Ordernr.

051231

T HRESHOLDS AND P ASSAGES:

T HE M EANINGS OF B RIDGES AND C ROSSINGS
IN THE V IKING A GE AND E ARLY M IDDLE A GES

Julie Lund

I
n early medieval Scandinavia it was considered a good Christian deed to build
a bridge. I will argue that bridges had already played an important part in
the pagan sacral landscape in the Viking Age, and that bridges consequently
became part of the conversion process by being consecrated to Christianity. In
this article, the changing meanings of the bridge in the late pagan and early
Christian periods will be analysed, focusing on the acts of making deposits, the
raising of rune-stones at bridges, and the roles of the bridge in literary sources.
Throughout the Viking Age, weapons, jewellery, coins, and tools were depos-
ited in wetlands (Geisslinger 1967; Hines 1989; Zachrisson 1998; Hedeager 1999;
Andrén 2002; Lund 2003 and 2004). In my thesis I have examined 140 weapons
deposited in wetlands during the Viking Age on Zealand (Denmark) and in
Scania (Sweden). They tend to accumulate in specific places in the cultural land-
scapes: near bridges and fords, at the mouths of small rivers and streams, and in
lakes and bogs (Lund 2003, 30–57, 95–101; Lund 2004, 203–10). The larger depo-
sitions from the period were made in lakes and bogs, like Lake Tissø on Zealand
and in the bog at Gudingsåkrarna on Gotland (Jørgensen and Pedersen 1996, 24;
Jørgensen 2002, 221–25; Thunmark-Nylén 1995; Roesdahl and Wilson 1992,
catalogue no. 177), whereas the depositions at bridges consist of only a few
objects. These weapon deposits found at bridges and fords can be used to discuss
the meanings of the crossing in the Viking Age.
In the following it will be argued that bridges, fords, and crossings were im-
portant elements in the cultural landscape of the Viking Age linked to cosmology
in the late pagan and early Christian periods. It will be argued that the similari-
ties between the sacral landscape in the pagan and Christian periods are greater

Page 117
 Ordernr. 051231

110 Julie Lund

than the differences, at least concerning the role of the bridge. This will be illus-
trated by examples of Viking-Age artefacts found either at the remains of a
wooden bridge that can be dendrochronologically dated to the Viking Age, at
places that formed natural crossings and fords, or at places where bridges were
present on maps from the eighteenth and nineteenth century. Many of these
sites have a place-name including the word bro (bridge). On a large number of
rune-stones the building of a bridge is mentioned. This often refers to the
construction of a ford rather than a wooden bridge (Brink 2000, 36). I believe
that these different types of constructions carried, on the whole, the same sym-
bolic meaning in the Viking Age, and they will consequently be treated as one
in the following.

Weapon Deposition at Bridges

Hoards of weapons and single deposited weapons have been discovered at

bridges and fords in several streams in Denmark and Sweden, for instance in the
streams Lavringe Å and Tude Å on Zealand, and in the stream Sege Å in Scania
(Lund 2003, 53; Lund 2004, 204). In the stream Tude Å on Zealand a sword was
found at the old ford Næsby Bro (Lund 2004, 204) (Fig. 1). The sword is one of
Jan Petersen’s type H, a type that dates to AD 830/40–950 based on grave finds
(Petersen 1919, 14; Nørgård Jørgensen 1999, 75–155). The old ford is situated less
than a kilometre from the circular structured Trelleborg fortification. The
deposition of the sword thereby predates the construction of the fortification, as
the Trelleborg fortification is dendrodated to AD 980/81 (Bonde and Christensen
1982, 132). In the stream Nørreå in Jutland, four swords from the Viking Age
were discovered near the bridge Fladbro (Stidsing 1999, 93–97; Lund 2004,
204–05). One of these swords was still in its sheath, which strengthens the
interpretation of the weapons in wetlands from the Viking Age as ritual deposits
and not remnants of battle. The structure of the acts of deposition of weapons
in the Viking Age seems to be quite different from the structure of the weapon
sacrifices in the Roman and early Germanic Iron Age. The Iron-Age depositions
consist of many weapons. Some carry traces of battle on them and many had
been destroyed before the depositions. The deposited weapons from the Viking
Age found at bridges are different: they are often single deposits and only rarely
show signs of damage. At several places, where the structures of a Viking-Age
bridge have been excavated, weapons have been found at the site, for instance at
Nybro in South-west Jutland and at Sejs in Middle Jutland (Ravn 1999, 227–35;
National Museum, Copenhagen, SB-no. 160, 105–82; Silkeborg Museum,

Page 118
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 111

Figure 1. The hilt of the sword found at the ford Næsby Bro.
Photo: Julie Lund.

Page 119
 Ordernr. 051231

112 Julie Lund

Figure 2. The excavation of the bridge Nybro seen from the south.
Photo: Varde Museum.

3/1948 (1984)). The Nybro bridge had been constructed in AD 761 and had been
repaired several times at the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth century
(Fig. 2). The youngest reparation of the bridge can be dendrochronologically
dated to AD 834 (Frandsen 1999, 46). In the water next to the bridge an axe from
the early Viking Age was found as well as a bronze plate and an Arabic coin
(Ravn 1999, 235). Whereas the axe might have been deposited at the time of the
construction of the bridge, the coin and the bronze plate must be from a later
deposit. The coin is an abbasid struck in AD 771/72. It is worn and has a hole for
suspension (Ravn 1999, 232). Recent research shows that Islamic coins probably
did not come into circulation in the Danish area until the middle of the ninth
century (Kilger forthcoming), and the coin must consequently have been
deposited during the latest period of use of the bridge.
At the stream Værebro Å on Zealand, nineteen weapons dating from the
Viking Age and the Middle Ages were deposited. Several of these were found
close to the two bridges, Værebro and Stenløse Bro (Lund 2004, 199). At
Stenløse Bro the stream is narrow and the place makes a natural crossing between
the dry land areas south-west and north-east of the stream. On the south-west
side traces of Viking settlement have been excavated, and on the north-east side

Page 120
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 113

several graves from the Viking Age are known (Kleiminger 1993, 161; Lund 2003,
33). Thus, Stenløse Bro seems to have formed a passage from the settlement of
the living to the graves of the dead.

Weapons and Rune-Stones

In the arid lake Sjørring Sø in north-west Jutland, Denmark, several weapons

from the Viking Age and the Middle Ages were discovered when the lake was
drained. At the eastern bank of the lake there is a fortification from the Middle
Ages. The presence of weapons from both the Viking Age and the Middle Ages
in a lake with a medieval fortification is known from other places in southern
Scandinavia: at the lakes Søborg Sø, Højby Sø, and Näsbyholm Sjö (Behrend
1970; Lund 2003, 54–61; Lund 2004, 205–12). The fortification at lake Sjørring
Sø originates from the twelfth century, whereas the weapons include swords of
Jan Petersen’s type H, which is dated to AD 830/40–950 (Petersen 1919; Nørgård
Jørgensen 1999, 75–155). This means that the deposit of the weapons predates the
fortification. The fortification is situated less than two hundred metres from the
farm Brogård (the farm at the bridge). In 1878 a canal was dug, revealing many
weapons from the Viking Age as well as trunks of oak originating from a bridge.
A rune-stone of after-Jelling type AD 970–1025 has been found (DR 155), built
into the house at the farm Brogård. This location makes it plausible that the
rune-stone originated at the bridge at Brogård. The fact that the stone was raised
by a woman, Åse, strengthens this interpretation. Most of the rune-stones were
raised by men. Rune-stones raised at bridges have a larger proportion of females
raising them than rune-stones in general (Sawyer 1992, 23). Therefore the
Brogård site probably includes both the deposition of Viking-Age weapons and
a rune-stone at a bridge.
The connection between weapon depositions and rune-stones at bridges is
perhaps most clearly seen at the Dybäck stream in southern Scania. Here an
outstanding sword has been laid down in the stream at the bridge Herremands-
broen at the former Herremandsvad (the lord’s ford) (Lund 2003, 53; Lund 2004,
205) (Fig. 3). The sword is of Jan Petersen’s type Z decorated in English style
dating from AD 950–1000 (Roesdahl and Wilson 1992, catalogue no. 414). At the
bridge, a rune-stone of the after-Jelling type, dating from AD 970–1025 (DR 268;
Stoklund 1991, 292) stands. The stone was raised over a dreng — a type of title
which is linked to Vikings who had been active in warfare in England. The
sword and the rune-stone can thus be seen as connected both in time and
through their relation to England.

Page 121
 Ordernr. 051231

114 Julie Lund

Figure 3. The sword from Dybäck found at the ford Herremandsvad.

Photo: Historiska Museet.

Page 122
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 115

Viking Weapons Abroad

Deposited Viking weapons at crossings appear not only in Scandinavia, but in

many places on the Continent and in the British Isles as well. On the British
Isles Viking weapons from wetlands are one of the more well known archaeo-
logical signs of Viking activity (Jerichow 1997, 4–8; Lund 2003, 62; Lund 2004,
202). A Jan Petersen’s type D sword has been found below a setting of logs in the
River Shannon at Limerick (Ireland) and an Ulfberth-sword has been discovered
at Tenfoot Bridge in Shifford (Jahnkuhn 1951, 222; Walsh 1998, 228). At the old
London Bridge crossing the river Thames, a hoard consisting of axes, spearheads,
tongs, and an object interpreted as an anchor were found (John 1991, 165). The
combination of weapons and tools is also known in Scandinavian hoards such
as Gudingsåkrarna on Gotland and Aalebæk on Møn, and in so-called smith
graves known from Norway, Scotland, and the Hebrides (Müller-Wille 1984,
188–94; Ritchie 1993, 87–89; Roesdahl and Wilson 1992, catalogue no. 94; Lund
2003, 33–36, 92–94; Lund 2004, 210). The axes and spearheads date the London
Bridge hoard to AD 950–1050 (Lund 2004, 202), and the hoard has traditionally
been linked to the battle between Vikings and the army of King Æthelred the
Unready. The bridge is mentioned in Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla in the saga
of Olav Haraldson. In this account, the bridge falls after weapons had been
thrown at it. However as Richards has argued, the interpretation of Vikings
throwing weapons and tools in the river while storming London seems unlikely
(2000, 33). Considering the number of weapons found at crossings in the Scan-
dinavian area, the hoard is more likely to be the remnants of a ritual deposit.
This interpretation is strengthened by the find from Skerne in East Yorkshire.
In Skerne the piles of a wooden bridge built of oak were excavated along with
four knives, a spoon-bit, an adze, a Viking sword, and several animal skeletons
(Dent 1984, 253). The bones originated from at least twenty animals — horses,
cattle, sheep, and dogs showing no signs of slaughter except for one: a horse had
been pole-axed in the forehead. The bones showed no marks from consumption
butchery (Richards 2000, 33). The find underlines the fact that bridges played
an important role in pagan rituals, linking the act of ritual weapon deposit with
the sacrifices of horses and other animals. Horse bones from the Iron Age have
been found in wetland contexts in several places, for instance at Skedemosse on
Öland (Hagberg 1967). On dry land, horse bones from possible sacrifices in the
Viking Age have been found in several places, for instance at the hall in Järrestad,
Scania (Andrén 2002, 316), at the cult house in Borg, Öster-Götaland (Nielsen
1997, 384), and in the posthole of an Iron-Age house at Vidarshov, Hedmark
(Norway) (Pilø 2005, 129–30). The prohibition of eating horse meat in the early

Page 123
 Ordernr. 051231

116 Julie Lund

Christian laws from Iceland and Norway can be seen as a reaction to blót (Steins-
land 1995, 19). This indicates that when a deposition at a bridge involved both
weapons and horse bones, the deposited weapons should be seen as linked to
pagan blót sacrifices.
Viking-Age weapons of Scandinavian origin also appear in wetlands at cross-
ings on the Continent. Swords have been found in the rivers of the Old Russian
Empire (Androshchuk 2002, 12). In the river Dnepr a hoard of five Viking
swords was discovered next to an old ford (Androshchuk 2002, 9), a constella-
tion which shows a great resemblance to the Scandinavian finds. Other objects
from the same period were found in the river, among them a bronze key, chain
mail, and a bronze vessel containing a Byzantine coin (Androshchuk 2002, 12).
Other known deposits of weapons at bridges were made at the village of Wolkow
at Demmin and in Lühesand in Lower Saxony (Geisslinger 1967, 99–106). The
island of Ostrow Lednicki, in lake Lednickie in Poland, was one of the earliest
residences of a Polish ruler. In the lake remains of two wooden bridges of a total
length of 650 metres have been excavated. Both bridges seem, based on the
dendrochronological dating, to have been built around AD 963/64 and to have
been repaired several times in the following seventy years (Wilke 1999, 49–56).
Below one of the bridges was a hoard of around two hundred weapons from the
same period, lying in the lake within a small area. The weapons consisted of
seven swords, sixty-five spears, and 121 axes, found along with chain mail, clubs,
ploughshare, plates, buckets, and spoons in wood, as well as two keys and two
weight scales in bronze, and the skeleton of a horse. Even spurs of both Böhmish
and Polish types and handles of axes with traces of fire damage were excavated
(Wilke 1999, 55–56). Wilke suggests that the finds should be interpreted as traces
of a battle between Böhmish and Polish cavalry, based on the finds of spurs and
weapons and the description of Otto III passing the bridge on his way to
Gniezno to visit the grave of St Adalbart in the year AD 1000 (Wilke 1999,
53–54). Most of the swords and axes, however, are of Scandinavian type, like a
sword of Jan Petersen’s type M and axes of Jan Petersen’s types C and M
(Petersen 1919, 39–46, 117–26; Wieczorek and Hinz 2000). In the local graves
both Scandinavian and local weapons appear.1 Consequently it is striking that
the population at Ostrów Lednicki chose to use so many imported Scandinavian
weapons in their deposit. Comparing the finds from Ostrów Lednicki with the
finds of weapons at Scandinavian bridges, I would argue that the objects found

1
Personal correspondence from Magdalena Naum, Department of Archaeology and
Classical Studies, Lund University.

Page 124
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 117

under the bridges at Ostrów Lednicki are traces of ritual deposit activities. This
interpretation is strengthened by the presence of the horse skeleton, which shows
a resemblance to the find from Skerne. The find from Ostrów Lednicki differs
from the Scandinavian deposits at some points: in the number of weapons and
in the presence of the spurs and the chain mail. In general, however, the find is
similar to the Scandinavian finds in terms of period, context, and types of
weapons. The deposition activities in Ostrów Lednicki seem, based on the dating
of the weapon types, to have taken place throughout a period of around a
hundred years. This picture is very similar to many of the Scandinavian weapon
deposition sites, which shows continuity in the act of deposition through several
hundred years (Lund 2004, 206).

Other Activities at the Viking-Age Bridge

In Snorri Sturluson’s Heimskringla, bridges are mentioned in descriptions of

battles, for instance the battle at Stamford Bridge. In these texts, importance
does not seem to be attached to the symbolic role of the bridge. The weapons
found at bridges have often been suggested to be traces of battles or duelling at
bridges and fords. As Geisslinger has pointed out, however, this interpretation
would be supported if objects of protection such as helmets or shields were also
discovered at bridges (1967, 100), which is not the case in the Scandinavian and
British finds. Not only weapons, but a wide range of other classes of objects,
jewellery, whetstones, and bronze keys from the Viking Age, are found in the
vicinity of bridges. These finds can hardly be interpreted as traces of battle, and
they thereby strengthen the interpretation of the finds as traces of ritual activi-
ties. It is noteworthy that the types of objects deposited are the same types that
are found in well-equipped graves from the same period. For instance a Viking-
Age amber ring has been found at the bridge Vaarbybro on Zealand (National
Museum SB-no. 040305-27), and a bronze key from the Viking Age at the bridge
Bellinge Bro (Fyns Stiftsmuseum no. 3326 (1881)), which forms a central crossing
from the important ecclesiastical town of Odense to the southern part of the
island Fyn. Chests with tools from the Viking Age have been found in both dry
land and wetland. The best known of these chests are probably the chest from
Mästermyr, found in a former lake next to a bridge (Arwidsson and Berg 1983).
The buildings at the Viking-Age site at lake Tissø on Zealand have been
interpreted as a magnate’s hall with a cult house and workshops. Around fifty
weapons and pieces of jewellery were deposited in the lake (Jørgensen 2002). A
much smaller scale deposit was made at the bridge Halleby Bro, which crosses

Page 125
 Ordernr. 051231

118 Julie Lund

the stream Halleby Å that runs from lake Tissø to the sea. At Halleby Bro, traces
of a ford from the Iron Age or the Middle Ages have been found along with a
bronze plate and a wooden cist containing work tools, both deposited in the
Viking Age (National Museum SB-no. 030201-2; D2113-1321; C12261). Next to the
ford a 50 metre long wooden bridge from the Viking Age has also been discov-
ered. Close to the bridge was an unusual double grave, containing the skeletons
of two men, who were both decapitated. Their heads had been placed between
their legs facing upwards. These skeletons have been carbon dated to AD 1030–40
(Jørgensen 2002, 221), forming the youngest finds from the Tissø complex, and
they were buried next to settlement traces from the Viking Age. These finds
from Tissø clearly show that the ford and the bridge make up an important place
in the cognitive landscape of the Viking Age. The activities associated with the
bridge include not only ritual deposits but also decapitations. These could be
seen as part of the judicial functions of Tissø, but at the same time they illustrate
the effect of the bridge: it separates you from the one world, and provides en-
trance to another, just as the heads have been separated from the body.

The Bridge in the Pagan Sacral Landscape

In Snorri Sturluson’s Edda, in Gylfaginning, Hermóðr crosses Gjallar bro (the

bridge over the river Gjo3 ll) which is covered with gold, when he is riding to Hel
to get Baldr out. Here Hermóðr meets Móðguðr, the maiden who is the keeper
of the bridge. She asks Hermóðr his name and family and says that the day be-
fore five groups of dead men had ridden across the bridge. She explains that the
bridge does not make any less noise under Hermóðr, and that he does not have
the colour of a dead man. Hermóðr asks if Móðguðr has seen Baldr pass over the
bridge. She responds that she has and that the road to Hel leads downward and
northward (Collinder 1983, 78). A similar bridge is mentioned in Saxo’s Gesta
Danorum (book VIII). An expedition is on its way to Geruth’s farm, when they
meet his brother Guthmund who offers them carriages to ride in: ‘While they
were travelling along, they discerned a river spanned by a bridge of gold. When
they wanted to cross it Guthmund called them back, telling them that the bed
of this stream formed a natural boundary between the human and the super-
natural world. No mortal was permitted to step beyond it’ (Fisher 1996, 263).
Lotte Hedeager has pointed out that the account in Gylfaginning could be
applied to late Iron Age Gudme. Here a stream divided the settlement and the
cemetery, just as in Gylfaginning, where Hel was divided from Miðgarðr by
streams. To move from one world to the other involved crossing a bridge

Page 126
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 119

(Hedeager 2002, 14). This interpretation is convincing, considering that the

constellation of a stream dividing the settlement and the cemeteries which are
connected by a bridge or a ford occurs frequently at sites from the late Iron Age
and the Viking Age (Adamsen 2004, 22–28), as was the case with Stenløse Bro.
Van Gennep has pointed out that the transition from one social position to
another is often marked and identified with physical crossings, and with the
crossing of thresholds in the form of rivers, lakes, and gates, so that the transition
becomes both symbolic and physical. Territorial borders are established and
maintained through rituals, and often the borders have divine protectors (van
Gennep 1999, 129–30; Østmo 2005, 63). In many places in the Viking Age the
bridge constituted the concrete passage from the settlement to the graveyard, and
the symbolic passage from the area of the living to the area of the dead. The
bridge must have been a place of liminality, and crossing the bridge involved
crossing from one world to another. This can quite practically have been part of
everyday life, where crossing the bridge could mean entering the graveyard, the
uncultivated land, or simply land outside your ownership. In pagan cosmology,
streams formed borders, and this might have been reflected in Viking society, as
many boundaries of ownership are placed along streams. Crossing a bridge
would often mean crossing a border.
The way to Hel in pagan cosmology has generally been described as a crossing
of water. The journey to Hel could be by ship, as in Baldr’s burial, or by crossing
a stream with a ferryman, as in the death of Sinfjo3 tli (Holm-Olsen 1975, 209;
Collinder 1983, 177). That streams were borders is seen in Hárbarðzlióð, where
Þórr cannot pass the stream after he has been in Austrvegr to hunt giants (Østmo
2005, 64). Another way was to go by road. This is described both in Hermóðr’s
ride to Hel and in the verses of Brynhildr’s journey to Hel, which goes by the
Hel-road (Holm-Olsen 1975, 265). Both bridges in the Edda, Gjo3 ll and Bifro3 st,
are related to noise: the bridge gjallar (rings, resounds) because of the noise when
riders cross it, and because it crosses the stream Gjo3 ll (the noisy, the racket); and
Bifro3 st is guarded by Heimdallr, who will blow his Gjallar-horn when Ásgarðr
is attacked. Both bridges have a guard or a keeper, Móðguðr and Heimdallr,
which underlines the bridge’s status as a border. In the poem Draumkvadet it is
stated that if you give a cow to the poor, you avoid being dizzy on the lofty
Gjallar-bridge on your dead soul’s journey (Strömbäck 1969, 7). The dating of
this poem has been widely discussed, placing it anywhere from the twelfth to the
sixteenth century.
Hoards show a tendency to be placed at borders in the landscape (Zachrisson
1998, 114; Hedeager 1999, 246; Wiker 2000, 124). But Zachrisson’s borders might

Page 127
 Ordernr. 051231

120 Julie Lund

not be borders of ownership or administration as she has identified them,2 but

should rather be seen as borders of topography, where one type of landscape
changes into another, as, for instance, a beach of a lake is a border between land
and water. Beaches and bridges were not the only borders being marked. An
example of this is a dry land deposition of a Viking-Age axe at Berg in Buskerud
(Norway). The axe has been found in a 10 centimetre gap between two pieces of
rock. The excavation of the site shows that the axe was not a grave find, but a
deposition. This deposit was made under a steep rock, exactly at the point where
the landscape changes from mountain to farm land. Consequently the axe was
deposited at the border between mountains to the west and farmland to the east,
but additionally at the north-south border of two properties. The two rock pieces
were originally one, but have been broken as they fell down from the steep rock,
and the axe was placed between the two pieces afterwards (Lønaas 2004, 4–6).
This means that when the deposit of the axe was made, it would appear that it
was the axe that cut the rock in two parts, a scenario which could have been part
of the ritual performance of the deposition. Such an act could form a parallel to
Norwegian grave finds where some graves show traces of axe cuttings in the grave
at a time after the entombment, presumably as part of the burial rites (Lia 2001,
86; Lia 2004, 302). The many sacral place-names with ‘-berg’ (mountain or hill)
in combination with the names of gods indicate the existence of the concept of
holy mountains or hills in the Viking Age (Vikstrand 2004, 318). Many of the
Norwegian weapons are single finds from rock. They are registered as presum-
ably grave finds, but the find from Berg suggests that they might also originate
in deposits. Other places that are marked by weapon deposits are natural
harbours and the mouths of rivers and streams which form the borders between
the inland and the open sea (Lund 2003, 88; Lund 2004, 203).

Bridge Building as a Christian Deed

The rune-stones from the Middle Swedish area from the eleventh century were
raised at graveyards and at roads, bridges, and fords. Bridge building was con-
sidered a good Christian deed equal to making donations to the church (Thörn
2004, 245). The oldest of the rune-stones from the Christian period was raised
by Christians who asked God to help the souls of their dead relatives (Herschend
1994, 101). Zachrisson equates this with the requiem Mass, where the souls of the

2
See Stefan Brink (1999) for a critique of Zachrisson.

Page 128
 Ordernr. 051231 KATERN 5

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 121

dead should find the right way to the light and paradise by means of prayers by
the bereaved and the help of God and God’s mother (Zachrisson 1998, 148).
Bridge building in early Christianity had of course a practical communicative
function, but added to that it had a symbolic meaning (Smestad 1988, 172). The
concept of the soul’s troublesome journey to the other world is known in many
religions, and in Christianity it appears from the sixth century onwards
(Roesdahl 1990, 26). In Gregory the Great’s Dialogues from the sixth century the
bridge is the place for the judgement and the trial of souls (Adamsen 2004, 28).
In an English collection of sermon texts by Wulfstan of York (d. AD 1023),
bridge building is described as a good Christian deed that will help the soul on
its difficult journey (Roesdahl 1990, 26). If the rune-stones from the Christian
period were raised to ease the journey from the living to the dead, the meaning
of the bridge in early Christianity equals the meaning of the bridge in the pagan
period: it is a road to the land of the dead and thereby a divider and a connection
between the living and the dead — a threshold and a passage.

The Crossings and the Cross

At many bridges from the late Viking period and the early Middle Ages a rune-
stone has been raised, and on many of these it is pointed out in the inscription
that the raiser of the stone had the bridge built. Among the rune-stones that
mention building of bridges, many have an image of a cross. The cross naturally
primarily symbolized Christianity, but Lager has pointed out that even the shape
of the cross could be used to express theological nuances (Lager 2002, 224–25).
I will argue that even the placing of the cross in relation to the text carried
meaning. Andrén has demonstrated that to understand the meaning of the rune-
stones from the Mälar valley, text and image should be read in a joint interpre-
tation, because the two parts interact. For instance the rune-stone from Tumbo
carries an inscription commemorating a man who died in Greece. On the stone
there is an image of a beast that has its jaws around the word ‘dead’, which
Andrén has linked to the kenning ‘to be eaten by the wolf’, meaning to die in
battle (Andrén 2000). The rune-stones from Södermanland and Uppland with
the word ‘bridge’ in the inscriptions can be analysed using the same method to
search for links between the word bridge and the image on the stone. Seventy-six
of the stones from this area have the word ‘bridge’ in the inscription, and on
forty of these there is an image of a cross on the rune-stone. On most of these
the cross is joined directly to one, two, or three of the words in the inscription.
On twenty of these rune-stones, the cross is hanging directly from the name of

Page 129
 Ordernr. 051231

122 Julie Lund

the deceased or a description or title of the deceased, like ‘sister’, ‘father’, or

‘huskarl’. On eleven of the rune-stones the cross is either hanging directly from
or joined directly to the word ‘bridge’ (U118, U146, U279, U489, U505) or
hanging from the words ‘made [the] bridge’ or ‘and bridge’, or the points of the
cross point at the word ‘bridge’ (U36, U45, U145, U330, U378, U904). On those
rune-stones that mention words that are uncommon on a rune-stone, such as
‘land defence’ (U617), ‘mortuary’ (U818), or ‘stone mark’ (U475), these words
have the cross joined to them instead of to the word ‘bridge’. On five of the
rune-stones (U102, U118, U317, U363, U1031) the cross is hanging from the name
of one of the raisers of the stone. That the cross is far more often connected to
the name of the deceased rather than the bereaved cannot be accidental, since the
list of raisers is often longer than the name of the deceased. This indicates that
the deliberate joining of the image of the cross to the name of the deceased or the
word ‘bridge’ was made to emphasize that the deceased, the bridge, or both
should be considered a Christian person or place.
The inscription on the rune-stone from Morby (U489) says that ‘Gullög had
the bridge made for the soul of her daughter, Gillög, whom Ulv had for wife.
Öpir engraved’ (Fig. 4). A cross is joined to the word ‘daughter’ but there is also
a band downwards from the cross to the word ‘bridge’. Thus the engraver wanted
to underline the relation between the deceased and the bridge, both connected
to the cross. The inscription on the rune-stone from Hagby, Brohammaren
(U146), is in the shape of a portal or a door. Inside the portal is an independent
line of inscription and a cross joined to the text by the tips on the top and the
two sides. From the tip pointing downwards, a band connects the cross and the
inscription inside the portal. The inscription reads: ‘Ingeborg had the rock
carved and the bridge made in memory of Holmsten, her husband, and in
memory of Torsten, her son’ (Fig. 5). In the middle of the portal, the last
sentence is repeated, ‘Torsten, her son’. The tips of the cross are connected to the
words ‘bridge made’, ‘in memory of’, and ‘Holmsten’, and the band from the
last tip is pointing down to the phrase ‘Torsten, her son’. The relation between
the two deceased, the bridge, and the cross is conveyed by the relationship
between the text and the image. Not only the deceased but also the place (that
is, the bridge) were, or became, Christian. The placing of rune-stones with
crosses on them in graveyards has been interpreted as part of an act of
consecrating a formerly pagan place to Christianity. The same interpretation
seems plausible for the bridge-stones. The fact that the cross does not touch the
text at all the points, but only in one or two places, and predominantly at the
name or description of the deceased or the word ‘bridge’, indicates that the
placing of the cross carried meaning.

Page 130
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 123

Figure 4. The rune-stone from Morby (U489).

The inscription reads: ‘Gullög had the bridge made for the soul of
her daughter, Gillög, whom Ulv had as his wife. Öpir engraved.’

Page 131
 Ordernr. 051231

124 Julie Lund

Figure 5. The rune-stone from Hagby, Brohammaren (U146). The inscription

reads: ‘Ingeborg had the rock carved and the bridge made in memory of
Holmsten, her husband, and in memory of Torsten, her son.’ In the middle of
the portal, the last phrase is repeated, ‘Torsten, her son’.

Page 132
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 125

The connection between the image and the text is also seen expressed on the
Dynna stone from Opland, Norway. The inscription reads: ‘Gunnvor made the
bridge, Trydrik’s daughter, in memory of Astrid, her daughter. She was the most
dexterous maiden in Hadeland’ (Olsen 1941, 198). This inscription is engraved
on the narrow side of the stone. On the wide side the stone has an image of a
figure in glory. Underneath this are three riders under each other and below the
lowest rider is an ornament of six so-called Irish slurs, divided into two lines. The
scene has been interpreted as the three wise men (Staecker 2004, 49), and the
image on the wide side of the stone and the text on the narrow side have
generally not been linked in these interpretations. Nevertheless it is striking that
the Irish slurs figuratively form a bridge, which the lowest of the horses is cross-
ing. The word ‘bridge’ in the inscription on the narrow side is engraved right up
against the Irish slurs. In that way the Irish slurs could be seen as a bridge which
the three wise men can cross, and therefore the Christian meaning of the bridge,
and the deed of building a bridge, is underlined in the relation between the text
and the picture.
The rune-stones from the Danish area and in Scania are generally from an
earlier period than the rune-stones from Uppland and Södermanland, and the
inscription and image in these stones rarely interact. The rune-stones at bridges
are mainly of the after-Jelling type dating to AD 970–1025 (Stoklund 1991, 292),
that is, from around the time of the Christianization of this area. Many of the
Swedish rune-stones are explicitly Christian, and this is indicated by a cross or
a Christian inscription; some of the Danish rune-stones are explicitly pagan, and
only a few are explicitly Christian (Sawyer 1992, 26). The bridge Sjellebro con-
sists of a complex of a rune-stone and the traces of a wooden bridge, both from
the Viking Age. The bridge had been founded in AD 752, based on the dendro-
chronological dating, and it had been repaired several times in the Viking Age.
The rune-stone at the bridge is of the type after-Jelling. It has no inscription, but
an image of a mask in Mammen style, dating the stone to the late tenth century
(Stoklund 1991, 287; Fuglesang 1991, 86). A similar mask is seen on a rune-stone
from Lund (DR 314) from the church Allehelgen in Lund, Scania. On this stone
the mask is placed between two wolf-like figures, which can be used to interpret
this mask as a representation of Óðinn. Also, one of Óðinn’s names was Grimnir
(the masked one) (Price 2002, 105). The mask on the rune-stone from Sjellebro
could be interpreted as an image of Óðinn, and could therefore be a direct pagan
parallel to the Christian rune-stones. The interpretation of masks in Mammen
style has been widely discussed and will not be pursued here. Rune-stones with
an explicit pagan inscription have been found mainly in the Danish area. One
of these has a possible origin at a bridge: the Skjern 2 stone (DR 81) found in

Page 133
 Ordernr. 051231

126 Julie Lund

Skjern church next to the bridge Skjern Bro. Like the rune-stone from Sjellebro,
the stone from Skjern has an image of a mask in Mammen style on it.

The Word ‘Bridge’ Forms a Bridge

On twelve of the rune-stones from Uppland and Södermanland the word

‘bridge’ is placed at the highest point of the text, so that the text line in itself
forms an arch, or a bridge, with the bereaved and the deceased divided on each
side of the bridge (U45, U92, U102, U118, U126, U145, U279, U378, U456, U859,
U904, and U1133). On the rune-stone from Årby (U1033) the text has been
divided into two parts, forming two arches or portals on two sides of a three-
sided stone. The inscription on the first arch reads ‘Nase and his brother raised
this stone’, and the second arch reads ‘in memory of Jarl, his good father, and
they made [this] bridge to please God’. In this way the bereaved on the first arch
is divided from the deceased, the bridge, and God on the second arch.
The rune-stone from Källstorp in Scania (DR 269) is of the after-Jelling type.
The inscription reads: ‘Thorkil, Thord’s son, made this bridge in memory of his
brother, Vrage’ (Fig. 6). The text runs vertically upwards in a line from one side
of the stone, over the back of the stone, and vertically downwards on the other
side. In this way the text forms an arch — or a bridge. The words ‘this bridge’
are engraved on the top of the arch, and they consequently form a bridge from
one side of the stone to the other. On one side of the stone is the name of the
bereaved living and on the other the name of the dead, with the word bridge
connecting the two sides. Such an inscription could form a direct parallel to the
place of the bridge in the sacral landscape of the late Viking Age and early
Middle Ages dividing the living and the dead. On the side of the stone next to
the first part of the text is a cross. The cross is not joined directly to the text, and
could be a later addition, but Jacobsen and Moltke presume that it is contem-
porary with the text. The stone is typologically dated to AD 970–1025 (Stoklund
1991, 292) and the image of a cross suggests a dating in the later part of this
period (DR 292). A similar reading seems possible for the rune-stone from Östra
Vemmenhög (DR 268) at Herremandsbroen, where the sword was found in the
stream. The inscription on the rune-stone is written in an arch, with the text
divided between the bereaved on the one side and the deceased on the other: on
one side the inscription reads ‘Broder raised this stone in memory of’ and on the
other ‘Bose, his brother, a very wellborn dreng’. In this case the word ‘bridge’ is
not present, but the form of the inscription follows the same pattern of an arch
dividing the living and the dead.

Page 134
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 127

Figure 6. The rune-stone from Källtorp (DR269). The inscription reads:

‘Thorkil, Thord’s son, made this bridge in memory of his brother, Vrage.’

The Bridge at the Border

In chapter 90 of Gulathing Law, it is stated that if someone damages a bridge on

a public road, he must repair it and pay a fee to the owner of the bridge. Brink
has pointed out that this indicates that someone owned the bridge, which is
strengthened by the fact that many old names of bridges have a personal name
as prefix (2000, 23–24). In Östgöta-lagen dating from around AD 1350, in chapter
Bb4, it is stated that if someone builds a bridge for the sake of the builder’s soul,
he is not obliged to maintain this bridge. That obligation lies with the owner of
the land (Hoff 1997, 307). This means that, at least around AD 1350, the bridge
builder and the farm owner were not necessarily the same person. The link
between the bridge builder and the owner of the farm in the early Middle Ages
has been overemphasized by Zachrisson, who sees a rune-stone at a bridge as a
gate to the landscape of the farm, and the raising of the rune-stone as a consecra-
tion of the whole farm to Christianity (Zachrisson 1998, 200). I would suggest
that rune-stones are placed at bridges and fords because these places in them-
selves were important places in the sacral topography of the Viking Age, and they
consequently became important in the change of the faith. Place-name

Page 135
 Ordernr. 051231

128 Julie Lund

compounds with the word ‘bridge’ in them are introduced in the Viking Age, at
least in the Danish area (Hoff 1997, 306), and bridge building seems generally
to have increased in the Viking Age (Jørgensen 1991). Roesdahl claims that none
of the known wooden bridges are earlier than the late tenth century, and she
suggests that they could have been built by Christians as a Christian deed, being
an early Danish parallel to the Swedish bridges built for the sake of the soul
(1990, 27). This interpretation seems plausible for the bridge Ravninge Enge,
considering that Harald Bluetooth, who is presumed to have been in charge of
the building, claimed to have Christianized Denmark (Roesdahl 1990, 27).
However, the bridges from both Sjellebro and Nybro are from the eighth century
and could hardly be considered Christian. It also seems like a less plausible
explanation for the bridge from Tissø, a site that can hardly be considered an
early Christian site considering the number of depositions and the apparent cult
activities at the site. Even the place-name itself, Tissø, refers to the warrior god
Tyr, and a bridge at such a place could hardly be Christian.

The Bridge as a Mediator in the Landscape

Some of the bridges may not have been used very often — for instance the
bridges from the settlement to the graveyard. Others might have been part of
everyday life moving from settlement to the field, or they might have been used
when travelling over shorter or longer distances, to a neighbouring village, to
central places, or as part of a journey abroad. Ritual deposits were not made
every time a bridge was crossed, as the number of artefacts found at bridges
would probably have been much larger if that were the case. But when a person
crossed the bridge, he/she would most probably have been aware of the meaning
or meanings of the bridge, and he/she might have known that deposits were
made at the place in past or recent times. In this way, crossing the bridge was
part of an everyday routine, constituting the structure of the meaning of the
bridge. The bridge was not only linked to journeys to the other world, but was
also a concrete part of journeys in this world. This link is underlined by the
rune-stone from Gryta, Uppland (U818). According to the inscription on this
stone, not only was a bridge built, but a mortuary was also constructed. The
mortuary is interpreted as a rest house for travellers (Sawyer 1992, 24). The
deposits at bridges might be related to rituals performed in relation to travelling.
Most cultures have rituals related to journeys. It is noteworthy that the journey
itself has the structure of a ritual: you are separated from the society, being in an
insecure, liminal state on the way, and when you return, you must be

Page 136
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 129

reincorporated into society again (Rudebeck 2002, 174; Lund 2004, 208). The
high numbers of weapons found at the mouths of rivers, in natural harbours, and
abroad could be related to an act of making deposits as part of a ritual performed
at journeys (Lund 2004, 208). This could also apply to the deposits at bridges as
many of the rune-stones at bridges are raised in memory of people who have died
on their journeys abroad (Zachrisson 1998, 168). Viking-Age amulets, among
them a Þórr’s hammer and a miniature weapon, deposited on a road in Birka
(Price 2002, 63), might also be linked to journey rituals.
The material indicates that weapons, jewellery, keys, whetstones, and tools
were being deposited and animals sacrificed at bridges, not only in Scandinavia,
but in most of the places where Viking activities took place. In the late pagan
and early Christian periods rune-stones were being placed at bridges at the time
of building or repairing a bridge or a ford. This means that from the end of the
tenth century and through the eleventh century, both pagan rituals and Chris-
tian acts took place at bridges, forming a contested use of this place in the
cultural landscape. In both paganism and Christianity the bridge played a part
in the concept of the journey from this world to the other side. This could mean
that pagan ritual deposits and the raising of rune-stones at bridges in the pagan
period refers to the same complex of ideas as the raising of rune-stones and the
building of bridges in the Christian period do: the transformation from the
world of the living to the world of dead. The deposit was hidden in the water
and perhaps only known to a group within the population, whereas the bridge
and the rune-stone were visible to anyone passing. The concept of a bridge to
paradise, which sinners fail to pass and instead fall into a dark river filled with
demons, appears in poetry and vision literature from the twelfth century on-
wards. The bridge to paradise is even a common motif in medieval iconography
(Dinzelbacher and Kleinschmidt 1984, 243–68). This means that the bridge was
part of both pagan and Christian cosmology, and it was consequently useful in
the change of faith.
When a rune-stone was raised at a bridge in the eleventh century, it marked
out the bridge as being a Christian place. If ritual depositions had been
performed at the same place in the pagan period, the raising of a Christian rune-
stone could perhaps imply that the pagan meanings of the places were transferred
into Christian cosmology. This way of dealing with the transformation of mean-
ings in the cultural landscape was not unfamiliar. The same kinds of actions took
place at graveyards, since pagan graveyards are believed to have been consecrated
to Christianity by the raising of rune-stones with crosses, followed by many
Christian burials. In order to continue to use a place that had had a pagan

Page 137
 Ordernr. 051231

130 Julie Lund

meaning, acts had to take place to transform the place into a Christian place with
a Christian meaning. The bridge was thus being marked as a Christian place
consecrated to Christianity. The bridge should be seen as part of the way
meaning embodied in the landscape was changed from paganism to Christianity.
If the building of bridges in the Christian period was related to deposits at
bridges in the pagan period, it seems evident that crossing the bridge was related
to the crossing from one world to another in the pagan period as well as in the
Christian period. Both the pagan body and the Christian soul went to the land
of the dead by crossing a bridge.

Page 138
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 131

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Collinder, Björn, trans. 1983. Snorres Edda, Stockholm: Forum

DRJakobsen, Lis, and Erik Moltke. 1942. Danmarks runeindskrifter, Copenhagen: Munksgaard
Fisher, Peter, trans. (ed. Hilda Ellis Davidson). 1996. Saxo Grammaticus. The History of the
Danes: Books I–IX, Woodbridge: Brewer
Holm-Olsen, Ludvig, trans. 1975. Edda-dikt, Oslo: Cappelen
Sö Brate, Erik, and Elias Wessén. 1924–36. Södermanlands runinskrifter, Sveriges
runinskrifter 3, Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand
U Wessén, Elias, and Sven B. Jansson. 1940–58. Upplands runinskrifter, Sveriges
runinskrifter 6–9, Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand

Secondary Sources

Adamsen, Christian. 2004. ‘På den anden side’, Skalk no. 5, 20–28
Andrén, Anders. 2000. ‘Re-reading Embodied Texts – An Interpretation of Rune-Stones’,
Current Swedish Archaeology 8, 7–32
Andrén, Anders. 2002. ‘Platsernas betydelse, norrön ritual och kultplatskontinuitet’, in Plats
och praxis: Studier av nordisk förkristen ritual, ed. Kristina Jennbert, Anders Andrén, and
Catharina Raudvere, Vägar till Midgård 2, Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 299–342
Androshchuk, Fedir. 2002. ‘Har gotländska vikingar offret vapen I Dnepr-forsarna?’,
Fornvännen 97, 9–14
Arwidsson, Greta, and Gösta Berg. 1983. The Mästermyr Find: A Viking Age Tool Chest from
Gotland, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell
Behrend, Rikke. 1970. ‘Vandfundne sværd fra middelalderen’, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark 13,
89–102
Bonde, Niels, and Kjeld Christensen. 1982. ‘Trelleborgs alder: dendrokronologisk datering’,
Aarbøger for Nordisk Oldkyndighed og Historie, 111–152
Brink, Stefan. 1999. Review of T. Zachrisson, Gård, gräns, grävfelt, Fornvännen 1, 58–65
Brink, Stefan. 2000. ‘Forntida vägar’, in Vägar och vägmiljøer, ed. Jan-Olof Montelius, special
issue of Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 39, 23–64
Brink, Stefan. 2004. ‘Mytologiska rum och eskatologiska föreställningar’, in Ordning mot kaos:
studier av nordisk förkristen kosmologi, ed. Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert, and Catharina
Raudvere, Vägar till Midgård 4, Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 291–316
Dent, John. 1984. ‘Skerne’, Current Archaeology 91, 251–53
Dinzelbacher, Peter, and Harald Kleinschmidt. 1984. ‘Seelenbrücke und Brückenbau im
Mittelalterlichen England’, Numen 31.2, 242–87
Fabech, Charlotte. 1991. ‘Samfundsorganisation, religiøse ceremonier og regional variation’, in
Samfundsorganisation og regional variation: Norden i romersk jernalder og folkevandringstid.
Beretning fra 1. nordiske jernaldersymposium på Sandbjerg Slot 11–15, ed. Charlotte Fabech
and Jytte Ringtved, Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, 283–303

Page 139
 Ordernr. 051231

132 Julie Lund

Fabech, Charlotte. 1992. ‘Social Organisation and Religious Ceremonies – South Scandinavia
from Paganism to Christianity’, in Medieval Europe. Religion and Belief: Pre-printed Papers
6, 151–56
Fabech, Charlotte. 1998. ‘Kult og samfund i yngre jernalder – Ravlunda som eksempel’, in
Centrala platser, centrala frågor: samhällsstrukturen under järnaldern: en vänbok till Berta
Stjernquist, ed. Lars Larsson and Birgitta Hårdh, Acta Archaeologica Lundensia 28,
Uppåkrastudier 1, Lund: Almqvist & Wiksell, 147–63
Frandsen, Lene B. 1999. ‘Nybro – gamle bro – et vejanlæg fra tidlig vikingetid’, in Mark og
montre, fra sydvestjyske museer, 39–50
Fuglesang, Signe H. 1991. ‘The Axehead from Mammen and the Mammen style’, in Mammen:
Grav, kunst og samfund i vikingetiden, ed. Mette Iversen, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter
28, Århus: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, 83–107
Geisslinger, Helmut. 1967. Horte als Geschichtquelle, dargestellt an den völkerwanderungs- und
merowingerzeitlichen Funden des südwestlichen Ostseeraumes, Neumünster: Wachholtz
Gennep, A. van. 1999. Rites de passage. Overgangsriter: Oversatt av Erik Ringen, Oslo: Pax Forlag
A/S
Hagberg, Ulf Erik. 1967. Skedemosse: Studier i ett ölandskt offerfynd från järnåldern, Stockholm:
Almqvist & Wiksell
Hedeager, Lotte. 1999. ‘Sacred Topography: Depositions of Wealth in the Cultural Landscape’,
in Glyfer och arkeologiska rum – en vänbok till Jarl Nordbladh, ed. Anders Gustafsson and
Håkon Karlsson, Gotarc A3, Göteborg: Göteborg University, Department of Archaeology,
229–52
Hedeager, Lotte. 2002. ‘Scandinavian “Central Places” in a Cosmological Setting’, in Central
Places in the Migration and Merovingian Periods, ed. Lars Larsson and Birgitta Hårdh,
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 3–18
Herschend, Frands. 1994. The Recasting of a Symbolic Value – Three Case Studies on Rune Stones,
OPIA 3, Uppsala: Societas Archaeologica Uppsaliensis
Hines, John. 1989. ‘Ritual Hoarding in Migration-Period Scandinavia: A Review of Recent
Interpretations’, Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society 55, 193–205
Hoff, Annette. 1997. Lov og landskab: Landskabslovenes bidrag til forståelsen af landbrugs- og
landskabsudvikling i Danmark ca. 900 – 1250, Århus: Århus Universitetsforlag
Jahnkuhn, Hans. 1951. ‘Ein Ulfbehrt-Schwert aus der Elbe bei Hamburg’, in Festschrift für
Gustav Schwantes zum 65. Geburtstag dargebracht von seinen Schülern und Freunden, ed. Karl
Kersten, Neumünster: Wachholtz, 212–29
Jerichow, Philip. 1997. ‘Dansk militær i England i vikingetiden’ (unpublished cand. mag.
thesis, Institute of Archaeology and Ethnology, Copenhagen University)
John, Eric. 1991. ‘The Age of Edgar’, in The Anglo-Saxons, ed. James Campbell, London:
Penguin, 160–91
Jørgensen, Lars. 2002. ‘En storgård fra vikingetid ved Tissø, Sjælland – en foreløbig præsen-
tation’, in Central Places in the Migration and Merovingian Periods, ed. Lars Larsson and
Birgitta Hårdh, Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 215–47
Jørgensen, Lars, and Lisbeth Pedersen. 1996. ‘Vikinger ved Tissø’, Nationalmuseets Arbejdsmark
39, 22–36

Page 140
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 133

Jørgensen, Mogens S. 1991. ‘Vej, vejstrøg og vejspærring: jernalderens landfærdsel’, in

Jernalderens stammesamfund, ed. Peder Mortensen and Birgit Rasmussen, Højbjerg: Jysk
arkæologisk selskab, 101–16
Kilger, Christoph. Forthcoming. Kaupang from Afar, Kaupang Excavation Project Publication
Series 2
Kleiminger, Hans Ulrich. 1993. ‘Gravformer og gravskik i vikingetidens Danmark’, in Lag 4,
ed. Mogens Bo Henriksen and Arne Tubæk Naamansen, Højbjerg: Kulturlaget, 77–170
Lager, Linn. 2002. Den synliga tron: Runstenskors som en spegling av kristnandet i Sverige, Opia
31, Uppsala: Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala Universitet
Lia, Øystein. 2001. ‘Det rituelle rom: En fortolkende analyse av vikingtidens graver og
landskap på Kaupang’ (unpublished hovedfag thesis in Nordic Archaeology, The
University of Oslo)
Lia, Øystein. 2004. ‘Vikingtidsgravenes rituelle kompleksitet’, in Mellom himmel og jord:
Foredrag fra et seminar om religionsarkeologi. Isegran 31. januar – 2. februar 2002, ed.
Lene Melheim, Lotte Hedeager, and Kristin Oma, Oslo Arkeologiske serie 2, Oslo:
Institutt for arkeologi, kunsthistorie og konservering, Universitetet i Oslo, 292–319
Liestøl, Aslak. 1972. ‘Innskrifta på Eiksteinen’, Stavanger museums årbok, 67–76
Lund, Julie. 2003. ‘Hændelser ved Vand – en analyse af våbendeponeringer fra vikingetid på
Sjælland og i Skåne’ (unpublished mag. art. thesis, Prehistoric Archaeology, Copenhagen
University)
Lund, Julie. 2004. ‘Våben i vand: Om deponeringer i vikingetiden’, Kuml, 197–220
Lønaas, Ole Christian. 2004, Rapport: Arkeologisk utgravning. Funnsted for øks fra vikingtid.
Berg av Ulstad, 77/2, Rollag kommune, Buskerud, Oslo: Kulturhistorisk museum
Müller-Wille, Michael. 1984. ‘Opferplätze der Wikingerzeit’, Frühmittelalterliche Studien 18,
187–221
Nielsen, Ann-Lili 1997. ‘Pagan Cultic and Votive Acts at Borg: An Expression of the Central
Significance of the Farmstead in the Late Iron Age’, in Visions of the Past: Trends and
Traditions in Swedish Medieval Archaeology, ed. Hans Andersson, Peter Carelli, and Lars
Ersgård, Lund Studies in Medieval Archaeology 19, Riksantikvarieämbetet, Arkeologiska
undersökningar, skrifter 24, Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetet, 373–92
Nørgård Jørgensen, Anne. 1999. Waffen und Gräber: Typologische und chronologische Studien zu
Scandinavischen Waffengräbern 520/530 bis 900 n. Chr, Nordiske Fortidsminder B 17,
Copenhagen: Det kongelige nordiske oldskriftselskab
Olsen, Magnus. 1941. Norges innskrifter med de yngre runer, I: Østfold fylke; II: Akershus fylke og
Oslo; III: Hedmark fylke; IV : Opland fylke, Oslo: Norsk historisk kjeldeskriftinstitutt
Petersen, Jan. 1919. De norske vikingesverd: En typologisk-kronologisk studie over vikingetidens
vaaben, Videnskapsselskapets Skrifter II, Hist-Filos. Klasse, Oslo: Jacob Dybwad
Pilø, Lars. 2005. Bosted – urgård – enkeltgård: En analyse av premissene i den norske bosetnings-
historiske forskningstradisjon på bakgrunn av bebyggelsesarkeologisk feltarbeid på Hedemarken,
Oslo Archaeological Series 3, Oslo: Institutt for arkeologi, kunsthistorie og konservering,
Universitetet i Oslo
Price, Neil. 2002. The Viking Way: Religion and War in Late Iron Age Scandinavia, AUN 31,
Uppsala: Institutionen för arkeologi och antik historia, Uppsala University
Ravn, Mads. 1999. ‘Nybro: En trævej fra kong Godfreds tid’, Kuml, 227–57
Richards, Julian D. 2000. Viking Age England, rev. edn, Stroud: Tempus

Page 141
 Ordernr. 051231

134 Julie Lund

Ritchie, Anna. 1993. Viking Scotland, London: Batsford

Roesdahl, Else. 1990. ‘At bygge bro – om det ældste brobyggeri i Norden’, in Gulnares hus: En
gave til Hendes Majestæt Dronning Margrethe den Anden på fødselsdagen, den 16. april 1990,
ed. Annelise Bistrup, Bente Scavenius, and Mette Winge, Copenhagen: Samleren, 23–28
Roesdahl, Else, and David M. Wilson. 1992. From the Viking to Crusader: The Scandinavians
and Europe 800–1200, New York: Rizzola
Rudebeck, Elisabeth. 2002. ‘Vägen som rituell arena’, in Plats och praxis: Studier av nordisk
förkristen ritual, ed. Kristina Jennbert, Anders Andrén, and Catharina Raudvere, Vägar till
Midgård 2, Lund: Nordic Academic Press, 167–200
Sawyer, Bibi. 1992. ‘Kvinnor som brobyggare – om de vikingatida runstenarna som historiska
källor. I’, in Kvinnospår i medeltiden, ed. Inger Lövkrona, Lund: Lund University Press,
17–35
Smestad, Ingrid. 1988. Etableringen av et organiseret vethold i Midt-Norge i tidlig historisk tid,
Varia 16, Oslo: Universitetets oldsaksamling
Staecker, Jörn. 2004. ‘Hjälter, kungar och gudar: Receptionen av bibliska element och av
hjältediktning i en hednisk värld’, in Minne och Myt: Konsten att skapa det förflutna, ed. Åsa
Berggren, Stefan Arvidsson, and Ann-Mari Hållans, Väger till Midgård 5, Lund. Nordic
Academic Press, 39–78
Steinsland, Gro. 1995. ‘Hvordan ble hedendommen utfordret og påvirket av kristendommen?’,
in Møtet mellom hedendom og kristendom i Norge, ed. Hans-Emil Lidén, Oslo:
Universitetsforlaget, 9–27
Stidsing, Ernst. 1999. ‘To pragtsværd fra vikingetiden’, in Årbog 1999/ Kulturhistorisk Museum
Randers, Randers: Kulturhistorisk Museum Randers, 93–97
Stoklund, Marie. 1991. ‘Runesten, kronologi og samfundsrekonstruktion’, in Mammen: grav,
kunst og samfund i vikingetiden, ed. Mette Iversen, Jysk Arkæologisk Selskabs Skrifter 28,
Højbjerg: Jysk Arkæologisk Selskab, 285–98
Strömbäck, Dag. 1969, The Epiphany in Runic Art: The Dynna and Sika Stones, The Dorothea
Coke Memorial Lecture in Northern Studies, London: Lewis
Thunmark-Nylén, Lena. 1995. Die Wikingerzeit Gotlands, Stockholm: Kungl. Vitterhets-
historie- och antikvitetsakadamien
Thörn, Raimond. 2004. ‘Med Turid i centrum – några tankar om Eik i Sokndal kommun,
Rogalands fylke, Norge’, in Mellom himmel og jord: Foredrag fra et seminar om religions-
arkeologi. Isegran 31. januar – 2. februar 2002, ed. Lena Melheim, Lotte Hedeager, and
Karin Oma, Oslo Arkeologiske serie 2, Oslo: Institutt for arkeologi, kunsthistorie og
konservering, Universitetet i Oslo, 240–61
Vikstrand, Per. 2004. ‘Berget, lunden och åkern: Om sakrala och kosmologiska landskap ur
ortnamnens perspektiv’, in Ordning mot kaos: Studier av nordisk förkristen kosmologi, ed.
Anders Andrén, Kristina Jennbert, and Catharina Raudvere, Väger till Midgård 4, Lund:
Nordic Academic Press, 317–41
Walsh, Aidan. 1998. ‘A Summary Classification of Viking Age Swords in Ireland’, in Ireland
and Scandinavia in the Early Viking Age, ed. Howard Clarke, Máire Ní Mhaonaigh, and
Raghnall Ó Floinn, Dublin: Four Courts Press, 222–38
Wieczorek, Alfied, and Hans-Martin Hinz, eds. 2000. Europas Mitte um 1000: Katalog,
Stuttgart: Theiss

Page 142
 Ordernr. 051231

THRESHOLDS AND PASSAGES 135

Wiker, Gry. 2000. ‘Gullbrakteatene – i dialog med naturkreftene: Ideologi og endring sett i
lys av de skandinaviske brakteatnedleggelsene’ (unpublished hovedfags thesis in Nordic
Archaeology, The University of Oslo)
Wilke, Gerard. 1999. ‘Unterwasserarchäeologie in polnische Flüssen und Seen’, Skyllis 2.1,
46–57
Zachrisson, Torun. 1998. Gård, gräns, gravfält: Sammanhang kring ädelmetalldepåer och
runstenar från vikingatid och tidig medeltid i Uppland och Gästrikland, Stockholm Studies
in Archaeology 15, Stockholm: Stockholms Universitet
Østmo, Mari A. 2005. ‘Tilhørighet i tid og rom: Om konstruksjon av kollektiv identitet og
bygdefellesskap i jernalderen’ (unpublished hovedfags thesis in Archaeology, The
University of Oslo)

Page 143