DOCSLIB.ORG

Vocalism in the Continental Runic Inscriptions

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vocalism in the Continental Runic Inscriptions VOCALISM IN THE CONTINENTAL RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS Martin Findell, MA. Thesis submitted to the University of Nottingham for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September 2009 Volume II: Catalogue Notes on catalogue entries ................................................................................vii Designation of items .....................................................................................vii Concordance .................................................................................................vii Find-site ........................................................................................................vii Context ..........................................................................................................vii Provenance .................................................................................................. viii Datings ........................................................................................................ viii Readings ..................................................................................................... viii Images ............................................................................................................. x 1. Aalen ............................................................................................................... 1 2. Aquincum ....................................................................................................... 2 3. †Arguel ............................................................................................................ 4 4. Arlon ............................................................................................................... 7 5. Aschheim II .................................................................................................... 9 6. Aschheim III ................................................................................................. 10 7. Bad Ems ........................................................................................................ 12 8. Bad Krozingen A .......................................................................................... 14 9. Balingen ........................................................................................................ 16 10. Beuchte ....................................................................................................... 18 11. Bezenye I .................................................................................................... 20 12. Bezenye II ................................................................................................... 22 i 13. Bopfingen ................................................................................................... 24 14. Borgharen ................................................................................................... 25 15. Bülach ......................................................................................................... 27 16. Charnay ....................................................................................................... 29 17. Chéhéry ....................................................................................................... 33 18. Dischingen I ................................................................................................ 35 19. Donzdorf ..................................................................................................... 37 20. Eichstetten................................................................................................... 39 21. Engers ......................................................................................................... 42 22. Erpfting ....................................................................................................... 43 23. Ferwerd ....................................................................................................... 45 24. Freilaubersheim .......................................................................................... 47 25. Fréthun I...................................................................................................... 49 26. Friedberg ..................................................................................................... 50 27. Gammertingen ............................................................................................ 52 28. Geltorf II ..................................................................................................... 54 29. Gomadingen ................................................................................................ 56 30. Griesheim .................................................................................................... 57 31. Hailfingen I ................................................................................................. 59 32. Hailfingen II................................................................................................ 61 33. †Hainspach .................................................................................................. 63 ii 34. Heide ........................................................................................................... 65 35. Heilbronn-Böckingen I ............................................................................... 66 36. Hitsum ........................................................................................................ 68 37. Hoogebeintum............................................................................................. 70 38. Hüfingen I ................................................................................................... 71 39. Hüfingen II.................................................................................................. 74 40. Hüfingen III ................................................................................................ 76 41. Igling-Unterigling ....................................................................................... 77 42. †Kärlich ....................................................................................................... 79 43. “Kent” ......................................................................................................... 80 44. Kirchheim/Teck I ........................................................................................ 83 45. Kirchheim/Teck II ...................................................................................... 85 46. †Kleines Schulerloch ................................................................................... 87 47. Lauchheim I ................................................................................................ 88 48. Lauchheim II ............................................................................................... 90 49. Liebenau ..................................................................................................... 91 50. Mertingen .................................................................................................... 93 51. München-Aubing I...................................................................................... 95 52. München-Aubing II .................................................................................... 97 53. Neudingen-Baar I........................................................................................ 98 54. Neudingen-Baar II .................................................................................... 100 iii 55. Niederstotzingen ....................................................................................... 102 56. Nordendorf I ............................................................................................. 104 57. Nordendorf II ............................................................................................ 108 58. Oberflacht ................................................................................................. 110 59. Oettingen................................................................................................... 112 60. Osthofen .................................................................................................... 114 61. Pforzen I.................................................................................................... 116 62. Pforzen II .................................................................................................. 120 63. Pleidelsheim .............................................................................................. 123 64. †Rubring .................................................................................................... 125 65. †Rügen....................................................................................................... 126 66. Saint-Dizier ............................................................................................... 128 67. Schretzheim I ............................................................................................ 129 68. Schretzheim II ........................................................................................... 132 69. Schretzheim III ......................................................................................... 134 70. Schwangau ................................................................................................ 136 71. Sievern ...................................................................................................... 138 72. Skodborg ..................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Henrik Williams. Scripta Islandica 65/2014
    Comments on Michael Lerche Nielsen’s Paper HENRIK WILLIAMS The most significant results of Michael Lerche Nielsen’s contribution are two fold: (1) There is a fair amount of interaction between Scandinavians and Western Slavs in the Late Viking Age and Early Middle Ages — other than that recorded in later medieval texts (and through archaeology), and (2) This interaction seems to be quite peaceful, at least. Lerche Nielsen’s inventory of runic inscriptions and name material with a West Slavic connection is also good and very useful. The most important evidence to be studied further is that of the place names, especially Vinderup and Vindeboder. The former is by Lerche Niel­ sen (p. 156) interpreted to contain vindi ‘the western Slav’ which would mean a settlement by a member of this group. He compares (p. 156) it to names such as Saxi ‘person from Saxony’, Æistr/Æisti/Æist maðr ‘person from Estonia’ and Tafæistr ‘person from Tavastland (in Finland)’. The problem here, of course, is that we do not know for sure if these persons really, as suggested by Lerche Nielsen, stem ethnically from the regions suggested by their names or if they are ethnic Scandi navians having been given names because of some connection with non­Scandi navian areas.1 Personally, I lean towards the view that names of this sort are of the latter type rather than the former, but that is not crucial here. The importance of names such as Æisti is that it does prove a rather intimate connection on the personal plane between Scandinavians and non­Scan dinavians.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions
    Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions Marie Stoklund Since c. 1980 a number of important new archaeological runic finds from the old Danish area have been made. Together with revised datings, based for instance on dendrochronology or 14c-analysis, recent historical as well as archaeological research, these have lead to new results, which have made it evident that the chronology and typology of the Danish rune material needed adjustment. It has been my aim here to sketch the most important changes and consequences of this new chronology compared with the earlier absolute and relative ones. It might look like hubris to try to outline the chronology of the Danish runic inscriptions for a period of nearly 1,500 years, especially since in recent years the lack of a cogent distinction between absolute and relative chronology in runological datings has been criticized so severely that one might ask if it is possible within a sufficiently wide framework to establish a trustworthy chro- nology of runic inscriptions at all. However, in my opinion it is possible to outline a chronology on an interdisciplinary basis, founded on valid non-runo- logical, external datings, combined with reliable linguistic and typological cri- teria deduced from the inscriptions, even though there will always be a risk of arguing in a circle. Danmarks runeindskrifter A natural point of departure for such a project consists in the important attempt made in Danmarks runeindskrifter (DR) to set up an outline of an overall chro- nology of the Danish runic inscriptions. The article by Lis Jacobsen, Tidsfæst- else og typologi (DR:1013–1042 cf.
    [Show full text]
  • Practical Literacy and Christian Identity Are Two Sides of the Same Coin When Dealing with Late Viking Age Rune Stones
    “Dead in White Clothes”: Modes of Christian Expression on Viking Age Rune Stones in Present-Day Sweden By Henrik Williams 2009 (Submitted version - the early author's version that has been submitted to the journal/publisher). Published as: Williams, Henrik: “Dead in White Clothes”: Modes of Christian Expression on Viking Age Rune Stones in Present-Day Sweden. I: Epigraphic Literacy and Christian Identity: Modes of Written Discourse in the Newly Christian European North. Ed. by Kristel Zilmer & Judith Jesch. (Utrecht Studies in Medieval Literacy 4.) Turnhout 2012. Pp. 137‒152. Practical literacy and Christian identity are two sides of the same coin when dealing with late Viking age rune stones. Reading the inscriptions on these monuments are by necessity not a straight-forward process for us today. The printed word we are familiar with is different in so many ways when compared to the usually very short and sometimes enigmatic messages we encounter in the form of runic carvings on rocks and cliffs throughout Scandinavia. The difficulties which we expect and take into account are not, however, primarily the main obstacles to our complete understanding of the rune stone texts. In one respect, these problems are superficial, dealing with formal restrictions of the media and the writing system. As is well known, the Viking age runic characters only numbered 16 (with the addition of three optional variants. Since the language(s) contained quite a few speech signs more than that, most runes could be use with more than one value and it is up to the reader to determine exactly which.
    [Show full text]
  • Schulte M. the Scandinavian Dotted Runes
    UDC 811.113.4 Michael Schulte Universitetet i Agder, Norge THE SCANDINAVIAN DOTTED RUNES For citation: Schulte M. The Scandinavian dotted runes. Scandinavian Philology, 2019, vol. 17, issue 2, pp. 264–283. https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu21.2019.205 The present piece deals with the early history of the Scandinavian dotted runes. The medieval rune-row or fuþork was an extension of the younger 16-symbol fuþark that gradually emerged at the end of the Viking Age. The whole inventory of dotted runes was largely complete in the early 13th century. The focus rests on the Scandina- vian runic inscriptions from the late Viking Age and the early Middle Ages, viz. the period prior to AD 1200. Of particular interest are the earliest possible examples of dotted runes from Denmark and Norway, and the particular dotted runes that were in use. Not only are the Danish and Norwegian coins included in this discussion, the paper also reassesses the famous Oddernes stone and its possible reference to Saint Olaf in the younger Oddernes inscription (N 210), which places it rather safely in the second quarter of the 11th century. The paper highlights aspects of absolute and rela- tive chronology, in particular the fact that the earliest examples of Scandinavian dot- ted runes are possibly as early as AD 970/980. Also, the fact that dotted runes — in contradistinction to the older and younger fuþark — never constituted a normative and complete system of runic writing is duly stressed. In this context, the author also warns against overstraining the evidence of dotted versus undotted runes for dating medieval runic inscriptions since the danger of circular reasoning looms large.
    [Show full text]
  • Edinburgh's Runestone
    Where will the runestone go? In early 2017, during the Year of History, Heritage and Archaeology, we worked with partner organisations to conserve and move the runestone to a safer location, outside the University of Edinburgh’s Scandinavian Studies Department at 50 George For further information about the runestone Square. This will make it accessible and visible to and related public events please contact: A SHORT GUIDE everyone all year round. Society of Antiquaries of Scotland Funding was secured and permissions granted National Museums Scotland TO EDINBURGH’S by Historic Environment Scotland to enable the Chambers Street RUNESTONE runestone to be moved. National Museums Scotland Edinburgh, EH1 1JF will add the stone into its national collection for Tel: 0131 247 4133 long-term safe-keeping and will loan it to the Email: [email protected] University of Edinburgh. Web: www.socantscot.org In December 2017, experts from AOC Archaeology Founded in 1780 the purpose of the Society carefully excavated and lifted the runestone out of of Antiquaries of Scotland is “the study of the ground. This spring it will be assessed, conserved the antiquities and history of Scotland.” and unveiled in its new location, along with high- Today, the Society is an independent charity, quality illustration and interpretation panels. The focused on education and research, with Society will also create dedicated webpages for a worldwide membership of about 2,500 the runestone and its history to provide further Fellows. Increasingly we are involved in interpretation and context. helping to translate Scotland’s history and archaeology for contemporary audiences. Events Free public events will take place during spring and Thanks summer 2018 to celebrate the unveiling of the stone Thank you to the following organisations for in its new location.
    [Show full text]
  • CROSSES on RUNE-STONES Functions and Interpretations
    CROSSES ON RUNE-STONES Functions and Interpretations Kristel Zilmer Crosses on Swedish rune-stones have been studied on numerous occasions, mostly in isolation from other features of the monument. This article exam- ines the use of rune-stone crosses with an emphasis upon their varying functions in the total composition of runic monuments. The analysis that combines the level of visual composition with textual elements re- veals different strategies in the display of crosses. Be- sides functioning as externalized Christian markers, crosses could be made to serve various internal (i.e. inscription-based) stylistic, decorative and practical purposes. The role of the cross could be modified ac- cording to particular contexts of usage. Keywords: Rune-stones, cross ornamentation, Christian markers, visual imagery, runic texts Cross ornamentation on Swedish rune-stones has been the subject of several studies of archaeological, art-historical, cultural-historical and runological orientation. The focus has lain on the classification of cross shapes (e.g. Liljegren 1832:141ff, plate 5; Plutzar 1924, plate 19; Gardell 1945:62ff, 73ff, 82f; Wideen 1955:147ff), combined with discussions of their chronology, provenance and sources of influence. In a study of Upplandic rune-stones, Claiborne W. Thompson identified six basic structural types of rune-stone crosses (Thompson 1975:30f). His clas- sification provided a common frame of reference until a more flexible way of analysing rune-stone crosses in terms of different variables was presented by Linn Lager (2002). In the context of using rune-stones as sources for the introduction and spread of Christianity, crosses have been characterized as explicit CURRENT SWEDISH ARCHAEOLOGY, VOL 19, 2011 87 Kristel Zilmer markers of the Christian faith.
    [Show full text]
  • On the Rune Stone
    i"He eonors pace More on the Rune Stone IN ITS Winter, 1976, issue, Minnesota History pub­ wrote the foUowing letter after receiving the quarterly lished two articles pertaining to the ongoing controversy and other material: over the authenticity of the inscription on the famous Dear Mr. Fridley: Kensington rune stone, which believers say dates back to Thank you for your kindness in sending me the mate­ 1362 and nonbelievers claim is a modern hoax. The fir.st article, in editorial form, was MHS director Russell W rial on Gran's tape. It revived old memories. Fridley" s brief survey of scholarly opinion, pro and con, So the lefthanded member of the hoaxing team was regarding the stone over the years. Fridley concluded Gran, after all. The lefthanded aspect was brought out by that the inscription is a modern forgery but at the same Hjalmar R. Holand (Wahlgren, The Kensington Stone, p. time an important "monument to Scandinavian humor on 69), but his identity was not brought out by Holand, xx'ho the Amei-ican frontier."" during the fifty or sixty years that he studied the Ken­ sington matter certainly became familiar xvith all the pos- Supporting this conclusion was the second article, sibihties. "The Case ofthe Gran Tapes: Further Evidence on the It is bard to believe that Ohman and Gran fooled Rune Stone Riddle." This included relevant portions of a Holand. It xvas he xvho fooled them, as xvefl as himself, tape of a 1967 interview with a son (Walter) and daugh­ with tragic results for at least the Ohman family.
    [Show full text]
  • Read More About Ancient Runes
    Nordic 5 Arts Denmark – Finland – Iceland – Norway – Sweden Nordic5Arts.com F U V A R C G W H N I J S P Z S T B E M L Y O D A Mixed-Media Exhibition by Nordic 5 Arts Old Norse definition of the word “rune” 1. Mystery, secret knowledge, learning 2. Secret or whispered conversation 3. Sign used in magic 4. Rune, runic character 5. letter Founded in 1993, Nordic 5 Arts is an organization comprised of professional artists in the San Francisco Bay Area of Nordic/Scandinavian descent. We have collaborated on many group exhibitions over the past twenty years, showing our work in galleries, educational institutions, corporate and public exhibition spaces and in a museum. During the past year, we have worked on a new group exhibition, “Runes Revealed”, based on ancient Norse runes, a distinctive form of writing that is no longer in use. The runic alphabet was 1 the script of the Old Norse and the Vikings before the introduction of the Latin alphabet in the 12th century. It was not only a simple representation of sounds, but each rune was imbued with symbolism, mystery and an association with specific gods in Norse mythology. The mystique of the runes of our ancestors appealed to our artistic sense. For inspiration, we chose one or several runes, either by picking out a random rune from a bag of “divination runes”, or by choosing a specific rune that spoke to us. Based on our choice, we created works in a variety of mediums, including painting, prints, sculpture, textile and photography.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Additions to the Runic Range, L2/09-312 2
    Proposed additions to the Runic Range 16A0-16F0 ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 2/WG 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY FORM TO ACCOMPANY SUBMISSIONS 1 FOR ADDITIONS TO THE REPERTOIRE OF ISO/IEC 10646TP PT Please fill all the sections A, B and C below. Please read Principles and Procedures Document (P & P) from HTUhttp://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/principles.html UTH for guidelines and details before filling this form. Please ensure you are using the latest Form from HTUhttp://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/summaryform.htmlUTH. See also HTUhttp://www.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/roadmaps.html UTH for latest Roadmaps. A. Administrative 1. Title: Proposed additions to the Runic Range, L2/09-312 2. Requester's name: Małgorzata Deroń 3. Requester type (Member body/Liaison/Individual contribution): Individual 4. Submission date: Oct. 29, 2009 5. Requester's reference (if applicable): prof. dr hab. Jacek Fisiak, prof. dr hab. Marcin Krygier 6. Choose one of the following: This is a complete proposal: Yes (or) More information will be provided later: B. Technical – General 1. Choose one of the following: a. This proposal is for a new script (set of characters): Proposed name of script: b. The proposal is for addition of character(s) to an existing block: Yes Name of the existing block: Runic Range 16A0-16F0 [Combining Diacritical Marks Supplement 1DC0-1DFF] 2. Number of characters in proposal: variable: 7 + (1) + 16/[12 + 1] see: 2. Justification (ii) & 4. Description 3. Proposed category (select one from below - see section 2.2 of P&P document): A-Contemporary B.1-Specialized (small collection) B.2-Specialized (large collection) C-Major extinct X D-Attested extinct E-Minor extinct F-Archaic Hieroglyphic or Ideographic G-Obscure or questionable usage symbols 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Runic Alphabet 9/27/05 12:00 AM
    Runic alphabet 9/27/05 12:00 AM Writing systems: abjads | alphabets | syllabic alphabets | syllabaries | complex scripts undeciphered scripts | alternative scripts | your con-scripts | A-Z index Runic alphabet Origin Little is known about the origins of the Runic alphabet, which is traditionally known as futhark after the first six letters. In Old Norse the word rune means 'letter', 'text' or 'inscription'. The word also means 'mystery' or 'secret' in Old Germanic languages and runes had a important role in ritual and magic. Here are some theories about the origins of runes: The alphabet was probably created independently rather than evolving from another alphabet. Runic writing was probably first used in southern Europe and was carried north by Germanic tribes. The Runic alphabet is thought to have been modelled on the Latin and/or Etruscan alphabet. The earliest known Runic inscriptions date from the 1st century AD, but the vast majority of Runic inscriptions date from the 11th century. Runic inscriptions have been found throughout Europe from the Balkans to Germany, Scandinavia and the British Isles. Notable features The direction of writing in early Runic inscriptions is variable. Later they settled down into a left to right pattern Word divisions were not generally recognised in Runic writing, although one or more dots were occasionally used for this function. Types of runic inscriptions include: 'Kilroy was here' type inscriptions on cliff walls, large rocks and buildings grave stone inscriptions, often with who carved the runes and who was buried, and also who made sure the stone was raised. (Later grave slabs or stone coffins were sometimes inscribed with Christian texts carved in runes) religious/magic inscriptions: prayers and curses, formulas on charms, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Texts & Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions
    www.RodnoVery.ru www.RodnoVery.ru TEXTS & CONTEXTS OF THE OLDEST RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS NW-4-looijenga.qxd 23/06/2003 13:17 Page 2 THE NORTHERN WORLD North Europe and the Baltic c. 400-1700 AD Peoples, Economies and Cultures EDITORS arbara rawford B www.RodnoVery.ruC (St. Andrews) David Kirby (London) Jon-Vidar Sigurdsson (Oslo) Ingvild Øye (Bergen) Przemyslaw Urbanczyk (Warsaw) VOLUME 4 NW-4-looijenga.qxd 23/06/2003 13:17 Page 3 TEXTS & CONTEXTS OF THE OLDEST RUNIC INSCRIPTIONS BY TINEKE LOOIJENGA www.RodnoVery.ru BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2003 NW-4-looijenga.qxd 23/06/2003 13:17 Page 4 Cover illustration: Hantum, whale ivory object with inscription: k:aha:, chapter nine, no. 15. This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Looijenga, Tineke. Texts & contexts of the oldest Runic inscriptions / by Tineke Looijenga. p. cm. — (The northern world ; v. 4) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-12396-2 1. Inscriptions, Runic. 2. Runes—History. I. Title: Texts and contexts of the oldest Runic inscriptions. II. Title. III. Series. PD2013.L66 2003 430—dc21 2003051996 www.RodnoVery.ru rune font: johan nordlander, umeå ISSN 1569–1462 ISBN 90 04 12396 2 © Copyright 2003 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910 Danvers MA 01923, USA.
    [Show full text]
  • Manusanvisningar För Scripta Islandica
    Recent Finds from the Continent: Problems and Perspectives of the Alamannic ‘Runic Province’ Alessia Bauer In my paper I would like to begin by presenting some recent finds from the Continent; subsequently, I shall draw my attention to the problems and perspectives of the corpus of the Continental Germanic runic inscriptions, providing an overview of the current discussion, focusing on the archaeological debate. Recent finds THE BROOCH FROM LAUCHHEIM In the cemetery of Lauchheim (Baden-Württemberg)—the largest row grave cemetery of the region, numbering more than 1,300 known burials—the grave (no. 660) of a woman with opulent grave furnishings, dating from about 600 AD, has been recently excavated. Inside archaeologists have found a couplet of bow brooches, maybe inherited goods. Two separated runic inscriptions are carved on the reverse of one of the brooches which, however, cannot be interpreted. In the first complex the runes d and a are carved–staying in a line; in the second it is more difficult to distinguish the intentional signs as runes: the first sign on the left is a clear e rune, a sort of l rune follows and then an uncertain three-stroke s rune ( ) and again a further uncertain l rune, touching on the bottom the supposed s rune. The inscription is problematic and maybe it was not meant to have any meaning at all. For several runic records from the so called Alemannic ‗runic province‘ it seems that the content of the inscription was not so important; the main thing was apparently possessing a specimen of writing, which maybe identified the bearer as a member of the ―upper middle class‖ (cf.
    [Show full text]