"Ivar the Boneless" - Years of birth and death

I think that would be a good idea, and why not also change the place of death, it's unknown, but more likely to be Ireland than Sweden.

Erica Howton

Please do not.

The suggested death date of 872 is actually the death date of Ivarr Gudrodson, I am not sure where a birth date of 794 comes from but I would be interested to hear more as neither man's DOB is mentioned in any known source.

Please make sure that the user who contacted you is aware that Ivar the Boneless and Ivarr Gudrodson, king of Dublin are two different men and that while some people think they are the same that is not the case presented on Geni.

For a lot more detail see Ivarr Gudrodson, king of Dublin

I need to clean up the About as clearly merging has brought in confusion about the separation again.

I will delete Sweden as location of death as he is last attested to in England in 870 then never heard of again. I won't put Ireland in, Ivarr died in Dublin but there is no evidence the Ivar ever went to Ireland, unless Ivar and Ivarr are both the same person but again Geni does not reflect that (regardless of what my personal opinion might be).

You are funny Alex, I had to write a whole side in my effort to prove you wrong when you had set up a father to a son who died 250 years later in one of the Icelandic lines, that's something that I still laughing about.

I found "c. 794-872" in Wikipedia. 76 years isn´t bad for a viking warrior with Ostioporosis Imperfecta or, maybe, Spina bifida (like I myself has). 95 years (775-870, like it says in Geni) is even better ;).

Per Anders Dencker
The idea of "Ívarr hinn Beinlausi" being a literal translation to mean that one of the most powerful viking kings of the time was a cripple is very simplistic and recall the written sagas were recorded hundreds of years after the events.

The sagas tell of him being carried into battle on a shield but surely the impracticality of that is obvious to anyone. 3 or 4 warriors having to defend themselves at the same time as holding up Ivar's shield? Why? Just let those 4 warriors do their own fighting.

There are lot's of alternate interpretations including links to the nickname of his brother Sigurd, possible connections of his mother to a snake/fertility cult, literary comparisons to the wind and to a ghost. The oral sagas were poetic in nature which help with remembering them and reduced the likelihood of them being altered by individuals.

Private User

I think i remember the profile you mean, I am not the only person to have made that mistake and i thanked you at the time for going to the effort of explaining the correct translation to me, what more do you want?

The link between Ivar and Imar has been discussed a lot and the agreed course was to keep the two men separate on Geni. One is a historical figure reported in several contemporary sources, the other is a character from a story. We know the fathers of both men but they are not the same, one is a king of uncertain descent the other is a character from a story.

All in all I am glad to hear Geni brings you laughs as there not much point studying people who have been dead a thousand years unless it entertains you.

Erica, I will add hyperlinks in the Curator Notes for the two men so that they cross reference each other more clearly

These sagas are really colorful & lovely to read & Ivar can work as a role model to show us that most things are possible, so when I heared of him I reallly hoped being able to link him to my tree, which I did a few hours ago :)

Yes, that's a good Idea, Alex. Also the Wiki article is good, but it's confusing, I had to look up "The Great Heathen Army" separately to understand this was raiding of the kingdoms of the Angles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heathen_Army

Per - I wonder if he did have some sort of handicap ! Or did his mother just curse him ?

:)

The most recent theory that i have read is that "boneless" is a kenning (ie a word play) for a ghost, in other words Ivar's ability to raid and then disappear without a trace led to him being described as ghost like.

Not as inspiring as the saga version unfortunately.

The image that I have is of the Phantom, aka "The Ghost Who Walks".

https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Ghost+Who+Walks&oq=The+Ghos...

There are different theories, Yours is none of those I´ve read, Erica...

My favorite among all the different theories is that his nickname refers to a sexual dysfunction ;)

It´s not a favorite among us who suffers from it. I prefer the one showing that he, in spite of his disability doesn´t give in, but keeps fighting...

http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesBritain/EnglandIvarr.htm

According to Ragnars saga, Ivarr's 'bonelessness' was the result of a curse. His mother, Aslaug, was Ragnarr's second wife and had powers of sorcery and foresight. She warned her new husband that they must wait for three nights before consummating their marriage:

Three nights together, but yet apart,
Shall we bide, nor worship the gods as yet;
From my son this would save a lasting harm,
For boneless is he thou wouldst now beget.

Ragnarr refused to believe in the curse and immediately made love to his new wife. The result of the untimely union was Ivarr, who was indeed born without bones, having instead 'only the like of gristle where his bones should have been'. In fact, it is possible, but unlikely, that he was suffering from a genetic disease. According to the sagas, Ivarr grew up unable to walk and had to be carried everywhere on poles or on the back of a shield. 

Like an Achilles heel, or Kryptonite. Invincible except for ...

Yes we can speculate a lot, but the sad end when it concern handicapped children in the past, were most likely that they were put out in a forest. There where little empathy for mental or malformed people in the societies, especially if they were born that way and this was something that didn't end in our western world until our more recent modern days in the 1800's. It's still a tradition in some parts of the world even today to get rid of them and some folks in certain places have never seen a disabled person with their own eyes, because they are hidden away or just killed. As an example, In the former Soviet union, no one ever saw any handicapped children outside, they were all locked down in institutions. ( If you do believe that people were better before, rethink).

The very thought that a quite rough society with an extreme adoration for manhood, should have kept a disfigured child does not sound very credible, not even when the writers try to overcompensate his shortcomings by telling us how intelligent, beautiful and strong he was.

Purely logical, I would say that he most likely just were very agile and lissome in his joints to such degree that he seemed to be boneless.

I tend to agree, Ulf. But part of the heroic tradition is a Hero's (secret) weakness & how it came about ("the myth of the birth of the hero"). In Grimm's fairy tales for instance the child is endowed with countless gifts from his / her "fairy godmother," but there's always a warning.

Pretty much - the world is your oyster, as long as you don't (eat the apple ...)

Sure enough, Ragnald couldn't restrain himself sexually, and therefore ....

:)

The usual argument against a literal reading is that the pre-Christian Scandinavians are said to have practiced exposure of unwanted infants. Some of the earliest legal codes that prohibit exposure make an exception for infants that are deformed. New codes in the 1200s and 1300s were still prohibiting exposure, which suggests it remained a problem.

A child of his time born with a deformity is highly unlikely to have survived to adulthood.

There is a counter-argument that the status of his parents might have exempted him from being killed, but most experts think that argument is ludicrous. The evidence suggests that in pre-Christian times the deformity of a child was seen as evidence the parents had blood tainted by low birth, and in Christian times as evidence of the parents' sins. Either way, having a deformed child would have involved an immense loss of face and allowing it to survive would have been a continuous reproach.

Cross-posted with Ulf. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes he and I agree.

"For boneless is he thou wouldst now beget."

Depends on what the translation / idiom meant, yes ?

In the logic of myth, the breaking of a taboo or geis results in a punishment that always has a clear and direct relation to the forbidden act.

Ivarr's father broke a sexual geis, therefore the punishment visited on his son Ivarr must be sexual. This is Grimm 101 ;)

It is said Ivarr had no children because he had "no love lust in him" (Tale of Ragnar's Sons). A perfect punishment for his father's crime.

http://www.germanicmythology.com/FORNALDARSAGAS/ThattrRagnarsSonar....

Later generations have shifted the story to bones and gristle in order to fake descents from him.

* or explain away his embarrassing nickname.

... If the crime was say vanity, then the payback for the next generation is ugliness. If the crime was say lust, then the payback is lack of.

BUT what exactly did "boneless" mean in that poem?

Tale of Ragnar's Sons gives away the game -- Ivar had no "love lust". The father was too ardent. The son has no ardor. He is "boneless".

In a time when masculinity was correlated in part with virility, it's a harsh but fitting punishment. And in a patriarchal society where one of the greatest goods is to have sons, Ivarr's line dies out.

The elegance and symmetry shine through. It's just all a bit too bawdy for our modern world.

I think it's obvious, but just in case... this analysis works historically as well as mythographically.

From a historical point of view, the story of Ragnar's wedding night can be read as a way of explaining Ivarr's impotence. Further, the story makes the impotence not Ivarr's fault, so he can still be hyper-masculine and a great warrior.

@Erica Isabel Howton. @Justin Swanström

There are different sources to his death and buriel.

1) Ivarr himself is recorded in the Irish Annals as dying in 873 'of a sudden hideous disease'. He was buried near the Steine in Dublin, and his remains were accidentally found in the 1720's during sewer laying.
Ivarr's sons are next recorded in the Irish Annals as Uí Ímair, the people or descendants of Ivarr. Sitrich 1st king of Dublin, Olaf den Frøkne and Alfhild.

2) According to his own wish he was burried where the country (England) were weakest in defense - Harald Haarderaade is said to land (1066) where Ivar the Boneless was burried. Vilhelm the Conqueror is said to open the grave and have the very well preserved remainings burnt.

The saga says that "Boneless" was due to his weak legs and that his brothers carried him on a shield while attacking (Paris).

Which makes no sense ;)