This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Sæbø sword appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 August 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
it's difficult to find any references to this younger than 80 years, but I seriously doubt that Stephens' reading would still be accepted today. -- dab (𒁳) 15:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The only other sword I am aware of that has runes on the blade (as opposed to the hilt) is the Schretzheim sword, which has four runes arranged in a cross. It is from a completely different context (7th century Alemannia as opposed to 8th century Norway). Even runes on sword hilts are rather rare (maybe three or four examples?).
The only "modern" source I could find that discusses the sword is this (1991), accessible only in snippet view. The "a swastika and five rune-like characters" to me seems to indicate skepticism towards Stephens' reading. Looking at the inscription, I must say only the o and u are clearly runes. The H may as soon be Latin, and the M and "Thorn" to me look like a latin M and D more than anything else. We then have "O - H - Swastika - M - U - D". Reading this as "Thurmuth owns me" is rather speculative to say the least. -- dab (𒁳) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for DYK. BabelStone ( talk) 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the few (and old, and dodgy) sources I found for this is Wilson's Swastika (1894) [1]. Wilson states that the sword is made from bronze. This is quite apparently a mistake, as Petersen mentions the sword just as a regular type C sword, which he would never do if it was just a "mock sword" made from anything other than steel. So I have tacitly omitted the "bronze" item. But I must admit that I have used other information from Wilson, such as the Budapest conference. And that the "bronze" claim is the only positive statement on the material of the sword (now glossed as "iron" in our article). -- dab (𒁳) 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
this goes to show that Wilson's book, as most of the late 19th to early 20th century swastika cruft is completely unreliable pseudoscholarship. -- dab (𒁳) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
even granting, for the sake of argument, the 卍muþ = Thurmuth reading, I would be rather interested in how oh can be conceived as translating to "owns me". -- dab (𒁳) 08:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
o dear. I could live with the interpretation being bogus, but if even the drawing of the inscription itself is dreamed up, we might as well trash this article and make it into a footnote of the "swastika considered a symbol of Thor" part at swastika.
The inscription not being runic at all would explain the lack of recent interest in the sword. This leaves the
Schretzheim sword as the only "runic blade" I am aware of. --
dab
(𒁳)
14:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
ᛟᚺ=Oh=á=own?
Own is quite describing of OH I think, but provided own as a word means to "take possession of" or "take inheritance of". But remember we are actually talking about ᛟᚺ. The rune ᛟ is called Odal, and the meaning of odal/odel is inheritance (still is in norwegian). ᛟ is the last rune in the futhark, (naturally since death is assosiated with initiating inheritance). The rune ᚺ is called Hagl/hail, like in "hail to the king" or "it hails on me". It is the first rune in the second sequence of runes in the futhark, that is the first rune on level of adulthood, the first step on becoming a grown man (when you inherit the farm from your father?). Since I have brought it up:
Basically it equates the trinity I quess, but enough with the flaky runes.
I think these two wiktionaries gives a fairly good summary of the OH etymology (I provided som highlight below):
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A1
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A5
á - Etymology, long Old Norse /a/. often written as ā or normalized á or even aa, compare Swedish, Danish, Norwegian å.
å - Etymology, from Old Norse á (“ow!”). Alternative spellings åh
Letter Å, å
If I could add my opinion I would say that OH is an exclamation to recieve something related to the rest of the text on the sword. The question then is what the rest of the text comprises? When i say "exclamation to recieve something" I mean that it probably translates as a prayer, like "give me rain X" or "let it flow X", . Oh=á=aqua also ó=á=å=åh=ah. Á litteraly means flowing water, rain, river, stream, and I do not think it is pure water we are talking about her ... Something flow TO me, ON me, ONTO me or similar preposition. Moving liquid (also air) is traditionally related to lifeforce. Is this too much of a heavy load for a wikitalk?
Vegard Vike (
talk)
23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Vegard, the h-rune is not "hail" as in "hail to the king". It is "hail" as in "ice dropping from the sky". Now, in principle, if we already read "卍" as "Thor", there is no reason not to take other runes as ideographs, but at the end of the day we need quotable references to support such readings, no matter how plausible or fantastic they may be. As Babelstone pointed out, this is about forms of the verb eiga which lose the g. It has nothing to do with your interjection. What the h is doing in this verb I don't know but perhaps there are Old Norse parallels for this. Is Old Norse á "I own / he owns" from *ah by Grammatischer Wechsel? Are there any attestations of this form? And how would we get from ah to oh? These are the questions we would need to ask (perhaps Haukur can answer them?), but since I think the "Thurmuth" reading is fantastic anyway I don't really worry about the oh too much, personally :) -- dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
+S GEBEREHT MEAH. Arguments about a missing I is conjecture. The other side of the seax is inscribed:
+BIORHTELMMEÞORTE. I will not start a long argument about this text, but can just say that a better theory of the lacune after the S would be that +S stands for Xristos Salvator (Christ saviour). Latin MEA translates to-me, but seems to be lengthened to "belongs to me", for explanatory reasons. Notis that the + or X is often used for the cross in such inscriptions, at the start and end of a text.
Vegard Vike (
talk)
22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read our Elder Futhark article. While you seem to be well informed on Viking swords, I must say you do not seem to have a sound idea of runes, or linguistics. Please let us leave aside the random etymological speculation. haggle has nothing to do with hail (any meaning), but even if it did this wouldn't be the place to discuss it. If you do come to Talk:Elder Futhark I would be interested where on earth you picked up the idea that the three aetts correspond to three ages of man. -- dab (𒁳) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems an alternate reading appeared in:
There was also critical discussion of Lorange's reading in the periodical The Academy and Literature, Vol. 36, 1889. If one could locate that article, perhaps some clues as to why it has received little to no subsequent coverage would be revealed. If, that is, anyone is sufficiently interested to dig it up. I can find numerous volumes of The Academy online, but, alas, not vol. 36. -- 77.57.165.148 ( talk) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Now [...] without my knowledge and by whose authority I know not, this runic blade while in the Danish Museum was treated with strong acid. The result is that the inscription is nearly ruined and can no longer be deciphered. [...] It is my right and duty to mention this, as otherwise a reader who finds that no such inscription as that given in my name by Lorange is now to be seen on the colour-printed plate might think that in 1884 I was guilty of something like "falsarium" or "lively imagination".(George Stephens, Review of Den yngre jernalders svaerd by A. L. Lorange (1889), The Academy and Literature, Aug. 10, 1889, no. 901, Vol. 36, pp. 91-93.)
Stephens tyder tecknen på svärdet från Saebö som runor och skall läsas som "oh ÞurmuÞ" (Thormod äger). Samma inskrift tolkas av Magnus Olsen som en "efterlikning av främmande inskrift" utan särskilt betydelse. Antejn går inte in på tolkningsfrågan utan nöjer sig med benämningen "bokstavsliknande tecken". (pg. 22)
It may be the 5th sword from the left in this flickr photo of Viking swords at Bergen Museum -- the hilt looks the same as the b/w photo in Williams' article (fig.98) although that shows a large notch in the top end of the blade which is not seen in the flickr photo. BabelStone ( talk) 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The flickr account ( Arild Nybø) has now kindly changed the licence of the image so that it can be uploaded to Commons, which I have now done. The animated gif could now also be uploaded to Commons and used in this article if fellow editors think it is appropriate (I like it, but some may think it is a little distracting). BabelStone ( talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
excellent! if the animated gif is uploaded, I would not transclude it in the article (on grounds of its being distracting) but instead I would link it by "click here for an animated version" from the image caption. -- dab (𒁳) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The Sæbø sword is Bergen Museum B 1622 right? At least that is what we thought. Alan Williams' A Metallurgical Study of Some Viking Swords gives Lorange's reading of "Thurmuth" for B 1622, which would seem to confirm the identification, but having taken a closer look, it is patently obvious that the sword shown in Fig. 98 is not the same as the sword drawn by Stephens (the hilts are completely different). In fact the Sæbø sword is clearly the long sword shown in the middle of this flickr photo (can we get him to change its licence?) where the last part of the inscription is quite clear and shows what looks like half of a swastika followed by the letters MUÞ, and faintly on the other side the letters O and N. This seems to redeem Stephens' drawing and transcription, and invalidates Williams' reading of "... B R T" which is obviously from a different sword. So back to the drawing board! BabelStone ( talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
very interesting. we need to pursue this. This seems to have been shrugged off altogether too lightly in recent runology. If it turns out that the drawing is accurate, we have restored an important runic inscription to its rightful place (quite regardless of whether we want to agree with the Thurmuth reading). -- dab (𒁳) 21:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating. Kudos all around! Haukur ( talk) 18:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I do so like the Wiki for the Sæbø sword, and espesially this Talk page. I discovered it while finishing of some research on this exact sword during the current month, at the same time as this wiki was created and forming. I had not read George Stephens review of Lorange's "Den yngre jernalders sværd" (1889) before, and must say that it does indeed strengthen the belief in the autencity and exactness of the 1884 drawing. I have made some adjustments to the Wiki, and will update it in the future also. This wiki was actually what motivated me to register as a user on wikipedia.
I made som brush ups on the Wiki.:
Vegard Vike ( talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also be greatly interested the "Viking sword inscriptions" you refer to. I am not an expert, but I have spent some time looking for Viking swords with blade inscriptions, and I could not find any. Could we please compile a list of all known Viking swords with blade inscriptions any of you is aware of? By "Viking sword" I mean any sword made in Scandinavia between 700-1100 (and obviously any blade from before 700 would be of interest also). The Anglo-Saxon seaxes do not qualify on the two counts of being neither Scandinavian nor swords. The Ulfberht swords do not qualify because they are continentall --
dab
(𒁳)
12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you have spent some time researching this -- your information is valuable, do let us build a blade inscription article with it. Concernig runes, there is a second (or rather first) "runic blade", it is the Schretzheim sword, so (1) Schretzheim, (2) Sæbø, but that really seems to be the lot. -- dab (𒁳) 09:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Still today I think that the main explanation for the inscriptions on "viking" swords is to call them a makers mark (like a factory mark), that is from the perspective of the archaeologists. Some inscriptions are found to be repeated on many sword (150-200+ VLFBERHT swords for example, the most common inscription), and that rules out a personal ownership explanation. My investigations points to the same function of the viking age inscriptions as some have concluded of the pre-viking and medieval sword inscriptions, calling on Gods grace, gods strength, godly power, or "cosmic powers", power of life-death (i.e. God) (this seems to be supported or at least not dispelled by people working from the language perspective Pernik sword, Le guerrier Russe [The rus warrior]). I would say that the inscription on the Sæbø sword seems to have deeply religious aspects (pre christian). This echoes the most easily read texts, clearly christian inscriptions, on some of the swords produced on the continent, but imported by the vikings. The most straight forward examples are:
The rest of the sword inscriptions are much more complex, but surprisingly not impossible to decipher, even the various crosshatchings (see backside of the sæbø sword, and many others variations) do seem to be "legible". But this I will have to publish before I disclose. No detailed translation of the Sæbø inscription from me yet then, unless someone else can come up with an attempt here that I can be tempted to comment and make arguments about ;-) Haukur could have an angle on it maybe? At first it must be said that a swastika written in a personal name would seems somewhat over the top...
Vegard Vike (
talk)
01:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that we have no parallels of Viking Age sword blade inscriptions. There are none. (or do we?)
This is why it was suggested that the inscription is in imitation of the continental (Frankish) blade inscriptions. If the Anglo-Saxon seax blade inscriptions are comparable (nb being from a different country, and from a Christian context), we should assume that it is most likely that such inscriptions identify either the maker or the owner of the blade. The suggestion that its meaning is religious is pulled out of thin air. We should discuss this at a separate
blade inscription article. --
dab
(𒁳)
12:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
yes, it can be refuted on grammatical grounds. "me fecit" means "he made me", not "my maker". "Ingelri me fecit" means "Ingelri made me". If you mean to suggest that " INRI made me" should translate to "Jesus made me", that's a rather implausible hypothesis. "INRI" isn't a common abbreviation for "Jesus" at any point in time, the Christogram (XP) is. Of course it is possible to speculate, but there is such a thing as informed speculation vs. uninformed random speculation.
concerning the swastika, it is clear that it is a recurring symbol in Vendel era to Viking Age artefacts, so presumably it had some specific meaning. The idea that it symbolized Thor specifically afaik is just speculation and cannot be shown with any certainty. Examples where it is arranged as it were as a letter within a runic inscription are very rare, most of the time it is just placed somewhere alongside the inscription as an "extra". This is why I originally created this article, I was intrigued by the "swastika as a letter" idea. Perhaps we need an article where we collect all comparable instances. The website you link to seems like a good place to start. -- dab (𒁳) 09:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have now created Swastika (Germanic Iron Age) where the occurrence of the swastika in runic contexts can be discussed. -- dab (𒁳) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is getting eerie... Here I come across another seemingly very important runic inscription described by Stephens which apparently afterwards completely drops from the academic record. Has anyone ever heard of the "Stenderup stone" or "Eltang stone"? Well, google hasn't, except in Stephens' 1868 The Runic Hall in the Danish Old-Northern Museum (complete with drawing).
According to Stephens, this is a 9th century runestone with an inscription that can be read "ioþin þiki ioþin", "(W)odin receive (W)odin!", which is not only an excellent example of an early attestation of Odin, caught in the act of losing his initial w- (and I am not aware of any other explicit Viking Age runic mention of Odin, a bit poor for the god who discovered the runes in the first place), it also seems (to me) a rather clear reference to Odin's self-sacrifice. People writing about the history of Odin should be all over this inscription. Yet the only instance where I find this stone mentioned at all in the period of 1869 to present (!) is here (1985), where it is listed in passing as reading "imbik??". Without our Sæbø experience, I would disregard Stephens' reading as 19th century fantasy, but the inexplicable loss of interest in the Sæbø sword throughout the 20th century is a precedent that may make it worthwhile to look into this stone as well. -- dab (𒁳) 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've created the article. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Eltang stone. I would definitely support Stephens' "oþin" reading. The "i??iæþik??" is definitely a step backwards, apparently due to Moltke (1985), who was just doing a quick catalogue, he wasn't commenting on or interpreting the inscription. He also misplaced the stone to "North Jutland" when in fact it is from South Jutland. It seems nobody else found it worth their while to comment. -- dab (𒁳) 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Note, I found another Viking sword with an inscription in iron inlay over a pattern-welded core: Bergen Museum 2605. It's not runic, however. It just reads "K+X+XI". If it weren't for the "K", I would say it's a pattern of crosses more than an inscription. -- dab (𒁳) 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Sæbø sword appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 28 August 2010 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
it's difficult to find any references to this younger than 80 years, but I seriously doubt that Stephens' reading would still be accepted today. -- dab (𒁳) 15:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. The only other sword I am aware of that has runes on the blade (as opposed to the hilt) is the Schretzheim sword, which has four runes arranged in a cross. It is from a completely different context (7th century Alemannia as opposed to 8th century Norway). Even runes on sword hilts are rather rare (maybe three or four examples?).
The only "modern" source I could find that discusses the sword is this (1991), accessible only in snippet view. The "a swastika and five rune-like characters" to me seems to indicate skepticism towards Stephens' reading. Looking at the inscription, I must say only the o and u are clearly runes. The H may as soon be Latin, and the M and "Thorn" to me look like a latin M and D more than anything else. We then have "O - H - Swastika - M - U - D". Reading this as "Thurmuth owns me" is rather speculative to say the least. -- dab (𒁳) 16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I have nominated this article for DYK. BabelStone ( talk) 01:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the few (and old, and dodgy) sources I found for this is Wilson's Swastika (1894) [1]. Wilson states that the sword is made from bronze. This is quite apparently a mistake, as Petersen mentions the sword just as a regular type C sword, which he would never do if it was just a "mock sword" made from anything other than steel. So I have tacitly omitted the "bronze" item. But I must admit that I have used other information from Wilson, such as the Budapest conference. And that the "bronze" claim is the only positive statement on the material of the sword (now glossed as "iron" in our article). -- dab (𒁳) 08:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
this goes to show that Wilson's book, as most of the late 19th to early 20th century swastika cruft is completely unreliable pseudoscholarship. -- dab (𒁳) 14:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
even granting, for the sake of argument, the 卍muþ = Thurmuth reading, I would be rather interested in how oh can be conceived as translating to "owns me". -- dab (𒁳) 08:20, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
o dear. I could live with the interpretation being bogus, but if even the drawing of the inscription itself is dreamed up, we might as well trash this article and make it into a footnote of the "swastika considered a symbol of Thor" part at swastika.
The inscription not being runic at all would explain the lack of recent interest in the sword. This leaves the
Schretzheim sword as the only "runic blade" I am aware of. --
dab
(𒁳)
14:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
ᛟᚺ=Oh=á=own?
Own is quite describing of OH I think, but provided own as a word means to "take possession of" or "take inheritance of". But remember we are actually talking about ᛟᚺ. The rune ᛟ is called Odal, and the meaning of odal/odel is inheritance (still is in norwegian). ᛟ is the last rune in the futhark, (naturally since death is assosiated with initiating inheritance). The rune ᚺ is called Hagl/hail, like in "hail to the king" or "it hails on me". It is the first rune in the second sequence of runes in the futhark, that is the first rune on level of adulthood, the first step on becoming a grown man (when you inherit the farm from your father?). Since I have brought it up:
Basically it equates the trinity I quess, but enough with the flaky runes.
I think these two wiktionaries gives a fairly good summary of the OH etymology (I provided som highlight below):
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A1
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C3%A5
á - Etymology, long Old Norse /a/. often written as ā or normalized á or even aa, compare Swedish, Danish, Norwegian å.
å - Etymology, from Old Norse á (“ow!”). Alternative spellings åh
Letter Å, å
If I could add my opinion I would say that OH is an exclamation to recieve something related to the rest of the text on the sword. The question then is what the rest of the text comprises? When i say "exclamation to recieve something" I mean that it probably translates as a prayer, like "give me rain X" or "let it flow X", . Oh=á=aqua also ó=á=å=åh=ah. Á litteraly means flowing water, rain, river, stream, and I do not think it is pure water we are talking about her ... Something flow TO me, ON me, ONTO me or similar preposition. Moving liquid (also air) is traditionally related to lifeforce. Is this too much of a heavy load for a wikitalk?
Vegard Vike (
talk)
23:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
No, Vegard, the h-rune is not "hail" as in "hail to the king". It is "hail" as in "ice dropping from the sky". Now, in principle, if we already read "卍" as "Thor", there is no reason not to take other runes as ideographs, but at the end of the day we need quotable references to support such readings, no matter how plausible or fantastic they may be. As Babelstone pointed out, this is about forms of the verb eiga which lose the g. It has nothing to do with your interjection. What the h is doing in this verb I don't know but perhaps there are Old Norse parallels for this. Is Old Norse á "I own / he owns" from *ah by Grammatischer Wechsel? Are there any attestations of this form? And how would we get from ah to oh? These are the questions we would need to ask (perhaps Haukur can answer them?), but since I think the "Thurmuth" reading is fantastic anyway I don't really worry about the oh too much, personally :) -- dab (𒁳) 11:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
+S GEBEREHT MEAH. Arguments about a missing I is conjecture. The other side of the seax is inscribed:
+BIORHTELMMEÞORTE. I will not start a long argument about this text, but can just say that a better theory of the lacune after the S would be that +S stands for Xristos Salvator (Christ saviour). Latin MEA translates to-me, but seems to be lengthened to "belongs to me", for explanatory reasons. Notis that the + or X is often used for the cross in such inscriptions, at the start and end of a text.
Vegard Vike (
talk)
22:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps you should read our Elder Futhark article. While you seem to be well informed on Viking swords, I must say you do not seem to have a sound idea of runes, or linguistics. Please let us leave aside the random etymological speculation. haggle has nothing to do with hail (any meaning), but even if it did this wouldn't be the place to discuss it. If you do come to Talk:Elder Futhark I would be interested where on earth you picked up the idea that the three aetts correspond to three ages of man. -- dab (𒁳) 10:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It seems an alternate reading appeared in:
There was also critical discussion of Lorange's reading in the periodical The Academy and Literature, Vol. 36, 1889. If one could locate that article, perhaps some clues as to why it has received little to no subsequent coverage would be revealed. If, that is, anyone is sufficiently interested to dig it up. I can find numerous volumes of The Academy online, but, alas, not vol. 36. -- 77.57.165.148 ( talk) 15:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Now [...] without my knowledge and by whose authority I know not, this runic blade while in the Danish Museum was treated with strong acid. The result is that the inscription is nearly ruined and can no longer be deciphered. [...] It is my right and duty to mention this, as otherwise a reader who finds that no such inscription as that given in my name by Lorange is now to be seen on the colour-printed plate might think that in 1884 I was guilty of something like "falsarium" or "lively imagination".(George Stephens, Review of Den yngre jernalders svaerd by A. L. Lorange (1889), The Academy and Literature, Aug. 10, 1889, no. 901, Vol. 36, pp. 91-93.)
Stephens tyder tecknen på svärdet från Saebö som runor och skall läsas som "oh ÞurmuÞ" (Thormod äger). Samma inskrift tolkas av Magnus Olsen som en "efterlikning av främmande inskrift" utan särskilt betydelse. Antejn går inte in på tolkningsfrågan utan nöjer sig med benämningen "bokstavsliknande tecken". (pg. 22)
It may be the 5th sword from the left in this flickr photo of Viking swords at Bergen Museum -- the hilt looks the same as the b/w photo in Williams' article (fig.98) although that shows a large notch in the top end of the blade which is not seen in the flickr photo. BabelStone ( talk) 22:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The flickr account ( Arild Nybø) has now kindly changed the licence of the image so that it can be uploaded to Commons, which I have now done. The animated gif could now also be uploaded to Commons and used in this article if fellow editors think it is appropriate (I like it, but some may think it is a little distracting). BabelStone ( talk) 01:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
excellent! if the animated gif is uploaded, I would not transclude it in the article (on grounds of its being distracting) but instead I would link it by "click here for an animated version" from the image caption. -- dab (𒁳) 10:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The Sæbø sword is Bergen Museum B 1622 right? At least that is what we thought. Alan Williams' A Metallurgical Study of Some Viking Swords gives Lorange's reading of "Thurmuth" for B 1622, which would seem to confirm the identification, but having taken a closer look, it is patently obvious that the sword shown in Fig. 98 is not the same as the sword drawn by Stephens (the hilts are completely different). In fact the Sæbø sword is clearly the long sword shown in the middle of this flickr photo (can we get him to change its licence?) where the last part of the inscription is quite clear and shows what looks like half of a swastika followed by the letters MUÞ, and faintly on the other side the letters O and N. This seems to redeem Stephens' drawing and transcription, and invalidates Williams' reading of "... B R T" which is obviously from a different sword. So back to the drawing board! BabelStone ( talk) 21:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
very interesting. we need to pursue this. This seems to have been shrugged off altogether too lightly in recent runology. If it turns out that the drawing is accurate, we have restored an important runic inscription to its rightful place (quite regardless of whether we want to agree with the Thurmuth reading). -- dab (𒁳) 21:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Fascinating. Kudos all around! Haukur ( talk) 18:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I do so like the Wiki for the Sæbø sword, and espesially this Talk page. I discovered it while finishing of some research on this exact sword during the current month, at the same time as this wiki was created and forming. I had not read George Stephens review of Lorange's "Den yngre jernalders sværd" (1889) before, and must say that it does indeed strengthen the belief in the autencity and exactness of the 1884 drawing. I have made some adjustments to the Wiki, and will update it in the future also. This wiki was actually what motivated me to register as a user on wikipedia.
I made som brush ups on the Wiki.:
Vegard Vike ( talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I would also be greatly interested the "Viking sword inscriptions" you refer to. I am not an expert, but I have spent some time looking for Viking swords with blade inscriptions, and I could not find any. Could we please compile a list of all known Viking swords with blade inscriptions any of you is aware of? By "Viking sword" I mean any sword made in Scandinavia between 700-1100 (and obviously any blade from before 700 would be of interest also). The Anglo-Saxon seaxes do not qualify on the two counts of being neither Scandinavian nor swords. The Ulfberht swords do not qualify because they are continentall --
dab
(𒁳)
12:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you have spent some time researching this -- your information is valuable, do let us build a blade inscription article with it. Concernig runes, there is a second (or rather first) "runic blade", it is the Schretzheim sword, so (1) Schretzheim, (2) Sæbø, but that really seems to be the lot. -- dab (𒁳) 09:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Still today I think that the main explanation for the inscriptions on "viking" swords is to call them a makers mark (like a factory mark), that is from the perspective of the archaeologists. Some inscriptions are found to be repeated on many sword (150-200+ VLFBERHT swords for example, the most common inscription), and that rules out a personal ownership explanation. My investigations points to the same function of the viking age inscriptions as some have concluded of the pre-viking and medieval sword inscriptions, calling on Gods grace, gods strength, godly power, or "cosmic powers", power of life-death (i.e. God) (this seems to be supported or at least not dispelled by people working from the language perspective Pernik sword, Le guerrier Russe [The rus warrior]). I would say that the inscription on the Sæbø sword seems to have deeply religious aspects (pre christian). This echoes the most easily read texts, clearly christian inscriptions, on some of the swords produced on the continent, but imported by the vikings. The most straight forward examples are:
The rest of the sword inscriptions are much more complex, but surprisingly not impossible to decipher, even the various crosshatchings (see backside of the sæbø sword, and many others variations) do seem to be "legible". But this I will have to publish before I disclose. No detailed translation of the Sæbø inscription from me yet then, unless someone else can come up with an attempt here that I can be tempted to comment and make arguments about ;-) Haukur could have an angle on it maybe? At first it must be said that a swastika written in a personal name would seems somewhat over the top...
Vegard Vike (
talk)
01:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that we have no parallels of Viking Age sword blade inscriptions. There are none. (or do we?)
This is why it was suggested that the inscription is in imitation of the continental (Frankish) blade inscriptions. If the Anglo-Saxon seax blade inscriptions are comparable (nb being from a different country, and from a Christian context), we should assume that it is most likely that such inscriptions identify either the maker or the owner of the blade. The suggestion that its meaning is religious is pulled out of thin air. We should discuss this at a separate
blade inscription article. --
dab
(𒁳)
12:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
yes, it can be refuted on grammatical grounds. "me fecit" means "he made me", not "my maker". "Ingelri me fecit" means "Ingelri made me". If you mean to suggest that " INRI made me" should translate to "Jesus made me", that's a rather implausible hypothesis. "INRI" isn't a common abbreviation for "Jesus" at any point in time, the Christogram (XP) is. Of course it is possible to speculate, but there is such a thing as informed speculation vs. uninformed random speculation.
concerning the swastika, it is clear that it is a recurring symbol in Vendel era to Viking Age artefacts, so presumably it had some specific meaning. The idea that it symbolized Thor specifically afaik is just speculation and cannot be shown with any certainty. Examples where it is arranged as it were as a letter within a runic inscription are very rare, most of the time it is just placed somewhere alongside the inscription as an "extra". This is why I originally created this article, I was intrigued by the "swastika as a letter" idea. Perhaps we need an article where we collect all comparable instances. The website you link to seems like a good place to start. -- dab (𒁳) 09:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have now created Swastika (Germanic Iron Age) where the occurrence of the swastika in runic contexts can be discussed. -- dab (𒁳) 10:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This is getting eerie... Here I come across another seemingly very important runic inscription described by Stephens which apparently afterwards completely drops from the academic record. Has anyone ever heard of the "Stenderup stone" or "Eltang stone"? Well, google hasn't, except in Stephens' 1868 The Runic Hall in the Danish Old-Northern Museum (complete with drawing).
According to Stephens, this is a 9th century runestone with an inscription that can be read "ioþin þiki ioþin", "(W)odin receive (W)odin!", which is not only an excellent example of an early attestation of Odin, caught in the act of losing his initial w- (and I am not aware of any other explicit Viking Age runic mention of Odin, a bit poor for the god who discovered the runes in the first place), it also seems (to me) a rather clear reference to Odin's self-sacrifice. People writing about the history of Odin should be all over this inscription. Yet the only instance where I find this stone mentioned at all in the period of 1869 to present (!) is here (1985), where it is listed in passing as reading "imbik??". Without our Sæbø experience, I would disregard Stephens' reading as 19th century fantasy, but the inexplicable loss of interest in the Sæbø sword throughout the 20th century is a precedent that may make it worthwhile to look into this stone as well. -- dab (𒁳) 09:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I've created the article. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Eltang stone. I would definitely support Stephens' "oþin" reading. The "i??iæþik??" is definitely a step backwards, apparently due to Moltke (1985), who was just doing a quick catalogue, he wasn't commenting on or interpreting the inscription. He also misplaced the stone to "North Jutland" when in fact it is from South Jutland. It seems nobody else found it worth their while to comment. -- dab (𒁳) 12:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Note, I found another Viking sword with an inscription in iron inlay over a pattern-welded core: Bergen Museum 2605. It's not runic, however. It just reads "K+X+XI". If it weren't for the "K", I would say it's a pattern of crosses more than an inscription. -- dab (𒁳) 13:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)