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. Introduction. The Runes in Denmark in the English Summary 1947:7–30), gives a clear account of the basis and method 355 used. A sharp distinction was drawn between absolute and relative dating after a radical adjustment had been made of the “historical inscriptions” which con- stituted the framework of the rather narrow datings in the earlier Danish corpus- edition by Ludvig F.A.Wimmer (DRM). On the basis of the radical principles of historical source criticism, Lis Jacobsen in the 1930s had criticized Wimmer’s chronology severely. In DR only three “historical” inscriptions were accepted from the Viking Age and three from the Middle Ages, apart from Sven Estrid- son’s runic coins. With regard to the earliest inscriptions, with reference to Jo- hannes Brøndsted – the leading Danish archeologist at that time – the archae- ological datings of the bog finds and the bracteates were seen as reliable factors. The datings of Medieval inscriptions from churches and on church equipment were based on the relative datings of Poul Nørlund and Mouritz Mackeprang. Thus, according to DR “On the basis of all the datable inscriptions, the runic inscriptions of Denmark may be distributed over 4 periods: the Migration Period (and the time subsequent to the Migrations), The Viking Age, the Pre-Medieval Period, and the Middle Ages.” (Summary:11f.). This system – with further sub- divisions – was used for a relative classification and combined with a descrip- tion of the significant features of the individual periods of archaeological, orna- mental and linguistic character. Runographical and linguistic peculiarities as well as spirit and contents, and the general appearance of runic stones were in DR used to distinguish between the many sub-divisions of the Viking Age in the chronological system, i. e. Period 2.1 Helnæs-Gørlev type (“ascribed to the age from about 800 (or 750) to about 900.”) (Summary 1947:16); 2.2a. The pre- Jelling type (9th century); 2.2b. The Jelling type (10th century); 2.2c. The Post- Jelling type (c. 1000–c. 1050). Subsequently, based on the various diagnostic features and the detailed description of the characteristic features of each period (DR:1018-1034), it was possible when considering the individual inscriptions to place the inscription in question in the proper context simply with a reference such as Per. 2.1, Per. 2.2a. This relative and absolute chronology of DR was much admired and, inci- dentally, considered to be rather cautious. It has had a strong interdisciplinary impact and the datings are still used by many scholars, although it at least since the 1970s has been evident that important adjustments of the absolute datings (and the time limits of the periods) were necessary (for instance Christensen & 356 Marie Stoklund Moltke 1971; Nielsen 1970; cf. Stoklund 1991:289–294 with references). This improved chronology we find for instance in the works of Erik Moltke (Moltke 1976 and 1985 with references). Moltke also rejected the DR-system with four periods and chose a three-period-system: Primitive Norse – Viking-Age – Medi- eval inscriptions (operating with a rather strong overlapping between the peri- ods), while for instance Niels Åge Nielsen stuck to the old system (Nielsen 1983). Moltke’s absolute datings in 1976 were, however, in fairly good accor- dance with the DR-chronology, apart from the bracteates, the Jelling-stones (DR 41–42), Haddeby 1 and 3 (DR 1 and 3) (and Bække-Læborg, DR 29 and 26). In general, the fundamental principles behind the DR-system were upheld by Moltke. Lis Jacobsen stressed that the indskrift-fortegnelse (list of inscriptions) (DR:1035–1042) gave no grounds for a safe dating of the individual inscription. An inscription which typologically belonged to one period might very well be contemporary with another, which belonged to an earlier or later period (DR:1035). There has, however, been a problematic tendency to use the temp- ting possibilities which her chronology offered to take the dated, “annotated” list of inscriptions as absolute datings. It is, however, problematic, on the basis of the DR-chronology, to draw far-reaching conclusions involving a time per- spective as has been done (cf. Stoklund 1991:295f.). Nevertheless, the diag- nostic features, runographically, linguistically etc. on which the DR-chronology was established, could in practice within wider frames be useful tools for a determination of the approximate age and context of an individual inscription. In order to make the material easily available in this survey of the Danish runic chronology, I have chosen to present selected examples of important new finds and crucial altered datings in tables 1–3, listing the inscriptions chrono- logically. During my work with the material I have primarily distinguished be- tween only three groups of inscriptions: Proto-Scandinavian (24-character inscriptions), Viking-Age (16 characters), Medieval (extended runic alphabet). Although only a few inscriptions cannot be classified within one of the three main groups, the transitions between the periods cause problems. I have, however, chosen a delimitation of the material in three sections: before 800, 800–1050, after 1050–, according to the traditional historical Danish datings of the beginning of the Viking and Medieval Ages, regardless of the question when Chronology and Typology of the Danish Runic Inscriptions 357 the transitions exactly happened and how they should be defined, though I have tried to note the inscriptions with significant changes and innovations, especially in the periods of transition. The general reservations and precautions concerning relative versus absolute chronology, archaeological datings (cf. for instance Steuer 1998) as well as runological ones, which have been the subject of much discussion (for instance Hagland 1998) are presupposed as natural and generally known preconditions which do not need to be repeated in a discussion of the individual cases. In all the tables the first columns give, in addition to the name of the inscription, significant features – no matter whether typological, grapho- phonological or linguistic. In the following columns earlier (runological) datings and in the last column the present (non-runological) datings can be found. As regards the inscriptions with the older runes the dating is mainly based on archaeological considerations. Table 1, AD 1–c. AD 800 Archaeologically dated inscriptions from Denmark. Changed datings, new finds 1) Earlier datings DR=Danmarks runeindskrifter. KJ=Krause & Jankuhn 1966. 2) Later datings, A=Antonsen, G=Grønvik, M=Moltke. 3) Latest (Danish) datings, 2000 [2005] 1) 2) 3) Inscription (Found or first DR; KJ Later datings Datings 2000 mentioned) [2005] Vimose comb (1865) DR 3rd–4th C.; A 250 B2/C1a; c. 160 harja KJ c. 250 Vimose chape (1901), DR chape 250–300 A chape 250–300; C1b; buckle (1851), buckle 200–400, buckle 200; 210/20–250/60 sheathplate (1853) sheathplate 200– sheathplate sheathplate: runelike inscription, 300; = KJ c. 250, c. 200–300, aw0ings runelike inscription lancehead (1984) wagnijo 200 and c. 400? Vimose woodplane (1865) DR c. 100–300, KJ A 100–300 c. 160–375, most 250–300 likely C1b; 210/20–250/60 358 Marie Stoklund Illerup (1982–92), ™, c. 200 [2005: C1b; mirror-runes òÃ versus 210/20–250/60] W, ìí wagnijo, niþijo tawide, laguþewa, swarta, gauþR Thorsberg (1858, 1860) DR chape 200–250; A 200 C1b; owlþuþewaR, mariR shield boss 2.–5. C. 210/20–250/60 KJ c. 200 Næsbjerg clasp (1949) A 200 warawnis C1b; -ara!fn!is- 210/20–250/60 Nøvling (Lundegårde) A 200 C1b; clasp (1963) bidawarijaR 210/20–250/60 talgidai Gårdlösa clasp (1949) ek A 200 C1b; unwod"R 210/20–250/60 Værløse clasp (1944) A 200 C1b; alugod 210/20–250/60 Skovgårde/Udby clasp c. 200 [2005: C1b; (1988) lamo : talgida 210/20–250/60] Himlingøje clasp 2 (1949) KJ c. 200 A 200 C1b; ºwiduhudaR 210/20–250/60 Møllegårdsmarken knife C1b–C2; (1992) hth sh"ko 210/20–310/20 Himlingøje clasp 1 (1835) DR start of 4th C.; 300–400 C1b-C2; hariso KJ c. 350 210/30-250/60 [2005: C1b/C2; c. 250] Nydam arrow-shafts DR 250–500. c. 300–350 (1863, 1993, 1994), lua, KJ c.