Bibliotheca Arnamagnæana - 01.06.1999, Blaðsíða 166
146
Part One
a complete survey of similar evidence from other poems. Among other
details, hrimkålkr (Skirnismål, st. 37, Lokasenna, st. 52—53) is taken as
“a glass vessel the substance of which gives the impression of hoar-
frost” and is identified with “a small group of uncoloured or faintly col-
oured glasses” not known from the period after 550; gullbønd snøri
(Prymskvida, st. 6) is taken as referring to twisted gold rings from the
Viking Age after 800 (Nerman 1931: 22-26; 1963b: 127), lindbaugar
(Vglundarkvida, st. 5) as “snake-like rings” anterior to 550 (Nerman
1931: 37-38; cf. 1971: 26-27). The old problem conceming the “ring
swords” is also discussed (Nerman 1931: 40-44; 1960: 238-39). Com-
paring his work with the results arrived at by Erik Noreen and other
philologists, he discussed in a brief concluding chapter the chrono-
logical inferences supported by his evidence:
Thus we see that precisely those poems, Fpr Sklrnis, VplundarkviSa
and HelgakviSa Hundingsbana I., which, for philological reasons,
may be presumed to be earlier than the Viking age, contain passages
which, in the light of archæology, carry us back to times earlier than
the Viking period, whilst in one poem, Atlamål, which for historical
and philological reasons must be assigned to the Viking age, a pas-
sage studied archæologically points precisely to the Viking period.
If we put together the results arrived at by archæology and philo-
logy, it seems to me that there is really great probability that Fpr
Skimis and the VplundarkviSa were written before about 550 A.D.,
and Helgakviba Hundingsbana I. before about 750, or that this at any
rate holds good of large parts of those poems (Nerman 1931: 61).
Nerman’s method is very demanding and must be if the results are to
carry conviction. The first step is a philological text interpretation aimed
at identifying the object referred to by the words or expressions used in
the text. Secondly, a thorough knowledge of the object in question is
needed, mostly provided by archaeological evidence, including a delim-
itation of its chronology: when did objects of this kind come into exist-
ence, at what time did they fali out of use and, thirdly, for how long were
such objects likely to be known after they were no longer produced? Fi-
nally, we need to assess the weight of this evidence for the dating of a
particular poem; the mention of a certain artifact may for example be
taken over from an earlier poem or from general poetic tradition.