Futhark International Journal of Runic Studies Main editors James E. Knirk and Henrik Williams Assistant editor Marco Bianchi Vol. 3 · 2012 © Contributing authors 2013 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ 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-194111 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 Thórhallur Eythórsson. Three Daughters and a Funeral: Re-reading the Tune Inscription ............................................................................................................................. 7 Martin Findell. The Germanic Diphthongs in the Continental Runic Inscriptions ........................................................................................................................................ 45 Michael P. Barnes. The Manx Runes and the Supposed Jæren Connection ... 59 K. Jonas Nordby. Ráð þat, If You Can! ................................................................................... 81 Rikke Steenholt Olesen. Runes about a Snow-White Woman: The Lund Gaming-Piece Revisited ............................................................................................................ 89 Short Notice James E. Knirk. N 244 Helland II: A Topsy-turvy Runestone ................................. 105 Debate Bernard Mees. Early Runic Metrics: A Linguistic Approach .................................. 111 Edith Marold. Entgegnung zu Bernard Mees: „Early Runic Metrics: A Linguistic Approach“ .................................................................................................................. 119 Svante Fischer. Finsta i Skederid (U ATA3916/47) .......................................................... 125 Magnus Källström. Finstastenen i Skederid.—.ett genmäle ....................................... 135 Review Article Nancy L. Wicker and Henrik Williams. Bracteates and Runes .............................. 151 Reviews Solveig Möllenberg. Tradition und Transfer in spätgermanischer Zeit: Süd­ deutsches, englisches und skandinavisches Fundgut des 6. Jahrhunderts. Reviewed by Martin Hannes Graf ..................................................................................... 215 Lena Peterson. “En brisi vas lina sunn, en lini vas unaR sunn … En þa barlaf …”: Etymologiska studier över fyra personnamn på Malsta­ och Sunnåstenarna i Hälsingland. Reviewed by Staffan Fridell .............................. 219 Contributors ............................................................................................................................................ 223 Foreword This third volume of Futhark, unfortunately again somewhat delayed, con- tains a new section entitled “Debate”, which was heralded in the “Foreword” to the previous issue. There are two debates, each encompassing a pair of articles. The first of these polemics was sparked off by an article in volume 2 of the journal, whereas the second one takes its point of departure in a topic raised elsewhere some years ago. Further contributions to this section, as well as to the section “Short Notices”, are encouraged, in addition to regular articles, of course. In this volume there is again also a review article, this time resulting from the publication of the final, evaluative tome of the seriesDie Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit: Ikonographischer Katalog, where all the Migration Period bracteates have been published. This publication, especially the final volume, is of great importance also to runic studies, which will be obvious not least in the length of the review article. The editors would again like to take this opportunity to thank the peer reviewers for their invaluable contributions to the quality of articles in the periodical. Obviously, many of them have spent days laboring intensely on this task; their pointed comments and questions have led to great improve- ments in the final products. One peer reviewer for volume 2 ofFuthark even queried why an article had been published that was different from the one he had received to review — so much had it changed in the rewriting and editing process. In particular, the editors would like to express their heartfelt gratitude to Michael Barnes for his untiring efforts to disambiguate and otherwise improve the English language and style in contributions to the journal. He is now the English language consultant for the periodical and, in addition to his suggestions for refinements of expression, contributes actively in the editorial process concerning the contents of the pieces. Purchase of the printed version of Futhark is encouraged, especially by insti tutions. Back copies of the first two issues are also still available at a very reasonable price. James E. Knirk Henrik Williams Three Daughters and a Funeral: Re-reading the Tune Inscription Thórhallur Eythórsson Abstract This paper contains a new analysis of the runic inscription on the Tune stone, made on the basis of autopsies and various earlier proposals. While I agree with the view that there is a word missing at the top of side A (contra Grønvik 1981 and others), probably r<unoz>, I depart from the current communis opinio in proposing that side B consists of two independent subject-initial clauses. I argue that the first word in B1 is likely to be a personal name ending in ­z and the subject of a verb meaning something like ‘erect’, of which staina ‘stone’ is the object. Moreover, I reject the analysis of dalidun in B2 as ‘made (nice), prepared’ (Seip 1929), presenting arguments supporting the emendation da<i>lidun (Bugge 1891, in NIæR), thus giving þrijoz dohtriz da<i>lidun arbija ‘three daughters shared the inheritance’. Finally, I resuscitate the old idea of Läffler (1892, 1896a, 1896b) concerning sijostez, taking it at face value and considering the phrase sijostez arbijano to reflect an archaic legal term meaning ‘the closest family heirs’. Following Läffler I assume that the form is derived from a reflexive (rather than a root meaning ‘bind’, Bjorvand 2008), an analysis supported by a parallel in archaic Latin suus( heres ‘family heir, self-successor’). I conclude that the three daughters of Wōdurīdaz shared the inheritance as the closest family heirs, while some other person (perhaps Wīwaz) erected the stone. Keywords: inheritance, pre-Viking women’s rights, legal language, runic epig- raphy, older runic inscriptions, Old Germanic, Indo-European Introduction uch controversy has surrounded the reading and interpretation of the Mbest known of the older runic inscriptions from Norway, the one on the stone from Tune in Østfold, southeast of Oslo, traditionally dated to Thórhallur Eythórsson. “Three Daughters and a Funeral: Re-reading the Tune Inscription.” Futhark: International Journal of Runic Studies 3 (2012, publ. 2013), 7–43. © 2013 Thórhallur Eythórsson. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. 8 • Thórhallur Eythórsson A.D. c. 400.1 According to a recent study based on the typology of rune forms and the archeological dates of comparative material, a dating from A.D. c. 375/400 to 520/530 is possible (Imer 2011, 205). The stone was built into the graveyard wall by Tune church until 1850 when it was moved just outside the wall. In 1857 the stone was sent to Oslo (then Christiania), where it stood in the university yard for over eighty years. After that it was kept in a storage room for half a century, but in 1991 it was put on exhibition in the Historical Museum in Oslo. The stone, of reddish granite, is over two meters high and quite impressive. The runes are carved on two sides, called A and B. The Tune inscription has been studied and discussed intensively ever since P. A. Munch (1857) was able to read the first words. The major contributions to the study of this runic document include Bugge (1891, in NIæR), Marstrander (1930), Krause (1966, 1971), Antonsen (1975) and Grønvik (1981). In addition, various aspects of it have been discussed in a number of minor studies, some of which have yielded important insights. The history of the reading and interpretation of the Tune inscription is an interesting subject in itself, and is documented in detail in Grønvik’s 1981 monograph (to which Grønvik 1987, 1994 and 1998 are supplementary). The whole debate confirms the First Law of Runo-dynamics, attributed to David M. Wilson (Page 1987, 10), that “for every inscription there shall be as many interpretations as there are scholars working on it”. Even so, it is clear that some readings and interpretations can be shown to be more plausible than others, and this is the justification for the analysis advanced in the present paper. My analysis was made on the basis both of autopsy of the stone itself on a number of occasions between 1996 and 2009, and of proposals by earlier scholars, in particular Bugge, Läffler, Noreen and Jónsson.2 The paper begins with a discussion of