sign in sign up
<<
Home , Chattuarii, Fibula (brooch)

A RUNIC INSCRIPTION FROM BERGAKKER (GELDERLAND), THE

by A.V.AJ. Bosman (Amersfoort) & T. Looijenga (Groningen)

I. Archaeological context (A.V.AJ. Bosman) On the 12th of april 1996 the find of a gilded scabbard mount with a runic inscription was reported from Bergakker near Tiel in the Betuwe. This former habitat of the is situated in the river estuary of the . The site Bergakker is well-known for its metal finds. After a slit was dug on the former orchard earlier this year several amateur-archaeologists collected metal finds by using metal-detectors. It seems that on the site a large concentration of metal finds, mainly , is available. Most of it can be described as scrap. It contains broken or damaged objects such as fibulae and cut off rimfragments from bronze vessels. Also some large lumps of melted bronze were discovered. One fragment ;s also melted. All these finds indicate that scrap metal was collected and reused at this site. Pottery or building material have not been found. The oldest metal finds can be dated in the early Roman period: coins, of which one with an illegible countermark and Aucissa fibulae. Also finds from the rniddle and late Roman period occur. The latest finds are two early medieval 'vijfknoppenfibulae' dating around 500 AD. The most spectacular find is a scabbard mount in gilded silver. Its measurements are: length: 83 mm width: 19 mm (top); 10 mm (bottom) height: 14 mm weight: 33.9 gr. Also this piece can be described as scrap. The top part of the mount is rnissing, another decorated piece may have been welded onto the plate. Undemeath this plate is a decoration of half circles and points. The same decoration can be found on the front as the most inner line of a decoration with mainly ridges and grooves. The sides are decorated with larger ridges and grooves. Paral1els for this type of decoration occur on late Roman girdle mounts such as from Gennep (NL), dating in the second half of the 4th century AD. The Gennep finds are con• sidered to be produced in Lower Germany. On the undecorated and ungilded back is a runic inscription. Except for the top and two cuts on the edge of the opening on the bottom no traces of wear are visible (the mount was cleaned electrolytic). Paral1els for the mount are hard to find. In general late Roman weapons are scarce, only small parts are found in fortresses. Very

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 10 seldom weapons occur in cemetaries. At the same site a Roman altarstone was found when a part of the field was leveled in the 1950s. The stone was dedicated to the indi• genous (Batavian) goddess Hurstrga, dating in the second half of the 2nd or first half of the 3rd century AD. The toponym 'Bergakker' suggests that the site is higher than its surroundings. This may have been caused by riverain deposits. These graunds are in this region inhabited from the Age well into medieval times. The site could have functioned as a ritual centre during the Roman period. On it metal votiv objects could have accumulated. The centre could have been dedicated to Hurstrga. A parallel can be found at the tempelsite Empel (NL) which was dedicated to the Batavian god Hereu/es Magusanus. Also at Empellarge quantities of metal were found. At Bergakker scrap metal was collected and reused. This may have taken place in early medieval times (end of the 5th - first half of the 6th century), based on the date of the fibulae. The melting of metal was probably done within or near a settlement. The scabbard mount must have arrived at the settlement as a fragment or the scabbard was dismantled at the site. The absence of finds later than 500 AD indicate that the site was in use until the late Roman or early medieval period. The object may be dated into the 4th or 5th c.

II. The runic inscription (T.Looijenga) The inscription is at the undecorated back of the scabbard mount, as is usual for . The are neatlY cut with some sharp instrument and clearly legible. The fashion according to which the runes are carved is not unlike other runic inscriptions on metal. Although some parts suffered from corrosion, the shapes of the characters can be made out without any difficulty. The runes are of the older fupark-type; there are no Anglo-Frisian features. One character is anomalous and hitherto unattested. It has the shape of a double-lined Roman capital V and occurs four times in the inscription. One other character, S, appears twice in double lines, and once in single lines. The S is in three strokes. It is remarkablysmall, shorter than the other runes (apart fram the k). There is one bindrune, forrning wa, an unusual combination. The runes run fram left to right. The words are separated by division marks: three times composed of two dots and one time of four dots. The inscription contains four words. The last word is followed by a zig• zag line, filling up space. A similar technique can be found for instance on the Pforzen (South Germany) silver belt buckle (sixth c.). The significance of the Bergakker find is considerably. Never before have runes been found in the Rhine estuary. Also its age is significant; fifth century, but the fourth century is equally possible. As stated by the first author, its date has not yet finally been fixed. It might be the oldest

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 11 runic find from regions near the Rhine; the other runic finds in South Germany and the Rhineland are dated from the 6th-7th centuries. (One exception is the Aalen neck , a stray find from Baden• Württemberg, dated fifth c.). Moreover, the Betuwe find emerged from the left bank of the Rhine, within the limes. This does not necessarily mean that runic writing was executed in the Rhine area at a rather late date. The fact that especially runic objects from the 6th-7th centuries have come to our knowledge may very weH be due to their way of depositing: in Merovingian row-grave fields. Runic knowledge may have existed considerably longer in these re• gions. At any rate, the Betuwe find appears to be a missing link in the development and propagation of runic writing.

Description 0/ the runes: Considering the fact that the inscription is neatly divided into four parts, one may assume that the carver meant to render a legible text, existing of four words. This is the starting point for trying to identify the value of the individual runes and finally to establish a transliteration. The first rune is an h, single-barred, which does not seem not to point to some Frisian or Continental influence, since these runic traditions used a double-barred h, as far as we know. The fact that it is single• barred, could point to the Scandinavian or early English runic traditions. This deserves consideration only when the dating of the Bergakker find is at least fifth century; before that we are probably dealing with a common Germanic runic alphabet. The inscription contains double and single runeforms. The double runeforms are no 'mirror' runes in a strict sensel. To my mind both mirror runes and double runes are runic varieties, which may have been part of the initial runic stock; one may call both varieties 'ornamental' runes, restricted to form-variation only, having no consequences for the phonetic value. Such ornamental runes should therefore not be confused with the additional runes of the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet. Ornamental runeforms appear relatively often in areas bordering or near the North Sea. Firstly, there are the famous mirror runes repre• senting w and I' on the objects found in lllerup (Jutland) and Vimose (punen), dated circa 200 AD. The Gallehus (Jutland) inscription (circa 400 AD) has runes in double and single lines. As to ornamental runes, the Fallward (near the Weser mouth) inscription ksamella [a]lguska i (4/5th century) contains an a rune with three side twigs. The Spong HiH ums (East , 5/6th century) bear stamped mirror runes. The Oostum (prov. Groningen) inscription (8th century) has a b rune with

1 The existence of mirror runes, or "Spiegelrunen", has convincingly been demonstrated by Pieper 1987.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 12 three loops and an h rune with three bars. The Westeremden B (prov. Groningen) inscription (no date) contains ornamental and mirror runes and double-barred h. The Britsum (Friesland) inscription (no date), the Kragehul (Fyn) and Lindholm (Skäne) inscriptions contain multi-lined runes. The Wijnaldum A antler piece (no date) contains mirror runes and single runes. Quite some (2nd half 5th - beginning of the 6th centuries) bear ornamental and mirror runes. Maybe the inscriptions carried out in the so-called 'tremolo' , e.g. zig-zag lines, belong to the 'ornamental runes' category too: 0vre Stabu (Norway, 2nd half 2nd century), Nresbjerg (Jutland, circa 200 AD) and Meldorf (Schleswig• Holstein, 50 AD). The Bergakker find has double runes and a single• barred h. The second rune is a, the *ansuz rune. The third rune has only one side-twig to the right, at the middle of the head-staff. After scrutinizing the following runes, its value may be established. The fourth character is anomalous, at first sight it resembles no known rune. At first 1 contemplated the possibility of a double u rune, executed upside-down. But, if it should be considered a writing sign, and part of the text, its value may be established by the context of the rest of the text. The fifth rune is clearly a thom. The sixth character is similar to the fourth one, only rendered somewhat larger. The following character appears to me as a bind-rune of w and a. The w was cut first, since the lower side-twig of the a cuts through the lower part of the hook of the w. The last rune is an s, rendered in double lines. Thus we have ha??l'?was. The sequence l'?was reminds of a well-known -ele• ment, nominative pewaz, such as in owll'ul'ewaz of the Thorsberg (Schleswig-Hoistein) bronze sword chape, and lagul'ewa on the lllerup (Jutland, ) silver mount for a shield handle, both dated circa 200 AD, and the Valsfjord cliff inscription (Norway) ek hagustaldaz I'ewaz godagas '1, H., servant of G.'. Therefore 1 take it that the mysterious sign that lookes like a double V must represent e. When comparing its shape with the well-known runic M, both characters share the upper part. Normally the two head-staffs of the e rune run vertical, and here we find two slanting lines that touch at their ends. It may be some graphie variation. We now have ha?el'ewas. The third rune may be an incomplete thom. The carver failed to complete the hook: " instead of t>. hal'el'ewas 1 take as a personal name in the genitive, masculine a• stern.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 13

The name might relate to the Germanic tribe of the , or Chat• tuarie. The form hape- may show the reflection of the Germanic equi• valent of Latin c, via eh > h. The. pronunciation of the initial sound of the Germanie tribe's name had a guttural quality, whieh is shown in Celt.lRoman catu- > chat- > hat- 'battle, fight'. The name of the owner of the sword might mean 'Battleservant', a suitable name for a Ger• manie warrior, cf. the name Hapuwolafaz 'Battlewolf of of the Sten• toften and Istaby texts (South Sweden, 7th c.). However, -e- as com• position vowel appears odd, since one would expect -U-, but this may be due to a somewhat indistinct pronunciation of vowels in unstressed positions. After the division dots follow three runes; first *ansuz, then twiee n, thus producing the legend anno This may be associated with a verb• form, cf. Seebold 1970:79f: "ann, unno, unna; 'ist gewogen'; dt. der Person, gen. der Sache 'gewähren'; dt. der Person 'lieben"'. Remarka• ble is the double n, since one of the unwritten runie laws is that a se• quence of twiee the same letter can be represented by writing one rune. This 'law' may need reconsideration. Instances of double written con• sonants and vowels are the already mentioned ksamella, furthermore kunni on one of the Weser , aadag on the Vimose sword-chape, eerilaz on the of EskatorpNäsby, iddan on the Chamay . The next part of the inscription has an unusual lay-out, probably caused by a lack of space. Two words are written below one another and divided through division marks and a horizontal line. These two words are separated from the first part of the inscription by four dots, probably indieating that not one, but two words are to follow. The upper part: the first rune is a k. It is rendered as a hook in a very small shape, which occurs in ample quantities, as for instance in ksamella of the Fallward inscription. Furthermore such a k can be found in Scandinavia and England and is wide-spread on the Continent, from thefupark-inscription on the Charnay brooch (Burgundy, France, 6th c.) to the inscription on the Aquincum brooch (Budapest, , 6th. c.). The second sign, the double V form, renders e, according to the transliteration of the preceding hal>el>ewas. The third rune is again an s in double lines.

2 According to Schönfeld (1965: 131) Chattuari can be equated with Old English Ha:twarum in and Hetware in . The lived on the lnsula Batavorum and can be regarded as the successors or descendants of the Chatti. Malone (1962: 159) states that the seats of the Chatti were on the lower Rhine, near Cleves.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 14

The fourth rune is j, in the old-fashioned bipartite shape. The fifth rune is a. The last rune is m. Thus we get kesjam. Oe Vries (1962:307) lists kesja f. Javelin'. This strikes as puzzling; the scabbard mount belonged to a sword, not a spear. I proceed on this problem below. The last part of the inscription is: first rune I. Second rune o. Third rune g. The fourth sign is again the anomalous e. The fifth rune is n. The last rune is s, now carved in single lines. Thus we get logens. I propose to transliterate the legend thus: ha)?e)?ewas: ann: kesjam: logens:. Above I mentioned a problem concerning the interpretation of kesjam. Oe Vries comrnents on kesja that it has been found only in "nordgermanisch" and its etymology is unexplained. Its relation to Old Irish cess 'spear' has been regarded differently, but the Irish word rnight be a loan from Old Norse, according to Oe Vries. Fritzner (1891: 279) lists kesja f. 'spj6t' and gives instances of attestations: in Gammelnorsk bibelhistoria, Fommanna sögur, Egils saga, Sturlunga saga and Flateyjarb6k. I wonder whether there is any connection with another Germanic word indicating a spear, namely ON geirr < Gmc *gaizaz (Oe Vries 1962: 16lf.) 'heavy javelin'3. Much (1959: 84ff.) observed in his description of the kind of weapons used by Germanic tribes that a sword was a rare type of armament; he conc1udes that it is a 'young' weapon (1959:86). Anyhow, one would expect a word for 'sword' here,

3 According to De Vries (1962: 161f.), the Gennanic word has been considered a loan from Lat. Gal!. GAESUM, but De Vries states that it appears to be the other way round, since there existed a Gennanic tribe, the Gaesatae. This, however, is disputed. Schwarz (1956:46f.) states that a people named GAESATEIS are recorded in 236 BC living in the Alps. They fought in the service of North-Italic Celts against the Romans in 225 BC. Their swords were of Celtic make. According to Schwarz (1956: 46) Gaesatae is no tribes' name, but a Celtic definition of soldiers, named after Celt. *gaison 'spear'. Schwarz presents the arguments for and against the Gaesatae being some Germanic tribe. In the Alps in those times, one would rather expect Ligurian tribes who eventually became celtisized. Schönfeld (1965) lists no Gaesatae in his book on Germanic personal and tribes' names. As cognomina, Gesatus and Gaisionis are known from Celtic and Gennanic mercenaries, resp. from Vindelica and lower Gennany. In fact, these names points to the armament of the soldier (Alföldy 1968: 106f.).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 15 but instead is confronted with a word obviously meaning 'javelin' , a kind of spear. There might exist another instance of a confusion of sword and spear in a runic inscription. The Liebenau inscription (Germany, 4th century) is difficult to read, but may present ra[u]zwi. Gmc *rauza- means 'tube', 'hoHow stern', cf. ON reyr 'reed', meta• phoricaHy 'spear', perhaps also meaning 'sword'. The inscription is on a silver disc that may have been part of a swordbelt (Düwel 1972). I conjecture that a mix-up of weapon-names might have taken place somewhere in Germanic his tory , which may have had a connection with the introduction of a certain sword-type. logens appears enigmatic; its ending -ens, as weH as the ending -m of kesjam gives the impression of Latin influence. I intend to elaborate on the complicated matter of interpreting this inscription at a later occasion. The mount may be of Roman fabrication. Only the runes at the back are definitely Germanic. This amalgamation of does not need to surprise in the 4th or 5th century Betuwe. The object's provenance might not be easy to determine, but the in• scription, when indeed referring to the Chatti, may point to an origin somewhere in the river estuary of Rhine and Meuse. The owner of the sword may have been a Germanic soldier serving in the Roman army. If some features in the language of the Bergakker inscription indeed show influences from vulgar Latin, this would account for an origin within or near a romanized region. The Betuwe was situated within the limes until around 400 AD, when the Romans withdrew. In the turbu• lence that followed, the region was overrun by several more or less ro• manized Germanic tribes, such as Chatti, , and .

References Alföldy, G. 1968, Die Hilfstruppen der Römischen Provinz Inferior, Düsseldorf. Düwel, K. 1972, Die Runeninschrift auf der silbernen Scheibe von Liebenau, in: Die Kunde, Neue Folge 23, pp. 134-141. Fritzner, J. 1891, Ordbog over det gamle norske sprog, 2nd vol. HI-P, Kristiania. Malone, K. 1962, Widsith, Copenhagen. Much, R. 1959, Die Germania des Tacitus 2. A., Heidelberg. Pieper, P. 1987, Spiegelrunen, in: Runor och Runinskrifter, Föredrag vid Riks• antikvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8-11 september 1985, Stockholm, pp. 67-72. Schönfeld, M. 1965, Wörterbuch der altgermanischen Personen- und Völ• kernamen, 2. A. Heidelberg. Schwartz, E. 1956, Germanische Stammeskunde, Heidelberg. Seebold, E. 1970, Vergleichendes und etymologisches Wörterbuch der germanischen starken Verben, The Hague/Paris. Stoklund, M. 1994, Von Thorsberg nach Haithabu in: Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer und -angelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung, Ergänzungsbände zum Reallexikon der Germanischen Altertumskunde 10, Berlin, New York, pp. 95-116. De Vries, J. 1962, Altnordisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch, 2nd. ed. Leiden.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access 16

,; ~: ~~~.,..".,- ~"""--~!'-I""r"01 - --'-:-:"C-" ~ ~" "';""~-- -~-" """-""'-- '-~'"" ''O- .. ~ q 'I') _ .', ~ itiil , 2. ~ , ~s~~~~~1.:;~:~ : ~

, ~ 't§ ~ .. \ L------__:J ) '\

Drawing by D. lansen, Wychen.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/27/2021 11:28:21PM via free access