Sign up ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I've been looking around for any kind of sign, symbol, sigil, or such that can be said to have anything to do with the deity Loki, of the Norse pantheon.

There doesn't seem to be anything as obvious as what the hammer Mjölnir is to T(h)or, of same pantheon. Is this to be expected? Is a symbol as strongly associated as Mjölnir the exception?

share|improve this question
Welcome to History.SE –  E1Suave Aug 26 '12 at 18:07
Norse gods did not have signs or sigils, no. Some things could in some cases become a symbol for the god, like Thors hammer and Odins ravens. I'm not aware of a sign for Loki. –  Lennart Regebro Aug 14 '13 at 12:08
Note: If there were a mythology:SE we could migrate this question there, and I think it would more answers and less fractious argument. –  Mark C. Wallace Mar 5 at 15:31

3 Answers 3

Loki was actually the son of a Frost Giant, and as such often is not counted as a proper member of the AEsir. When he appears in stories, it is usually as an antagonist for the hero(es) of the tale. As such, I don't think he was the subject of much veneration.

The only common running theme I tend to see in numerous depictions of Loki (such as the one below) is his punishment of being bound with a snake over his head. Most of the rest show him taunting someone.

enter image description here

Lots of people will tell you that Elder Futhark, the old Runic alphabet, had a rune for Loki. However, some say it was Dagazenter image description here and some say it was Kenazenter image description here, and one other answer here (unique to the Internet, as near as I can tell), says it was Berkanan (ᛒ).

share|improve this answer
This is because these "rune meaning sites" are all new age mumbo jumbo with the "meanings" of the runes grabbed out of thin air. –  Lennart Regebro Aug 14 '13 at 12:05
@LennartRegebro - That is my suspicon as well. However, I had to put it up, or someone else would find one of them and put that up as the sole truth. –  T.E.D. Aug 14 '13 at 13:12
You could possibly rephrase it like "Some say that the Elder Futhark"... and "But the elder futhark runes did not have mystical meanings beyond their names." –  Lennart Regebro Aug 14 '13 at 13:20
@LennartRegebro - Rephrased a bit (since my attempt to stave off new age history seems to have failed). –  T.E.D. Mar 4 at 19:22

You may have moved waaaaay past this given that you asked 2 years ago, but here's a different answer: Yes, and the rune he is associated with is Berkanan. In fact, in the Elder Futhark Loki is specifically named in connection to this rune. The poem is real, and can be verified by Icelandic scholars.

share|improve this answer
Got any links to back that up? If there are scholars saying this, do you know in which papers they've said so? The only thing I can find online is one poem, which seems to have the two words in subsequent lines, but the only relation I can see between those lines is that it looks like they needed a rhyme (in Icelandic). –  T.E.D. Mar 4 at 19:11
That Loki is mentioned in this poem does not make the rune a sign for Loki. –  Lennart Regebro Mar 6 at 13:40

The Norse did not use symbols. They were primarily oral people that did not use writing. Writing was often seen in Norse culture as something for "wizards" or other evil beings. The vast majority of Norsemen during the viking period were completely illiterate.

For a modern-day, literate person, the logical symbol for Loki would be mistletoe, a sprig of which Loki used to kill Baldur by the hand of Hodur, his brother.

Also, many modern fictional representations of Loki show him with an elaborate horned helm, so you could use that too.

A couple of posts have suggested that Loki was associated somehow with particular runic letters. This idea is absurd and untrue. Neither is there any evidence for this idea, nor does it make any sense in a cultural context. Loki is mentioned in one of the rune poems, but to infer from this that the letter involved was his "symbol" is not sensible.

share|improve this answer
Being logical to you, now, has no overwhelming significance for the state of Norse belief 1,000 years ago. –  Pieter Geerkens Mar 5 at 0:09
"Use that too"? –  Rohit Mar 5 at 6:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.