Strøm whetstone

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Strøm whetstone is an archaeological find from 1908. As a bearer of inscriptions in the form of old Germanic runes , the Strøm whetstone is primarily important in the context of historical linguistics .

The object of the work, inscribed on both sides, is estimated using linguistic arguments to date around AD 600. The relatively well preserved and legible inscription allows - not free from criticism - the following interpretation from Old Norse (after Krause / Jankuhn 1966):

“Let the horn set this stone! Damage the grummet! The mowing lies! "

The whetstone is named after its place of discovery Strøm, an old farm on the Norwegian island of Hitra . The relic is now in the Trondheim Museum .

The inscription bearer

The Strøm whetstone is one of the group of small Norwegian finds with artificial inscriptions in the form of old Germanic rune symbols . The apparent object of work was made of fine-grained and mica-containing sandstone. A use as a whetstone or whetstone for sharpening sickles is obvious. The item measures 14.5 cm in length, has a maximum width of 1.9 cm and is approx. 1.2-1.3 cm thick.

A clockwise runic inscription was made on both sides. Due to the sharpness and clarity, it must be a cut with a knife. Although there are qualitative differences in the inscriptions on the respective pages, it is assumed that the signs were made by the same rune master .

Transliteration of the inscription

Transliterations of old Germanic runes are seldom beyond doubt. In the case of the Strøm whetstone, different interpretations can be possible. Regardless of this, in the case of the present relic a clear transliteration can be carried out with a high probability, as it is done according to Krause / Jankuhn (1966):

a) ᚹ ᚨ ᛏ ᛖ ᚺ ᚨ ᛚ ᛁ ᚺ ᛁ ᚾ ᛟ ᚺ ᛟ ᚱ ᚾ ᚨ = watehalihinohorna

b) ᚺ ᚨ ᚺ ᚨ ᛋ ᚴ ᚨ ᚦ ᛁ ᚺ ᚨ ᚦ ᚢ ᛚ ᛁ ᚷ ᛁ = hahaskaþihaþuligi

In connection with transliteration, the following special features should be mentioned:

  1. The sound sequences <ha> were implemented in the form of a binding rune in all cases.
  2. The only point of contention in recognition is the last character in line a), which would tempt one to recognize a tie rune of ᚾ and ᛚ. A linguistic interpretation in the overall context allows a reliable interpretation of the sign as a sound sequence <na>
  3. The a-sound was realized with ᚨ following the example of the older Futhark.
  4. The s-sound in the form ᛋ already shows a later stage of development, similar to the inscription by Stentoften.
  5. The k-rune is very likely to be regarded as ᚴ in its younger appearance.

On the basis of points 3 - 5, due to the development of the Futhark alphabet, a language level can be asserted immediately before the so-called transition period. For dating see below.

Explanation of the inscription

On the basis of the widely recognized transliteration of the inscription on the Strøm whetstone, conclusive considerations can be made for explanation and interpretation. A segmentation of the lines should help to understand the individual parts better and to illuminate the grammatical structures. Methodologically, the transcription a) and b) can be explained logically:

a) wātē hal (l) i hino horna!

  1. wātē = 'wet it' / 'it should be made wet': The word can be used as a verb form of the 3rd person singular optative present to urnord. * wātian > aisl. væta 'nets; get wet 'explained. Etymologically, it is a denomination of aisl. vátr 'wet'. The realized variant wātē arose after a syncope of the internal i of the expected form * wātiē.
  2. hal (l) i = 'the / a flat stone': The added <l> results from the fact that no double consonants are written in runes. Seen in this way, halli is understood as the accusative singular of a masculine i-stem in the meaning of 'flat stone' in connection with the Old Norse word hallr. Although this inflects as an a-stem, a possible development as an i-stem is not unlikely.
  3. hino = 'these': The form hino can be explained relatively easily as an accusative singular to the Germanic pronominal stem * hi-, which is well documented in related languages ​​and dialects (cf. Got.hina Akk. Sg.).
  4. horna = which / a Horn ': In horna is a well-occupied word in obvious relationship to the High German Horn stands. The Norse form is in the nominative singular horn from Germanic * hurnan . A well-known example of the same word can be found in the gold horns of Gallehus .

b) hāha skaþi! hāþu lig (gi) i!

  1. hāha = 'the growl / the grass that has grown fresh after the hayloft': As an ambiguous form, hāha brings with it the greatest difficulties. Due to the probability, the recognition appears as an accusative singular feminine to the old north. há 'Grummet' is the most justifiable. It is traced back to an urgerm. * hēh (w) a-, which has a possible, but not conclusively clarified, etymological connection to New High German Heu und Hauen .
  2. skaþi = 'harm it' / 'it should be harmed': The verb form skaþi can be traced back to the etymon germ. * skaþ-ja- 'schaden' (cf. Got. skaþjan ) as a related formation to nhd. schaden . In this specific case, skaþi is preferably read as the 3rd person optative, based on the optative in wātē and lig (g) i.
  3. hāþu = 'the / a mowing': The fact that hāþu can be semantically interpreted as 'mowing' results from the explanation that there is already syncope in the expected older form * hawiþu N.Sg.f. 'Mahd' has occurred. This is also etymologically related to German * hawwa- ' hauen '. Syncope can be observed relatively frequently in the development towards Old Norse (cf. wātē above). The explanation is preferable to a possible reference to the often attested Etymon germ. * Haþu- 'fight'.
  4. lig (g) i = that there was '/, it should be': The final verb lig (g) i in the whetstone of electricity is nhd for directly related. lie and is located on a basic form germ. * leg-sometimes due . The old Norse form is liggja. The realization as lig (g) i is understood as the 3rd person optative present tense.

The result of a syntactic processing of the grammatical functions of the individual, segmented words allows the plausible translation: “Let this stone hit the horn! Damage the grummet! The mowing lies! "

Alternatively, it would also be conceivable: “The horn should water the stone. The grummet is to be damaged. May the mowing lie. "

Cultural and historical significance

A more profound explanation of this verse, in contrast to the grammatical definition, can be lost more quickly in the interpretation. It is assumed that the word sequence used was a strictly rhythmic working chant. This is supported by the fact that the verses each contain four stressed and four unstressed syllables.

Line a) can be related to the tradition that the whetstone is soaked in water before use, resp. was transported in a horn filled with water. The horn thus makes an essential contribution to successfully cutting or damaging the grummet, as the sickle could be sharpened better with this method.

Dating

It is difficult to accurately date the manufacture of the Strøm whetstone. One tendency only allows the existing language material. As noted in the transliteration, the parallel use of the old a-rune and the newer k-rune is a striking feature. This phenomenon can also be observed in the stones from Järsberg and Noleby, as well as on the fishing stone from Førde and on the clasp from Fonnås. The s-rune is relatively close to the form used on Stentoften. On the grammatical level, the ending vowels speak for an urnordian language level, while syncopation as in hāþu from < * hawiþu 'Mahd' can be recognized. The assumption is therefore of a somewhat later epoch, but before the transition period, i.e. around the years AD 600.

literature

  • John Ole Askedal, Harald Bjorvand, James E. Knirk, Otto Erlend Nordgreen (eds.): Central problems in researching the older runes. Frankfurt am Main 2010.
  • Thomas Birkmann: From Agedal to Malt. The Scandinavian runic inscriptions from the end of the 5th to the end of the 9th century [supplementary volumes to the Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde], Berlin 1995.
  • Wilhelm Braune: Gothic grammar. With reading pieces and dictionary. 20th edition, revised by Frank Heidermanns, Tübingen 2004.
  • Jan De Vries: Old Norse Etymological Dictionary. Leiden 1962.
  • Klaus Düwel: Runic lore. 4th edition, Stuttgart 2008.
  • Friedrich Kluge: Etymological dictionary of the German language. 25th, reviewed and adult Edition / edit by Elmar Seebold, Berlin 2011.
  • Wolfgang Krause, Herbert Jankuhn: The runic inscriptions in the older Futhark. Goettingen 1966.
  • Wolfgang Krause: Runes. Berlin / New York 1993.
  • Guus Kroonen: Etymological Dictionary of Proto-Germanic. Leiden 2013.
  • Robert Nedoma: Small grammar of old Icelandic. Heidelberg 2010.
  • Elmar Seebold: Comparative and Etymological Dictionary of Germanic Strong Verbs. The Hague 1970.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Wolfgang Krause, Herbert Jankuhn: The runic inscriptions in the older Futhark . Ed .: Wolfgang Krause, Herbert Jankuhn. Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, Göttingen 1966, p. 110 .
  2. ^ Wilhelm Braune, Frank Heidermanns: Gothic grammar . 20th edition. Max Niemeyer Verlag, Tübingen 2004, ISBN 3-484-10852-5 , p. 135 .