shamanism in norse myth and magic

FF COMMUNICATIONS No. 296

SHAMANISM

IN NORSE MYTH AND MAGIC

volume i

BY

CLIVE TOLLEY

HELSINKI 2009 SUOMALAINEN TIEDEAKATEMIA

ACADEMIA SCIENTIARUM FENNICA

Folklore Fellows Communications is part of the publishing cooperation between the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters and

the Finnish Society of Sciences and Letters

Copyright 2009 by Academia Scientiarum Fennica

and the author

ISSN 0014-5815ISBN (hard) 978-951-41-1027-6 ISBN (soft) 978-951-41-1028-3

Sastamala 2009 Vammalan Kirjapaino Oy

CONTENTS

A detailed list of contents of volume I ixPreface xvThe cover illustration xviiAcknowledgements xixConventions xxiAbbreviations xxiv

I. PROLEGOMENA1. Introduction 12. The nature of the sources 123. Norsemen and their neighbours 314. Shamanism in Eurasia 665. Shamanism in Europe 93

II. THE PLACE OF SHAMANISM IN SOCIETY6. Purposes 1347. Community and gender 143

III. METAPHYSICAL ENTITIES8. Souls 1679. Spirits 200

IV. COSMIC STRUCTURES10. The pillar, post or pole 27311. The mountain 29212. The mill 29513. The tree 30414. The god Heimdallr 36915. Aspects of non-vertical shamanic cosmography 406

V. THE WORKINGS OF SHAMANISM16. Vocation and initiation 41417. Performance 46318. Accoutrements 518

VI. KINDRED CONCERNS19. The smith 55120. The bear 559

VII. EPILEGOMENA21. Conclusion 581

volume iiDetailed list of contents of volume II viiiThe peoples of Eurasia 1

Source texts 21

References 201

Index of sources 241

General index 251

Maps and plates 287

A DETAILED LIST OF CONTENTS OF VOLUME I

I. PROLEGOMENA 1

1. Introduction 1 Methodology 4 Some concepts 7

religion 7; ritual 8; myth 9; evolutionism and change 11

2. The nature of the sources 12 Sources for shamanism 12 Norse and other sources for Germanic traditions 16

texts on magic 25; conclusion 29

3. Norsemen and their neighbours 31 Historical contacts between Scandinavians and their neighbours 31

the norsemen 31; the finns 32; the smi 34; the vikings in russia 35; conclusion 39

The Finnar and other Finno-Ugric peoples 39finns who were not finns 40; finns who were not finns 41

Latin and Greek sources 43tacitus 44; ptolemy 47; jordanes 47; procopius 48; the ravenna cosmographer 49; paulus diaconus 49; adam of bremen 50

English sources 51beowulf 51; widsi 52; the old english orosius 52

Scandinavian sources 55primitive lifestyle of the smi 55; trade and war 57; marriage 58; giants 60; magic 61

Conclusion 64

4. Shamanism in Eurasia 66 Definition 66 Does the nature of a society determine the presence of shamanism? 69 The characteristic features of Siberian shamanism 72 Smi shamanism 75 Finnish shamanism 78 Khanty and Mansi shamanism 85 Daur shamanism 87 Japanese shamanism 90

5. Shamanism in Europe 93 Greece 93

delphi 95; dionysus 97; orpheus 99; the bacchae of euripides 99; conclusion 103

The peoples of the steppe 104 Witchcraft 109

the female bias 113; maleficia and divination 113; consumption and resurrection 115; the spirit mate 116; familiars 117; flight 118; the nocturnal gathering and the female deity 119; the benandanti 122; great britain 126; witchcraft and shamanism 130

II. THE PLACE OF SHAMANISM IN SOCIETY 134

6. Purposes 134 Eurasian 134 Norse 135

doctor 135; psychopomp 136; diviner 136; hunting magician 137; sacrificial priest 138; journeyer to the otherworld 138; witch 141; conclusion 142

7. Community and gender 143 Eurasian 143

community 143; gender-related issues 145 (Crossing gender 148)

Norse 149community 149; gender-related issues 153 (Ergi 155; The Haddingjar 165)

Conclusion 165

III. METAPHYSICAL ENTITIES 167

8. Souls 167 Eurasian notions of the soul 168 Ancient Greek notions of the soul 174 Germanic notions of the soul 176

sl 177; nd/andi 179; fjr 180; mr 181; munr 182; r 183; ge 183; sefi 184; hugr 186; hamr 193

Conclusion 198

9. Spirits 200 Eurasian notions of spirits 200

the shamans interaction with the spirits 200; the mistress of the animals 202; smi spirits 203 (Attendant spirits 203; Shamanic spirits 204); turkic spirits 205; ewenki spirits 206; japanese spirits 207

Norse notions of spirits 208sir 209; vanir 210; lfar 217; dsir 221; valkyrjur 225; women fylgjur 226; nornir 229; dvergar 231; giants 232 (Primordial beings 233; Possessors of wisdom and magical powers 235; Directors of the forces of nature 236; Directors of the ineluctable forces of the cosmos 238); troll 239; mrnir 241; animal fylgjur 242; vttir 242; verir 244; mrur 245; gandar 246 (Etymology 246; Occurrences 248 Place names 248; Simplex 248; Compounds 250; Derivatives 254; Gandr used in reference to Smi magic 258 The Historia Norwegie: gandr and Smi shamanism 258; Later sources 268)

Conclusion 269

IV. COSMIC STRUCTURES 272

10. The pillar, post or pole 273 Eurasian 273

khanty 274; smi 274; finnish and estonian 276

Germanic 276irminsul 276; rr 279 (The ndvegisslur 279; The reginnaglar 281; Pillars 281; rr, the whetstone and Aurvandill 283; rr and the waters 285; rr and Indra 287); another reference to the world pillar? 288; a yet more obscure reference 289

Conclusion 290

11. The mountain 292

Eurasian 292

Norse 293

Conclusion 294

12. The mill 295

Finnish 295

Norse 299the wealth mill 299 (Grotti in Grottasngr and Snorris Edda 299; The sampo and Grotti 301); mundilfri 301;

Conclusion 303

13. The tree 304

Eurasian 305ewenki 306; sakha 307; smi 308; finnish 309; the mordvin great apple/birch 312; conclusion 312

Norse 313sacred trees 314

sources for the mythical world tree 316 (Grmnisml 316; Vlusp 317; Fjlsvinnsml 317; Snorri on Yggdrasill 318; Glasir 319; The barnstokkr 319)

the names of the world tree 320 (Yggdrasill 320; Lrr 320; Mimameir 322)

the tree in time and space 322 (The site of the world tree 322; The landscape of the Norse world tree 324 The halls 324; The bridge 324; Fire 325; Groves 326; Waters 327; The tree and the mountain 329; The compass of the world tree 330; The growth of the world tree 332; Fate and the world tree 335; The tree as a medium of communication 336; The tree as the seat of god as ruler and instructor 336; The hardships of the world tree 338; Animals at the world tree 338 Stags 338; The goat 340; The eagle and serpent 340; The squirrel 343; Cocks 343; The world tree as steed 344; The multiplicity of trees 345)

the tree and man 346 (Mans birth from the tree 346; Mans life and the tree 349; Rebirth and the tree 350)

the tree and sacrifice 352 (Eurasian 352; The grove of the Semnones 352; Uppsala 353; inns sacrificial tree in Hvaml 358; The Rus oak 362)

the tree as guardian 365

Conclusion 366

14. The god Heimdallr 369 Heimdallr, guardian of the world 369

sources on heimdallr 369; heimdallrs names: the arboreal connection 370; heimdallrs birth 374; heimdallr as guardian spirit 375; heimdallr in hkonardrpa 376; heimdallrs perceptive faculties 377; heimdallr and the mountain 378; heimdallrs whiteness 378; heimdallr and the progeniture of man 379; heimdallrs wisdom 381; heimdallr, the gjallarhorn and mmir 381; heimdallr and sheep 383; heimdallr as pillar? 385; heimdallargaldr and hyndlulj 388; heimdallr and the brsingamen 389 (The Old English Beowulf 389; Haustlng 390; rymskvia 391; Snorri 391; Srla ttr 392; Hsdrpa 393 The text 393; Interpretation and commentary 394; Conclusion 403); heimdallr as angel 403; heimdallrs liminality 403

Conclusion 404

15. Aspects of non-vertical cosmography 406 Eurasian 406

ob ugrian 406; ewenki 406; the smi water realm 407

Norse 409 Conclusion 411

Conclusion on Cosmic Structures 412

V. THE WORKINGS OF SHAMANISM 414

16. Vocation and initiation 414 Eurasian 414

the divine origin 414; vocation 416; initiation 417

Norse 419the divine origin 419 (The origin of the practitioners of seir 419; The origin of the practice of seir 422); vocation 423; initiation 427 (inn on the tree 427; inn and Mmir 434; inn and the poetic mead 434; r and Freyja 450; inn between the fires 455)

Conclusion 462

17. Performance 463 Eurasian 463

the kamlanie 463 (The general structure of the kamlanie 463; The Finnish kamlanie 464; The Smi kamlanie 466; An Ewenki kamlanie 468; An Ewenki shamanic song 468; A Yukagir kamlanie 469); shamanic contests 469; wisdom contests 469

Norse 470shamanic elements 470; vlusp 474 (The audience 475; The ancestral spirit 476; Trance 477; Gullveig and Heir 478; Dialogue 480; Counterroles 480; The clairvoyant style 483; The biblical background 485); eirks saga raua 487 (The deceptive allure of verisimilitude 487; The Christian background 488; Gurr as christianised foremother 488; orbjrg and her biblical antecedents 490; Sibylline prophecy, medieval para-liturgical feasts and the parody of the bishop 490; The wandering fortune-teller 495; Nttrur 498; Varlokkur 501); ynglinga saga 507; minor sources 514; fights 516

Conclusion 516

18. Accoutrements 518 Eurasian 518

costume 518; the hat 520; the belt 520; the drum 521; the staff 525; the steed 526

Norse 527costume 527; the hat 531; the belt 531; the drum 533; the vtt 534; the staff 536; the horse 544; the seihjallr and the raised portal to the other world 544

Conclusion 549

VI. KINDRED CONCERNS 551

19. The smith 551 Eurasian 551 Norse 552

20. The bear 559 Finnic bear rites 559

ob ugrian rites 559; smi and finnish-karelian rites 561

Norse bears 563bears as beasts in norse tradition 563; the bear and the warrior 565; beowulf 566; berserkir 567; bvarr bjarki 569 (The bear mate 571; The Smi origin of the bear motifs of Hrlfs saga kraka 574; Conclusion 576); the bear, the wolf and the boar 578

Conclusion 580

VII. EPILEGOMENA 581

21. Conclusion 581

PREFACE

Shamanism and magic within the Norse field have been the subject of several major studies in recent years. Even within the bounds set by our limited medieval sources, the topic is a wide one wide enough, perhaps, not to call for particular pleading when another study is presented. Each scholar has his or her own forte; my own focus is on the literary use of mythic motifs, and this has informed my approach throughout, although not all the discussion is devoted precisely to this consideration. My focus therefore differs somewhat from other recent substantial studies: Neil Price, in his The Viking Way, covers a good deal of the same ground as do I, but his most worthwhile focus is upon archaeological aspects of the topic; Franois-Xavier Dillmann, in Les magiciens dans lIslande ancienne, concentrates on what the title states, magicians (rather than magic as such) as depicted in Icelandic family sagas; John McKinnell, in Meeting the Other in Norse Myth and Legend, offers a detailed analysis of beings such as vlur, but his focus is upon the structural analysis of literary themes, and his ambit extends far further into folklore materials than does mine, though I do indeed recognise that while motifs which appear in literature may have many sources, any attempt, such as, in part, the present one, to glimpse something of the ancient pre-Christian traditions through this literature takes us into a pre-literary world of originally oral tradition, which formed part of the folklore of the people concerned. The present study therefore involves looking at the manipulation of motifs, many (but not all) deriving ultimately from folk tradition, in an increasingly artisitic, literary milieu; yet the overriding concern is to answer the question of whether Norse literature indicates that ancient Scandinavians had the notion of a practice which might reasonably be termed shamanism, whether as an actual phenomenon of ordinary life, or as a motif appearing in fictional settings.

I hope that the length of the present study will not predispose the reader to nod in agreement with the poet and cataloguer of the great library of the ancient world at Alexandria, Callimachus, who proclaimed , a big book is a big evil; the length in fact reflects a fundamental aim I have sought to meet, namely to avoid considering an isolated list of supposedly shamanic features divorced from their context: I therefore present fairly full discussions of the myths and texts in which these features occur, dealing with a wider range of interpretations than the purely shamanic. I do not engage in lengthy consideration of purely historical or archaeological materials or arguments.

The present work is the result of a long process of maturation; I began my investigations in the topics under consideration in the mid-1980s,

xvi FFC 296Clive Tolley

leading to my doctoral thesis, submitted at Oxford University in 1993. Personal circumstances thwarted my intention to develop my research and produce a more substantial and connected interpretation than appeared in my dissertation within a reasonable period thereafter, but, my thoughts on the topic having naturally developed over the years, I am glad now to be able to offer these reflections in a rather more considered form than would have been the case fifteen years ago, and which in important areas also amend earlier published work of mine (the section on Hrlfs saga kraka in Chapter 20 is, however, adapted from my recent article, Tolley 2007a).

Whilst the book is scholarly in intent, I believe it may also be approached by less specialised readers, as well as by scholars whose speciality is not Norse. I have presented as wide a range both of shamanic source material (though still very selective) and of Norse texts as seemed feasible and justi-fied by the aim of contextualising the Norse sources under discussion, and out of consideration for readers who may not otherwise have ready access to them. I have also held to the principle that all materials discussed should not only be presented in the original language whenever possible, but also rendered into English (as translation is interpretation, and the scholar is thereby obliged to clarify what he believes a text to mean; translations are mine unless noted otherwise). I trust too that the reader will find I have been able to avoid any obfuscation of academic jargon and expression.

It is my hope that this volume will contribute positively to the growing debate in this area of research, and that the reader will emerge from this book not only with greater understanding, but also, through that, with greater enjoyment of the works considered and appreciation of the cultures described.

Clive TolleyChester, Christmas 2008

THE COVER ILLUSTRATION

The front cover shows the painting by Thomas Fearnley (180242), a Nor-wegian of English descent, of the Slinde birch, which he completed in 1839. The tree grew on an ancient Iron Age grave mound, Hydneshaugen, in Sogn. It was the subject of a number of romantic paintings and poems in the nineteenth century, which have rendered it one of the best known of Nor-wegian trees, yet its tale is not a happy one. It is clear from local research, in particular by Wilhelm Christie in 1827, that the tree was regarded as holy in the eighteenth century, and offerings of beer were placed at its foot at Christmas, but such customs had dwindled by the early nineteenth century. The mound was supposed to contain treasure, guarded by a white snake, and twelve interlocking copper cauldrons. In 1861, the tree had a girth at ground level of 5.6 metres, and its height was 18.8 metres, whilst the canopy had a diameter of 21.6 metres. The grave mound on which it grew, which was 19 metres in diameter and 4 metres high, was a local boundary nexus; Fearnleys painting illustrates how the tree also functioned, at least metaphorically, as a vertical axis uniting heaven, earth (mountain) and sea, as well as, on a temporal plane, standing on the boundary of light and dark-ness, day and night the discussions later in the present volume suggest these may not have been simply nineteenth-century romantic notions. The tree blew down in a storm in 1874. In 18923 locals dismantled the grave mound, no longer awed by the old stories that disaster would ensue any damage to the monument, and removed three thousand loads of stone from it. A couple of burial cists were found, but no treasure, cauldrons or white snake; no archaeological survey was undertaken. Nowadays a new road and petrol station have, it seems, obliterated what remained of this once revered site.

The Slinde birch is surely a late local manifestation of an ancient Norse tradition of sacred guardian trees, which reached its culmination in myth in the form of the world tree, guarding and sustaining the cosmos and reflecting its passage through time, stretching up to heaven and, like the Slinde birch on its burial mound, reaching down to the world of the dead, where resided the serpent Nhggr and where were to be found springs bestowing life and wisdom, as well as the spring Hvergelmir, the Cauldron Roarer, the source of all waters. In Siberia, it was along the world tree that the shaman was believed to pass to other worlds to fulfil his spiritual missions for his community.

Aside from its topical relevance, Fearnleys depiction of the Slinde birch stands as a fitting symbol for much that is discussed in the present volume: it is an imaginative, artistic response to and use of an object rooted in cult,

ownerNoteupon

xviii FFC 296Clive Tolley

as are many of the poetic and literary sources discussed here, and it por-trays something of erstwhile religious significance, a significance which had already faded into vague memory. The Slinde birch teeters, a thing of beauty, on the brink of oblivion.

I. PROLEGOMENA

1. Introduction

Norsemythisthemaintopicofthiswork,andthemainaimistodiscussandclarifyaselectionofmythsandpractices,inparticularmagicpractices,usuallyinthespecificformofseir.Theselectionismadeonthebasisoftheirarguablyshamaniccharacter,orconnectiontomythswhichmightbesodescribed.Shamanismprovidesmaterialforcomparativeinvestiga-tion,andisusedtohelpelucidatetheNorsemythsinquestion;Iaimtopresentafairlybroadselectionofmaterialsinordertogiveasufficientindicationofthenatureofthesourceswhicharecompared,butitisnotmyaimtoconsiderindetailquestionsofinterpretationposedbyshamanictexts,exceptasthisimpingesonthemainareasofdiscussion:itismyaimtodiscusstheNorsesourcesindetail.

Thescopeofinvestigationisnotconfinedjusttoelementswhichrelatedirectlytoshamanismasareligiousphenomenon:othercharacteristicelementsofthebelief-systemsofsocietieswhichpractisedshamanism,notablycosmologicalconceptssuchastheworldtree,andtheritualofthebearhunt,arealsodiscussed.SomehavefallenintothetrapofascribingshamanismtotheancientScandinaviansonthebasisofcoincidencesofimageryorpracticeinbothNorseandEurasianbelief-systemsrelatingtosuchmeta-shamanicphenomena;clearly,someinvestigationiscalledfortoclarifywhatmayreasonablybesaidontheseissues.Equally,itseemsmisplacedtoconsidertheNorseevidenceinisolationfromotherEuropeanevidenceforshamanic-typepractices,andsosomeconsiderationisgiventothequestionofshamanisminancientGreece,andthewitchcraftofmedievalwesternEurope,andabriefconsiderationismadeofEuropeancontactswiththepeoplesofthesteppeintheearlyMiddleAges,whencesomeshamanicideasmayhavebeenbrought.

Theamountofmaterialrelatingtoclassicshamanismwhichispresentedisinfactbutasmallselection;forausefulcollectionoftextsrenderedintoItalian,seeMarazzi(98). Imakeoneexception:theNorwegianaccountinHistoria NorwegieofSmishamanism,whichIseektoelucidatebothfromaNorseperspectiveandfromthatofSmiandSiberianshamanism. IuseEurasiatorefer,approximately,totheterritoryoftheformerSovietUnion,whichincludesmostoftheareasofclassicshamanism(byextension,theSmiareasarealsoincludedinthecultural-geographicareaofEurasia);Idonotconsiderareassouthofthesteppeinanygreatdetail,thoughIdomakesomeuseforexampleofIndianandJapanesematerial,which,treatingthetermEurasianflexibly,maybeincludedwithinit. IalsomakesomeuseofCelticmaterials,butamorethoroughstudythanasyetexistsofCeltictraditionsofseersandmagicians,themselvesoftenexhibitingbroadlyshamanic

FFC96CliveTolley

Theuseofshamanismasacriterionofselectiondeliberatelyraisesthequestion:didtheNorseinfactpractiseshamanism?Norse(orScandi-navian)referstotheancient,andparticularlypre-Christian,Germanic-speakinginhabitantsofScandinaviaand(secondarily)ofcoloniestheysettledelsewhere(notablyIceland),whoformanycenturiesbeforetheirconversiontoChristianityaroundtheendofthefirstmillenniumhadhadafairlyhierarchicalsocietybasedlargelyonagricultureandtrade,whilstinitsclassicformshamanism,apracticeofmediationwiththespiritworld,isassociatedaboveallwiththescatteredandoftennomadicsocietiesofnorthernSiberia,whichreliedprimarilyonhuntingforsubsistence,andwhichusuallylackedadevelopedsocialhierarchy.

ThereasonforexaminingthisquestionisthatfeaturesarefoundinOldNorseliteratureandotherwritingswhichappeartoreflectcharacteristicattributesoftheclassicformsofSiberianshamanism;thefactthattheNorselivedonornearthegeographicalperipheryoftheclassicshamanicworldgivesusfurthermotivationforexaminingtheissue.However,theproblemsthathinderadirectanswertothequestionaremanifold,chiefamongwhicharethedifficultiesofdefiningshamanismprecisely,andthenofconsideringwhetherNorsepracticesdoinfactfitwithinthisdefinitionataskmadeallthemoretryingbyaninsufficiencyofextantinformationaboutancientScandinavianbeliefsandpractices.WhilstIdonotavoidthesedifficulties,myapproachismoreoneofhighlightinganddefiningascloselyaspossiblewhatdoesremaininourNorsesources,andsee-ingtowhatextentitmaycomparewithclassicSiberianshamanismandalsowithnon-classicformsfromfurthersouth(butwithoutstrayingtoofarintothedefinitionalmazeofwhetheritisshamanismornot).OnelineofargumentoftenpropoundedbythoseeagertouncovershamanismamountstodetectingfeaturesinNorserecordswhichmaybeparalleledinindisputablyshamanicsocieties,andthenconcludingthattheancientScandinavians,eitherinthepaganperiod,oreven,inlatertimes,practisedsomeformofshamanism.Iseektoavoidthislogicalfallacy(formanysuchelementsoccurindividuallyoutsideshamanism),butIalsoseektodiscusssuchareasinsomedetail,without,however,seekingtoelicitargumentsforthepresenceofshamanismwhentheevidencedoesnotsupportit.Thescopeofthestudyis,infact,ratherwider:shamanismactsasapointofreference,butitismyaimtoprobemoregenerallyintothenatureofpre-ChristianbeliefinScandinavia,andinparticularitsexpressioninmyth.Thisinevitablyalsoinvolvesdiscussionofthenatureofoursources,manyofwhicharecomposedwellafterthedisappearanceofpaganismasapractisedsystemofbelieforritual.

Naturally,thetopicofthepresentworkdoesnotemergeex nihilo.Idonotwish,however,togiveadetailedhistoryofthescholarshiponthetopicsuchsurveysaretediousandservelittlepurposebutrathertobringinearlierworkinthecourseofdiscussionatappropriatepoints.Iwillmerely

characteristics,woulddomuchtohelpcontextualisetheNorseevidencewithinabroadernorthEuropeansetting.

FFC96 1.Introduction

note thatcomparisonsbetweenNorseandSmi,andother,shamanicpracticesandbeliefsgobackwellintothenineteenthcentury,notablytoFritznerscomparisonbetweenSmiandNorsemagicpractices(877);in95DagStrmbckarguedforastrongconnectionbetweenNorseseirandSmishamanism,whereaskeOhlmarks(99)sawtheevidenceasnotsupportingsuchalink,whilstrecognisingsimilaritieswithformsofshamanismfromfurtherafield.Inmorerecentyears,thedebatemaybesaidtogobacktoPeterBuchholzsshortthesisof968,whichoutlinedanumberoffeaturesinNorsemythofanostensiblyshamanicnature,andhencerekindledthedebateabouttheextenttowhichancientNorsemenpractisedaformofshamanism.5Thereafteropinionshavebeendividedontheissue,withforexampleRegisBoyerandFranoisDillmannargu-ingagainstanystronglyshamanicpresenceinNorse,whileNeilPriceismoresympathetictotheidea,and,likeStrmbck,seeksparallelsinSmipracticesandbeliefs.Aslongasthedebatefocusesonlyonthosefeatureswhichcanbedirectlyperceivedasshamanicornot,itwillcontinueend-lessly;myownapproachistoattempttoencompassaratherwiderarrayofmaterialinordertoprovideamuchmoresubstantialbodyofcontextualevidenceandargument,ofwhichthedebateonshamanicfeaturesformspart.Ratherthanrelyingon,orreferringto,thepresentationsofprimarymaterialsbyscholarssuchasBuchholzorPrice,Ihavepresentedsuchmaterialsanewalongwithmyowninterpretations(acknowledgingthecontributionsofearlierscholarsasappropriate).

AsnearlyallourancientNorserecordsareliterary6inform,aconstantleitmotivwillbetheinterpretationofthesourceswhichrelatereligiousormythicinformationinthelightoftheirliterarycontext.IfindmyselfmuchinagreementwithJaneHarrison,whointheintroductiontohergreatworkonGreekreligion,Prolegomena,pointedoutthetensioninherentinusingliterarysourcestoilluminatereligion(96:vii):whereasforliteratureHomeristhebeginning,forreligionherepresentsaculmination,acom-pleteachievement,analmostmechanicalaccomplishment,withscarcelyahintoforigines,anaccomplishmentmoreover,whichisessentiallylit-eraryratherthanreligious,scepticalandmoribundalreadyinitsveryperfection.ThesewordsapplyjustasforciblytotheNorsemonuments,

5 Buchholzsthesisisatbestpreliminaryinnature:thenumberoftextsandmythicmotifsdiscussedisverylimited,thereispracticallynodiscussionofthereliabilityandbackgroundofsources,andlittleconsiderationofthedegreetowhichsupposedlyshamanicfeaturesinNorseadduptoanythinglikeasystematicreligiouspractice.6 Byliteraryismeantthatthemainfocusofthepieceisontheaestheticsofthecomposi-tion(useofwords,structuresandsoforth),whetherthecompositioniswrittenororalinorigin;thepointisthatthemainpurposeisnottocommunicateareligiousmessageorinformation.Manyworksmightbetermedsemi-literary,inthatthemainpurposewas(arguably)dividedamongvariousconcerns;forexample,AmadibnFalnsaccountofhisjourneytothekingdomoftheBulgars,whichdescribesaVikingfuneral,waspartlywhatwemightcallethnographic,butthisisbalancedwithadesiretoproduceanaestheti-callypleasingcomposition(inthiscase,wehavethefurthercomplicationthattheextantaccountisinfactonlyasummaryoftheoriginalwithvariouspassagescitedfromit;adifferentsortofproblemalsoarisesfromtheaccountbeingthatofanoutsidertotheculturedescribed).

ownerNoteRgis

FFC96CliveTolley

whereourearliestpoeticrecordsalreadyappearforusashighlycraftedartefacts;noneofthetextsfunctionedashymns,forpurposesofworship,thoughreligiousconsiderations,ormorepreciselytheartisticcraftingofreligiousconceptsinliteraryform,werestillimportantinearlytextssuchasVlusp.Harrisondeclaredherconcerntobewiththesubstratumofreligiousconceptions,atoncemoreprimitiveandmorepermanentwhicharefoundinHomerandelsewhere,andyetheraimwastocometoabet-terunderstandingofsomeformsofGreekpoetry;asimilaraimmotivatesthepresentstudy.Thesourcesareoftentheworksofpoetswhousemate-rialwhich,whileperhapsoriginallypossessedofanessentiallyreligiouspurpose,isalwaysdirectedtopoeticends.Infact,toobscuremattersstillfurther,religionandritearerarelyglimpsedintheliteraturewehave;moreoftenwearepresentedwithmyth,whichmayreflectreligionorritebutdoesnotdosoinanecessarilystraightforwardway.Nonetheless,itisthepracticeandbelieflyingbehindtheliterarypresentationofmyththatissoughtinthisstudybutgiventheindirectwayinwhichthesehavetobeuncovered,theyareboundtobeseenthroughaglassdarkly.Yet,likeHarrison,myultimateaimistoachieveabetterunderstandingofthepoetry(inthiscaseNorsepoetry).7Themoreclearlywecanperceivethenatureofthematerialthepoetsworkedwith,thegreaterwillbeourperceptionofwhatuse,inpoeticterms,theyhavemadeofit.Theaiminthepresentworkisnotprimarilytoproduceabookofliterarycriti-cism,orevenofliterarymotifs,inthewayforexampleMcKinnell(005)doeswithmaterialwhichoverlapswiththatconsideredhere,yetliteraryconsiderationsareboundtoenterthearguments,asisconsistentwiththenatureofoursources.IwouldliketothinkthatthisstudywillfurthertheappreciationofNorsepoetryinliteraryterms,mainlybecausethepoetsdeservetobetreatedforwhattheyare,butalsobecausewithoutitourunderstandingofthemythandreligionwillbeseriouslycompromised,asindeedalreadyhappensalltoofrequentlyatthehandsofthoselackingakeenliteraryawareness.

Methodology

Myapproachtothestudyofthematerialsconsideredisessentiallyprag-maticandseekstoavoidbeinghide-boundtoatheoreticalframeworkimposedfromwithout.Iam,ofcourse,familiarwithvarioustheoreticalapproaches,andhaveemployedthem(orelementsofthem)astheyhaveseemedappropriate.TheonlytheoreticalpositionIadheretoconsistentlyisthatthehumanmindisnotboundbyanyoneapproachtoreality;noindividualtheorywillservetoexplainthemultifariousexpressionsofhumanimagination.8Itismyaimtorespectthecomplexityoftheevidence

7 Proseworksarealsoconsidered,butarelessofafocusofthisstudy(asopposed,forexample,toDillmannsexhaustivestudyofmagiciansinancientIceland(006),wherebycontrastthepoetrylieslargelyoutsidetheworksambit).8 AsBleeker(979:76)notes:Astomethodology,thereactuallyexistsonlyonegeneral

FFC96 1.Introduction

andthementalcapacityoftheoriginalthinkerswhoproducedit,andtoallowthesourcestospeakforthemselvesasfaraspossible;theconverseapproachofapplyinganideologicallyformulatedtheoryandfindingevi-dencetofitithasbeeneschewed.

Itisfundamentaltomyapproachtoplaceanyinferencesaboutthepresenceorabsenceofshamanismwithinasbroadacontextaspossible:throughout,theprimequestionIseektoanswerisWhatisthenatureandmeaningofthetextormotifunderdiscussion?ratherthandirectlyIsthistextormotifshamanic?Inessence,Ifindtheprimarysourcesfarmorefascinatingthananytheoreticaldiscussion;yetafewfurtherremarksmaynotbeoutofplace.

OneprincipleadoptedinthisstudyintheelucidationofNorsesourcesis toworkfromtheclose to thedistant.Closemeansothersourcescloseintimeandplace,anddistantmeanssourcesfurtherremovedintimeorplace.Problemsariseimmediately,ofcourse:mostofourNorsesourcesarewrittendowninthethirteenthorfourteenthcenturies,butmanyarebelievedtobemucholder,inwholeorinpart,andmoreovermanyderivenotsomuchfromtheirplaceofwriting,Iceland(usually),butratherNorwayorelsewhere,withrootsgoingbackfurtherintimeandplace.Aswellasgeographicaldistance,culturaldistancealsohastobetakenintoaccount;IndiantraditionsmaybemoreinformativethanSmi,forinstance,sincebothIndianandNorsemythicsystemsdevelopedoutofasharedIndo-Europeanbase(atleast,soitappears),whereastheSmibelongedtoadifferentculturalsphere.Levelsofculturealsohavetobeborneinmind;anagriculturalsocietywithahierarchyfrompeasantstoprinces(theNorse)isratherdifferentfromsemi-nomadichunterswithonlyrudimentaryanimalhusbandry(theSmi).

Hultkrantz(970:8)writes:Everyallegationwhichismadeconcern-ingareligionoranelementofreligioniscomparativeinitsnature,thisbeingduetothefactthattheidentificationinitselfpresupposesacompari-sonwithotherreligionsandotherelementsofreligion.Hementionsthetwomaintypesofcomparison:betweenphenomenathatcanberelatedgeneticallytoeachother(forexample,theybelongtoonetimeandplace,oroneisaborrowedversionoftheother),andbetweenthosethatcannot(theyarefromsocietieswithnolinks);thepresentstudyinvolvesboth

rule,i.e.thatoneshouldstudythereligiousphenomenabothcriticially,unbiasedly,inascholarlymanner,andatthesametimewithempathyIamfirmlyconvincedthattheaveragehistorianofreligionsshouldabstainfromspeculationsaboutmattersofmethod,whichcanonlybeadequatelysolvedbystudentsofphilosophyandphilosophyofreligion.Thiseminentlysensiblestatementhascomeundermuchbombardmentfrompartisansofthetheorybeforepracticeschool,butisreiteratedbyHultkrantz,who,inanimportantworkonthemethodsofcomparativereligionavailableonlyinSwedish,says(97a:7):Itshould,however,beapparentthateverymethodisonlyahelp-mechanism,thatitonlysuitsaparticulartypeofobjective,andthatahumanistsciencelikecomparativereligionwithitsmanyturnsofinsightcannotbeboundtoanyspecificmethod.Itisalwaystheaimofresearchanditsobjectwhichdeterminewhichmethodologyshouldbeused,anditisuptotheindividualresearchertochoosethemethodhefindsmostpracticalandappropriateinthecontext.Oneandthesamecomparativereligiousinvestigationcanindeedmakeuseofseveralmethods,accordingastheobjectiveschange.

6 FFC96CliveTolley

sortsofcomparison.Ageneticrelationshipbetweenmotifsstrengthensthecaseforinterpretingoneinthelightoftheother.Yetthepursuitofgeneticrelationshipsbetweenphenomenaisoftenboundtofizzleoutinuncertainty,giventheinevitablesparsityofinformation,andthepursuitofgeneticrelationshipposesproblems:forexample,whyshouldweaccepta priorithatthesocietyofadherentstoanIndo-EuropeanmythicsystemwascoterminouswiththesocietyofspeakersofIndo-Europeanlanguages,orindeedpostulatethatsuchathingasIndo-Europeanmythexistedasadefinableentityatall?9Inthepresentstudy,Ihavenotpursuedthematterofgeneticrelationshipfar,butIhaveassumedthatsucharelationshipexistswithotherIndo-Europeanmythicsystems,andIhaveprovidedahistoricalaccountoflinksbetweenScandinaviaandsocietieswithacknow-ledgedshamanism,toillustratethegeneralpointthatageneticrelation-shipmayhaveexistedinmanycases(butIdonotseektoproveitotherthanincertaininstances),astheNorsewereindirectcontactwiththeSmiandFinns,andprobablywithotherSiberianpeoplesontheirtraderoutestoBjarmalandanddowntotheByzantineEmpire.Suchrelationships,wheretheyareofagenetickind,couldeitherreflectdirectborrowing,oracommonparticipationinawidespreadandgeographicallycontiguouscircumpolarculture.0

Insofarasthecomparisonsarenon-genetic,theaimmaybedescribedastypological,inotherwordstodelineatewhatNorsefeaturesareofthesametypeasthosefoundelsewhere,andinwhatways:onlyoncethisisdonecanquestionsaboutborrowing,sharedmentalcomplexesandsoforthbeconsidered.Thefurtherpurposeofmakingtypologicalcomparisonsmay,however,betosuggestmeanings,orstructures,withinmythictraditions,evenwhentheyarenot(apparently)related.Theassertion,whichIfollow,isthatpeople,atleastthoselivinginroughlycomparableeconomicandsocialsettings,tendtorealiseagivennotionabouttheworldinsimilarsymbolicways,evendowntodetails;whythisshouldbeisintheprovinceofpsychologists,buttheimplicationisthatwhenweencountersimilar

9 Cf.Hultkrantz (97a: 65),whoobjects to theprincipleof stopping comparisons atlanguageboundaries,sincereligiousstudiesarenotthesameasphilology,andheasksifforexamplesufisminArabiaandIranshouldberegardedasdistinctphenomenaonthegroundsthatthelanguagesofthetwocountriesareunrelated.Heobservesthatitiswellrecognisedthatmythsandtaleswanderfromonepeopletoanotherirrespectiveoflanguage.0 ThepossibilityofanIndo-Europeanheritageofshamanismcanalsonotbedismissed;thusFleck(97b:57,65)notessimilaritiestoIranianpractices,forexample.Infact,lexicalborrowingsinforexampleFinnish(suchasnimi,name,orvesi,water)indicatecontactbetweenproto-Indo-Europeanandproto-Uralicspeakers,andatasubsequentperiodtherewasstrongcontactbetweenFinno-UgricspeakersandIndo-IraniansinwhichitappearsmuchreligiousvocabularyenteredtheFinno-Ugriclanguages.Theancientandlong-stand-ingcontactbetweenUralicandIndo-Europeanpeoplesatleastraisesthepossibilityofshamanicideaspassingbetweenthem,andcertainlyillustratesthecomplexityoftryingtotracegeneticrelationshipbetweenreligiousideas. Itisworthnotingthatcommonlyacceptednotionssuchasthatofacircumpolarculturalcomplex(towhichIdonotbelieveancientScandinaviabelonged,otherthanincertainaspectswhichwereprobablyborrowed)aretypologicalinnature,andnotproved,overall,byevidenceofculturalcontact.

FFC96 1.Introduction

symbolisms,onemayelucidatethemeaningoftheother.Iam,however,farfromEliadesrealist,orneo-Platonicidealist,position,withhisnotionsofthelogicofsymbolsandinvariantcoremeanings;thecomparisonsareintroducedbywayofsuggestion,andthelikelihoodoftheirbeingusefuldependsonhowmuchsupportingevidencethereis,andhowfarwebelievestructuresofmythtendtobereplicatedthroughouttheworld(forwhateverreason).Traditionis,inanycase,alwaysvariable.Meaningresidesinaninteractionbetweenaccepted(butchanging)traditionandindividualcreativity,sothatamythorsymbolcannotinfacteverbesaidjusttohaveonemeaningperse(hence,mypositionisfundamentallyinformedbynominalisminawayEliadesisnot).

Needlesstosay,theresultsofcomparisonareboundtobespeculativetoagreaterorlesserextent,butuncertaintyisahallmarkofalmostanyconsiderationofmedievalsources.Thereisacertaininadequacyimposedbythepracticalnecessityofisolatingmerelyoneaspectofancientreligion,namelyshamanism,andtheinsufficiencyofcontextualisedsourcemateri-alsonboththeNorseandSiberiansidesleadstoadiscussionwhichmightotherwisebemoreholisticinitsapproach.Nonetheless,theseproblemsarerelative,anddonotprecludeusfrommakingusefulobservationsaboutNorsemonuments.

Some conceptsreligion

Religionhasbeendefinedinmanydifferentways.Thefunctionaldefini-tionofreligionasultimateconcern,suggestedbyBaird(97:8),mayappealinageneralstudyofreligion,butisscarcelyofmuchuseintheNorsefield:wecannot,giventhepaucityofsources,determinewhatwasofultimateconcerntopeople,amatterwhichnodoubtvariedfromonepersontothenextanyway;wecannotsayinanycasethatworshipofthepre-ChristiangodsoftheNorsepeoplenecessarilywas,orrelatedto,theirultimateconcern.Forthepresentpurposes,especiallygiventhatthisworkisnotprimarilyconcernedwiththenatureofreligioninitself,thedefinitionofHultkrantz(97a:,mytranslation)isadequate:thecertaintyoftheexistenceofasupernaturalworld,acertaintywhichismainlyexpressedinvarioussortsofopinionsrelatingtobeliefandwhichinconcretetermsismanifestedinritesandobservances,aswellasinnarrativeaccounts.Inmostcases,itis(theoutwardmanifestationof)Norsereligionthatisreferredto,thatistheworshipofthesirandvanirgodsandrelatedbeliefs

AusefulsummaryofEliadesapproachisgivenbyJohnCliffordHoltinhisintroductiontoEliade(996:xivxv).ForalengthyandpenetratingdiscussionofEliadesapproach,seeDudley(977).Dudley(ibid.9),followingLakatos,makesanimportantpointaboutmethodologyandfalsificationtheories:hesuggeststhatinsteadofattemptingtousemeth-odologicalfalsification,asystemshouldbejudgedonwhetheritisprogressive,leadingtothediscoveryofneworunexpectedphenomenaandaccountingforknownbutunexplainedphenomena,ordegenerative,whenitceasestoclarifyunexplainedfactsandwhentherearealternativetheoriesthatpromisetobemoreprogressive.

FFC96CliveTolley

andpractices,especiallyasexpressedinoursurviving,mainlywritten,monuments.Shamanismiscountedasareligiouspracticereflectingthereligiousbeliefsystemofthesocietyconcerned.Religionsmayimposeethicalcodesonadherents,asinthereligionsoftheBook;theymayalsobeprimarilyaimedatenlisting(orinthecaseofmagiccompelling)theaidofdivinepowerstofurthertheaimsofindividualsorcommunitiesinanamoralfashion.MostsourcesindicatethatNorsereligionwasofthelattersort;thesameistrueofmanyformsofshamanism.Thedivisionisscarcelyhardandfast,however,andonesortmaydevelopintotheother(Judaism,forinstance,appearstohavemovedoverintotheethicalcategoryinthecourseofitsrecordedhistory).

Connectedwith religion are terms usedwhen two religions cometogether.Baird(97:)haspointedouttheneedforamorepreciseterminologyhere; thus,whenelements fromdifferent religions cometogetherinaharmoniousunitthenthetermsynthesisisappropriate;whentheelementsco-existwithoutconsistency,wehavesyncretism;whenanelementisabsorbedfromoutsideandtheborrowingreligionchangesasaresult,wehavereconception.Yetdeterminingwhichprocessisatplayinanygiveninstancerequiresanobjectiveknowledgeofthehistoryofthereligionsinquestion,whichisrarelyavailableinthecaseofNorsepaganism.

ritual

Ritesmayrelatetomanyaspectsoflifepassagefromonestatetoanother(suchasadolescence),theseasons,commemorations,exchange,commu-nion,affliction,feasting,fasting,politics(Bell997:9).Althoughritualhassometimesbeenseenasasortofdramatisedversionofmyth,suchaviewisnowrejected;therelationshipofritualtomythisoftencasual,sotheonecannotautomaticallybeusedtoilluminatetheother(G.Kirk970:8).Ritescanonlybeunderstoodbytakingtheirwholesocialcontextintoaccount,yettheyarenotmerelyreflectionsofsocialorder(orofmythicorder).Bell(997:8)argues:Theseritesalsofunctiontoreinforcethesocialstatusquo,sincetemporaryinversionsorsuspensionsoftheusualorderofsocialrelationsdramaticallyacknowledgethatorderasnorma-tive.Henceritualistheoccasiontoexaggeratethetensionsthatexistinthesocietyinordertoprovideasocialcatharsisthatcansimultane-ouslyaffirmunityandeffectsomesemblanceofit.Thegoalofritualassuchistochanneltheexpressionofconflictintherapeuticwayssoastorestoreafunctioningsocialequilibrium.Therehas,ofcourse,beenalong

A.Jensen(96:)regardsshamanismasmagic:Shamanismasweencounterittodayisinseparablefromactsofvolition,whichinextremeformsdonotevenhesitatetomakethedeitysubservienttohumanwill.Thisisgenuinemagic;throughit,shamanismattainsitsexceptionalposition.Thislegitimateviewpointraisesmattersofthedistinctionbetweenreligionandmagic,whichIdonotbelieveitwouldbebeneficialtodiscusshere.Forthepresentpurposes,magicmayberegardedasasubclassofreligion,oneinwhichritualisticcontrolofthesupernaturalplaysasignificantrole.

9FFC96 1.Introduction

traditionofsocialinterpretationofritual(withvaryingideasabouthowritualreflectssociety),butthisisnottheonlydimension:ritualclearlyalsofulfilsareligiousfunction,andalsoparticipatesinthesymbolicworldoftheadherentsthesymbolsofritualmustbeinterpretedintermsofthepositiontheyoccupywithintheoverallsystemofsymbolsoperatingwithinthesocietyconcerned(ibid.).Ritualactionmaybemetaphoric(forexample,pouringwaterstandsforrain)ormetonymic(acrownstandsforroyalauthority).Aninterpretationofthesocio-mythicstructureofritualisofferedbyBouritius(979:067),whoarguesthatritualreflectswhathetermsamacro-micro-cosmicorderrelationship:mostsocietiesbelievethatamacrocosmicprimordialchaosisabolishedbytheestablish-mentofamacrocosmicorder,whichisrealisedonthemicrocosmiclevelasahumansociety,thelifeofwhichmaintainsorder.Yetthereisalwaysalatenttensionbetweenhiddenchaosandorder,sothatorderisperceivedaspotentialdisorder,andallritualsaredirectedatthecontinuationandrealisationoftheeverlastingorderofmacrocosmicandmicrocosmicrela-tionship.Whilstorderitselfiseverlasting,theformsinwhichitisrealisedareinastateofchange,sothatritualsaretobeunderstoodasorderingacontinuum,andasfightingthehiddenchaoslatentinalllife.Therearethreetypesofrituals,dedicatedtoordering,re-orderingornew-orderingthemacro-micro-relationship.Thefirstincludesritesofpassage,whichputallmembersofacommunityintheirjustplace,anddailyritualsneededinordinarylife,suchashuntingrituals;thesecondgroupincludessea-sonalrituals,re-orderingsocietyanditsconcreteenvironmentofplaceandtimeontheeverlastingmodeloftheoriginalmacro-cosmicorder,andrenewingthepowersofnature,aswellasritualsdirectedagainstlatentchaosineverydaylife,suchashealingoranti-witchcraftrituals;thethirdgroupincludesforexampleritualsofnewreligiousmovements,whichchangetheorderofthemacro-micro-cosmicrelationshipintotallynewcircumstancesunboundedtokinship,timeorplace.

myth

Imaginationiscentraltomyth.Amythconveysanunrealitythatisimag-inedasreal.Amythisatalethoughitmaybepresentedsoallusivelyastolackalmostallnarrativethread.5Mythsmaybedistinguishedfromlegends,whichpurporttocommunicatehistoricalstories,thoughsincegodsandsupernaturalbeingsinterveneinlegends,andsincelegendsmaybehumanisedversionsofdivinemyths,thedistinctionisoftendifficulttomakeinpractice.Mythsarealsoinprincipledistinctfromfolktales,inwhichthesupernaturalelementissubsidiaryandthenarrativeelement

IthankUrsulaDronkeforthissuccinctdescription.5 InNorsepoetry,aso-calledkenningmaybeanallusiontoamythicorlegendarymotif(ornarrative);forexampleDraupnis dgg,dewofDraupnir,designatesgold,sincethemythologicalringDraupnirdrippedgoldringsfromitself.Eveninextendedpoems,thenarrativeelementmaybelimited:forexample,amythofrrisalludedtoinrsdrpa,butratherbymeansofaseriesofscenesthanalinkednarrative.

10 FFC96CliveTolley

tothefore;again,sincemythsoftenemployfolktaleelements,particularlyforinstancesofingenuity,theoneclassoverlapswiththeother.Mythsaredistinguishedasbeingaboutseriousmattersthismaybethegods,orthecreationoftheworld,orreflectionsondeepproblems(ofsocietyorindividuals);nonetheless,amongtheseseriousmattersmaysometimesbecountedhumour.Mythsarenotnarrativeversionsofrituals:thecon-nectionwithritualsisoftentenuousandtrivial;nordotheynecessarilyreflectreligiouspracticesorbeliefs.Mythsareusuallytraditional,andexistaspartofculturalheritage,buteachretellingalterselements,sometimesdrastically,andanon-traditionalmythisatheoreticalpossibility.Interpre-tationsofmythnodoubtvariedfromtimetotime,placetoplace,persontoperson.InNorse,weusuallyhaveamythpreservedonlyonceorafewtimes,andofteninafragmentaryorallusiveform.Eachrealisationofamythisdistinct,andwemustaimtodistinguishbetweenwhatthepoetinheritedandwhathehasaltered,rearrangedoremphasiseddifferently,despitethedifficultyofdoingsoinmanyinstances.6

Itisunacceptabletoimposeaparticulargeneralisedtheoryonallmyth,suchasstructuralismorsocialfunction.Atthesametime,itmustbeborneinmindthatmythsoften,ifnotalways,servedafunctionbeyondthepurelynarrative,beitreligious,political,initiatoryorwhatever,andhencethestruc-turingofaparticularversionmaybesubjecttotheseexternalfactors.

Iassumeonthepartofthereaderanunderstandingthatmythsareoftenexpressed throughfigurative language; Idonotundertakeanydiscussionofthistopichere,sincemuchhasalreadybeenwrittenonit.AsanexampleofwhatIreferto,considerthementalprocessesatworkwhenashamansaysthathisdrumisaboatwhichtakeshimtotheotherworld;havingsetoffonthispathofmetaphor,theshamanisthenfreetoelaboratethepictureoftheboatinquestion.Boththedrumandboatarelegitimateobjectsofstudy(arebothreal,sotospeak)inthecontextofthepresentstudy;itisnecessarytobeabletoperceivethedistinctionbetween,forexample,physicalobjectsofritualsorconceptssuchasthestructureofthecosmosandmythicalobjectswhichexplainormaterialisethem,whilstalsodiscerningtheconceptualinterpenetrationinvolved.7Theessentialfigurativityofmythalsoallowsfor,indeedencourages,thefiguringofconceptsinmultipleways,evenwithinonemythandthealltoofrequentattemptstoapplylogicattheexpenseofimaginationtotheinterpretationofmythsleadstoanover-systematisedandstultifiedmisapprehensionofthepoeticcreativitywhichengenderedandrefinedthem.Thuswhen,forexample,IsuggestthatrmaybeviewedbothasanssmatetothevanrFreyja,andasarealisationofherowninspiredsoul,r,itisnotbecauseIamhedgingmybetsastothecorrectinterpretation,

6 ThissummaryofmythisbasedlargelyonG.Kirk(970:70).Hepointsouttheunac-ceptabilityofpinpointingthefunctionofmythingeneral:forexample,heattacksLvi-Strausssnotionthatallmythsmediatecontradictions,ortheideasofthenature-mythschool,andsoforth.7 Siikaladiscussesthisareaatgreaterlengthwithspecificreferencetoshamanictexts(00:960,whencethedrum/boatexampleistaken;seealsotheworksreferredtothere).

11FFC96 1.Introduction

butbecauseIbelievethatancientpoetsexploitedallthepotentialreadingsofthemythstheytold,andofthewordstheyusedintellingthem.

evolutionismandchange

Evolutionismisthenotionthatreligionsdevelopalongapredictablecoursefromprimitivetoadvanced,anditisusuallynormative,i.e.eachsuccessivestageisregardedasbetterthantheprevious.Thisapproach,typicalofthenineteenthcentury,8isnowdefunct;9thepointofmentioningitistodistinguishitfromlegitimateapproachestotheuncoveringofprocessesofreligiouschange.Anexampleofthisistheecologyofreligion,whichseekstorelatethetypeofreligionfoundinasocietytoitsrelationshiptoitsenviron-mentandhencethesourceofitseconomy;thecorrespondenceispertinentparticularlyinmoreprimitivesocieties(seeHultkrantz979).

Animportantaspectofculturalchangeisthesurvivalofelementsfromearlierstages,whichmaybesimplepractices,superstitionsoraspectsoftheoverallworldview,whichmakestatementsaboutrealitywhicharenolongerexperiencedastrue.Inpracticethismeansthatininvestigatinganyreligioussystem,weshouldexpecttofindelementswhichareinconsistentwitheachotherbecausetheyreflectdifferentratesofchange,orforthatmattermayreflectdifferentgeographicalorigins.

Intheunfurlingofreligious,andindeedcultural,changethereisaninterplayofthepolaritiesofcreativityandUrdummheit.ThetermUrdummheitwasusedbyevolutionistswithreferencetothesupposedstateofprimordialhumanignorance,butisappropriatedbyA.Jensen(96:8)asanaptwordforsomethingfoundatallstagesofhumandevelopment:itisspirituallyuncreativeitwasinmostinstancesasignificantforceinthedegenerationoforiginallymeaningfulphenomenaintosemanticallydepletedroutines.Thus,whateverstageofaculturewelookat,weshallfindsuchdepletedroutines,aswell,perhaps,asnewlycreativeformsofexpression.

Thesepointsarementionedasapotentialtheoreticalmeansofjustifyingtheexistenceofsomethinglikeshamanism,whichisafterallcharacter-isticofsociallynon-hierarchicalhuntingsocieties,asasurvivalwithinNorsereligioneventhoughthesocietywasclearlyhierarchical(andnotprimarilybasedonahuntingeconomy);moreover,whileitmayhavebeenameaningfulphenomenoninsaythetenthcentury,itcouldhavebecomefossilisedanddepletedbythethirteenth.

8 ItwaspursuedbyleadingscholarssuchasMller,TylorandLang.9 Thefactthatcertainhumanactivities,forexamplescientificknowledge,involveprogresshastheunfortunateeffectofpersuadingpeoplethatallhumanactivitiesprogress;religiousevolutionismwasacruderesponsetothenewthinkingofDarwinism.A.Jensen(96:)putsthecasewell:Ithaslongbeenapparentthattheideaofprogresscouldcontributestatementsofonlylimitedvaluetoculturehistory.Whowouldapplyprogresstoacom-parisonoftheworkofBeethoven,Bach,andCorelli?Buttheinalienable,individualworthofaculture,whichpermitsnocomparisonwithothercultures,isnotfundamentally(andneversolely)determinedbythesumandthedistinctivenessofrationalcognitiveelements;itliesinagenuinecreativitywhichcanneverbeanythetruer,morebeautiful,orbetter,forbelongingtoamoreadvancedperiod.

. Thenatureofthesources

Thegreatmajorityofsourcesusedinthepresentworkarewritten;Idelimitthefieldofinvestigationtoexclude,otherthanincidentally,sourcesofanarchaeologicalnature,orwhichstemfromlateroralfolktradition.InthecaseofNorsetexts,theyarenotonlywritten,butalsochieflyliterary,orsometimeshistorical,innature,anddatepredominantlytobeforearound00.Shamanictextsaremainlyofabroadlyethnographicnature,recordedbyoutsidersobservingthepracticesofshamanicpeoples;theyaremainlyfromtheseventeenthtotwentiethcenturies.TheprincipaltextswhichareconsideredinthediscussionsarepresentedintheSourcessectioninthesecondvolume(whichitisintendedshouldbeusedinconjunctionwiththediscussionsthroughout);somegeneralobservationsaboutthesourcematerialsareofferedhere,butmoredetailedpresentationsofthebackgroundandinterpretationoftheindividualtextsaregiven,inthemain,inthecourseofdiscussionlaterinthevolume.

Sources for shamanism

Oursourcesofinformationonshamanismarevaried.RecordsofSiberianshamanismbegininthethirteenthcentury,butbecomeplentifulonlyintheseventeenth;fullandreliableaccountsweremadefromabout880,andfromtheearlytwentiethcenturyonwardstrainedethnologists,sometimesnativetoshamaniccultures(forexample,Banzarov),haveundertakenextensivefieldwork,whichhas,however,beenincreasinglythetakingdownofthelastvestigesofmoribundtraditions.

AftertheRevolution,shamanismcontinuedtobeasubjectofresearchbySovietscientists;theyarecharacterisedbyamoreorlessovertpoliticalagenda,predictablyreflectingamaterialistMarxist-Leninistperspective.Whilstagooddealofusefulinformationisgiven,theideologicalapproach

Forastudywhichseekstoincorporatefarmorearchaeologicalmaterialintothediscus-sionofNorseshamanism,seePrice(00).Iamnotanarchaeologist,andwhilstacceptingthatarchaeologymaysometimeshaveusefulmaterialtooffer,Iremaingenerallyscepticalthatphysicalobjectsbythemselves,withoutsomepieceofwritingorotherexpressionofhumanthoughtuponwhichtohanganinterpretation,cansuggestmeanings(asdistinctfromanyutilitarianpurposetheirformsuggests).TheclassiccaseistheScandinavianrockpaintings,whichappeartoberepletewithnarrativesofpossiblyreligioussignificance,which,however,wecanneverfathomordefinemorespecificallythantoobserve,forexam-ple,thatthesunplayedasignificantpartinprehistoricreligion;theextensiveliteratureontheseisthereforemoreorlessignoredhere(seeSchjdt986,and,forasomewhatmorepositiveviewoftheusefulnessofrockartincomparativereligiousstudy,Hultkrantz986;thereare,admittedly,someinterestingcontributionstotheinterpretationofScandinavianrockart,suchasBradley006). SeeSiikala(978:7787)foradetailedaccountofthehistoryofrecordingofinformationonSiberianshamanism.

1FFC96 2.Thenatureofthesources

cansometimescallintoquestiontheirvalueasscientificstudies,andtheself-adulatorytoneofsomeofthem,contrastingwithwhatwasactuallytakingplaceintheSovietempire(inparticularprogrammesdesignedtorootoutallaspectsoflocalcultures),canmakethemparticularlysick-eningtoread.SincethrowingofftheshacklesofCommunismresearchhasfortunatelycontinuedandismoreoveroftenpublishedinEnglishorGerman.

Shamanismhasalsobecome,overthelastfewdecades,amajorcom-ponentingeneralanthropologicalandreligiousstudiesintheWest(see,forexample,thewholechapterdevotedtoit,withreferencestofurtherworks,inMorris006).Suchworksoftenexpendconsiderableeffortonmatterssuchasthedistinctionbetweentrance,ecstasyandpossessioninanattempttoplumbthereligiousnatureofshamanism,aswellasseekingtoplacethestudyofshamanismwithinphilosophicalschoolsofanthropo-logyorreligiousstudy.Thesemoregeneralconsiderationslieoutsidetheambitofthepresentwork.

Sinceshamanismstillsurvives(just),therearesomeexcellentmodernstudiesbasedonfieldwork.IwouldmentionasexemplaryJaneAtkinsonsThe Art and Politics of Wana Shamanship(989)andCarolineHumphreysShamans and Elders: Experience, Knowledge, and Power among the Daur Mon-gols(996).TomentionsomepointsfromHumphreyswork:theemphasisisuponshamanismasonepartoftheoverallcultureoftheDaurs,andindeeddeterminedinitsnaturebythatculture.Notonlyisaquestioning,comprehensiveapproachtaken,buttheveryassumptionsthataWesternerbringstothequestioningarethemselvesquestioned.Unfortunately,suchapproachesarerare,andhaveonlytakenplaceinveryrecentyears,whenshamanismhaslargelydisappearedfrommanyareasoftheworld(par-ticularlyfromSiberia).Humphrey,however,wasinaprivilegedposition,ofhavinganativeinformantwhohadspentmuchofhislifeintheWest,andsocouldcommunicatehisideasclearly,andthiswassupplemented

MostofthemajorRussianresearchintoshamanismhasappearedinoneformoranotherinEnglishorGerman;thereare,ofcourse,manystudiesavailableonlyinRussian,butthesearegenerallyconcernedwithwhatmightbetermedtheminutiaeofshamanism,whichitisbeyondtheaimofthepresentstudytoconsiderexceptinsofarastheyarerelevanttoNorsematerials.Hence,wheneverpossible,IusematerialswhichhavebeenpublishedinWesternlanguages,whicharemoreaccessibletomostscholarsofNorse(myselfincluded),bothlinguisticallyandintermsoflibraryholdings.ForadetailedstudyofSovietresearch-ersintoshamanism(primarilyoftheSamoyedpeoples)andtheirpoliticalagendas,seeSundstrm(008).. On the issueof trance/ecstasy/possession, it seemsclear that inpracticeshamanismincludedvariousdegreesofalteredconsciousness,evenwithinasingletradition,whichstretchedfromanunalteredstatetooneinwhichtheshamanmightappearmerelyavesselofthespirits.Thedeterminationofthephysiologicaldifferencesbetweensuchstatesisnotofrelevanceinthepresentstudy,noraretheyusedtodeterminethepresenceorabsenceoftrueshamanism.Itmaybeexpectedthatingeneralpossessionwillinvolvethesummon-ingofspiritstotheshamantospeakthroughhimorher,whereastranceismorelikelytoinvolvetheshamanssoulundertakingjourneystothespiritrealms,butexamplessuchastheIndianSoras,wherespiritsspeakthroughtheshaman,yettheshamanisalsobelievedtotraveldowntotherealmofthedead(Vitebsky99:),showthatanysuchsimpleexpectationsareoftenlikelytobefrustrated.

1 FFC96CliveTolley

byvisitstotheareastudied,wherefurtherinterviewswereobtained.Wecannotquestionthepastinthisway,onlyweighupfragmentaryandbiasedsources,andourresultsareboundtobemorehesitant.Essentially,thefurtherwegobackfromthepresent,thelesssatisfactorythesourcesbecome.

AnotherwayoflookingatourrecordsofshamanismisfromthepointofviewofRezeptionsgeschichte:almostalltheaccountswehaveareetic,andthereforerepresentaviewofonetypeofsociety(generallyamoreprimi-tiveone)byanother(inthemain,amodernorearly-modernWesternone).Whilstthisisafascinatingtopic,whichindeedhasspawnedanumberofimportantstudies(suchasFlaherty99;Hutton00;and,withafocusmoreuponneo-shamanism,Znamenski007),itisconcernedessentiallywiththerecipient,non-shamanic,society,andhenceliesoutsidethecom-passofthepresentstudy.Thereisoneareaofexception,however.Thestudiesmentionedarealmostinvariablydeficientinthattheybegintoolate,oftenonlywithseventeenth-centuryaccounts.OurearliestreasonablydetailedWesternaccountofshamanismisfromthetwelfthcentury,anditisNorwegian(theHistoria Norwegie);5anumberofother,lesssignificant,accountsofSmishamanismalsoexistinScandinaviansourcesbeforethemainrecordsbeginintheseventeenthcentury.MydiscussionofthesesourcesthereforecomplementsthepublishedstudiesofthereceptionofshamanismintheWest.

Shamanismwaspractisedbyspeakersofmanylanguagegroups.TheneighboursoftheNorsemenwerepredominantlyFinno-Ugricspeakers(theSmiandtheFinns,withothergroupsscatteredinEuropeanRussia,throughwhomtheVikingspassedonthewaytotheeasternMediterra-nean).NotallFinno-Ugricspeakershadadevelopedformofshamanism,atleastinhistoricaltimes,buttheSmicertainlydid,asdidtheObUgrians(theKhantyandMansi).TheHungarians,whosplitfromtheotherObUgriansinthefirstmillenniumadandmigratedsouth,appeartohavepreservedvestigesofshamanism,asrecordedinHungarianfolklore(see,forexample,Oinas987,HopplinSiikalaandHoppl99:5668,Voigt00),buttheinterminglingwithtraditionslocaltotheCarpathianareapresentsproblemsofinterpretationwhich,whilefascinating,wouldleadthepresentstudytoofarastray;henceIuseHungarianmaterialsonlysporadically.MoreobviouslyrelevanttotheNorseareaarethebeliefsoftheirneighbourstheFinns.Finnish6sourcespresenttheirownprob-lems.ShamanisminFinlandsurvivedinacoherentbutremnantform,ascomparedwithclassicshamanism,andtheFinnishsourcesusedinthe

5 ThenextoldestWesternaccountswouldappeartobethoseofPiandelCarpine,whowroteofTatarpracticesseenonanexpeditionof6,andMarcoPolosaccountofChineseshamanism(writtenin98)(Flaherty99:67).6 IuseFinnishasashort-handforFinnish/Karelian:themajorityoftraditionalpoetictextswererecordedinKarelia,whichspanstheFinnishRussianborder,butmostofwhichinfactliesoutsideFinland.VariousdialectswerespokeninKarelia,allcloselyrelatedtomorewesterlyFinnishbutdistinctincertainrespects(KareliandialectshavenowlargelybeendisplacedbyRussian).

1FFC96 2.Thenatureofthesources

presentvolumearenotonlyshamanicbutalsomythic,andaremostlypoetic;theyarethuscomparabletoNorsesources,preservingancientmotifsintraditionalverse.TheearliestwritertogiveinformationaboutFinnishgodsistheLutheranreformerMikaelAgricola(5057).7SeriouscollectionofmythologicalpoemsdidnothoweverbeginuntilthelateeighteenthcenturyundertheinspirationofGabrielPorthan;therearenowsome50,000poems(mostlyvariants)intheKalevalametreinthearchivesoftheFinnishLiteratureSociety,ofwhicharound86,800havebeenpublishedinthemulti-volumeSuomen kansan vanhat runot(AncientpoemsoftheFinnishpeople),nowavailableonline(Timonen000:67).8ThedatingofFinnishpoemsposesproblems.Astheybelongfirmlytoanoraltradition,ourrecordsmerelypresentaparticularversionofapoemassungononeoccasion;nonetheless,thesepoems,consideredasanartisticassemblageofthemesratherthanofspecificwords,haveanoriginataparticularpointofhistory.Yetworkingoutwhatthatpointmayhavebeenisfraughtwithdifficulty.Kuusiproposedasystemforestablishingbroaddatesforpoems,basedonvariousfactors.Oneofthesefactorsisstyle(assetoutforexampleinKuusi99a);whileKuusisanalysisofdif-ferencesinstyleintraditionalpoemsisinteresting,theinferencesdrawnaboutwhatstylesarelikelytohaveoriginatedatanyhistoricalperiodarecharacterisedbyrathermoreassertionthanevidentialproof;9moreover,

7 OnthecollectionofFinnishfolkbeliefsandpoemsseeVirtanenandDubois(000:ch.),Hautala(95,958);abriefaccountisalsogiveninFFPE(pp.78).Althoughitscarcelyconstitutesafullscholarlyedition,IrefertoFFPEforversionsofrelevantpoemswhenpossible,sinceitprovidesafairlysubstantialcollectioninFinnish,withEnglishtranslation,ofsomeofthemainFinnishpoems(including,onoccasion,variants),aswellasbriefintro-ductionsandcommentaryoneach.Thereis,ofcourse,ahugeliteratureinFinnishwhichinformsthesepresentations,someofwhichislistedinFFPE,andwhichIrefertowhenitappearsenlighteningonpointsunderdiscussion.OneofthemainearlieranthologiesoftraditionalpoetryinFinnishisHaavio(980,ndedn),whichhasvaluablediscussionsofmythologicalbackground,thoughitisratheroutdated(beingwrittenin95),presentsthepoemsinstandardisedFinnishwithoutascriptionofsinger,placeorcollector,lacksaline-by-linecommentary,anddoesnotdiscusssocialcontextorpurpose.8 ForreadersnotconversantwithFinnish,itisworthpointingoutthatasmostpoemsexistinmanysometimeshundredsofvariants,theselectionof8poemseditedandtranslatedinFFPEinfactpresentsafarlargerproportionofthetotalnumberofmajornar-rativeandmythologicalthemes(asopposedtopoemvariants)thanmightbeapparent.9 AsanexampleoftheproblematicnatureofthemethodologyofsuggestingdatesmaybementionedcomparisonwithNorsepoems(forexampleKuusi99:8); thesearethemselvesoftenofuncertaindate,andthestylisticinterpretationsheuses,byscholarssuchasFinnurJnssonandErikNoreen,haveofcoursebeensubjectedtohalfacenturyofcriticism.Inanycase,theco-existenceofstylisticfeaturesintwotraditionsonlyweaklysuggestscontemporaneityofthesefeatures,evenifitcanbeproved;infact,itisunlikelythatFinnishoralpoetryunderwentsimilarchronologicallydeterminedstylisticdevelop-mentstoNorseskaldicverse,fromwhichitisutterlydistinctinalmosteveryaspect.Kuusisnotionsofwhatconstitutesastylewouldneedgreaterspacethancanbeaffordedhere;itissimplyworthpointingoutthat,valuableasatypologicalanalysisoffeaturessuchassyntaxis,itisimpossibletoassignparticularsyntacticfeaturestoparticularperiodswithoutexternalcorroboratingevidence.Kuusi(978:)alsosuggestsalineofdevelopmentoftheKalevala-typeverseform,whichherelatesbroadlytoactualdates:butthischronologicalschemeisbasedonnowdiscreditednotionsofwhentheFinnsoccupiedgivenpartsofFinland,andneedswhollyreconsidering.

16 FFC96CliveTolley

thecategorisationofthefeaturesofaparticularstylederiveinlargepartfromthesubjectiveopinionsofthemodernscholaritisimpossibletodemonstratethatanytraditionalfolk-poetrysingerwouldacceptthem.0Thereisaclearneed,whichhasstillnotbeenmet,toattempttodelineatethestylisticfeaturesofindividualsingers,ofparticularcommunities,andofthewholeKalevala-typeversearea,beforeanyfirmerargumentscanbedrawn.Thereare,ofcourse,manyotherfactorsinvolvedinassigningadatetotraditionalpoems;nonetheless,theneedforare-examinationofsomeoftheargumentsisworthnoting(tosomeextent,morerecentschol-arship,asexemplifiedbySiikala00,seekstoestablishbroaderculturalepochsaslikelytohavegivenrisetoelementswithinthepoems,withoutbeingpreciseeitheraboutdatesoraboutindividualpoemsprovenances).Despitesuchdoubts,itis,inanycase,clearthat,asinNorsepoetry,ancientpre-ChristianelementssurvivedtovaryingextentsintheFinnishpoems;Siikala(986a:)forexampleisoftheopinionthatsomemythicalpoemsandtheso-calledadventurepoetrycontainsomanyfeaturesreferringtopre-medievalculturalmilieuxthatitisimpossibletoimaginethatfolkpoetrysingersintheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturyKarelianculturesinventedthemespeciallysincenocorrespondingtraditioninprosehasbeenfoundtoexist:itistheseancientelementsfrompre-medievalcul-turalmilieuxwhichareofuseinthepresentstudy,whatevertheabsoluteageofthecompositions.TheslowadoptionofChristianitymeansthatthegapbetweenapaganoriginandthetimeofrecordingmaynotbeasgreatasmightbeimagined.

Norse and other sources for Germanic traditions

ThescopeofsourcesdiscussedhereissomewhatwiderthanpurelyNorsetexts,asanalogousmaterialsaredrawnfromotherGermanicandclassicalwritings,buttheNorsematerialformsthefocus.

SomeevidenceonGermanicreligiouspracticeistobegleanedfromclassicalsourcesasancientasStrabo(7bc)andTacitus(ad98);post-

0 ThesecommentsarenotmeantasacritiqueoftheFinnishmethodofanalysingfolkpoetry(andfolklore)takenasawhole,assetoutinsomedetailinKuusi(980).Themethodseekstoapplylogicalmethodstodeterminethedisseminationanddevelopmentofpoeticredactionsthroughexaminationofrecordedvariants,andinthisrespectrelativedatingsmayemerge,butitisnotablethatKuusionlymentionsdatingwithinthecontextofthesectiononstylistics,asectionwhichlacksanydetail,andwherethereaderisreferredformorediscussiontotheintroductiontoKuusi(96)where,inturn,scarcelyanymoredetailisgiven. AnexampleinFinnishofthedetaileduseofawidearrayofargumentsoverthedateanddisseminationofthesampopoemsisfoundinKuusi(99);heshowsthatsomelaterpoemsdealwithdatableevents,thoughnoneofthesearerelevanttothisstudy.Somemythologicalpoemsinthesampocycleexistedingroupsofvariantsoneithersideofhistori-calborders(betweenSwedenandRussia),indicatinganoriginpriortotheestablishmentoftheborder,andsubsequentdifferentiationoneitherside(ibid.65):however,suchdatableevents,whichmerelyformaterminus ante quem,againfalltoolatetoberelevantforthepresentstudy. ThedatesrepresentthepublicationofStrabosGeographyandTacitussGermania(Pauly

1FFC96 2.Thenatureofthesources

classicalsourcesinLatinsuchasthelate-eighth-centuryLangobardPaulusDiaconussHistoria Langobardorumarealsomadeuseof.Chroniclesandhistories,notablythetwelfth-centuryNorwegianHistoria Norwegie,areoccasionallycited.Arabicsourcesgivefactualevidenceofthepractices,includingsometimesthereligiouspractices,oftheRus,whowereinoriginSwedishVikingswhotradedthroughmodernRussia;themostimportantsuchsourceforthepresentstudyistheaccountofaRusfuneralin9byAmadibnFaln.

Asnoted,mostofthewrittensourcesinGermaniclanguagesusedinthepresentstudyareliterary:theyareartisticcompositionswhosemainaimwasnottheexpressionofreligiousworshipreligioustextsarealmostentirelynon-existentnor,usually,merelytorecounttheeventsofamyth,buttoselectandremodelthem.Theywerecomposedforanaudiencethatalreadyunderstoodthenecessaryreligiousormythologicalbackground,aswellasthewaysthatcomplexartisticartefactslikeskaldicversework.Togointofurtherdetailsofliterarytheorywouldtakeustoofarbeyondthetopicofthiswork;manyworksalreadydealwiththistopicwithintheNorsefield,suchastherecentstudyofCluniesRoss(005)onOldNorsepoetryandpoetics(wherefurtherreferencesmaybefound).

Oneobvious factaboutalmostallNorserecords (someearlyrunicinscriptionsformanexception)isthattheywerewrittendownlongaftertheintroductionofChristianity,evenwhentheywerecomposed,whichnotallostensiblypaganpoemswere,beforetheconversion.ThereasonsforthesurvivalofancientmythandlegendinaChristiansocietyisaninterestingone,butisnotrelevanthere;however,itisrelevanttobearin

9675,s.vv.StraboandTacitus).AsTacitusistheearliestextantauthortogiveanydetailedinformationaboutGermanicpeoples,thereliabilityofhisaccounthascomeunderscrutiny;it isgenerallyagreedthathispictureiscolouredbyinfluencesfromhisownRomanculture,buttheextenttowhichthisinvalidateswhathesaysisacontentiousissue.Thematterneedsamorethoroughdiscussionthanappearstohavebeenundertakenany-where;myownstanceistoerronthesideofacceptinghimasreliable(butbeingawareofacertaindegreeofdistortionduetoclassicalinfluencesorrhetoricalconsiderations).Jankuhn(966)arguesthatingeneralarchaeologyconfirmshisreliability,andinthefieldofbeliefs,McKinnell(forexample005:5)alsoconsidershimgenerallyreliable. Questionsofvarioussortsarisewhendealingwithsuchsources.HowfarisaMoslemwritersunderstandingofpaganpracticesreliable?Thus,forinstance,theangelofdeath,whiledoubtlessanactualfemaleofficiandintheritualdescribed,cannothavebeencon-ceivedasanangelbytheScandinavianRus,towhomtheconceptwasalien.HowfarwereRuspracticesactuallyScandinavian,asopposedtoSlavic(orBulgar,orFinnic)?AmadibnFalnsaccountisanalysedfromthisperspectivebySchjdt(007),whoconcludes(6):Thereseemstobenodoubtthattheideologicalframeworkbehindthisfuneralritualislikelytohaveexistedamongthepre-ChristianScandinavians,andeveniftheremayhavebeennofuneralritualpropercarriedoutinexactlythesamewayalloverScandinavia,itwouldbeaseriousmistakenottouseibnFadlansdescriptionasasortofmodelwhentry-ingtoreconstructsuchritualsfromarchaeologicalmaterialorfromtextsthataredefectiveinsomeway.However,whileSchjdtoffersanexcellentanalysisofpointswhichmaybeparalleledinNorsemyths,heoffersnoconsiderationofpossibleparallelsinSlavic,FinnicorBulgartraditions,sothequestioncannotbedescribedassettled. See,forexample,McKinnell(007a),who,amongotherthings,argues(9)thatWhatIwouldfinallyliketosuggest,however,isthateddicpoetryonmythologicalsubjectswaspreserved(andcontinuedtobecomposed)mainlybecause,liketheworksofOvid,itcouldbeusedtoinvestigatesomeofthepersonal,social,andmoralissuesthatfacedIcelandic

1 FFC96CliveTolley

mindthattextswhichwerethemselvesancientweresubjecttoalterationwithintheChristianmilieuthatpreservedthem,andthat,giventhatcer-tainancientpaganelementsdidsurviveintheseancienttexts,itwaspos-sibleforantiquarian-mindedChristianstofabricatepseudo-pagantexts.TheoppositionbetweenpaganismandChristianityisbutoneaspectofthedevelopmentofreligiousnotions,andtheirexpression,overthecenturies.Norsepaganismitselfwascertainlynomonolith,unchangingovertimeandplace,andoursurvivingmonumentsdoubtlessrepresenttraditions(orfragmentsoftraditions)ofdifferentgeographicalandchronologicalorigin.Yet,withsomefewexceptions,itisgenerallydifficultorimpossibletotracethedateorplaceoforiginofpaganmotifs.Theuncoveringofparallels,forexamplefromclassicalsources,cansometimessuggestthatamotifisancient;yetevenifamotifisinitselfveryancient,itscontext,andhenceitsspecificmeaning,maynonethelessvarygreatly.Unlessotherwiseindicated,anysuggestioninthepresentworkoftheexistenceofapaganNorsemotif(includingthosewhicharearguablyshamanic)isintendedtoplacethemotifinthereligiousbeliefsystemofsome(notnecessarilyall)Scandinaviansofthefewcenturiesprecedingconversion,withtheimpli-cation(sometimesmadeexplicitbyreferencetomoreancientanalogues)thatsuchmotifsareoftenderivedfromyetmoreancientandcenturies-oldtradition,butalsowiththeunderstandingthatacountlesslineofpoetsandothertellerswilleachhaveusedsuchmotifsfortheirownspecificpurposes.

SomeofthemaintypesofNorsesourcesare:5

Skaldic poetry.Theextantversedatesbackasfarastheninthcenturyanditcontinuedtobecomposedforseveralcenturies;sincetheverse-styleflourishedforlongaftertheconversion,comparisonoftheoldandthenewprovidesgoodrelativedatingevidence.Itiscommonlybynamedauthors,andcanbefairlyaccuratelydated(oftentowithinafewyears).Whilewrit-tendowninmanycasesseveralcenturieslater,thetextsareonthewholereliable,representingsomethingclosetotheoriginalcomposition,sincethestrictmetricalrequirementspreventseriouscorruption,andfacilitateemendationwhencorruptiondoesoccur.6Ontheotherhandsurvivingcompositionsarerarelymorethanfragmentary,asoftentheyhavebeenpreservedasillustrationsofpoeticsorofhistory,notascompletepoems;inSnorristime(theearlythirteenthcentury)itisclearthattheskaldiccorpuswassubstantiallymorecomplete,andhemakesuseofsources,andreferswithoutcitationtoothers,nowlosttous.Agreatdealofskaldicversecon-sistsofso-calledlausavsur,looseversesoddversesinsertedintosagas

seculararistocrats.Inanothervein,Nordal(00,esp.ch.)arguesthatskaldicversecontinuedtobefoundusefulasavernacularequivalentofsomeofthecomplexLatinversediscussedintheschools,thatisitofferedasought-afterintellectualtraining.5 McKinnell(005:ch.)presentsasomewhatfullerdiscussionofNorsesourcesrelatingtomythorreligion.6 Thisstatementadmittedlymasksagooddealofdebateontheissue,aswellasvaryinglevelsoftextualcorruptionbetweenpoems;forfurtherdiscussion,seeforexampletheearlierchaptersofCluniesRoss(005).

19FFC96 2.Thenatureofthesources

andascribedtoearlyskalds,butoftenbythesagawritersthemselves,ortheirimmediatepredecessors:suchversesareofuncertain(oftenlate)date.7Skaldicverseisrarelyconcernedprimarilywithcommunicatingfacts(whichmaybefewandfarbetween),butwithclever,ornatepoeticexpressionwithinstrictmetricalandotherrules.Derivingactualpiecesofinformationfromskaldicverseisthereforefraughtwithdifficulty.

Astanzamaybegivenasanexampleofskaldicdictionfromtheearliestpreservedpoem,theninth-centuryRagnarsdrpabyBragiBoddason(SkjB,st.6);theverserecountsthegodrrsfishingofthemightyserpentwhich,lyinginthedepthsoftheocean,encircledtheworld:

VarlVirisarfavilgislakr,esrakisk,Eynfisndri,Jrmungandratsandi.

Thefishing-lineofVirirsheirlaynotatallslackasunwoundonEynfirssnow-shoeJrmungandronthesand.

Here,Viririsanameforinn,whosesonisrr;Eynfirisasea-kingsname,usedgenericallyasadesignationofthegiantfromwhoseboat(snow-shoe,emphasisinggiantsassociationwiththebarrencold)rrisfishing;Jrmungandristheworldserpent.Itsunwindingonthebeachispresenteddramaticallyasasyntacticobtrusionintothestatementrelatingrrsangling.

Eddic poetry.TheseparationofNorseverseintoskaldicandEddictypesissomewhatarbitrary,andsomepoemsareinbetweencases,butgenerallyskaldicversefollowsstrictermetricalrulesthanEddic,andisoftenbynamedpoets,andassociatedwithparticulareventsorpeople,whereasEddicisalwaysanonymousandistraditionalinnature,dealingwithmoregeneraltopicsofmythorlegend,anditdoesnot,ingeneral,engageincomplexkennings(poeticperiphrases);thejustificationfordistinguish-ingskaldicandEddicverseisfurtherdiscussedinCluniesRoss(005:8).Asanexample,stanzaofGrmnismlwillserve:

Valgrindheitir, Gateoftheslainisitsname,erstendrvelli thatstandsontheplain,heilgfyrhelgomdurom; holybeforetheholydoor;fornersgrind, ancientisthatgate,enatfirvito, butfewknowhvhonerlslokin. howitislocked.

ThereferencetoValgrindisunique,butitmayberelatedtoothergatesasboundariesoftheotherworld,suchasNgrindr,Corpsegates(Skrnis-ml5,Lokasenna6);theactualinformationinthestanza,however,isgiven

7 SeeforexampleMarold(99)foraconsiderationofskaldicverseasasourceforNorsereligion;shemakestheimportantpointthatthewholeof thetenthcenturyshouldbeviewedasoneoftransitiontoChristianityandinfactChristianitywasaninfluentialforceintheNorthevenbeforethis.

0 FFC96CliveTolley

inastraightforwardmanner,andthewordorderisalmostprosaic.Thecontrastwithskaldicdictionshouldbeclear.

ThelargestcollectionofEddicpoetryisfoundintheCodexRegius(GkS65to),writtendowninIcelandaround5000.8Thereisconsider-abledebateaboutthenatureanddatingofEddicpoetry(whichIconsidersomewhatmorefullybelow),buttheouterlimitsaregenerallyrecognised(forexample,CluniesRoss005:5)astheninthandfourteenthcenturies,thoughthemythicorlegendarymotifsmaywellgobacktomuchearlierdates.9Onecriterionofdateistheextenttowhichtheparticularpoemshowsanunderstandingofpaganmythorreligiouspractice;0thusVluspforexampleshowsadepthofunderstandingofpaganpractices,yetwithinaChristianmould:henceitscompositionmustbeplacedneartotheendofofficialpaganisminIcelandin000.OntheotherhandFjlsvinnsml

8 Lindblad(95:,5)datesthemanuscripttoc. 70(arguingalsothatitwasbasedonearlierantecedentsfrombeforec. 0);however,themarginofuncertaintyofdateisnecessarilyfairlywide,asStefnKarlssonconfirmedtome(personalcommunication),sincewedonotpossessasufficientnumberofIcelandicmanuscriptsfromthisperiodtomakeacloserdatingpossible.9 Fidjestl(999)devotesawholebooktothequestionofdatingEddicpoetry;theworkwasleftunfinishedathisdeath,withsomesignificanttopicsleftundiscussed,suchastheusetobemadeofskaldicverseindatingEddicpoetry,andthequestionofloansandallusions.Overall,whilsttheworkmapsoutsomeofthemainareasofthetopic,itcannotbedescribedasfurtheringourunderstandinggreatly;weencounterstatementssuchasthefollowing(878),whichisapetitio principii(sinceitassertsapositionaboutthenatureofpre-writtenEddicverseforwhichwehavenoevidence):IntheverymomentthatEddicpoetrywaswrittendown,ametamorphosistookplace,inwhichitwastransferredfromonetypeofliteratureintoanother,radicallydifferentfrom,orevendirectlyoppositeto,whatithadbeenbefore,namelyafixedtext.ForabrieferdiscussiononthedatingofEddicpoetry,seeSderberg(986).0 Thematteris,ofcourse,morecomplexthanthis,sincetheidentificationofapaganelementonlyillustratesthatthepassageinwhichitiscontainedislikelytobeofpaganorigin(ifitisnotalaterfabrication),withoutimplicationeitherfortherestofthepoem,intowhichitmay,forexample,beaninterpolation,orfortheageofthespecificwordinginwhichitisexpressed,sincethistoomaychange.Itispossibletoadduceargumentsbasedonothercriteriatosuggestthatatleastsomepoems(notablymostofVlusp)are,infact,coherentwholes,thoughotherpoems(forexampleGrmnisml)donothavegreatartisticcohesion.ThedatingofpoemssuchasLokasenna isacontentiousissue,illustratingthedifficultyofarrivingatanythinglikeafirmconclusionevenonsomeofthebasicquestionsconcerningthenatureofoursources;thepoemshowsadepthofknowledgeaboutmythswhosebasisinpaganreligiousbeliefcanbeparalleledbycomparativeresearch,aspointedoutbyU.Dronke(989),whoalso,amongotherthings,notesthefactthatwhilewehavepoeticcompositionsfromaroundthethirteenthcentury,noneofthemintheleastresemblesLokasenna,nordowehaveanyevidencefromthistimeforanyarchaisingschoolabletoproducesuchawell-wroughtfabricationofpaganismwhichwewouldhavetosupposethepoemtobe(thisisnottoargue,ofcourse,thattheparticularforminwhichthepoemispreservedhasnotbeenaltered,andpossiblyitscontenteditedtosomesmallextent,sinceitsdateofcomposition).Yetotherfactorspointtoanotparticularlyearlydate,inthattherearepossibleallusionstootherEddicpoems,andthefrequencyoftheexpletiveparticleplacesthepoemchronologicallytenthoutofthirty-oneintheCodexRegius(Fidjestl999:)thoughthevalidityofthisfactorasacriterionofdateisitselfopentodebate.Lokasennacertainlyalludestomythswenolongerhaveinpoeticform,butotherEddic,andindeedskaldic,poemscouldwellhavebeenextantinsaythetwelfthcenturywheresuchmythswerepresented.(Onthedatingissuehere,seealsoRuggerini979:56;Sderberg986:566;McKinnell9878.) AsimilardatingappliesifitwascomposedinNorway,wherepaganismofficiallyended

1FFC96 2.Thenatureofthesources

forexampleisacompositionthatmakeswidespreaduseofextantEddicsourcesinawaythatisliteraryandcreativebutdoesnotreflectanyspecificpaganbelieforreligiousreference(thoughitmaypreserveallusionstoolderbeliefsotherwiselostfromrecord):hencealatedateofc.0050istobeassignedtoit(P.Robinson99:9706).

Snorri Sturlusons works.Theworksof(orascribedto)theIcelanderSnorriSturluson(),inparticularhisEddaandYnglinga saga(andtosomeextentotherpartsofHeimskringla,ofwhichYnglinga sagaformsthefirstsection)containmuchmythologicalknowledgeculledfromearlierpoeticsources,whichonoccasionarecited;Snorriissometimestheonlypreserverofamythologicalorreligiousrecordasaresultofthelossofhissourcesincehistime,butalsosometimes,itwouldseem,becausehehasinventedthefeaturehimself.WhilstSnorriiscitedfrequently,Iusehisworkasaprimarysourceonlyininstanceswhenother,earlierpoeticsourcesarenotextant.

Sagasandotherprosesources;mostusedareslendingasgur(familysagasofIcelanders)andfornaldarsgur(sagasofancientdays),withocca-sionalreferencealsotoothertypessuchasriddarasgur(chivalricsagas).Thesedatefromthetwelfthtofourteenthcenturies(andsomeevenlater).Theymakeconsiderableuseofpaganthemes,buttheseareoftenthecrea-tionoftheauthorsmadeonthebasisofincreasinglyvaguetraditionsofactualpaganism;nonetheless,arguablygenuineelementsdosurvive.

LawsofNorwayandIceland(andoccasionallyotherScandinavianareas).Lawswereoriginallyhandeddownorally,butbegantobecommittedtowritingsoonafterthearrivalofChristianity,andunderwentmanyrevi-sionsthereafter.Icelandiclawsrarelymentionanythingconnectedwithpaganism,butthemainlandScandinaviancodeshaveslightlymore.

afewyearsearlierthaninIceland.TheapocalypticthemeofVlusparguesforadatingofc.000.Christianitywasnot,ofcourse,necessarilyadoptedwholesaleanddeeplybythewholepopulationinonefellswoop,butmypositionisthatitsofficialadoptionwouldhaveweakenedtheunderstandingofpaganreligiouselementswithinacoupleofgenerations,soadateverymuchlaterthanmid-eleventhcenturyforVlusp(leavingasidethemillenniumarguments)wouldappearunlikely.Moreover,McKinnell(99:078)hasshownthatthepoemmustalmostcertainlyhavebeencomposedbetween965and0665,sinceVluspmentionstwovalkyrjur,SkgulandGeirskgul,whichappearstobeamisunderstand-ingofEyvindrFinnssonsgeir-Skgul,spear-Skgul,asaseparatebeingfromSkgulinHkonarml(SkjB58),composedaround965;theterminus ante quemisgivenbyArnrrjarlaskldsallusiontoVluspinorfinnsdrpa(Skj B)whenhementionsthesundarkeningandthelandsinkingintothesea(cf.Vlusp5,Sltrsortna,sgrfoldmar,Thesunstartstoblacken,landsinksintosea). Ofcourse,ifSnorrialonerecordssomething,wecangonofurtherthantodeemitlikelythatitisapartofoldertraditiononthebasisofotherrelevantinformation;anexampleistheinformationinYnglinga sagach.thatthevanirbecamethebltgo,sacrificialgods,amongthedeities. Forexample,thatthethreemaidenswhodeterminemensfateswerenornirwhocamefromahall(ratherthanasea)beneaththeworldtree. CluniesRoss(99:)alsonotesSnorrisselectiveness:WhenpaganmaterialdidnotaccordwithhisChristianexplanatorymodel,hetendedtoomitit,sotheapparentcompre-hensivenessoftheEddaistosomeextentanillusion.Examplesincludethemythofinnonthetree(recountedinHvaml898c)andGullveig(recountedinVlusp).

FFC96CliveTolley

Asagooddealoftheearliestevidenceforpaganpracticesisfoundinsourcesofanoriginallyoraltype,itisworthconsideringbrieflywhatthenatureofthesesourcesis.ExtremeoraliststaketheNorsepoemsasrecordingsofaperformanceofapoem,andeachperformanceisviewedasanautonomousrecreationofthetext,ofnogreaterorlesservaluethananyotherperformance.Theamountofvariationbetweenperformancesisacceptedasbeingpotentiallygreat.Theaimofreconstructingtheoriginaltext,byconsiderationoflikelyinterpolationsandsoforth, isrejected.ThisisscarcelyanacceptableapproachtoNorsetexts,anditmoreoverrepresentstheimpositiononoursourcesofaparticulartheoryoforalityderivedfromoutsidetheNorsefield,againsttheevidenceprofferedbythosesources,andisattheleastdisingenuousinitsignoraloftheclearlyscribalhistorybehindtherecordedversionsoftexts;5moreover,itseemstomeanuninformedapproach,giventherecognitionaffordedbyscholarsworkingonindisputablyoraltraditionsthateachtraditionisdifferent,andvaluesmemorisationtovaryingdegrees,sometimesdeeply(seethecontributionstoHonko00,topickbutoneexample).

Thesituationisinfactboundtohavebeenacomplexone;ascribe,andbeforehimasingerintheoraltraditionandsingerandscribemayoncertainoccasionshavebeenoneandthesamepersoncouldalteratexteitherthroughcarelessness,ordeliberately,orelsebecausevariationwasanaturalpartofre-realisingasong.Atthebeginningofthewrittenperiodsomerecreationoflinesincorrectmetricalformislikelytohavetakenplaceasaresultofthescribesfamiliaritywithvariantsfoundintheoraltraditioninterplayingwithfailingsinshort-termmemoryofthetext.Thelikelihoodofchangeoccurringinthetransmissionofaparticularpoemcanonlybeassessedonanindivualbasis;asnoted,Eddicpoemsaremore likely tohave incorporatedchanges thanskaldicbecauseoftheirlooserstructure,butalsothemoregeneralpointcanbemadethatcarefullyworkedtextsareeitherlesslikelytosufferchange(sincetheircorruptionismorepatent),oriftheydosufferit,wearemoreabletodetectit;forexample,hadaHsatalofextradivinedwellingsbeenaddedtothosealreadypresentedinGrmnismlwemightwellbenonethewiser,

5 OntheCodexRegius,Lindblad(95:5,75,57)hasshownthatseveralstagesofwrittendevelopmentmaybediscerned,goingbacktobefore0,andincludingtwodistincthistories,ofthemythologicalpoemsontheonehandandtheheroicontheother(whichappeartohavebeenunitedintoonecollectiononlyshortlybeforeorasaresultofthecompositionoftheCodexRegiuscollection);itisthereforenotunlikelythatthepoemsgobackinwrittenformtoabout00,ataroundwhichdate,indeed,thelearnedmonkGunnlaugrLeifssoninthemonasteryofingeyrarcomposedthepoemMerlnussp(SkjB05),whichquotesfromEddicpoems,includingGrpissp,itselfprobablyawrittencompositionfromthestarttheinferenceLindbladdraws(978:)beingthattherewasalreadyawrittencollectionofEddicpoemsavailabletoGunnlaugr.Ofcourse,giventhattheEddicpoemsdonotappeartocomefromatraditionwhichespousedthesortoffluidityfoundforexampleinFinnishoralpoetry,itispossiblethatGunnlaugrssource(ifweacceptLindbladsargumentsfortheborrowing)existedinafixedoralform.ArgumentscanbemadeeitherwayfortheexistenceofwrittenformsofEddicpoemsbetweenabout90and0,buttheyappeartohaveachievedsomethingapproachingtheforminwhichtheyarerecordedintheCodexRegiusduringthisperiod.

FFC96 2.Thenatureofthesources

whereastheDvergatal,orlistofdwarfs,ofVluspisclearlyanirrelevantinterpolationinasubtlepoemwithimportantplaysonkeywords,choiceofmyths,andstructure.

Infactweonlyrarelyhavedifferentversionsoftextsonwhichargumentsaboutvariationcanbebased;whenwedo,itseemstomethatthevastmajorityofdifferencecanbestbeexplainedasaresultofscribal,notoral,change(whereas,forexample,themanyvariantsinFinnishtraditionalpoemsarealmost entirelyoral inorigin).Forexample, the supposedevidenceoftheHauksbkversionofVluspasindicatinganoralEddictradition,withwidelyvariantversionsofthisandotherpoemsexistingwellintothefourteenthcentury,maybedismissed.UrsulaDronke,inhereditionofthepoem(inPEII),hasdemonstratedbeyondanyreasonabledoubtthatalltheHauksbkvariants,barringanoccasionallinepossiblyintroducedfromotherpopularverse,canbeexplainedasscribalconfusionofabroken-uptextandlostpieces.6Moreover,whileSnorriinthe0sto0sclearlyhadaccesstoawiderangeofbothEddicandskaldicpoetrynowlosttous,thecompileroftheCodexRegiussomefiftyorsoyearslaterdidnothewasunabletocorrecterrorsorgapsinhiswrittenexemplarsfromanyoralversions;thetradition,atleastintheareastowhichthisscribehadaccess,hadby thenbecomebothattenuated, andperhapspurelywritten(thoughnodoubttheoraltraditionsurvivedlongerinsomeareasthanotherswemayponder,forexample,whetherthepresenceofGrottasngrinitsentiretywithinmanuscriptsSRandTofSnorrisEdda,asopposedtoonlytheopeningstanzainC,derivesfromanimmediateoraltraditionlaterthanSnorristime).7

Whilsttherewasboundtobeacertainamountofvariationbetweenperformancesofpoemsintheoralperiod,oursurvivingevidencesuggeststhat memorisation of a notionally fixed text was themain principlefollowed;possiblythismaybeareflectionoftheriseintheninthcenturyorearlierofthestrictlystructuredskaldicverse,whichofitsnaturedemands

6 Quinn(990)attemptstoseetheHauksbkversionasalegitimatealternativereflectingvariationsinoraltradition,butDronkesargumentsthattheversionderives(apartfromafewstraylinesimportedfromoralpoems)solelyfromconfusioninascriptoriumaremuchmorepersuasive,andtipthebalancetowardsliteracyratherthanoralitybeingthemoreimportantcomponentinthetransmissionofEddicverseinthethirteenthcentury.7 Quinn(000)providesausefulsurveyoforalityandliteracyinIcelandfromtheeleventhtofourteenthcenturies,thoughsomeofthepointsshemakescallformoredetailedandcare-fulconsideration:forexample,thefactthatverseinEddicmetreswasstillbeingcomposedinthemid-thirteenthcentury(andindeed,inanantiquarianmanner,evenlater)doesnotmean,forexample,thatthepoemsfoundintheCodexRegiuswerestillbeingre-realisedinanoralfashion,orindeedthattheywereknownatallinanoralform,atthetimetheCodexwascompiled.TheassumptionQuinnnotesasbeingfairlycommonlyespousedbyOldNorsescholarsthatskaldicversesfoundcitedinvariousprosetextsderivefromimmediateoraltraditionmayalsobequestioned(whichisnottosayitneednecessarilybediscounted,however):thoughwehavenodirectevidenceofaskaldiccollectionequivalenttotheEddicCodexRegius,theerstwhileexistenceofsuchamanuscriptiseminentlypossibleiftheCodexRegiushadhappenedtoperish,forexampleononeofthemanyshipstransportingmanuscriptsfromIcelandtoDenmark(whichwereindeedwreckedonoccasion),ourviewoftheinterplayoforalityandliteracyintheEddictraditionwouldbequitedifferent,whichshouldactasawarningwhenspeakingoftheskaldiccorpus.

FFC96CliveTolley

memorisationratherthanimprovisationforitssurvival.8

IndealingwithNorsematerialsweareconfrontedwiththeproblemofChristianity.Adheringtomystandpointassetoutabove,theearliestrecordsantedatetheofficialintroductionofthenewfaith(around000),thoughnotitsinfluence.Itakeasmystartingpointthatfamiliaritywiththeoldbeliefswanedwiththecomingofthenew;hencegreaterfamiliarityindicatesgreaterproximity,usuallyintime,butpotentiallyalsoinplace,topaganbeliefandpractice.Whilstallrelevantfactorsmustbeconsidered,andmayalterourassessment,ingeneralIbelievethatthismaybeusedasaprincipleofdating,thoughitcanscarcelybeanythingbutvagueasouronlypointofcomparisonisthesmallcorpusofdatedskaldicpoems,whichindeeddonotnecessarilylendthemselveseasilytosuchcomparison.

ItispossibletotakethelinethatifwewishtouncoveranythingreliableaboutNorsepaganism,ourstudyshouldbeconfinedtopoemsdefinitelycomposedinthetenthcenturyandbefore,alinepursuedforexamplebyMarold(99).Thisseemstomeadeceptivelysimplistictemptation.Severalveryobviousfactorsmilitateagainstsuchanapproach.Wedonothavedirectaccesstoanyactualpaganverbalmaterial,exceptafewenig-maticrunicinscriptions:theearlyskaldicpoemswereallwrittendownin(roughly)thethirteenthcentury,andwerethereforetheoneschosenforpreservationbyasocietylongChristian;thecenturiesoforaltransmissionbeforetheirrecordingwillhavehadsomeeffectonthem,andvicissitudessubsequenttotheirrecordinghavefurtherreducedtheirnumberthroughthelossofmanuscripts.Evenifwehadamorecompletecorpusofpaganskaldicverse,theviewofreligionwewouldgainwouldbebiased,sincemostskaldicverseisintheformofpraisepoemsdedicatedtowarriorprinces,whereitisnosurprise,forexample,tofindthatthedominantgodisrr;religionoutsidethisrarefiedsettingcouldwellhavedifferedsignificantly.Wemust,certainly,beeveronguardwhenusingthemuchfullersourcescomposedinthetwelfthtofifteenthcenturies,butwhentheirreliabilityastransmittersoflorefromthepaganperiodistakenintoaccountsufficientl