Egil’s Saga: Traditional evidence for Brunanburh compared to Literary, Historic and Archaeological Analyses

Was Egil’s Saga ‘written’ by Snorri Sturluson or by more than one person? Was it embellished by Snorri or others? Where did the Brúnanburh traditions come from? Is it accurate enough to be used as a historic source – a factual reference? This study aims to identify the incongruities within this saga demonstrating a correct analysis.

Regarded as the secondary source advocated by some scholars for this battle around Brúnanburh in AD 937, Egil’s Saga Skalla-Grímssonar (collated c. AD 1242-3) becomes problematical when compared with literary, historic and archaeological evidence. Thus, this argument places the saga in a rather awkward position. In addressing the general veracity of this saga, allegedly ‘written’ by Snorri Sturluson in 1240/1 we must draw a comparison to distinguish reality from fiction. For this article highlights not only the questionable traditions of Egil fighting at Brúnanburh but whether Snorri’s interpretation was motivated by self-interest. More importantly, could other people have gathered together Snorri’s notes and produced Egil’s Saga? Doubts arise as to its authenticity as many scholars have previously expressed the differing literary anomalies within the narrative. Was the saga written by more than one person? Was it embellished by Snorri or others? Where did the Brúnanburh traditions come from? Is it accurate enough to be used as a historic source – a factual reference? The author suggests this approach may identify the incongruities within this saga demonstrating a correct analysis.