It's a poetic ritual inscription, and the syntax is not that weird: the king "gives" a good harvest "by" (instrumental case) nine he-goats and nine stallions. What other ways are there to explain the use of the older form of j in only that position, where the younger form is used everywhere else? And what grammatical form is "gafj"?
In Old Norse form it almost resembles a ljóðaháttr stanza:
Santesson's interpretation ignores the basic fact that the verb "give" never takes an instrumental argument in Germanic -- the syntax is not just weird, it's completely unparalleled. Also, only the gods "give a good year". Mortals give sacrifice to the gods in the hope the gods will reward them. The j-rune has the value /a(:)/ and can be taken just as an adverb.
I still find the ritual interpretation most likely for the following reasons:
- The old j-rune occurs 21 times on the Stentoften stone; in 20 of these occurrences it has the shape ᛡ and stands for the sound /a/; it is only in this position that it has the archaic shape ᛃ. The old shape is not found in the other inscriptions either.
- Ideographic use of runes is paralleled on another archaic runestone from Blekinge, that from Gummarp, raised by a member of the same clan as raised the one at Stentoften.
- The king or chieftain "giving year" is not very weird. He serves as the link between the Gods and the people; compare the adjective ársæll 'blessed with year' and noun árkonungr 'year-king' which are both used of kings. The idea that the king is responsible for the harvest (along with peace, in the archaic ritual formula ár ok friðr 'year and frith') is attested in numerous sources: Ynglingatal, Vellekla, Heimskringla, the King-list in the Law of the West Geats.
- What would this adverb be? It cannot be nasal ã 'on' since that would not be written with the oral a-vowel. And I think that'd also be unparalleled, no?
I agree that the syntax is weird and unusual, but I think the sum of the above points outweigh it.
If the syntax of the inscription seems weird, that's a strong indication that the interpretation is wrong -- that a sacral kingship interpretation has been hammered into it. The ritual formula is til árs 'for a good year' and its a bit hard to believe that the preposition has just been omitted. The final j-rune could well stand for an adverb as the nasal-marking function is erratic in some of the transitional inscriptions (e.g. Istaby and Scramle); see my paper in the Journal of Germanic Linguistics 32 (2020) on the Skåäng inscription.
I haven't seen a satisfying interpretation for Skramle (and is pre-transitional, no? It still seems to the "os" rune for /a/ and is very similar to Noleby). Where would the nasal ã be present in Istaby? Do you interpret these two in your article?
But what interpretation do you prefer for the Stentoften introduction? The adverb interpretation also has syntactical problems. "Hathwolf gave onto nine bucks and nine stallions"? Is it euphemistic for killing? Or did he just give them hay (= ON gaf hestum sínum)? And why would that be commemorated?
I gave a paper at a runic studies conference a few years ago (the proceedings for which have not yet appeared) where I analysed the Stentoften inscription as funerary: 'To nine high-sons, to nine horse-guests, HaþuwolfR gave unto; may HariwolfR now afford protection for us.' My translation is modelled on Grønvik's interpretation from 1996, but without the syntactic irregularities, and I see the giving and protection to be a reflection of the ethics of kingship described in Beowulf. I can send you a copy of my JGL article if you want it, but I'm not sure what's happening with the conference proceedings at the moment.
For this part of the inscription I don't believe that the instrumental case is for the verb "to give", instead I interpret its meaning as "through [the sacrifice of] nine X and nine X" and all together as "Through the sacrifice of nine X and nine X, Hathwolf gave a good harvest." Note here that I don't believe that HE himself gave it personally, but that his sacrifice to the gods (who were clearly appeased with this sacrifice) had allowed him to give said good harvest, and that the inscription attributes it to him due to him causing the sacrifice which in turn caused the good harvest to be given.
A "gave" plus dative interpretation requires a lot less assumptions and is the Occam's razor interpretation. Runologists generally won't accept ellipsis of the kind you are proposing unless there are clear parallels that support the assumption.
Excellent reading. Thanks so much, and I am looking forward to the next part.
I'm not saying that the bucks and stallions are the objects of the verb "to give", the object is clearly "year".
Whereas the indirect object is unstated, however likely the people he ruled over.
I'd dispute the ideographic reading in the Stentoften inscription because it requires a syntax that is otherwise unparalleled.
It's a poetic ritual inscription, and the syntax is not that weird: the king "gives" a good harvest "by" (instrumental case) nine he-goats and nine stallions. What other ways are there to explain the use of the older form of j in only that position, where the younger form is used everywhere else? And what grammatical form is "gafj"?
In Old Norse form it almost resembles a ljóðaháttr stanza:
níu hǫfrum
níu hęstum
Hǫðulfr gaf [ár].
Santesson's interpretation ignores the basic fact that the verb "give" never takes an instrumental argument in Germanic -- the syntax is not just weird, it's completely unparalleled. Also, only the gods "give a good year". Mortals give sacrifice to the gods in the hope the gods will reward them. The j-rune has the value /a(:)/ and can be taken just as an adverb.
I still find the ritual interpretation most likely for the following reasons:
- The old j-rune occurs 21 times on the Stentoften stone; in 20 of these occurrences it has the shape ᛡ and stands for the sound /a/; it is only in this position that it has the archaic shape ᛃ. The old shape is not found in the other inscriptions either.
- Ideographic use of runes is paralleled on another archaic runestone from Blekinge, that from Gummarp, raised by a member of the same clan as raised the one at Stentoften.
- The king or chieftain "giving year" is not very weird. He serves as the link between the Gods and the people; compare the adjective ársæll 'blessed with year' and noun árkonungr 'year-king' which are both used of kings. The idea that the king is responsible for the harvest (along with peace, in the archaic ritual formula ár ok friðr 'year and frith') is attested in numerous sources: Ynglingatal, Vellekla, Heimskringla, the King-list in the Law of the West Geats.
- What would this adverb be? It cannot be nasal ã 'on' since that would not be written with the oral a-vowel. And I think that'd also be unparalleled, no?
I agree that the syntax is weird and unusual, but I think the sum of the above points outweigh it.
If the syntax of the inscription seems weird, that's a strong indication that the interpretation is wrong -- that a sacral kingship interpretation has been hammered into it. The ritual formula is til árs 'for a good year' and its a bit hard to believe that the preposition has just been omitted. The final j-rune could well stand for an adverb as the nasal-marking function is erratic in some of the transitional inscriptions (e.g. Istaby and Scramle); see my paper in the Journal of Germanic Linguistics 32 (2020) on the Skåäng inscription.
I haven't seen a satisfying interpretation for Skramle (and is pre-transitional, no? It still seems to the "os" rune for /a/ and is very similar to Noleby). Where would the nasal ã be present in Istaby? Do you interpret these two in your article?
But what interpretation do you prefer for the Stentoften introduction? The adverb interpretation also has syntactical problems. "Hathwolf gave onto nine bucks and nine stallions"? Is it euphemistic for killing? Or did he just give them hay (= ON gaf hestum sínum)? And why would that be commemorated?
I gave a paper at a runic studies conference a few years ago (the proceedings for which have not yet appeared) where I analysed the Stentoften inscription as funerary: 'To nine high-sons, to nine horse-guests, HaþuwolfR gave unto; may HariwolfR now afford protection for us.' My translation is modelled on Grønvik's interpretation from 1996, but without the syntactic irregularities, and I see the giving and protection to be a reflection of the ethics of kingship described in Beowulf. I can send you a copy of my JGL article if you want it, but I'm not sure what's happening with the conference proceedings at the moment.
For this part of the inscription I don't believe that the instrumental case is for the verb "to give", instead I interpret its meaning as "through [the sacrifice of] nine X and nine X" and all together as "Through the sacrifice of nine X and nine X, Hathwolf gave a good harvest." Note here that I don't believe that HE himself gave it personally, but that his sacrifice to the gods (who were clearly appeased with this sacrifice) had allowed him to give said good harvest, and that the inscription attributes it to him due to him causing the sacrifice which in turn caused the good harvest to be given.
A "gave" plus dative interpretation requires a lot less assumptions and is the Occam's razor interpretation. Runologists generally won't accept ellipsis of the kind you are proposing unless there are clear parallels that support the assumption.