Hole Runestone

Dating

The Hole 2 fragment was from a mound with grave goods radiocarbon dated to between 50 BCE and 275 CE. The other burials were dated to approximately the same time, with the grave containing Hole 1 likely being from before 150 CE. Such dates are consistent with graves of a similar style from elsewhere in Norway.

Based on this, the Hole runestone is the oldest datable runestone and is among the oldest known runic inscriptions. It is also the only runestone found in a datable archaeological context, suggesting that others, such as the Hogganvik and Tune stones, may also be older than typically thought.

Inscriptions

Language

The language of the inscriptions has been considered Proto-Norse, or Ancient Nordic, following the convention for runic writing around Scandinavia in the time period from the mid-2nd to late 7th centuries CE. Consistent with this, the inscriptions of Hole 2 and 3 seem to show North Germanic linguistic features.

Hole 2

idiberug sequence

The Hole 2 fragment has several identifiable sequences of runes. Eight runes are clearer than the others on one side and form a left-to-right sequence. Transliterated into Latin script, they read either idiberug or possibly idiberun, given the similarity between the ᚷ (g) and ᚾ (n) runes. The b rune is unusual, having four pockets, but resembles others on the fragment.

Several interpretations are possible, as is common with early runic inscriptions; however it likely includes a proper name. One possibility is the female name idibergu. In this case, the first element *idi- could be an intensifier, indicating long duration, and be related to names such as Iðunn and Iðmundr. The etymology of this is uncertain, however. The second part of the name could be related to Proto-Germanic: *-bergō and Old Norse: -bjǫrg ('help', 'protection'), or bera, possibly related to *beran- ('to bear'). A name such as Idibergu would be paralleled by attested names such as Old High German Iduberga and the southern Germanic Bera. Alternatively, idibernu could be interpreted as a dedication (possibly of the stone or inscription) 'for/to Īdiberō'. A further possible reading includes a faintly scratched z as part of the end of the sequence to give idiberu[n]g[a]z. This could be a kin name, with the suffix *-ungaz ('descendant') being well attested in the early Germanic record.

fuþ sequence

The three runes ᚠ ('f'), ᚢ ('u') and ᚦ ('þ' or 'th') comprise another sequence on Hole 2. These are the first three runes of the elder fuþark rune-row. It is possible that this sequence is therefore a rendering of the fuþark and may reflect an early knowledge of the rune-row as a defined, ordered concept. Complete and almost complete elder fuþark inscriptions are known elsewhere, with the Kylver stone, typically dated to around 400 CE, being widely considered the oldest. These runes resemble those of the idiberug sequence and were possibly carved using a similar tool.

Hole 3

The Hole 3 fragments have a sequence of 16 or 17 runes with at least two sets of dots acting as separator marks between some of them. Several of the runes are split across fragments and some are damaged. They read ek(s)g(or w)ulu:fahido:runo (ᛖᚲ(ᛋ)ᚷ(or: ᚹ)ᚢᛚᚢ:ᚠᚨᚺᛁᛞᛟ:ᚱᚢᚾᛟ), in which the s (ᛋ) is faint and possibly not a rune, and the following rune is either a g or w (ᚷ or ᚹ). This has been interpreted as follows:

ᛖᚲ

Ek

(ᛋ)ᚷ(or: ᚹ)ᚢᛚᚢ:

Gul(l)u/Wu(l)lu (or: Skul(l)u/Swul(l)u)

ᚠᚨᚺᛁᛞᛟ:

fahidō

ᚱᚢᚾᛟ

rūnō

I, Gu(l)lu/Wul(l)u (or: Skul(l)u/Swul(l)u), wrote the runic inscription

The names Gul(l)u or Wul(l)u are more likely than Skul(l)u or Swul(l)u given the faintness of the s and the possibility that it is a separator instead, as is seen elsewhere in the sequence. Gulu could be derived from Proto Norse: *gulu ('yellow; gold'). The same runes may instead represent the name Gullu ('she who shouts/sings'), related to Proto-Germanic: *galan- ('to shout') or *gellan ('to yell/sound'). If this reading is correct, it would notably be the earliest recording of a female writer. Alternatively, the name Wullu may mean 'the woolly one' or be related to Proto-Germanic: *wulan ('to swell up, boil, seethe').

The verb fahido is a form of *faihijan ('to paint, decorate, write'). The inscription was scratched using a thin tool, making the meaning 'wrote' most fitting. It may also suggest, however, that the writer was aware of a custom at the time of decorating or colouring runic sequences. The formula used in the sequence is seen elsewhere in runic inscriptions, such as the Einang stone, which reads [Ek Go]dagastiz rūnō faihidō ('I, Godagastiz, wrote (or painted) the runic inscription'). In both inscriptions, runo ('rune') is in the singular, referring to the entire inscription. On the Hole stone, however, monophthongisation before the h is seen (fahido, rather than the Einang stone's faihido). This spelling is also seen on the Rö runestone (dated to c. 60-375/400 CE). As the change is a regular development in Proto Norse, it may suggest that the Hole stone inscription was made after others that lack the innovation. Alternatively, the Hole stone could be older but the sound change took time to spread, and the monophthongisation had not been adopted in areas such as Einang by the time their inscriptions were carved.

Other

The fragments contain several other sequences of runes that are harder to interpret and make suggestions more speculative. These include an inscription with many consonants but few vowels that could reflect abbreviations or a record of different rune shapes. In other cases, it is unclear if certain carvings are intended to be runes, or which runes they are intended to be.

Function

The Hole runestone consists of fragments with highly diverse properties and inscriptions. A number of differing interpretations have accordingly been put forward, both for before and after the runestone was broken.

As the largest fragment, Hole 1, lacks an inscription and was found vertically, it has been suggested to have been the base of an upright standing stone that was possibly supported by two stones found beside it. Hole 2 and 3 were likely removed from Hole 1 on purpose. After this, the inscription made on the side of Hole 2 was written and it was deposited in the grave in which it was discovered. Given this deposition of fragments in graves, the runestone could have had a ceremonial and memorialising role. This would align with common interpretations of other early runestones and the possible recording of a name by the idiberug sequence. Despite this, Hole 2 does not appear to be monumental and may instead be a recycled fragment.

Hole 2 has several notable features beyond the sequences which appear to have a semantic meaning. One of these is a grid with runes and other marks nearby, which may be associated with board games. Alternatively, it may have been used for timetelling, possibly under influence from Roman sundials. Elsewhere on Hole 2, the scribbled markings may reflect use as a writing tablet. In this case, the inscriptions could reflect writers copying from other inscriptions to practise and develop new forms of writing, consistent with rare rune shapes seen, such as the four-pocket b in the idiberug sequence. The Hole runestone could therefore attest to an early period of runic writing in which the writing was an emergent skill that carvers were learning to master. Repeated rune motifs could alternatively have had another meaning which has yet be identified.

Exhibition

The University of Oslo placed the stone on public exhibition from January 2023 until late February 2023.