Futhark International Journal of Runic Studies Main editors James E. Knirk and Henrik Williams Assistant editor Marco Bianchi Vol. 7 · 2016 Published with financial support from the Nordic Publications Committee for Humanist and Social Sciences Periodicals (NOP-HS) © Contributing authors 2017 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0) All articles are available free of charge at http://www.futhark-journal.com A printed version of the issue can be ordered through http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-309051 Editorial advisory board: Michael P. Barnes (University College London), Klaus Düwel (University of Göttingen), Lena Peterson (Uppsala University), Marie Stoklund (National Museum, Copenhagen) Typeset with Linux Libertine by Marco Bianchi University of Oslo Uppsala University ISSN 1892-0950 Contents Foreword....................................................... 5 Bernard Mees. The Hogganvik Inscription and Early Nordic Memorialisation .............................................. 7 Wolfgang Beck. Die Runeninschrift auf der Gürtelschnalle von Pforzen als Zeugnis der germanischen Heldensage? ....................... 29 Luzius Thöny. The Chronology of Final Devoicing and the Change ofz * to ʀ in Proto-Norse ............................................ 47 Helmer Gustavson. Två runristade kopparamuletter från Solberga, Köpingsvik (Öl Fv1976;96A och Öl Fv1976;96B) ................... 63 Elena A. Melʹnikova. A New Runic Inscription from Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Istanbul .......................................... 101 Jana Krüger and Vivian Busch. The Metrical Characteristics of Maeshowe Runic Inscription No. 20 ....................................... 111 Short notices Juliana Roost. An Inscribed Fibula from Basel-Kleinhüningen? ......... 127 Charlotte Boje Andersen and Lisbeth M. Imer. Ydby-stenen (DR 149) genfundet ................................................... 131 Jan Owe. Åsa, en mö i Skänninge (Ög 239) .......................... 137 Magnus Källström. Till tolkningen av runorna på ett dryckeskärl från Lund (DR EM85;474A) ......................................... 143 Per Stille. Johan Bures runtavla och dess titel ........................ 149 Reviews Martin Findell. Runes. Reviewed by Mindy MacLeod ................. 155 Heikki Oja. Riimut: Viestejä viikingeiltä. Reviewed by Kendra Willson .. 158 Wolfgang Krause. Schriften zur Runologie und Sprachwissenschaft. Reviewed by Martin Hannes Graf ............................... 164 Klaus Düwel. Runica minora: Ausgewählte kleine Schriften zur Runenkunde. Reviewed by Patrik Larsson ......................... 170 Irene García Losquiño. The Early Runic Inscriptions: Their Western Features. Reviewed by Martin Hannes Graf ....................... 174 Lisbeth M. Imer and (photo) Roberto Fortuna. Danmarks runesten: En fortelling. Reviewed by Anne-Sofie Gräslund ...................... 181 Florian Busch. Runenschrift in der Black-Metal-Szene: Skripturale Praktiken aus soziolinguistischer Perspektive. Reviewed by Martin Findell ...................................................... 186 Contributors .................................................... 193 Foreword This seventh volume ofFuthark again has a wide scope, with contributions ranging from one of the oldest runestones to the very first runological pub- li cation. Half a dozen articles and five short notices deal with topics which are chrono logically, geographically and topologically diverse. The seven reviews highlight this variation, not least diachronically, as is shown by the examination of a book on sociolinguistic aspects of the use of runes in contem porary Black Metal rock. This serves as a reminder that runic inscrip tions are as popular as ever today, if not more so. Albeit small, the discipline of runology is pursued by scholars from over twenty countries and popular interest is growing. Two serious handbooks in English have been published in recent years, and they will, we hope, counteract the mis infor mation and abuse of runic matters. The general public must be offered scholarly evidence in this media world of post-factual “truths”. This issue contains no contributions to debate. This is somewhat sur- prising in view of the article in last year’s Futhark on the Rök stone inscrip tion, which adopted a largely new position on its interpretation, triggering worldwide interest and full-length pieces or shorter notices in many newspapers, including the Washington Post. The article itself has been downloaded over 4,000 times, validating the idea of making Futhark freely available on the Internet. The lack of published criticism from runol ogists does not of course imply general agreement with the new find ings. Scholarly counter arguments may be forthcoming, and as always we invite debate on this and other runic matters. We wish to thank Mindy MacLeod for her excellent work as our language consultant. Our gratitude also extends to our many peer reviewers and book reviewers who perform invaluable work without tangible rewards and, in the case of the former, in anonymity as well. We again remind you that Futhark is also available in print: make sure libraries and institutions order it. While Open Access publishing in digital form is invaluable, hard copies will never lose their usefulness and are a guarantee of permanent avail ability. James E. Knirk Henrik Williams The Hogganvik Inscription and Early Nordic Memorialisation Bernard Mees (RMIT University, Melbourne) Abstract In 2009 an early runic inscription was discovered on a triangular projecting area that through subsequent excavation was confirmed to be at the lower part of a funerary monument. Yet such find reports and commentaries as have appeared to date have tended not to assess the Hogganvik inscription prin- ci pally as a commemorative expression, as an example of a broader memo- rial epigraphic tradition. Rather than as an epigraphic record of the history of emotions, suggestions of magic appear in the main treatments of the remark- able find. After all, lexically irregular sequences found on other early runic memo rials are often taken as signs they feature a magical aspect. Taking the Hoggan vik inscription in its broader linguistic and archaeological context, how ever, suggests a rather different understanding is to be assumed for the early Norwegian memorial. Instead of reflecting magic, the less clear sections of the Hoggan vik text can more regularly be understood as abbreviated or other wise obscurely expressed sequences. Keywords: Hogganvik runestone (Vest-Agder), runic inscriptions, history of emotions, onomastics, memo ri alisation, curses, abbreviations Introduction he question of what constitutes proper method in the humanities Twas of particular concern to scholars such as Wilhelm Dilthey. In his Einleitung in die Geisteswissenschaften (1883), Dilthey laid out his own under standing of what social scientists such as Max Weber (1922) would come to call Verstehen — interpretative understanding of humanly derived expressions. It remains rare, however, in runological discourse for interpretative issues to be treated explicitly, even in assessments of Mees, Bernard. “The Hogganvik Inscription and Early Nordic Memorialisation.”Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 7 (2016, publ. 2017): 7–28. © 2017 Bernard Mees. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 International License and available free of charge at http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-316585. 8 • Bernard Mees recently un covered finds such as the older runic memorial text unearthed at Hoggan vik, Norway, in 2009. The early runic texts are usually not approached in terms of broader devel opments in ancient or medieval histori og raphy such as the “epigraphic habit” of Roman experience first emphasised by Ramsay MacMullen (1982) or the more recent history of emotions approach to early medieval funerary memorials advanced by Barbara Rosen wein (2006, 57–78). This includes previous interpretations of the Hoggan vik memorial, discovered by Henrik and Arnfinn Henrik sen while clearing away stumps on their property in the village of Sånum- Lunde vik, in the Norwegian county of Vest-Agder. A reflection of the long-discussed matter of interpretative method, however, can be seen in discussions of the role that historical imagination plays in runic studies, partic ularly as the matter was set out by Ray Page in the first edition of his Introduction to English Runes (1973, 13–15). Background In the first edition of his “little red book”, Page contrasts the approach to epi graphic interpretation of Karl Schneider (1956) with that of Erik Molt ke (cf. Moltke 1985) — and even the extremely reactive stance taken by An- ders Bæk sted (1952). Page’s main concern here was inter pretations of runic texts that are overly reliant on magical explanation, often with out using any sort of formal substantiation of what magic is and what it may reason- ably be taken to constitute in a runic context (cf. Page 1964 = 1995, 105–25, Niel sen 1985). Runology has long been practised very much by scholars with the op posite approach to what Ulrich von Wilamo witz-Moel len dorf privately derided as “DM-Wissenschaft” (Braun et al. 1995, 232). For Wilamowitz, classical epigraphy was evidently a pedantic form of scholar ship that was overly obsessed with cataloguing relatively trivial ex- pressions such as funerary epigraphs (DM or D(is) M(anibus) ‘to the spirits of the dead’ being a common formula in Roman funerary