with the worship of
Mithras among Roman soldiers in the Roman provinces. he idea of a
relationship between the two is not new, touched upon by Karl Hauck
(1970, 302.f.) and examined in more detail by Hilda R. Ellis Davison (1978),
but Kalif and Sundqvist (2004, 23) propose that the Mithras cult was not
the impetus for but rather an inluence on an already existing Odin cult.
hey give archaeological and linguistic evidence of connections between
Scandinavia and the Roman empire and provinces during the late Roman
Iron Age, and they also compare the military brotherhood of the Mithras
cult to the context of the worship of Odin. he imagery on Type C
bracteates with the large human head looming over a strange horse-like
animal with the horns of an ox is interpreted by Kalif and Sundqvist
as a Scandinavian artist’s atempt to convey a three-dimensional image
of the Mithraic bull-killing motif with a man standing behind the bull
(p. 89). Since members of the Mithras cult let no writen evidence.—.our
knowledge of this mystery religion comes from its critics (p. 46).—.Kalif
and Sundqvist compare bracteate inscriptions to ritual formulae of the
Isis cult and intimate that similar formulae would be typical of Mithraism
(pp. 95.f.). Another element of Scandinavian bracteate imagery showing
supposed similarities with a distant Near Eastern motif is investigated
by Søren Nancke-Krogh (1984). He derives the bird-appendage on the
man’s hair (or helmet) found on a small, homogeneous group of Type
C examples from a Sassanian model known through Eastern copies of
Roman coins and medallions. Although the models may seem remote, in
both cases (Mithraic and Sassanian), the possible connections to Nordic
bracteates are made more plausible since they were identiied via Roman
and Roman provincial material.
Futhark 5 (2014)
34 • Nancy L. Wicker
Another scholar who turns toward Roman sources is Gunilla Åkerström-Hougen (2001, 2010). She examines several bracteate details that
she traces to Roman motifs. To begin with, she considers the Roman
adventus scene, which shows the arrival of the emperor and is found on
coins and medallions (Åkerström-Hougen 2001). She traces the origin of
a small number of Type B bracteates (called the Drei-Göter ‘three gods’
group by Hauck) to this Roman numismatic type, also known as “Victory
crowning the Victor”. In her later work (2010, 57–74), Åkerström-Hougen
explores speciic details including the transformation on bracteates of the
imperial standard crowned by an eagle into an enigmatic T-shape and
a bird depicted in northern animal style. She argues strongly that the
scene does not depict the killing of Balder, as Hauck claims. Instead, she
notes that the adventus ceremony was familiar in the Roman colonies and
was germane to the occasion of giving of medallions and, by extension,
bracteates (p. 68). hus not only the form of the scene but also its meaning
was appropriate for the northern objects. Like Kalif and Sundqvist, she
suggests that the large man’s head above the animal on Type C bracteates
relects the northern artist’s lack of familiarity with the Roman manner of
depicting deep space on a lat surface (Åkerström-Hougen 2010, 46). Her
argument that the “running” man on another group of Type B bracteates
stems from classical scenes of hare hunting brings unfamiliar material to
light (pp. 39–44), and her suggestion that the dragon-headed banners used
as standards in batle served as a model for abstract motifs at the top of
some large Type C examples (Åsum, IK 11; Vä, IK 203) its with the martial
character of her interpretation of imperial numismatic iconography (pp.
51–54).
Across the vast Roman Empire and its borderlands, there was a proliferation of various religious systems. Scandinavians serving in the
Roman military (Rausing 1987) encountered Sassanian, Mithraic, Celtic,
Germanic.—.and Christian.—.elements, and cultural difusionism and
syncretism were widespread, so it would not be surprising if bracteates
relected external inluences. Adetorp (2008), Kalif and Sundqvist (2004),
and Åkerström-Hougen (2001, 2010) all reject Hauck’s thesis of the
predominance of Odin and the story of Balder on bracteates, and they
discuss ways in which northern artists responded to and adapted Roman
illusionistic depiction. A multivalent view of interpretative possibilities
is presented by Alexandra Pesch (2007). As one of Hauck’s students,
she accepts his Odin-centered view of bracteates yet proposes a rather
postmodern view of contextual meanings, examining alternative understandings of Type C bracteate iconography from the disparate view-
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 35
points of Late Antique, Old Norse, Tibetan, and Mithras cultures and
religions. Another thread running through several of these hypotheses
is the primacy of military iconography, and Andrén’s (1991) discussion
of the transformation of auspicious Latin inscriptions (dominus, pius, and
felix) into comparable bracteate runic texts (laþu, laukaʀ, and alu) can also
be considered in this context. I will now move on to a discussion of the
gendering of these objects, which seem to have been made for males in a
military context.
Other researchers have turned from the discussion of formal aspects
of the depictions to a consideration of who used bracteates and how they
were used. Although most bracteate images represent men, the pieces
were apparently worn as pendant amulets by women, at least in England
and on the Continent where they have been discovered in female graves
together with beads and other pendants in situ on the chest (Wicker 2005).
Anders Andrén (1991) interprets bracteates as a political medium for a
runic-literate elite in Scandinavia and proposes that these objects, found
distributed across Europe, were used by women as a sign of Scandinavian
identity to cement political alliances. Birgit Arrhenius (1995) suggests
that bracteates were morning gits given by husbands to their brides at
the consummation of marriages, and that examples discovered in female
burials on the Continent are evidence of exogamy among elites of Germanic Europe. Marta Lindeberg (1997) stresses the role of women not
merely as passive participants but as facilitators of alliances and wealth
exchange. While linking runic inscriptions on bracteates to igures from
Old Norse mythology, she addresses the question of why women would
choose to wear these objects depicting males.—.in particular the male god
Odin.—.by examining Odin’s relevance to women. Märit Gaimster (2001,
144) suggests that the function of bracteates changed as they became
associated with women. Although Andrén (1991), Arrhenius (1995),
Lindeberg (1997), and Gaimster (2001) consider the gender of the wearers
of bracteates, they do not question the identiication of the major igure
on these pieces as Odin.
Several scholars examine gendered characteristics of Odin and other
igures depicted on bracteates, particularly the androgynous role of Odin
in the practice of magic. Charlote Hedenstierna-Jonson (1998) suggests
that women wore bracteates displaying images of Odin because this god
crossed genders to participate in the ritual called seiðr, which took him
into a shamanic ecstatic state. She also connects women with the Valkyries who serve Odin, suggesting that bracteates were given as gits at
diplomatic ceremonies in which elite women wore these objects marking
Futhark 5 (2014)
36 • Nancy L. Wicker
their role as hostesses. Gry Wiker (2001) discusses the blurring of borders
between male and female and between human and animal in the seiðr
ritual as displayed on bracteates and other Iron Age objects. Sébastien
Martel (2007) proposes that Type B bracteates displaying a naked, bearded
man represent the performance of seiðr, associated not only with Odin in a
gender-ambiguous role but also with women and the goddess Freyja. Kent
O. Laursen (2006) considers this same group as symbols of an initiation
rite signifying the gaining of supernatural knowledge, paying special
atention to what he calls extrasomatic symbols located around the igure
of the man. Finally, Wiker (2008) suggests that the liminal position of
the god Loki in the Drei-Göter group of Type B bracteates is symbolic of
warrior initiation, thus placing these pieces within the customary male,
military context that has been assumed for bracteate use, such as the
Mithraic brotherhood that Kalif and Sundqvist (2004) propose.
Even supposedly new approaches to the study of bracteates are oten
constrained by the conventional parameters of past research, which may
act as a stranglehold on creative interpretations. hrough mechanisms
of contextual, shiting constructions of gender that we do not yet comprehend, medallions that had presumably been worn by men were transformed into bracteates worn by women (Wicker 2008, 245), and some of
these objects may have been gendered “female” while others remained
“male”. An elite Germanic woman could wear a gold bracteate that had
an apparently masculine inscription and featured masculine imagery, presumably to express descent and political ainity, as Svante Fischer (2003)
has proposed for Alemannic women. How this could happen is something
that deserves more research and a new approach, namely context analysis.
Context analysis of bracteates
Bracteate images are highly stylized and simpliied (not the least because
of their small size), and their texts are enigmatic; further analysis
following Hauck’s model is unlikely to result in signiicant advances in
our understanding. To resolve this impasse, I propose that we employ
context analysis, a methodology that Michaela Helmbrecht (2008) uses
productively to investigate depictions of supposed horned helmets in early
medieval Scandinavian art. his method difers from Hauck’s KontextIkonographie (Hauck 1975), even though supericially the two approaches
sound similar. Hauck brings a multidisciplinary approach to the study of
bracteates, marshaling a diverse team of experts to examine every detail
within an allegedly coherent system that is foisted externally upon these
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 37
objects from an (in anthropological terms) ethic perspective. Context
analysis, on the other hand, emphasizes how images (and inscriptions)
may have been used diferently by diverse social groups from an emic or
internal point of view within the culture. Kathryn Starkey (1999), who
questions Hauck’s interpretation, calls for research on why the objects
were made in place of the focus on identifying the igures depicted on
them. Michael Enright in his review of the irst volumes of Hauck’s corpus
of bracteates asks (1988, 504):
Might not some consideration be given to the social as well as to the religious
reasons for wearing bracteates? ..... an amulet not only says something about
the religious beliefs of the wearer but may also say something noteworthy
about social status and concepts of aristocratic display. It is an intriguing
datum that many if not most of the wearers for the golden amulets appear to
have been women. Why?
Hauck focuses on the religious meaning of bracteates and their texts,
but these objects can have multiple meanings if we consider the various
reasons why people might have worn them across the broad ranges of
place and time in which they are found.
Elsewhere I have proposed that not all bracteates were made by the
same methods (Wicker 1998, 2006); similarly, it is unlikely all were used in
the same way. hus we cannot assume that a “one-size-its-all” approach
to iconography and inscriptions is appropriate. Rather than seeking
constantly to identify mythological igures on the objects, we should
try to understand the particular functions and meanings bracteates had
for diferent groups of people, taking into consideration how and where
these objects were deposited. Bracteates found in hoards in the heartland
of southern Scandinavia may have been used diferently from examples
discovered in women’s graves in far-away England and on the Continent.
It is also likely that bracteates were made, used, and cherished by individuals with varying levels of literacy, both active and passive. Examples
sporting diferent inscriptions may have been used in a range of ways and
by various subsets of the population. Bracteates held multiple meanings
for those who wore them, not only religious but also social as carriers of
high status and markers of age and gender.
Since there are regional variations of favored motifs, with some being
used for only a short period of time, others for much longer, we can
imagine that meanings changed over time. As Helmbrecht (2008, 33)
points out “pictorial representations in oral societies are a special form
of tradition, which should not be considered as a passive corpus of illus-
Futhark 5 (2014)
38 • Nancy L. Wicker
trations referring to knowledge and ideas already ixed in writen form”.
Scandinavian paganism was not an organized, orthodox, dogmatic religion, not the uniied “package” that Hauck built up based on Odin, Balder,
and ideas of healing. Hauck’s uniied scheme of bracteate iconography is
enticing, but I do not believe it can explain the use of images and inscriptions in the Migration Period. Just as bracteates relect regional varieties
of imagery and regional variation in technical details, so also they relect
a mosaic of beliefs and uses as expressed in pictures and words. As Lisbeth
Imer (2007, 81) has argued, early runic writing both contrasts with the
Roman world and imitates it. So, too, bracteates were conceived within a
milieu of syncretic Roman inspiration and relect that background.
Karl Hauck opened up the ield of bracteate studies by gathering a
multidisciplinary group of scholars who continue his studies and carry
them forward as they examine iconography, inscriptions, “central places”,
and other topics. However, the research that I draw atention to here
relects dissatisfaction with his theories and an interest in looking towards
other possibilities. When interpretations of inscriptions are based on the
assumption that Odin and Balder are the igures depicted on bracteates,
then all readings lead to a circumscribed range of possibilities. hat is to
say: if we have preconceived notions, we tend to force texts to it with what
we expect or hope to ind. An openness towards new approaches does not
mean uncritically accepting all suggestions; and not all interpretations
of bracteate iconography and inscriptions are equally viable. But we
need the courage and imagination to step outside the bounds of what has
previously been proposed. For us to have any possibility of understanding
runic inscriptions on bracteates, we must consider the objects in context:
how they were made and used, and by whom.
Bibliography
Adetorp, Johan. 2008. De guldglänsande rytarna: C-brakteaternas ikonograi i ny
belysning. Lund.
Åkerström-Hougen, Gunilla. 2001. “Adventus Travels North: A Note on the
Iconography of some Scandinavian Gold Bracteates.” In Imperial Art as Christian Art — Christian Art as Imperial Art: Expression and Meaning in Art and
Arhitecture from Constantine to Justinian, ed. J. Rasmus Brandt and Olaf Steen,
229–44. Institutum Romanum Norvegiae, Acta ad Archaeologiam et Artium
Historiam Pertinentia, 15. Roma.
―.. 2010. Genesis oh metamorphosis: En studie i de nordiska guldbrakteaternas
ikonograi. Gothenburg Studies in Art and Architecture, 31. Göteborg.
Ambrosiani, Sune. 1907. Odinskultens härkomst. Stockholm.
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 39
Andrén, Anders. 1991. “Guld och makt.—.en tolkning av de skandinaviska guldbrakteaternas funktion.” In Samfundsorganisation og regional variation: Norden
i romersk jernalder og folkevandringstid: Beretning fra 1. nordiske jernaldersymposium på Sandbjerg Slot 11–15 april 1989, ed. Charlote Fabech and Jyte
Ringtved, 245–56. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Skriter, 27. Århus.
Antonsen, Elmer H. 1975. A Concise Grammar of the Older Runic Inscriptions.
Sprachstrukturen, ser. A: Historische Sprachstrukturen, 3. Tübingen.
―.. 2002. Runes and Germanic Linguistics. Trends in Linguistics: Studies and
Monographs, 140. Berlin.
Arrhenius, Birgit. 1995. “Women and Gold: On the Role of Women in Society
at the Time of the Great Migrations and heir Relationship to the Production
and Distribution of Ornaments.” In Produksjon og samfunn: Om erhverv, spesialisering og bosetning i Norden i 1. årtusen e.Kr.: Beretning fra 2. nordiske jernaldersymposium på Granavolden Gjæstgiveri, 7.–10. mai 1992, ed. Heid Gjøstein
Resi, 85–96. Universitetets Oldsaksamling, Varia, 30. Oslo.
Axboe, Morten. 2011. “Die Chronologie der Inschriten-Brakteaten.” In Heizmann
and Axboe 2011, 279–96.
Beck, Heinrich. 2001. “Zur Göter-Anrufung nach altnordischen uellen (in
Sonderheit der Brakteaten).” In Kontinuitäten und Brühe in der Religionsgeshihte: Festshrit für Anders Hultgård zu seinem 65. Geburtstag am 23.12.2001,
ed. Michael Stausberg, 57–75. ERGA, 31. Berlin.
Davidson, Hilda R. Ellis. 1978. “Mithras and Wodan.” Études mithriaques: Actes
du 2e Congrès International, Téhéran, du 1er au 8 septembre 1975, ed. Jacques
Duchesne-Guillemin, 99–110. Acta Iranica, 17. Leiden.
DR = Danmarks runeindskriter, by Lis Jacobsen and Erik Moltke. 3 vols.: Text;
Atlas; Registre. København, 1941–42.
Düwel, Klaus. 1988. “Buchstabenmagie und Alphabetzauber: Zu den Inschriten
der Goldbrakteaten und ihrer Funktion als Amulete.” Frühmitelalterlihe
Studien 22: 70–110.
―.. 1992. “Zur Auswertung der Brakteateninschriten: Runenkenntnis und
Runeninschriten als Oberschichten-Merkmale.” In Der historishe Horizont der
Göterbild-Amulete aus der Übergangsepohe von der Spätantike zum Frühmitelalter: Beriht über das Colloquium vom 28.11.–1.12. 1988 in der Werner-ReimersStitung, Bad Homburg, ed. Karl Hauck, 32–89. Abhandlungen der Akademie
der Wissenschaten in Götingen, Philol.-hist. Klasse, 3rd ser., 200. Götingen.
―., ed. 1998. Runeninshriten als uellen interdisziplinärer Forshung: Abhandlungen des Vierten Internationalen Symposiums über Runen und Runeninshriten
in Götingen vom 4.–9. August 1995. ERGA, 15. Berlin.
―.. 2008. Runenkunde. 4th ed. Sammlung Metzler, 72. Stutgart.
Düwel, Klaus, and Wilhelm Heizmann. 2006. “Das ältere Fuþark.—.Überlieferung
und Wirkungsmöglichkeiten der Runenreihe.” In Das fuþark und seine einzelsprahlihen Weiterentwiklungen: Akten der Tagung in Eihstät vom 20. bis 24.
Juli 2003, ed. Alfred Bammmesberger and Gaby Waxenberger, 3–60. ERGA, 51.
Berlin.
Futhark 5 (2014)
40 • Nancy L. Wicker
Ellmers, Detlev. 1972. “Zur Ikonographie nordischer Goldbrakteaten.” Jahrhbuh
des Römish-Germanishen Zentralmuseums Mainz 1970: 201–84.
Enright, Michael J. 1988. Review of Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit,
by Karl Hauck et al. (München, 1985–86 [= IK, 1.1–2.2]). Speculum 63: 403–06.
ERGA = Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde.
Fischer, Svante. 2003. “Alemannia and the North.—.Early Runic Contexts Apart
(400–800).” In Alemannien und der Norden: Internationales Symposium vom
18.–20. Oktober 2001 in Zürih, ed. Hans-Peter Naumann, 266–317. ERGA, 43.
Berlin.
Gaimster, Märit. 2001. “Gold Bracteates and Necklaces.” In Roman Gold and the
Development of the Early Germanic Kingdoms: Aspects of Tehnical, Socio-political, Socio-economic, Artistic, and Intellectual Development, A.D. 1–550: Symposium in Stokholm 14–16 November 1997, ed. Bente Magnus, 143–55. Kungl.
Viterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Konferenser, 51. Stockholm.
Hauck, Karl. 1970. Goldbrakteaten aus Sievern. Münstersche Mitelalter-Schriten,
1. München.
―.. 1975. “Kontext-Ikonographie: Die methodische Entziferung der formelhaten
goldenen Amultetbilder aus der Völkerwanderungszeit (Zur Ikonologie der
Goldbrakteaten VII).” Verbum et Signum: Beiträge zur Bedeutungsforshung 2:
25–69.
―.. 1977. “Schüsselstücke zur Entziferung der Ikonographie der D-Brakteaten:
Die Nordversion des Jonasmotivs und ihre geschichtliche Bedeutung (Zur
Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten XIII).” In Studien zur Sahsenforshung, ed.
Hans-Jürgen Häßler, 1: 161–96. Hildesheim.
―.. 1980. “Got als Arzt: Eine exemplarische Skizze mit Text- und Bildzeugnissen
aus drei verschiedenen Religionen zu Phänomenen und Gebärden der Heilung
(Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten XIV).” In Text und Bild: Aspekte des
Zusammenwirkens zweier Künste in Mitelalter und früher Neuzeit, ed. Christel
Meier and Uwe Ruberg, 19–62. Wiesbaden.
―.. 1986. “Die Wiedergabe von Götersymbolen und Sinnzeichen der A-, B- und
C-Brakteaten auf D- und F-Brakteaten exemplarisch erhellt mit Speer und
Kreuz (Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten XXXV).” Frühmitelalterlihe Studien
20: 474–512.
―.. 1992. “Fünens besonderer Anteil an den Bildinhalten der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Brakteaten (Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten XLIX).” Frühmitelalterlihe Studien 26: 106–48.
―.. 1998a. “Die runenkundigen Erinder von den Bildchifren der Goldbrakteaten
(Zur Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten LVII).” Frühmitelalterlihe Studien 32: 28–
56.
―.. 1998b. “Zur religionsgeschichtlichen Auswertung von Bildchifren und
Runen der völkerwanderungszeitlichen Goldbrakteaten (Zur Ikonologie der
Goldbrakteaten LVI).” In Düwel 1998, 298–353.
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 41
―.. 1998c. “Zwanzig Jahre Brakteatenforschung in Münster/Westfalen (Zur
Ikonologie der Goldbrakteaten LV).” Frühmitelalterlihe Studien 22: 17–52.
Hedeager, Lote. 1997. Skygge af en anden virkelighed: Oldnordiske myter. Haslev.
―.. 1999. “Skandinavisk dyreornamentik: Symbolsk repræsentation af en førkristen kosmologi.” In Et hus med mange rom: Vennebok til Bjørn Myhre på
60-årsdagen, ed. Ingrid Fuglestvedt, Terje Gansum, and Arnfrid Opedal, (vol.
A:) 219–37. 2 vols. AmS-Rapport, 11A–B. Stavanger.
Hedenstierna-Jonson, Charlote. 1998. “Oden och kvinnorna: Spår av Odens
kvinnliga aspekter i det folkvandringstida bildmaterialet.” In Rökringar: Hyllningsskrit till Lennart Karlsson från elever oh yngre forskare, ed. Charlote
Hedenstierna-Jonson, Carina Jacobsson, and Torsten Svensson, 123–31. Visby.
Heizmann, Wilhelm. 1987: “Bildformel und Formelwort: Zu den laukaR-Inschriten
auf Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit.” In Runor oh runinskriter:
Föredrag vid Riksantikvarieämbetets oh Viterhetsakademiens symposium 8–11
september 1985, 145–53. Kungl. Viterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien,
Konferenser, 15. Stockholm.
Heizmann, Wilhelm, and Morten Axboe, eds. 2011. Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit — Auswertung und Neufunde. [= IK, 4.3.] ERGA, 40. Berlin.
Helmbrecht, Michaela. 2008. “Figures with Horned Headgear: A Case Study of
Context Analysis and Social Signiicance of Pictures in Vendel and Viking Age
Scandinavia.” Lund Arhaeological Review 2007–2008: 31–53.
IK + number = bracteate published in IK or in Morten Axboe, “Katalogbeschreibung
der Neufunde”, in Heizmann and Axboe 2011 [= IK, 4.3], 891–999 and plates
1–102.
IK = Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit: Ikonographisher Katalog, by
Karl Hauck, Morten Axboe, Urs Clavadetscher, Klaus Düwel, Lutz von Padberg,
Ulrike Smyra, Cajus Wypior, and Herbert Lange. 3 parts with 7 vols.: 1.1, Einleitung; 1.2, 2.1, 3.1, Text; 1.3, 2.2, 3.2, Tafeln. Münstersche Mitelalter-Schriten,
24.1.1–24.3.2. München, 1985–89.
Imer, Lisbeth. 2007. “Latin og græsk i romersk jernalder.—.Fremmed indlydelse
på Nordens tidligste runeskrit.” Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie
2004: 63–105. Cf. basically the same article in English: “Greek and Latin Inscriptions in the Northern Barbaricum”, in Beyond the Roman Frontier: Roman
Inluences on the Northern Barbaricum, ed. homas Grane, Analecta Romana
Instituti Danici, Supplementum 39 (Roma, 2007), 31–60, 163–67.
―.. 2012. “Nye guldbrakteater med runer.” Blog under “Runer og mønter”, the
National Museum of Denmark (Nationalmuseet), Copenhagen, 4 July 2012.
htp://runer-moenter.natmus.dk/nye-guldbrakteater-med-runer/
Janse, Olov. 1922. Le travail de l’or en Suède à l’epoque mérovingienne: Études
precedes d’un mémoire sur les solidi romains et byzantins trouvés en Suède.
Orléans.
Futhark 5 (2014)
42 • Nancy L. Wicker
Kalif, Anders, and Olof Sundqvist. 2004. Oden oh Mithraskulten: Religiös akulturation under romersk järnålder oh folkvandringstid. Occasional Papers in
Archaeology, 35. Uppsala.
Krause, Wolfgang, with contributions by Herbert Jankuhn. 1966. Die Runeninshriten im älteren Futhark. 2 vols. Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaten in Götingen, Philol.-hist. Klasse, 3rd ser., 65. Götingen.
Lamm, Jan Peder, and Morten Axboe. 1989. “Neues zu Brakteaten und Anhängern
in Schweden.” Frühmitelalterlihe Studien 23: 453–77.
Laursen, Kent O. 2006. “Kundskab og indvielse: En ikonograisk tolkning af
udvalgte B-brakteater.” Kuml 2006: 177–203.
Lindeberg, Marta. 1997. “Gold, Gods and Women.” Current Swedish Arhaeology
5: 99–110.
Mackeprang, Mogens B. 1952. De nordiske Guldbrakteater: Brakteatstudiets Historie, Brakteatypernes Udvikling, geograiske Fordeling, Kronologi, Motiver og
Prægningsteknik. Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, Skriter, 2. Århus.
Martel, Sébastien. 2007. “Gender Ambiguity and Gold Bracteates in the Scandinavian Iron Age.” Nicolay: Arkeologisk tidsskrit (Oslo) 101: 67–75.
Moberg, Carl-Axel. 1952. “Über die Rahmenverzierung der Goldbrakteaten.” Acta
Arhaeologica 23: 115–31.
Montelius, Oscar. 1869. Från järnåldern. Stockholm.
―.. 1900. “Den nordiska jernålderns kronologi. III.” Svenska Fornminnesföreningens tidskrit 10: 55–130.
Nancke-Krogh, Søren. 1984. “De gyldne ‘rytere’: En analyse og vurdering af en
gruppe C-brakteater.” Hikuin 10: 235–46.
Öberg, Herje. 1942. Guldbrakteaterna från Nordens folkvandringstid. Kungl. Viterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, Handlingar, 53. Stockholm.
Oxenstierna, Eric Carl. 1956. Die Goldhörner von Gallehus. Lidingö.
Pesch, Alexandra. 2007. “Germanische Tierstilkunst: Charakteristik und Wege
zur Deutung.” Die Kunde, n.s., 58: 221–36.
Polomé, Edgar C. 1994. “Brakteaten und die germanische Religionsgeschichte.—.Probleme einer wechselseitigen Interpretation.” In Iconologia
Sacra: Mythos, Bildkunst und Dihtung in der Religions- und Sozialgeshihte
Alteuropa: Festshrit für Karl Hauk zum 75. Geburtstag, ed. Hagen Keller and
Nikolaus Staubach, 91–102. Arbeiten zur Frühmitelalterforschung, 23. Berlin.
Rausing, Gad. 1987. “Barbarian Mercenaries or Roman Citizens?” Fornvännen 82:
126–32.
Salin, Bernhard. 1895. De nordiska guldbrakteaterna: Några bidrag till kännedomen
om brakteaternas utbredning oh kulturhistoriska betydelse. Antiqvarisk tidskrit
för Sverige, 14.2. Stockholm.
―.. 1904. Die Altgermanishe hierornamentik. Stockholm.
Futhark 5 (2014)
Bracteate Inscriptions and Context Analysis • 43
Seebold, Elmar. 1992. “Römische Münzbilder und germanische Symbolwelt:
Versuch einer Deutung der Bildelemente von C-Brakteaten.” In Germanishe
Religionsgeshihte: uellen und uellenprobleme, ed. Heinrich Beck, Detlev
Ellmers, and Kurt Schier, 270–335. ERGA, 5. Berlin.
―.. 1994. “Das erste Autreten germanischer Bildelemente und Runen auf den
Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit.” In Studien zum Altgermanishen:
Festshrit für Heinrih Bek, ed. Heiko Uecker, 601–18. ERGA, 11. Berlin.
―.. 1998. “Linguistische und ikonographische Deutungsprobleme der Inschritenbrakteaten (Die Tradierung von Bild und Schrit).” In Düwel 1998, 268–97.
Starkey, Kathryn. 1999. “Imagining an Early Odin: Gold Bracteates as Visual Evidence.” Scandinavian Studies 71: 373–92.
Stjerna, Knut. 1906. “Drakskaten i Beowulf.” Fornvännen 1: 119–44.
homsen, Christian Jürgensen. 1855. “Om Guldbracteaterne.” Annaler for nordisk
Oldkyndighed og Historie 1855: 265–347.
Wells, Peter S. 2001. Beyond Celts, Germans, and Scythians. Duckworth Debates in
Archaeology. London.
Wicker, Nancy L. 1998: “Production Areas and Workshops for the Manufacture of
Bracteates.” In Düwel 1998, 254–67.
―.. 2005. “Display of Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates and Other
Pendant Jewelry as a Relection of Prestige and Identity.” In De Re Metallica:
he Uses of Metal in the Middle Ages, ed. Robert Bork, 49–61. AVISTA Studies
in the History of Medieval Technology, Science and Art, 4. Aldershot, Hants.
―.. 2006. “Bracteate Inscriptions through the Looking Glass: A Microscopic View
of Manufacturing Techniques.” In Runes and heir Secrets: Studies in Runology,
ed. Marie Stoklund et al., 415–36. Copenhagen.
―.. 2008. “Scandinavian Migration Period Bracteates Found Outside the Nordic
Area: Import or Imitation?” In Import and Imitation in Arhaeology, ed. Peter F.
Biehl and Yuri Ya. Rassamakin, 243–51. Zentrum für Archäologie und Kulturgeschichte des Schwarzmeerraumes, Schriten, 11. Langenweissbach.
Wiker, Gry. 2001. “Om konstruksjon av ny menneskelig identitet i jernalderen.”
Primitive tider 2001: 51–72.
―.. 2008. “Balders død.—.en krigerinitiasjon? En ikonograisk tolkning av ‘DreiGöter-brakteatene’.” In Facets of Arhaeology: Essays in Honour of Lote Hedeager
on her 60th Birthday, ed. Konstantinos Chilidis, Julie Lund, and Christopher
Prescot, 509–25. Oslo arkeologiske serie, 10. Oslo.
Worsaae, Jens Jacob Asmussen. 1870. “Om Forestillingerne paa Guldbracteaterne.”
Aarbøger for nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie 1870: 382–419.
Futhark 5 (2014)