405

Odin an immigrant in Scandinavia?

Anders Hultgrd, Uppsala, Sweden
Introduction
The origins of the god Odin and his cult in Scandinavia has captured the interest of scholar-
ship for almost two hundred years. Many different interpretations have been proposed on
more or less convincing grounds. My paper aims at reconsidering the main lines of interpreta-
tion and critically review the arguments brought forward (the use of two forms Wodan and
Woden is no slip of the pen, see Hultgrd 2007).
The issue includes a complex of problems, the most significant being the following ones:
The geographical aspect. The identification of an area of origin for the cult of Odin
(within or outside the Germanic speaking world) and the way it spread further.
The genesis of the Odin figure proper as we know it from Viking age and medieval
sources.
A common Germanic god who preserved a continuity in character or underwent a thor-
oughgoing transformation.
We may roughly distinguish two main lines of interpretation:
A. The first one considers Odin as a deity having arrived to Scandinavia from the south in
a relatively late period. His rise to pre-eminence was a gradual one. This line of interpretation
was dominant in the late 19
th
and early 20
th
centuries but has been revived in recent times.
B. The second line of interpretation regards Odin as an ancient deity common to all Ger-
manic peoples. He had a prominent position from the very beginning and his character re-
mained essentially the same through the centuries.
Odin as an incomer to Scandinavia
The first line of interpretation (A) is found in several variants depending on three different
factors and the way they are combined:
the geographic area where the origins of the god are sought.
the circumstances under which the cult of the god emerged and the way it was diffused.
what parts of the character of the god were changed during the spread of his cult.
A. 1 Several scholars place the origins of the Odin cult in the lower Rhine area from
where it spread to the north. Some of them also emphasize the connection with the Gallo-
Roman cult of Mercury.
In the first half of the 20
th
century the most prominent representative of that line of inter-
pretation was Karl Helm. He stated that the notice of Tacitus in his Germania that the Ger-
manic tribes worship Mercury as the foremost god (deorum maxime Mercurium colunt) re-
ferred to western Germania, more specifically the lower Rhine area where the cult of Wodan
existed already in the first century C.E. Helm suggested that Herules returning home to Scan-
dinavia brought with them the cult of the god in the 5
th
century. The Odin cult was thought to
have spread over the entire area of Germanic speaking peoples in varying ways but usually
linked to movements of warlike elite groups. Alois Closs (1934) thus referred to I quote-
eine kriegerische Kulturbewegung whicht brought the worship of Odin to Scandinavia.
In more recent research the idea that the worship of Odin emerged in the lower Rhine area
has been revived by Michael Enright (1996), Richard North (1997) and Ludwig Rbekeil
(2002 and 2003).
According to Enright the cult typical of Woden emerged in that area under Celtic influ-
ence as a warband religion inspired by the leader of the Batavians, Civilis. The success of this

406
new form of religion depended largely on the prestige conveyed by the cult of a prominent
Germanic warlord.
North suggests that the Germanic cult of Odin originated as a worship of Mercury in Ro-
man Gallia. Through warfare and trade the cult spread over the Rhine into northern Germania
and along the coasts of the North Sea. By the end of the 5
th
century it had reached England
and southern Scandinavia and the god was worshipped with his Germanic name Woden.
Rbekeil maintains that the form of the gods name as reflected by Scandinavian tradition
is the original one: proto-Germanic *Winaz > inn. Germanic tribes settled along the
lower Rhine were, according to Rbekeil, impressed by the sacrificial cult of Celtic prophetic
priests. These priests were called by a term cognate with Latin vates, Celtic *atis > Old Irish
fith. The basic word underlying inn is *wi which is a Germanic reflection of Celtic
*atis. The Germanic tribes began to address their worship to the same god to whom the
Celtic priests dedicated their sacrifices but applied the name of the vates to the god. It was a
Germanic reception on a superficial ritual level of the cult of the Celtic god Lug.
2 Other scholars point instead at a more southern and southeastern provenance of the cult
of Odin. From these areas, the central and eastern parts of the Roman empire, as well as the
territories north of the Black Sea, cultural influences that partly can be attested by archaeo-
logical evidence, reached Scandinavia and brought with them also the worship of Odin. This
interpretation includes the assumption that the runic script was part of the same cultural proc-
ess, it is suggested that the runes came to Scandinavia through the intermediary of the Goths
when settled in southeastern Europe and this would explain the close connection of Odin with
the runes.
A number of scholars have followed this line of interpretation. In the beginning of the 20
th

century two Scandinavian scholars made influential contributions to the problem of the ori-
gins of the Odin cult. Bernard Salin assumed more than one cultural wave reaching Scandina-
via from the south and southeast. One of the later brought the belief in Odin and the other
sir and at the same time also the runes. He seems to have been the first one to interpret the
iconography of the C-bracteates as representing the god Odin. Sune Ambrosiani referred also
to the bracteates and their Roman models suggesting that the cult of Odin was nothing else
than the cult of the Roman emperor transposed to a Scandinavian setting where it had blended
with a native worship of an animal deity. Elias Wessn (1924) emphasized the role of the
Goths in southern Russia in transmitting the Odin cult together with the runes to Scandinavia.
A Roman influence through Mithriacism on the development of the Odin figure has also
been suggested by some scholars. Hilda Ellis Davidson (1964) suggests that Odin developed
from an earlier Germanic war god: In Twaz we have an early Germanic war god, an ances-
tor of Odin (p. 60) but sees also a connection with the Roman Mithras (Ellis Davidsson
1978; Kaliff & Sundqvist 2004)
We may classify the view of Lotte Motz as a third variant of the immigration theory. The
Odin figure has emerged after the image of an ecstatic visionary and magician with shaman-
istic features. Eastern tribes penetrating into the territory of Germanic peoples brought with
them this image of an itinerant shaman deity who probably also borrowed traits taken from
the worship of a native Germanic god. At a later stage, according to Motz, Odin was then
transformed into a mounted warrior god and magician.
Odin as an ancient and prominent god of all Germanic peoples
B. Looking at the second main line of interpretation, i.e. the assumption that Odin represents a
very ancient god among all the Germanic peoples is intimately bound up with the Indo-
European question.

407
Here we are faced with two different types of interpretations (1 and 2). One combines the
myth of the war between the sir and the vanir with archaeological evidence. The other is
based on the comparative study of Indo-European mythologies and deities.
1 The myth of the war between the sir and the vanir (Vlusp; Snorris Edda) as well as
the story of the immigration of the sir into Scandinavia (Snorris Edda; Ynglingasaga) is
considered to reflect a pre-historic immigration wave into Scandinavia by a warlike people
speaking an Indo-European language and worshipping the gods who later became known as
the sir. The conflict between the peaceful native population and their deities, the vanir , and
the Indo-European intruders ended with a fusion of the two population groups in which the
Indo-European element became dominant. This event is thought to correspond in archaeologi-
cal terms to the arrival of the Battle Axe culture around 2000 B.C.E.
This interpretation has long been a favourite theme in the history of ancient Scandinavian
religion. As representatives we may mention Philippson (1953), Henrik Schck, Eugen Mogk.
In the broader perspective of Indo-European studies the archaeologist Marija Gimbutas has
elaborated the sharp contrast between the peaceful agriculturalists of Old Europe, who mainly
worshipped mother goddesses, and the warlike patriarchal Indo-Europeans who coming from
the plains of southern Russia and Kazakhstan penetrated much of Europe. Being worshippers
of male sky gods they adhered to a different type of religion (e. g. Gimbutas 1988).
A. 2 Without involving themselves in the complicated interpretation of the archaeological
evidence for Indo-European origins and diffusion, other scholars prefer to concentrate on the
comparative study of Indo-European mythologies. They deny any historical reality behind the
myth of the war between the sir and the vanir and the euhemeristic migration stories in me-
dieval Old Norse literature.
In the first half of the 20
th
century scholars like Hermann Gntert made broad comparisons
covering the entire field of Indo-European languages and cultures. Gntert (1923:151153)
emphasized the similarities between Odin and the Indic god Varuna and concluded that both
reflect the Indo-European type of a binding world ruler and king of the gods. Having a
common background these two gods acquired new features as time passed on, however. Odin
was no doubt a god common to all Germanic groups but he attained his supremacy gradually
his worship spreading from certain important cult centres.
In the first place we have the French comparatist Georges Dumzil whose three-functional
system is too well known to be presented here in detail. As to the divine world it implies that
the main deities of the early Indo-Europeans can be classified in a tripartite system. The
common characteristics found between the Indo-European deities of the same functional cate-
gory are according to Dumzil best explained as based on inherited tradition. The first func-
tion is shared between two deities representing different aspects of the sovereignty. Odin who
together with Tr belongs to the first function stands for the religious-magical aspect, and Tr
for the judicial one. Odin/Woden as head of the Germanic pantheon constitutes thus for
Dumzil a very ancient feature.
Many scholars have accepted the tripartite system as elaborated by Dumzil but others use
the comparative Indo-European approach without building on Dumzils theory. Jan de Vries
(195657 406) points to striking affinities in character between the Indic god Rudra and
Odin and to a certain extent also between the Greek Hermes and Odin. De Vries speaks of
Odin as a high god and seems implicitly to accept Dumzils classification of the Indo-
European deities when referring to Odin as die dunkle Seite des Hochgottes (410; cp. also
412). Also taking the precise similarities between Lug and Odin into account(de Vries 1961)
we may state that for de Vries Odin represents from the very beginning a prominent deity part
of the Indo-European legacy (412).
Jaan Puhvel refers likewise to the Indic Rudra as a counterpart to the Celtic Esus-Lugus
and to the Germanic Odin but comes to a different conclusion than Jan de Vries. For Puhvel

408
Odin seems to be in origin the semidemonic patron of the warriors. In warlike Celtic and
Germanic society a homologue of Rudra ascended to the pinnacle of the pantheon assimilat-
ing or supplanting whatever pristine god may have kept company there (1987:201). While
admitting that Odin was an ancient god among Germanic peoples Puhvel appears nevertheless
to assume a gradual elevation of the Odin figure to the chief god of the pantheon. The roots of
Odin in the religious and social context of the Mnnerbnde means for Kershaw (2000) that
the god has an Indo-European background.
In his reconstruction of an Indo-European family of deities Peter Jackson (2002) proceeds
independently of Dumzil and suggests that Odin belongs with the proto-Indo-European god
who is reflected in the Indic Varuna and the Greek Ouranos.
The validity of the arguments
The first of the two main lines of interpretation (A) includes different types of argumentation.
Since the opinion of Karl Helm influenced much of the subsequent discussion on the origins
of the Odin cult (most recently North 1997) it is appropriate to start with the reasons he ad-
duced to support his view. Helm chose to interpret the notice of Tacitus on the worship of the
Germanic Mercury (see above) as referring only to western Germania more specifically the
lower Rhine area. There but not elsewhere, according to Helm, was Wodan worshipped as the
chief deity in the 1
st
century C. E.
Admittedly most of the information on Germanic culture and religion that reached the
Romans came from (or passed through) the Rhineland area but this fact in no way excludes
the possibility that other Germanic (including Scandinavian) tribes also worshipped Odin in
the same early period.
More weight should be put on Helms second main argument. In the entire source material
from Scandinavia (archeological findings, rock carvings, bracteates, early runic inscriptions)
there is no evidence of a cult of Woden/Odin. If the bracteates depict the god an assumption
of which Helm is skeptical we dont reach any farther back in time as the early 6
th
century.
However, the lack of references to Woden/Odin in Scandinavian sources prior to the 5
th

and 6
th
centuries is not a convincing argument in view of the almost total absence of written
sources and the uncertainty of identifying deities known from the Viking period in the rock
carvings and other early iconographic material. I agree with Helm that the presence of the
Woden/Odin figure on the rock carvings cannot be demonstrated. On the other hand there is
no convincing evidence to prove his absence either.
Among modern proponents of the Rhineland hypothesis North (1997) follows the reason-
ing of Helm but Enright (1996) sees the typical Woden/Odin cult (not necessarily the origin
of the god, however) as intimately bound up with the emergence of the Celtic-Germanic war-
band (or comitatus) institution. Focus is on the Rhineland area with its mixture of Gaulish and
Germanic elements. He elaborates an extensive parallelism between Sertorius, leader of the
Celtiberians in their wars against Rome, and the chieftain of the Batavians, Civilis, who took
Sertorius as a model for his political agenda. Both men developed a similar religious propa-
ganda which in the case of Civilis shaped the typical image of Woden/Odin . The Scandina-
vian Odins involvement with warfare and prophecy, his attributes such as the one-eyedness
and the spear, correspond in a surprising manner with what is known about Civilis and the
rising phenomenon of the warband. This correspondence shows according to Enright that the
god and his cult ultimately received its characteristics from the Gallo-Roman and Germanic
worship of Mercury in the form it was propagated by Civilis.
The principal objection to this hypothesis is that the similarities adduced do not compel us
to accept the conclusion reached by Enright. The similarities may be explained differently and
gods are not necessarily shaped by specific political and cultural circumstances. Thus, an al-

409
ternative explanation would be that Woden/Odin already possessed the characteristics that
suited a warlord and his warband and therefore became their particular deity.
Rbekeils theory rests on a linguistic argument which is combined with the particular
ethnic and cultural situation prevailing in the Rhineland area where Celtic and Germanic
groups were in close contact. His linguistic reasoning is complicated and presupposes some
stages that cannot be directly attested. The assumption that the Germanic groups called the
god they took over from Celtic Rhineland tribes after the name of the priests that served him
is too speculative and is clearly inspired from the linguistic argument. If this does not hold
good, the theory as a whole cannot stand.
For those who favour a more southern and southeastern origin of the Odin cult (A. 2) the
main argument is the cultural impact of the Roman empire and the influences that reached
Scandinavia from southeastern Europe. One must ask why precisely Odin among all the dei-
ties was imported. His connection with the runes is the only plausible argument for this ex-
ception and is also put forward by the adherents of a southeastern origin of Odin. Again there
is a presupposition that appears to be doubtful: the runes were invented among the Goths in
southern Russia on the base of the Greek script (e.g. Wessn 1924:26). Not to speak of the
idea that a core of historical truth underlies the euhemeristic story of Odin and his followers
migrating into Scandinavia from Asia Minor (Salin and others) . This idea still influenced
much of the early 20
th
century scholarship.
As to the second main line of interpretation (B.) comparisons with other Indo-European
gods serve the purpose of demonstrating the presence of Odin among all Germanic peoples
already from the settlement of Indo-European speaking groups in northern Europe. The point
is that the study of the homologues of Odin in Indo-European mythologies show him to be
part of an ancient religious legacy. This in turn implies some sort of a common Indo-
European pantheon which must be put far back in time. Here we are confronted with the main
difficulty that faces the proponents of an Indo-European heritage. Could myths and images of
deities be preserved in oral tradition throughout two or three millennia and still be recognized
as deriving from a common source? We would be on safer ground when using the compara-
tive etymological-onomastic approach which does not yield much result for the Odin figure
except for some of his heiti.
The attempt to link the origin of Odin and the sir with the appearance of the Corded
Ware/Battle Axe culture in Scandinavia is based on uncertain parameters. It is assumed that
this culture a) was brought to northern Europe by invading population groups and b) that
these invaders were Indo-Europeans bringing a new form of religion with them. Both supposi-
tions are far from certain. To identify ethnic and language groups solely on archaeological
grounds is hazardous and there is evidence to suggest that the Battle Axe culture to a large
extent had a local origin.
Conclusions
The present survey and discussion has demonstrated the difficulties in ascertaining the hy-
pothesis of Odin being a late incomer in Scandinavia. Conversely we have no clear evidence
to show the presence of his cult before the middle of the first millennium C. E. To judge from
the information given by Roman writers the god was worshipped by Germanic tribes on the
continent as one of the main deities already in the 1
st
century C.E. (cf. also Simek 2003:110
111). In my view there is nothing to suggest that Woden/Odin was not worshipped in Scandi-
navia during the same period (cf. also Hultgrd 2007 and Schjdt 2008:451).
We have to assume a continuity in the cult of this god in Scandinavia and the Germanic
continent from a very early time as long as there is no conclusive evidence for the opposite.

410
Bibliography
Ambrosiani, Sune 1907. Odinskultens hrkomst.
Closs, Alois 1934. Neue Problemstellungen in der germanischen Religionsgeschichte. Anthropos
29:477 496.
Dumzil, Georges 1959. Les dieux des Germains. Paris.
1986. Les dieux souverains des Indo-Europens. 3 d. revue et corrige. Paris.
Ellis Davidson, Hilda R. 1964. Gods and Myths of Northern Europe.Middlesex.
1978. Mithras and Wodan. tudes mithriaques, ed. by J. Duchesne-Guillemin
Enright, Michael 1996. Lady with a Mead Cup. Four Courts Press.
Gimbutas, Marija 1988. Accounting for a great change. Review of Colin Renfrew, Archaeology and
Language 1987. Times Literary Supplement June 2430 1988.
Helm, Karl 1913. Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte Bd. 1. Heidelberg.
1946. Wodan. Ausbreitung und Wanderung seines Kultes. Giessen.
Hultgrd, Anders 2007. Wotan-Odin. Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 35: 759785.
Jackson, Peter 2002. Light from distant asterisks. Towards a description of the Indo-European reli-
gious heritage. Numen 49:61102.
Kaliff, Anders & Sundqvist, Olof 2004. Oden och Mithraskulten: Religis ackulturation under ro-
mersk jrnlder och folkvandringstid. Uppsala.
Kershaw, Kris 2000. The One-eyed god. Odin and the (Indo-)Germanic Mnnerbnde. Washington
D.C.
Motz, Lotte 1993. The king, the champion and the sorcerer. Wien.
North, Richard 1997. Heathen Gods in Old English Literature.
Petersen, Henry 1876. Om nordboernes gudedyrkelse og gudetro i hedenold: En antikvarisk
undersgelse. Kbenhavn (deutsche bersetzung: ber den Gottesdienst und den Gtterglauben
des Nordens whrend der Heidenzeit, Gardelegen 1882).
Philipsson, Ernst Alfred 1953. Die Genealogie der Gtter in germanischer Religion. Mythologie und
Theologie. Urbana.
Puhvel, Jaan 1987. Comparative Mythology. Baltimore and London.
Rbekeil, Ludwig 2002. Diachrone Studien zur Kontaktzone zwischen Kelten und Germanen.
2003. Wodan und andere forschungsgeschichtliche Leiche, exhumiert. Beitrge zur Namenfor-
schung 38:2541.
Salin, Bernard 1903. Heimskringlas tradition om asarnes invandring. Studier tillgnade O. Monteli-
us, 133134.
1904. Die altgermanische Thierornamentik: typologische Studie ber germanische Metallgegens-
tnde aus dem IV. Bis IX. Jahrhundert. Stockholm.
Schjdt, Jens Peter 2008. Initiation between two worlds. Structure and symbolism in pre-Christian
Scandinavian religion. University Press of Southern Denmark.
Simek, Rudolf 2003. Religion und Mythologie der Germanen. Darmstadt.
Vries, Jan de 1956157. Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte. Berlin.
1961. Keltische Religion. Stuttgart.
Wessn, Elias 1924. Studier i Sveriges hedna mytologi och fornhistoria. Uppsala.