The Gold Bracteates: Definitions and Categories

What are gold bracteates?

The Migration Period gold bracteates are small, round pendants that were produced from around the middle of the 5th century to the first third of the 6th century. In Scandinavia, they were often found in hoards (hidden treasures, sacrificial offerings), although some were recovered from settlement areas. On the continent, in England and some peripheral areas of Scandinavia, they derive mainly from women's graves. They were worn individually or in necklaces on strings around the neck. Probably bracteates were used as amulets: their sophisticated and fascinating imagery can generally be interpreted as bringing good luck or warding off evil (Meaning).

The central images are executed in the so-called Animal Style I (Animal Style I), a basic design developed in Scandinavia and used exclusively there during the Migration Period. With the help of these images (Families), which were mostly used supraregional, it is possible to reconstruct relationships between people from very different places and regions. However, the bracteates were produced in many different places, including England and the continent, as evidenced by different techniques, alloys and special designs.

Gold bracteates cannot be dated directly. Their chronological classification is based on hoard finds in which they are associated with objects that can be dated accurately (e.g. solidus coins). Relative dating was also achieved by Morten Axboe (Head-groups). While the medallion imitations, type M, (Types) date back to the 4th and early 5th centuries, bracteate production appears to have exploded around the middle of the 5th century. The end of the bracteate period is probably linked to the great climate catastrophe of the 6th century (Late Antique Little Ice Age, ca. 536/40), which led to the collapse of many cultural phenomena in Scandinavia and later to a complete reorganisation of society with a new material culture in the Vendel/Merovingian period (late 6th/7th c.).

A

Animal Style I

The so-called Animal Style I is an art style that was decisive for the production of all imagery that Germanic-speaking communities used during the Migration Period. It is the first of several supra-regional styles (classification of style I to III according to Salin 1904) in which predetermined design features defined both the motifs and the actual specific detail criteria. They are based on a consensus among all the people who created images, and appear on all kinds of materials, including wood, metal, and ceramics.
Despite the wide variation in detail, all gold bracteates display Style I. This style was used from around the middle of the 5th century until the first half of the 6th century. Its demise was perhaps caused by the cultural upheavals that followed the climate crisis of 536 (Axboe 1999). It was replaced by Animal Style II (late 6th c. to the end of 7th c.).
Animal style I is characterized by animals and hybrid creatures often crouching in a row. Their heads have a rounded rear end. We can see this detail especially in the four-legged animals of the C-bracteates. The limbs of the animals are often intertwined, which is displayed in many of the D-bracteates.

• Salin, Bernhard: Die altgermanische Thierornamentik. Typologische Studie über germanische Metallgegenstände aus dem IV-IX Jahrhundert, nebst einer Studie über irische Ornamentik [²1935, Stockholm: Wahlström & Widstrand; ³1981 Leipzig]. Stockholm 1904;
• Axboe, Morten: The Year 536 and the Scandinavian Gold Hoards. In: Medieval Archaeology XLIII, 1999, 186-188.

D

Dies/matrices and stamps

Gold bracteates are objects made from embossed sheet metal (pressbleck). Their images were produced using dies (matrices; German: Modeln). None of these dies used for known gold bracteates have survived. However, some bronze objects have been recovered that may have served as dies for D-bracteates, of which no embossings are known. These dies are listed here in the catalogue in the same way as bracteates. It is uncertain whether there were also dies made from other materials, such as bone, antler or wood. The former dies, i.e. their images, can be reconstructed with the help of the real embossings. They form the basis for naming the bracteates with IK numbers (IK numbers). Normally, all the individual elements of the central image, i.e. figures, additional markings and runic inscriptions, were already present in the model. Secondary alterations of the dies are documented only in very few exceptional cases.

After the central images had been embossed, the planchets could be additionally decorated with punches – provided they were large enough. Such punch patterns then form zones running radially around the central image. Die-identical bracteates in a series can thus look very different and have different diameters. Due to the punch zones, some bracteates are extremely oversized.

• Axboe, Morten: Brakteatstudier. Det Kongelige Nordiske Oldskriftselskab. København 2007.

F

Families

Many bracteates bear striking similarities to one another, without being made with the same die. Such closely related designs still display a range of variations. They combine characteristic motifs and details in a way that neither can be explained by the overarching type concept (A-, B-, C-, D- or F-bracteates) (Types), nor with the production techniques or with general conventions of the animal style (Animal Style I). Thus, they cannot have been created independently of one another. The similarities are so close that the bracteates must have been made as copies from the same model, or simply from each other. Members of such a variation group are referred to as ‘family’ (resp. ‘design family’, ‘form family’; German: ‘Formularfamilie’). The fundamental standardisation of images throughout the entire production of bracteates is even more evident in the families than in the types.
When we look at the whole of members of one specific family, it becomes possible to read weaker impressions or poorly executed representations more clearly by comparing them with the better variants. The variation in the additional markings and runic inscriptions on the individual impressions, which can vary greatly within a family, also increases the clarity of the image. Both of these factors open up new approaches to interpreting individual motifs or subjects.
The families can be analysed without semantical interpretation. Their distribution allows direct relationships to be proven. Ideally, it is also possible to deduce the direction in which a family spread. It is also possible to determine the original place of conception of a family, and thus better trace the overall network of central places.
To date, eight families of A-bracteates have been defined, eleven of B-, 16 of C-, 19 of D- and two of F-bracteates. These also include images that share many criteria with one of the families but are excluded due to deviant details. They are called ‘bastards’. All in all, approximately 71% of all bracteate images belong to families. With the new finds added since 2011, additional families are already emerging.

• Pesch, Alexandra: Thema und Variation – Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Berlin/New York 2007.

H

Head groups

A relative chronology of gold bracteates was developed by the Danish archaeologist Morten Axboe. He analysed the images of all A, B and C bracteates (as of 2004) and defined specific detailed criteria of the designs that the large heads display. With the help of well-dated bracteates, especially those from coin-dated hoards, it was possible to trace the stylistic changes from the beginning to the end of bracteate production, and their development. Thus, it became possible to create a seriation of bracteate images, which – albeit with some uncertainty – correspond to a chronological sequence (Axboe 2004, 31 f.). This resulted in four superordinate groups of heads.

Here, the number of the overall seriation is given before the head group, separated by a colon. For example: IK 1 Ågedal is seriated as 54:H2 (= overall seriation no. 54, head group 2), IK 30 Bolbro as 268:H3 (= overall seriation no. 268, head group 3).

• Axboe, Morten: The chronology of the Scandinavian gold bracteates. In: The Pace of Change. Studies in Early-Medieval Chronology, Eds: J. Hines, K. Høilund Nielsen, F. Siegmund. Cardiff Studies in Archaeology. Oxford 1999, 126–147;
• Axboe, Morten: Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit – Herstellungsprobleme und Chronologie. Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 38. Berlin/New York 2004.

I

The IK-numbers

 The IK numbers serve to uniquely identify the central images on a gold bracteate.

They were assigned during the compilation of the Iconographic Catalogue and are an important tool for identifying specific images resp. dies. The number refers to the die (matrice) used to mint the bracteate. Many gold sheets could be minted using the same die, which means that they all bear the same IK number. However, if they come from different find spots, they are distinguished from each other by an additional appended number. Example: There are die-identical bracteates from the two hoards found in Darum and Skonager. They bear the same IK number, namely IK 41,1 Darum and IK 41,2 Skonager.

However, if several bracteates of the same model originate from the same find spot, they all bear the same IK number. In order to be able to describe these individual specimens separately, they are designated with an additional number after an underscore: IK 41,1_1 Darum; IK 41,1_2 Darum, etc.

Unfortunately, there are exceptions to the systematic assignment of IK numbers. A few non-die-identical images bear the same IK number because their central images are very similar to each other. Example: IK 51,1 is not die-identical with IK 51,2 and IK 51,3. Such irregularities were eliminated in the course of research.

M

Meaning of the images

Today, opinions still differ concerning the actual meaning of the subjects and figures depicted on gold bracteates. There are basically two opposing views: one assumes that they are representations of gods and deities, while the other assumes that they more likely display humans. Moreover, several different positions are visible within both opinions. There is not enough space here to introduce them all, so a very brief overview will have to suffice.

The interpretation as images of gods is the older one. It considers the bracteates to be successors to Roman coins, which also depict gods and deities on their reverses. Analysing the so-called ‘three gods bracteates’ (family B 1; families), Karl Hauck succeeded in 1970 (Goldbrakteaten aus Sievern. Munich) to establish that the central image was probably a depiction of Loki killing Balder, son of Woden, and Woden himself as third person. In his many other works on bracteates, Hauck developed ‘context iconography’ as an interdisciplinary method for interpreting bracteate images, which have since been understood as core symbols of the pre-Christian, polytheistic religion of the North. This method includes bracteates of all types and is therefore the most comprehensive approach to date.

The interpretation as humans has been put forward from different scholars. However, it usually only applies to the C-bracteates. Here, the focus is mainly on the depiction of rulers, or the representation of a sacrificial act. The latest consideration, based on IK 738 Vindelev with its runic inscription, suggest a retainer of Odin (Imer, Lisbeth/Vasshus, Krister: Lost in transition. The runic bracteates from the Vindelev hoard. In: Novele 76, 2023, 60–99), but this is controversial for linguistic and iconographic reasons.

At least, there is much support for the general thesis that the small round pendants with their standardised images must be amulets. This means that all bracteates are to be understood as lucky jewelleries, that grant protection and ward off evil.

R

Research History

A comprehensive history of research into gold bracteates would be far too lengthy to be adequately covered here. Known since the 17th century, bracteates attracted wider scholarly attention in the early 19th century, when scholars such as Christian Jürgensen Thomsen, Jens J.J.A. Worsaae, Oscar Montelius, Hans Hildebrand and Sophus Müller studied, published and discussed them in detail. The classification into types (Types) that is still authoritative today was mainly developed by Montelius. The fundamental theories regarding the origin of the images, which were seen as imitations and further developments of Roman coin and medallion images, as well as their basic interpretation as amulets bearing images of gods, were also put forward during this period. Wilhelm Grimm was the first to study the runes on bracteates in 1821.

The 20th century saw the emergence of major publications on gold bracteates. Particularly noteworthy are the works of Helge Öberg, who attempts to systematise the pictorial representations (Guldbrakteaterna från Nordens Folkvandringstid. Uppsala 1942), Mogens B. Mackeprang with the first catalogue of all specimens (De nordiske Guldbrakteater. Aarhus 1952), Karl Hauck with approaches to a semantic interpretation (Goldbrakteaten aus Sievern. München 1970) und Morten Axboe with studies in their manufacture and regional variations (The Scandinavian Gold Bracteates. Acta Archaeologica 52, 1981, 1–100). The large catalogue compiled under the direction of Karl Hauck finally made all gold bracteates accessible as images with textual information, including the runic inscriptions, and opened up methodological interpretations and systematic approaches to classify the bracteates as well (Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit. Ikonographischer Katalog. München. 1985–1989).

• Behr, Charlotte: Forschungsgeschichte. In: W. Heizmann, M. Axboe (eds.), Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit – Auswertung und Neufunde. Ergänzungsbände zum RGA. Berlin/New York 2011, 153-229.