palaeoeuropean languages & epigraphies | Rest of Europe
P A L A E O H I S P A N I C A
revista sobre lenguas y culturas de la Hispania antigua
2020 | I.S.S.N. 1578-5386
DOI: 10.36707/palaeohispanica.v0i20.371
Germanic: the Runes
Germánico: las runas
Tineke Looijenga
University of Groningen
[email protected]
Abstract: This paper offers a survey of the oldest runic inscriptions of the northern parts of
Europe. Runic writing is attested from the second century onwards to the Middle Ages, and
was in use in several parts of northern Europe during different periods. The language used is
formulaic, making the impression that inscriptions in runes were for special occasions and not
for daily use. Germanic society was a non-literate society until Christendom arrived and with
it a literate culture. Runes are applied epigraphically; only in ecclesiastical contexts they are
used in manuscripts, thus offering very useful secondary information about rune-names, for
instance. Runes had names for mnemonical and symbolical purposes.
Keywords: Fuþark. Alphabet. Germanic. Scandinavia. Runes. Runic texts.
Resumen: Esta contribución ofrece una aproximación a las más antiguas inscripciones rúnicas
de las partes septentrionales de Europa. La escritura rúnica se atestigua desde el siglo II d. E.
hasta la Edad Media y fue empleada en distintas partes de Europa durante diferentes periodos.
El lenguaje empleado es formular, lo que da la impresión de que las inscripciones rúnicas
fueron para ocasiones especiales y no para un uso diario. La sociedad germánica permaneció
ágrafa hasta la llegada del cristianismo y con él una cultura escrita. Las runas se usaron
epigráficamente; solamente en contextos eclesiásticos las runas fueron usadas en manuscritos,
lo que ofrece una muy útil información secundaria, por ejemplo, sobre los nombres rúnicos.
Las runas poseían nombres con propósitos memorísticos y simbólicos.
Palabras clave: Futhark. Alfabeto. Germánico. Escandinavia. Runas. Textos rúnicos.
Recepción: 01.10.2019 | Aceptación: 31.03.2020
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
819
Tineke Looijenga
1. Introduction
The indigenous ancient alphabet of Germania, the fuþark, consisted of
twenty-four characters named runes. Up till now, about 6500 runic objects
are known totally. Inscriptions in older fuþark runes are attested in around
four hundred objects dated in the first centuries of our age (2nd - ca. 7th c.).
In this paper we will focus exclusively on this older part of the runic corpus.
It is assumed that the runic alphabet, commonly known as fuþark was created sometime in the first century AD, because the oldest attestations date
from around the middle of the second century. Since the fuþark (so called
after the first six letters; the order of the fuþark is quite divergent from other
archaic alphabets — a question unsolved) clearly is an alphabet, runes must
have emerged from a model alphabet, in all probability a Mediterranean one.
Runic writing came up in the prime-time of Roman influence in Scandinavia,
so it seems appropriate to understand the runes against a Roman background.
Germanic peoples came in contact with the Roman — literate — world; there
was trade and war, and many Germanic soldiers served as mercenaries and
auxillaries in the Roman Imperial army. They came from an illiterate society,
but in the army they learned to read and write, in Latin. It would seem natural
to assign to them the creation of a Germanic writing system. For unknown
reasons the Latin, or Roman, alphabet was not adapted in the North, but instead an alphabet was created that reflected Roman influence, but deviated
in crucial features. History of writing in the Mediterranean area shows that
there were many indigenous scripts, all somehow descending from the Phoenician mother script, but they were all replaced in ultimately the first century
BC by the Roman script, the writing system of the leading culture. Although
Roman influence in the North certainly was substantial, here occured no such
replacement. Probably this lack of acculturation arose from the independance
of the North (the area was never occupied by the Roman Empire) and the
geographical distance to Rome, but it is nevertheless striking. It may have
something to do with the typical use of the runic script — in private, elitist
circles — as a kind of secret script, only known and used by few, and especially
aimed at capturing personal names, appellatives and some unknown, maybe
cult-words. I’ll return to that subject later.
Since it is still unknown why, when and where the runes were devised, the
debate about the possible model is going on. Runologists assume the model
must have been an archaic Italic alphabet, but how the adaption went we don’t
820
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
know. As regards form and function of the runes when compared to the letters of Italic archaic alphabets or even the Roman alphabet the similarities are
obvious. Remarkable are the strictly angular forms of archaic Mediterranean
alphabets and the runes, whereas the Roman alphabet has both angular and
round forms.
ᚠᚢᚦᚨᚱᚲᚷᚹᚺᚾᛁᛃᛈᛇᛉᛊᛏᛒᛖᛗᛚᛜᛞᛟ
fuþarkgwhnijpïzstbemlŋdo
Runic script has developed later into several variations, e.g. the younger,
16 letter fuþark, the 31 letter Anglo-Saxon fuþork, the short-twig variations,
Viking Age and medieval runes, and cryptic runes.
The runes of the older fuþark occur in Scandinavia, Britain, The Netherlands, France and Germany, and in Eastern Europe. There is no trace of
the use of Latin characters until Christianisation starts with the coming of
missionaries and monasteries. In England and Germany this started in the 7th
century; in Scandinavia much later, in the Middle Ages (11th-15th c.). There is
an exception though; 5th-6th c. bracteates (small, round goldfoil plates) sometimes feature Latin characters, probably because they are imitations of Roman
emperor medallions. Also, there are some coins with runes and capitalis-imitations from the 6th and 7th centuries.
The fuþark order is divided into three groups of eight. In later Scandinavian inscriptions this tripartite division forms the basis of runic cryptography.
In manuscripts these groups are called ættir, which means either ‘eight’ of
‘family’. How old this system is, is unknown; the first attestation is on two
bracteates from the 5th or 6th century (Vadstena and Grumpan).
1.1 Classification of the language: Indoeuropean, Germanic
Proto Germanic around the beginning of our era is constrained to the
northern parts of Europe: Scandinavia, northern Germany. Celtic and Germanic share many particularities of vocabulary and etymology: they can be
reconstructed phonologically as equivalent Proto-Germanic and Proto-Celtic
forms. The kind of Germanic used in the earliest runic inscriptions is called
either Early Runic,1 North-West Germanic, or Primitive Scandinavian, or even
Runic Language — all this because the inscriptions are in a language that is
remarkable for its uniformity and exclusively known from runic inscriptions.
1
Nielsen 2000.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
821
Tineke Looijenga
Interpretation of the inscriptions follow the rules of historical linguistics and
are therefore often the products of reconstruction, which are marked by *.
From the phonological, morphological and syntaxic points of view,
North-West Gmc only slightly diverged from Proto Germanic and can be
considered the parent language not only of the later Scand., but also of the
West Germanic dialects, according to Antonsen.2 Early split-offs are East
Germanic, West Germanic and North Germanic. South Germanic is typical
for the 6th and 7th centuries inscriptions of South Germany and surrounding
areas. West Germanic is typical for the 5th-7th c. Anglo-Saxon inscriptions in
Britain and Frisia on the Continent. East Germanic concern the few Gothic
inscriptions, dated 3rd-5th c. North Germanic is the language of the Scandinavian inscriptions of the 2nd-7th c. The periods mentioned concern the use of
the older fuþark; in Anglo-Saxon England and in Frisia we see slight changes
and the introduction of two new runes, due to changes in pronunciation. The
older fuþark in Scandinavia gave way to a gradual simplification of the 24
letter fuþark to a 16 letter fuþark during the 7th and 8th c. This process took one
or two centuries and there occurred local differences in the system.
1.2. Location and Chronology
The oldest known runic objects are from Scandinavia; especially Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein. This area is considered as the nucleus and
starting-point of the runic tradition. Some ancient items are known from
Norway, Sweden and Gotland. They are followed by a small group of objects
en route to the south-east of Europe in the 3rd century. Items from the 4th and
5th centuries are found in Eastern Europe: Romania (4th c.), Hungary (early
5th c.), Ukraine (early 5th c.). To the south: Baden-Württemberg (5th c.). To the
west and south-west: North Sea coast of Niedersachsen (5th c.), Rhine/Meuse
estuary in the Betuwe (early 5th c.), Lincolnshire (5th-6th c.), Norfolk (5th c.). It
is to be stressed that nearly all these items are portable (apart from the early
5th c. rune-stones in Norway and Sweden), so findplace need not be identic to
place of production. The geographical picture roughly presents two groups,
one going south-east, to the “Gothic” area of the Çernjachov culture and one
going west and south-west, the route of the Anglo-Saxons and Franks. The
time-scale coincides with the downfall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent movements of Germanic tribes. In the 6th century the spread of runic
2
Antonsen 1975, 26.
822
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
knowledge is reaching its maximum: Scandinavia, Northern Germany, Frisia,
France, England, South Germany, Swiss, Bosnia, Pannonia).
During the first centuries the runic alphabet remains nearly unchanged;
diachronic variants start appearing after the period of the great migrations
(3rd-5th c.); for instance in Britain when Anglo-Saxons and other migrants
from the continent settle in former Celtic and Latin speaking areas. This migration is traditionally dated to the mid-5th century. Diatopic variants appear
later: Anglian, Mercian, Kentish and so on. We will not deal with this aspect,
since this paper presents an overview of the oldest runic inscriptions from the
2nd to the 7th century.
1.3. Historiography and state of the art
The more or less scholarly study of runes started in Sweden and Denmark
in the sixteenth century, in those days still under the influence of the then
current Biblical views on history and culture. More scientific work was begun
by Ole Worm (Wormius) in 1651 with his book Runar sea Danica Literatura
antiquissima, vulgo Gothica dicta. His opus magnum was Danicorum Monumentorum libri sex in 1643. It concerns the runic inscriptions of Denmark,
Norway and Gotland, all part of the Danish Kingdom in those days. For a long
time runic studies were limited to Scandinavia until in the 19th century interest
from Germany (Jacob Grimm: Ueber deutsche Runen) and England (George
Stephens: The Old-Northern Runic Monuments of Scandinavia and England)
speeded up scholarly interest. Now philological studies took the main course.
Especially Grimm’s law on the first Germanic sound shift and Verner’s law
(see below) were important for the understanding and interpretation of runic inscriptions. Grimm’s Law: Proto-Indo-European voiceless stops change
into voiceless fricatives; Proto-Indo-European voiced stops become voiceless
stops; Proto-Indo-European voiced aspirated stops become voiced stops or
fricatives (as allophones). This was followed by the Dane Karl Verner’s law describing a historical sound change in the Proto-Germanic language whereby
consonants that would usually have been the voiceless fricatives *f, *þ, *s, *h,
*hʷ, following an unstressed syllable, became the voiced fricatives *β, *ð, *z,
*ɣ, *ɣʷ, (first published in 1877).
Runological research in Norway, Denmark and Sweden became more and
more scientific, and ended up in a series on rune monuments, written by scholars such as Ludvig Wimmer, who gave runology its place in modern science.
He wrote four volumes on De danske runemindesmærker (1893-1908). In the
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
823
Tineke Looijenga
20th century the Danish scholars Erik Moltke and Lis Jacobsen made once
more a publication of Denmarks runic inscriptions: Danmarks runeindskrifter. The book — an atlas, a textbook and a register — was published in 1942. In
Sweden the first volume of a long series to come was published in 1900-1906:
the inscriptions of the island of Öland. The whole series is called Sveriges Runinskrifter and treats all Swedish inscriptions listed according to the provinces
in which they were found. In Norway also a series on the Norwegian inscriptions was published: Norges Indskrifter med de ældre Runer, by Sophus Bugge
and Magnus Olsen (1891-1924). In Germany scholarly work on runes was
carried out by e. g. Helmut Arntz and Helmut Zeiss who published in 1939
their Die einheimische Runendenkmäler des Festlandes. In 1966 a handbook
was published by Wolfgang Krause and Herbert Jankuhn: Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark. In England scholars such as Raymond Page and Michael Barnes (and several others) published extensively on runes: Page’s An
Introduction to English Runes in 1973, reprinted in 2003; and Barnes who also
wrote a handbook: Runes, a Handbook in 2012. A DFG (Deutsche Forschungs
Gemeinschaft) sponsored project studies English (and Frisian) runes - this
is still going on. Another DFG sponsored project concerns the publication of
the so-called Südgermanische Runeninschriften, also still going on. At the University of Uppsala a longstanding project is executed, the runforum giving a
platform to young researchers and for communication on new finds and new
symposia. In September 2021 the ninth International Symposium on Runes
and Runic Inscriptions will take place in Schleswig-Holstein.
1.4. Language and alphabet
The language of the oldest fuþark inscriptions is remarkable for its uniformity, as has been observed by many runologists. Runic script was developed “for a type of Germanic ancestor language”3 and was the writing system
of Common Germanic that started before several linguistic and phonological
changes occured and the differentiation into several Germanic dialects. It
seems that the runes originally were designed to fit the sounds of the Germanic
language (the so-called ‘Perfect Fit’); each sound was represented by one rune.
No linguistic features such as Umlaut or breaking or syncope etc. are found in
the oldest inscriptions. As a rule, runes are not written double (there are some
exceptions), a difference is made between voiced and voiceless sounds, the
nasal is often omitted before a consonant. A distinction in ‘long’ and ‘short’
3
Barnes 2012, 1.
824
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
vowels in terms of quantity, tense or a combination of the two is impossible
to determine. Although the texts are very short, there are sentences; with a
syntaxis of subject, object and verbform (SOV) or subject and verbform. The
texts are nearly almost remarkably phonetic in their spelling: one wrote as it
sounded.
The phonological system of Common Germanic is as follows:
Vowels: /i/, /e/, /u/, /o/, /a/
Consonants: /p/, /t/, /k/, /b/, /d/, /g/, /f/, /þ/, /h/, /m/, /n/, [(i)ŋ(g)], /s/,
/z/, /l/, /r/, /w/, /j/.
There are two runes that has caused difficulties regarding their sound
value. They are the so-called yew rune, mostly transliterated /ï/ < /*ei/, and
the z - rune, mostly taken as an orthographic variant of /r/ and transliterated
as R. Since it corresponds to /z/ alternating with /s/ in Gothic4 many runologists transliterate the rune as /z/, although others prefer /R/ to distinguish
it with /r/. Interestingly enough, there is no rune representing the Gothic ƕ.
The presence of runes or rune-derived letters in the Gothic alphabet is greatly
doubted.
1.5. Genres
The inscriptions contain mostly personal names, appellatives, makers’ and owners’ formulae, dedications and ‘magic’ (unknown) words. The
inscriptions are often related to the objects: weapons and weapon-parts,
jewellery, tools, personal equipment, amulets. Sometimes the objects show a
relationship with the findplace: a grave or a cremation urn. A scraper from
Fløksand, Hordaland, Norway, was found inside an urn as a grave gift. It bears
the inscription: linalaukaz, translated as ‘linen and leek’. The two runes ka are
written together as a bindrune. Linen and leek (onion, garlic) have to do with
the preservation of organical objects. One may think of a heathen fertility
ritual described in the Eddica Minora 124: in a remote farm in Norway, a
horse’s phallus was kept preserved with the help of linen and leek. The farmer’s
wife used to sing a song over the object before handing it to her family, who
would pass it then around.
4
Antonsen 1975
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
825
Tineke Looijenga
An epitaph is found on a cremation urn from Loveden Hill, Lincolnshire,
England. It has an inscription with a tentative transcription: sïþæbæd þicþ
hlaw which may mean ‘Siþæbæd (her) grave’.
A kind of work song might be read on a whetstone from Strøm, Sør
Trondelag, Norway. It has runes on both narrow sides: watehalihinohorna on
one side and on the other: hahaskaþihaþuligi. Bindrunes ha and na. This is
translated as ‘whet this stone, horn! Scathe scythe! Haþu lie down!’.5 Haþu is
that which is mown, probably grain.
1.5.1. Mythical origin and alleged ‘magic’
In some cases, like uncomprehensable letter sequences for instance, one
may think of a magical intention. This concerns the ‘magic’ words, e.g. words
with no apparent meaning, or a meaning lost to us. The inscriptions with a
complete or abbreviated runic alphabet may also belong to this category, if
one would not accept a mere profane purpose. No patronymics are recorded
(such as in the Raetic Corpus of inscriptions). Remarkable are the Danish ‘erilaz’ inscriptions, in a formulaic sense: ek erilaz asugisalas muha haite (Kragehul spear shaft), or ek erilaz sawilagaz hateka (Lindholm bone piece). Here
someone who names himself as “I, eril (earl?), I am called …”. In both cases
followed by a sequence of runes not clearly understood. In fact, the Old English word run has a meaning ‘mystery, secret’. Old High German (OHG) runa,
giruni have similar meanings. Gothic runa is the translation of the Greek Bible
word ‘mysterion’, used of the divine mysteries. Gothic garuni means ‘consultation, counsel’ in a context of initiates: priests and elders. This background is
the reason why some runologists believe that runes were considered magical
by the ancient runewriters. Most remarkable is the alleged mythical origin of
the runes, handed down in a text from the Old Icelandic Edda, in The Words
of the High One (Hávamál): “I know that I hung on the windswept tree for
nine nights, pierced by the spear, given to Óðinn, myself given to myself, on
that tree whose roots no man knows. They refreshed me neither with bread
nor with drink from the horn. I peered down, I took up runes, howling I took
them up, and then fell back”.6
Here the god Odin is the creator of runic writing, apparently come to
him in a shamanistic way. A series of stanzas follow dealing with runes and
5
Antonsen 1975, 54
6
Page 1995, 107.
826
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
magical spells. In other Edda poems and in several Icelandic sagas rune-magic
plays a role. In Egil’s saga for instance rune-magic is performed by Egill who
cures a sick girl by cutting runes on a piece of wood and putting that under her
pillow. She recovers at once. This kind of literary evidence, albeit from a much
later period (the Edda and the sagas were written down in Iceland in the 13th
and 14th centuries) served to illustrate the essential connexion between runes
and magical powers. The Gothic Bible translation, though, is from the 4th century, and there is a quote from Tacitus (ca. AD 90) who mentions notae cut
on sticks used for divination by the Germani. There is no way we can be sure
these notae were runes. In Old English literature many references are made
involving runes in a private, confidential context, perhaps secretive. There are
a lot of Old English charms and spells mentioning the magic force of runes.
When combined with the kind of texts — intimate messages concerning gifts
between beloved people — such as extensively found in the South Germanic
runic corpus — we get a picture of runes used as a kind of secret script, meant
only for initiates (the few who could read and write runes). On the other hand,
we have a quote from Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poitiers, AD 530-600/9,
who urged a friend to write to him, “if necessary in barbaric runes, painted
on an ash-wooden shelf ” (barbara fraxineis pingatur rhuna tabellis; quodque
papyrus agit virgula plana valet).
For a long period, runes were applied only epigraphic. In accordance with
the provenance of the oldest runic objects: from the Elbe - Weser estuaries to
the Kattegat area and up to Gotland, east to Poland and stretching as far as
north of Oslo, runic knowledge spread in the third century over an astonishingly large area (fig. 1).
The oldest known runic objects can be associated with war and the
accumulation of wealth and power. Both had to do with relations between
certain families or clans. Finds from graves sometimes point to relations with
Rome7 because accompanying grave-gifts are of Roman origin. Material of the
script-bearers: bronze, silver, gold, iron, wood, bone, antler, jet, earthenware
and stone. The contexts of the finds are: bogs, graves, peat, settlements, stray
finds. This evidence is of course related to archaeological digs and chance, and
to the preservation of the material. This has provoked the idea that we may
have a very biased picture of the kind of inscriptions, but since the bulk of
texts is very much the same, this idea can be dismissed.
7
Looijenga 2003, 185
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
827
Tineke Looijenga
Fig. 1. Map of the spread of runic knowledge: 1. Area of the first known inscriptions,
2nd-5th c.; 2. area of inscriptions from the 3rd-5th c.; 3. area of the Anglo-Frisian
inscriptions 5th-6th c.; 4. area of the South-Germanic inscriptions, 6th-7th c.
1.5.2. Total number of known runic inscriptions
Sweden ca. 3500, Norway ca. 1600; Denmark ca. 850; Greenland over
100; England 100; Iceland ca. 100; Germany over 80; Isle of Man about 35; The
Netherlands, Ireland, Scotland each around 20; France ca. 5, Eastern Europe
ca. 10.
1.5.3. Characteristics of the inscriptions and texts of the oldest period
The basic features of the earliest inscriptions are the following: use of the
standard older fuþark with local graphic variations (from the 5th c. onwards
Anglo-Frisian extension with extra characters in England and Frisia); runes
and texts are often difficult to read, interpret and understand; occurence of
script-imitation, runelike symbols and pseudo runes; sequences of runes
without any obvious meaning; texts are mostly (very) short, though complete
small sentences occur: in the SOV or SV order; occurrence of a high quantity
of personal names and appelatives (owners, makers, givers, writers are mentioned, as are the objects themselves, or the material); texts belong to a private,
individual, intimate and ritual sphere; and the function of runes has been
thought by some runologists to have been connected with magical purposes.
828
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
In contrast, the later periods of runic writing (from the 7th c. to the Middle Ages) show the following characteristics: strong changes in the fuþark,
independent regional developments, emergence of new runes and disappearance of redundant runes; increased legibility and literacy; monumental texts
to be read by the public appear but there are still private and mysterious texts
for private use, as well as obscure and enigmatic texts, cryptic runes. Last but
not least, some runes are preserved in manuscripts and some Christian texts
are written both with runes and Latin alphabet.
1.5.4. The Blekinge inscriptions and rune-names
Runes have names for mnemonic and/or symbolic purposes. These
names are not known from the beginning, but we met with them through
several manuscripts, written down much later, in the 9th or 10th centuries. The
use of a rune symbolizing its name is recorded on one of the Blekinge stones,
reason to mention the Blekinge (South Sweden) inscriptions here.
Sometimes one rune in an inscription is to be read as its name, for instance the rune j symbolizes its name *jāra in the Stentoften inscription: *jāra
means ‘good part of the year’ which should be understood as a good harvest in
summer. There are four monumental Blekinge stones (named after the places
where they were found: Stentoften, Björketorp, Gummarp and Istaby) with
huge texts, related to each other and they show clearly the power and wealth
of a family, or clan. The common part in their names is -wulf/wolf-, in Haþuwolaf, Hariwulaf and Haeruwulaf; they refer to each other in the texts. At the
time these inscriptions were carved, the old jāra rune no longer signified /j/,
but according to the change of its name into āra, due to the Proto-Norse loss of
initial /j/, it now represents the open vowel, non-nasalized, /a/, transliterated
as A, in order to avoid confusion with the old rune for /a/, the ansuz rune.
To give an idea what a transcription looks like, I give the texts for Stentoften,
Gummarp and Istaby below:
Stentoften: niu hAborumz niu hagestumz hAþuwolAfz gAf j hAriwolAfz mA??usnuh?e hidez runono felAh ekA hederA [rA]ginoronoz herAmAlAsAz ArAgeu welAdud sA þAt bAriutiþ
“with nine he-goats, nine steeds, Haþuwolafz gave j(āra) (a good harvest, prosperity). Hariwolafz [---] (unreadable part) a clear rune row I buried
(carved) here from the ruling gods. Restless and cowardly a death by treachery
(for him who) breaks this”.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
829
Tineke Looijenga
Gummarp: (h)AþuwolAfA sAte stAbA þria fff "Hþuwolafaz carved three
staves fff”, or: “in memory of Haþuwolaf (somebody) carved three staves fff”.
The f-rune may again present its name: *fehu ‘livestock (cattle), wealth’.
Istaby: Afatz hAriwulafa Haþuwulafz hAeruwulafiz warAit runAz
þAiAz
“to the memory of Hariwulaf Haþuwulaf son of Haeruwulf wrote these
runes”.
Here the ansuz rune denoting /a/ is used in all three wulaf nameparts,
to represent a svarabhakti vowel or an unstressed ending. It may be that in
the name hAeruwulafiz the pronunciation of A was palatal, considering the
development of the breaking of e > ea > ja > j by i-mutation; rendering the
later attested names Hjorólfr, and Hjorulf.8
As regards the genre, we can see that memorial texts take the lead (clearly
about a family sporting their wealth and power, then texts threatening others if they want to do them (the family or the stones) harm, and one or two
funerary texts. But these inscriptions are exceptional for their time, which is
probably 7th century.
Fig. 2. Björketorp rune stone,
Blekinge, Sweden
(Photo: T. Looijenga).
The text of the Björketorp inscription (fig. 2) goes “a clear rune row I
buried (carved) here, runes from the ruling gods; cowardly and restless.
I foresee a needless death by treachery, far away, for him that breaks this”. This
8
Looijenga 2003, 180.
830
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
text is the only one that contains no names, but the inscription is related to
the others because of the rune forms and the typical formulation of the text.
1.5.5. Early inscriptions; some instances. Formulaic texts
In general, the earliest inscriptions (2nd-3rd c.) are very short, consisting of
names or a name and a verb, mostly meaning that somebody made or carved
something; see for instance the Illerup (Jutland, Denmark) silver mount for a
shield handle: niþijo tawide which means that someone called Niþijo ‘made’
— the handle or the inscription? A bronze sheath mount from Nydam (Jutland) has harkilaz.ahti which can be interpreted as ‘Harkilaz has this’.
But there are also inscriptions that puzzle us, for instance a bone piece,
maybe an amulet, from Lindholm (Skåne, Sweden) which has:
ekerilazsawilagazhateka:aaaaaaaazzznnn?muttt:alu
We can divide this in: ‘ek erilaz sawilagaz hateka (8 times a, 3 times z,
3 times n, ?, 3 times t, alu’. This we understand to mean “I, erilaz, am called
Sawilagaz (or: the Wilagaz)”; 8 times ‘a’ may refer to the rune’s name: *ansuz
= ‘god’. The rune name for ‘z’ is *algiz = ‘elk’; the name for ‘n’ is naud = ‘need,
needful’, and the name for ‘t’ is *Tyr, probably referring to the god Tyr. The last
part with alu is in fact triggering, because this word appears rather often in the
oldest inscriptions, literally meaning ‘ale’ although this meaning is contested.
It is an enigmatic word, formulaic, and belongs to a group that occurs often,
especially on bracteates (see below). The exact meaning still is unknown to
us.9 This group is: laþu, laukaz, alu, auja. The first word might mean ‘invitation’, the second means ‘onion’, ‘leek’, the last two lack a commonly accepted
interpretation. alu may mean ‘beer’, ‘ale’, but when considered against the
objects engraved with this word, one feels that that cannot have been the purport. alu can etymologically be related to Greek ‘αλειν ‘to be beside oneself ’
and Hittite *alwanzatar- ‘magic’. Especially the Greek word points to a state
obtained by drinking an intoxicating fluid. Now beer or ale was a common
and very ordinary kind of drink in the old days, used instead of water which
could be contaminated. So probably, alu had a meaning as ‘ecstasy’ before it
came to designate ‘ale’ and ‘beer’. alu is found as an only word engraved in a
grave-stone, in the pommel of a ring-sword, in many bracteates, in a funerary
urn, and in an amulet such as described above (if it is an amulet!).
9
Barnes 2012, 30-32.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
831
Tineke Looijenga
Another inscription from Sweden with the mentioning of an ‘erilaz’ is
the Järsberg stone (Värmland). Part of the stone is missing, and with it also
a part of the inscription. The runes can be transliterated thus: hait[ ekerilazrunozwaritu ]ubazhite:harabanaz. Word division is never marked in old
fuþark inscriptions although one or more points may occur, highlighting a
name which follows it.
The meaning may be: “I am called [---] I erilaz write the runes [---]:
[---]ubaz I am called; harabanaz [---]”. “I am called, I erilaz write”, is subject.
erilaz is a rank or title; ‘rūnōz’ is object acc.pl.; waritu is the phonetic writing
of writu (3rd pers. sing. of the verb wrītan “to write”). In the name harabanaz
one may observe the use (twice) of a parasite vowel ‘a’. Hrabnaz means ‘raven’.
ha and az are written together, so-called bindrunes. Bindrunes are a common
feature in runic inscriptions. hait and hite mean probably both ‘I am called’,
an ‘a’ missing in hite.
1.5.6. Some funerary texts
A slab found in Bø, Sokndal, Rogaland, Norway, probably has served as a
gravestone, according to its inscription: hnabdashlaiwa which means “grave
of Hnabdas”.
Another gravestone from Norway was found in Kjølevik, Rogaland, and
has the text (running boustrophedon and vertically from top to bottom and
back in three parts and reading from right to left): hadulaikaz ekhagustadaz
hlaaiwidomaguminino. This can be translated as “Hadulaikaz. I, Hagusta(l)
daz buried my son (magu minino)”. The first two runes in hlaaiwido (“I buried”) are a bindrune, and although double writing of runes is uncommon, we
find two a-runes here, maybe indicating that the pronunciation of the vowel is
long. The meaning is 1st sg. pret. ind. of Gmc. *hlaiwijan ‘to bury’.
1.5.7. Bracteates
The “formulaic” words occur especially on bracteates: small round goldfoil medallions, stamped on one side, and made to be worn around the neck.
They are imitations of Roman medallions with the portrait of the emperor.
The Germanic ones show a rich variety of stamps, either showing a man’s head
in profile with the royal diadem and the central imperial jewel, or a man’s
figure, or a man’s head hovering over a horselike animal, often together with
birds, and more or less abstract animal-like forms. Furthermore, there are
initials and abbreviations based on letter sequences on Roman coins. If these
832
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
bracteates were amulets, the images and the texts may be related to the world
of the supernatural. The earliest bracteates, the so-called M-types, show Roman capitalis, capital imitation, mixed with runelike signs.
The bracteates are a category that needs special interest. Next to the circa
400 runic items of the first five centuries stand the around 900 gold bracteates
with runes, dated ca. 450-530 and spread all over North-west Europe. There
is probably no other category runic objects that evokes such huge opposing
opinions and such emotional convictions as bracteates and their runes. This
is caused by the fact that there are so many of these precious gold objects
with runes, runelike signs and unidentified illustrations of a royal head combined with animal-like creatures. It is tantalizing that we don’t know what
their function was. Sometimes the runes, runelike signs and capitalis imitations are difficult to decipher and as regards the pictures there is no general
agreement about their meaning. Instead, the bracteates unleash sometimes
fantastic argumentation, clearly showing the gap between the so-called imaginary and the sceptical runologists. It is astonishing how much criticism this
qualification has evoked, indeed so as to enable us to make a clear division
between runologists in the pragmatic tradition (sceptical) and those in the
more romantic tradition (imaginary). This has been noticed by Ray Page a
long time ago10 who coined the two types ‘sceptical’ and ‘imaginary’. More
about this problem below (§ 2.2).
Many bracteates present runes; some have symbols and Latin letters together with runes, a feature also found on runic coins (copies of solidi and
tremisses). The Latin lettering, also called capitalis imitations resulted probably from imitation of Roman coins and medals. The bracteates are dated in the
5th and 6th century, but I would not exclude an earlier date for some of them.
The runes have been pressed into the goldfoil mirrorlike and they are sometimes distorted as if made by illiterate craftsmen. This makes it difficult to
guess what may have been the meaning (and maybe there was no legible text
intended, but only writing-imitation). Bracteates are found in women’s graves
or as stray finds, in hoards, or as part of a (votive) deposition. Interpretations
swing from women’s jewellery to amulets to initiation medals for young men.
The many representations of man, horse and birds have led some scholars
to believe that these were figures from Germanic mythology: Odin, Balder,
Tyr. But these representations are still very close to the Roman imagery on
10
Page 1999, 12-15.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
833
Tineke Looijenga
medallions so one would think rather of a ‘Germanification’ of the Roman
emperor. Many bracteates figure Victorias and in one case there is an Urbs
Roma with the she-wolf.
One may argue the German “king” can be a god or godlike, but in fact we
do not know how the ancient Germanic people saw their rulers. We also do
not find much evidence for Germanic mythology in the texts of the bracteates.
Very likely there may be a link between the figures and the text, but even this
is subject of conjecture. The “formulaic words” are sometimes the only texts,
and sometimes accompanied by more runes, such as in laþulaukazgakazalu
which may be divided into several words: laþu laukaz gakaz alu, meaning ‘invitation’, ‘leek/onion’, ‘bird’? (gakaz), alu. Since the sequence obviously makes
no sense to us, we try looking for some hidden meaning. The same goes for
the bracteate “word” auja, which, if it is not a garbled Latin for aurea, also
occurs in longer texts: aujaalawinaujaalawinaujaalawinjalawid to be divided
into auja alawin, auja alawin, auja alawin, jalawid. Alawin might be a personal name, but what is auja and what is alawid? We have another bracteate
with gibuauja as part of the runic legend and this is taken to mean gibu auja, ‘I
give auja’, whatever auja may be. It is a personal guess what is meant here and
interpretations run from ‘I give luck’ to ‘I give protection’, depending on what
the interpretor thinks a bracteate is for.
Fig. 3. The Hitsum bracteate
from Frisia, with an
“emperor’s head” and runes
reading “groba”. Courtesy of
the Fries Museum, Het Fries
Genootschap.
834
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
The many hundreds of bracteates are meticulously described and drawn
in a monumental work, called Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit,
Ikonografischer Katalog (IK), edited by Morten Axboe et al. (1984-1989). The
Danish archaeologist Morten Axboe confines himself to technical, stylistic
and chronological analysis; the iconographic interpretation has been the work
of the German scholar Karl Hauck. According to the archaeologist Catherine
Hills (Cambridge) Hauck’s hypothesis is that the representations on the
bracteates go back to Germanic mythology.11 In outline, Hauck’s argument
is that the image of the Roman emperor as it is found on Roman medallions
has been reinterpreted on the bracteates in terms of Nordic mythology. The
central image conveying power, probably both secular and divine, has become
that of Odin, and a complex series of arguments links specific details of the
various bracteate designs with Classical and Nordic mythology. This concept
is not shared by all researchers (see e.g. Wicker 2015). This perception though
has found quite some acknowledgment especially in Germany, and it cannot
be denied that Hauck’s background as a student and scholar in Nazi Germany
at the university of Strassbourg where SS-ideology was deeply rooted played
an essential role in his interpretation.12 The same supposition goes for other
scholars educated in Nazi Germany and working and teaching as archaeologists, linguists and runologists after the war. The question arises whether people who are so much contaminated by Nazi ideology can be taken seriously
afterwards, or that we can look at their work after the war unprejudiced. The
problem with humanities studies is that scholars cannot completely rule out
their own convictions and views that are colored by their background and
education — therefore everybody is more or less subjective.
1.5.8. Instances of Continental (South-Germanic) texts from the
5th-7th centuries
The third important area of preserved runic script is southern Germany,
where nearly hundred attestations of runic use have been found, mainly in
graves from the 6th and 7th centuries. In Bavaria and Baden-Württenberg a
great many row-graves were excavated and in only a few graves runic objects
were found. These are mainly women’s brooches belonging to their Tracht,
and men’s gear, belonging to their equipment, such as straps, swords, belt
buckles. The inscriptions are overwhelmingly personal, intimate expressions;
11
Hills 2005, 399.
12
Bleck 2016, 137-184.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
835
Tineke Looijenga
witnesses of relationships between man and wife, or between family members
or friends. The older fuþark stayed in use, although graphic varieties occur,
such as an ‘h’ with two cross bars. New runes were not added. It is assumed
that with the coming of Christendom and Latin writing the runic tradition
stopped; after the 7th century runes do not occur anymore — except in manuscripts.
The 5th-7th centuries are a transition period. After the fall of the Roman
Empire new states emerge, people are on the move, whole areas are abandoned, other areas repopulated, new customs arise, cultures merge. An
instance of such a merger is the early 5th century boat-grave from Fallward,
north of Bremerhaven in North Germany, at the mouth of the Weser. In this
boat a man was buried with his Roman paraphernalia: he had been an officer
in the Roman army and had returned to his homeland. His grave-gifts were
sumptuous; among them was a wooden throne and a footstool, both exquisitely carved in Kerbschnitt-style. The footstool bears a runic inscription: ksamella lguskaþi which can be taken as scamella (a)lguskaþi, meaning ‘footstool
Alguskathi’. Here we find a Latin loanword scamella and a Germanic name
together, written in runes. The man certainly knew Latin because he had been
an officer in the Roman army, but he chose runes as writing system.
Another instance is a 6th c. runic silver-gilt bow fibula found as part of a
hoard near the entrance to the Roman theatre of Aquincum (Hungary). Some
runes are covered by the needle holder and cannot be seen. The visible part
reads: ]slaig:kingia fuþarkg13 which may be taken as ]sl aig kingia fuþarkg, the
last part being a so-called fuþark quotation, a feature that appears more often
and with unclear function. The first part can be interpreted as ‘]sl owns (this)
brooch’. Owner’s inscriptions are not seldom. Prior to ]sl might have been the
name of the owner, perhaps Gisl.
An interesting 6th century silver-gilt bow-fibula has been found in a
woman’s grave in a Merovingian row-grave field near Freilaubersheim, Germany. The runic legend reads: boso:wraetruna þkda.ïna: golida which means
“Boso wrote (the) runes; you Da?ina greeted”. Interestingly, we find here the
act of writing runes; the 3rd sg. preterite indicative form wraet of the verb
wrītan. Boso is a male Frankish personal name. We have another inscription
about the writing of runes: a wooden stave belonging to a weaving loom,
13
This is my own reading, based on a personal inspection of the item at the Museum of
Budapest. The first rune has been read as ‘k’, but I saw clearly an ‘s’. The fuþark quotation
ends with a ‘g’ and I saw no ‘w’ rune there, as others claimed to see.
836
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
from Neudingen-Baar (Baden-Württemberg, Germany). It is dated 6th century and found in a woman’s grave. The inscription goes: lbi:imuba:hamale:bliþguþ:uraitruna.14 This is transliterated as: liubi Imuba Hamale Bliþgu(n)þ
urait runa meaning “love, Imuba for Hamal, Bliþgunþ wrote (the) runes”. Two
things are remarkable: a woman wrote the runes and urait is written with a
‘u’ which may reflect Latin influence. A silver-gilt S-fibula from a girl’s grave
at Weingarten (Baden-Württemberg, Germany) has aerguþ:? feha:writ: ia
which may be transliterated as Ærgu(n)þ, “Feha writes”. Also an ivory ring
from a woman’s grave at Pforzen (Ostallgäu, Bavaria) has a writer’s inscription: ]ne:aodliþ:urait:runa, interpreted as Aodli(n)þ wrote (the) runes. From
these examples it is clear that women could and would write runes, and that
runes were used for simple messages, albeit in a quite private context.
1.5.9. Runes and literature
A silver belt-buckle with runes on the front (rather unusual) was found in
a man’s grave near Pforzen (Ostallgäu, Bavaria) and is dated second half of the
6th c. The runes are neatly and distinctly carved in two rows below each other,
ending in ornamental lines — one checkered and one braided. The runes can
easily be read: aigil.andi.aïlrun ltahu:gasokun. Subject of the sentence are two
names, “Aigil and Aïlrun”, a man and a woman, well-known from an Icelandic
saga and the Old High German Wieland/Weland story. The sentence goes on
with ltahu gasokun, the last word being a 3rd person plural preterite indicative
of the Gothic verb gasakan meaning ‘to quarrel, to dispute’, or OHG gasahhan
‘to condemn, to fight’. The object here is the sequence ltahu and this has been
explained in very different ways: “A. and A. haben die Hirsche (Hirschmaskeraden) verflucht”; “A. and A. haben die Angiltahn gescholten”; “A. and A.
vigorously fought/condemned all”; “A. und A. kämpften, stritten (zusammen)
an der Ilzach”; “A. and A. search for an elk”; “A. und A. beschwichtigten, bedrohten mit Erfolg das (dämonische) Aal-(Schlangen-) Wasser”.15
This small list makes it clear how many interpretations will be put forward because of one uncertainty in the inscription. I suggest that ltahu might
originally be preceded by a vowel, in this case that should be an ‘a’, alliterating
with the former names, Aigil and Aïlrun, so one may read: (a)l tahu gasokun,
translated as “A. and A. fought at the Altahu!”. Taken that the object (locative)
14
In Old High German the plural of ‘rune’is ‘runa’, the equivalent of Common Gmc ‘runoz’
such as it is found in the inscription of Järsberg for instance.
15
Graf 2010, 89.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
837
Tineke Looijenga
of the sentence may be the name of a place or a river, say the river Alzach, the
word has undergone the OHG sound shift of t > z and h > ch in Alzach. The
existence of a river called Elzach is supported by a historical event recorded
in a Latin source.
Important is that the name Ægili occurs in another runic inscription:
in the so-called Franks Casket (an 8th c. whale bone box, exquisitely carved
with runes and images), and that the Old Norse Vǫlund (Weland) story has
been handed down to us telling the fairy-tale story of Egill (Ægil, Aigil) and
his wife Ǫlrún (Aïlrun). Egill or Aigil was a famous archer and Ǫlrún was one
of a group of swan maidens that came flying to where Egill and his brothers
were living. Egill married the swan Ǫlrún. On the Franks Casket he is shown
defending a stronghold. The source of the tale has been put forward by the
Innsbruck historian Max Siller;16 he relates it to a famous antique town in
North Italy, Aquileia, and he identifies the archer on Franks Casket as Egill.
The woman who is pictured sitting behind him in a kind of castle with towers
would be Ǫlrún. Siller claims that the background of the story is a historical event that eventually turned into a heroic tale. The archer who seems to
be defending the castle may be the Alamannic general Agilo, serving in the
Roman-Byzantine army, during the reign of Emperor Julianus. The castle on
Franks Casket concerns the town Aquileia; the date is March 362, and the
story is written down by historian Ammianus Marcellinus. No river Alzach is
mentioned, but according to Siller there exists a river Elz, in the Middle Ages
called Elzach. There is even a town called Elzach. The river flows along the
Kaiserstuhl in the Black Forest. Here was an important Roman castellum, a
capital of the civitas Breisgau, at a junction of several Roman roads.17 This castellum on that crossroads would have been an ideal place for telling stories and
to get these spread all over Europe. So the text of the Pforzen buckle may be a
strophe from that ever famous heroic tale about the couple Aigil and Aïlrun,
fighting a group of soldiers. This episode is depicted on the Franks Casket,
made around AD 800 in Northumbria and showing several scenes concerning
biblical, mythical and heroical events. These scenes are surrounded with rune
text banners. Depictions and texts are carved in the whalebone surface of all
four sides and the lid. This extraordinary object is kept at the British Museum,
and called after the 19th century director of the Museum, Augustus Franks,
16
Siller 2011, 293-300.
17
Siller 2018, 148.
838
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
who bought the casket in Clermont-Ferrand. It was said to have been in the
possession of a family living in Auzon, who used it as a sewing box.
1.5.10. Some inscriptions from England
Inscriptions found in or originating from England often show so-called
Anglo-Saxon runes (§ 1.6). An instance is the 7th century composite brooch
with gold and garnets, dated to ca. 650, which was found in a grave at Harford
Farm, near Caistor-by-Norwich, Norfolk, England (fig. 4). The runes at the
back read luda:gibœtæsigilæ, which means: “Luda repaired the brooch”. The
brooch itself is mentioned as ‘sigilæ’, a Latin loanword (sigillum).
Fig. 4. Harford Farm
brooch (courtesy John
Hines, Cardiff).
A comb from Whitby, dated 7th century, was found in a rubbish dump
of the former cloister at Whitby, and has a runic inscription: [dæ]us mæus
godaluwaludahelipæ cy[. The comb is broken after the last runes — probably
there was a name such as Cynewulf. The meaning is clear: “my God, God
almighty, may (he) help Cy[---]”. England had been Christianized at that time,
so this proves that runes were not forgotten or forbidden, but were kept in use
throughout the early Middle Ages, not in the least in ecclesiastic circles such
as monasteries. Another inscription from ecclesiastic circles is on the Mortain
casket, a 9th c. copper reliquary, kept in the church at Mortain, Normandy.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
839
Tineke Looijenga
The runic inscription reads: +goodhelpe:æadan þiiosneciismeelgewarahtæ,
“may God help Æada, who made this casket”.
An astragalus (knucklebone) of a roedeer in an urn, dated to the 5th century, with runes, reads raïhan, which means exacly what it is: roedeer. The urn
with the knucklebone was found in Norfolk, at Caistor-By-Norwich. Knucklebones were used to play a game with; the other bones in the urn were of sheep.
Remarkable is the explicit mentioning of the object or the material the
runes are carved in. Above I mentioned a sigil, a knucklebone and a casket,
but there are more: combs, horns, a finger bone (phalanx), a footstool, whalebone (Franks Casket) and so on. This is a category of inscription bearers we
should look into closer.
1.5.11. Combs with runes. Naming the object
There are some 50 combs with a runic inscription, an amazing amount for
one category of runic objects. A remarkable part of these are inscribed with a
word meaning “comb”, mainly found along the coastal areas of the North Sea,
from Frisia to Ribe on the West coast of Jutland, Denmark. Combing one’s long
hair may have had a special meaning since long hair was a privilege among
high-standing Frankish men (think of Childeric’s signet ring with his longhaired face on it, and the famous grave-stone from Niederdollendorf at the
Landesmuseum in Bonn). Writing “comb” on a comb may have meant something specific; some runologists would point to a certain kind of magic, others
would just refer to modern habits such as printing “cup” on a coffee cup.
The comb from Frienstedt (Germany) has a runic inscription reading
kaba.18 It was found near Erfurt, but judging from its type it may originate
from a large area, from the Rhine and Meuse area to Frisia and Saxony. Two
combs from Frisia (now province Groningen) have resp. kabu (Oostum) and
kobu (Toornwerd) (fig. 5). A comb from Elisenhof (Schleswig-Holstein) has
kabz. The legends thus show distinction between West Gmc. kaba and Old
Norse kabz. In january 2018 a fifth comb with the legend kabaz was reported
in an online newspaper from Ribe, written in the younger fuþark, dated in the
9th century. A comb from the Viking Age was found in Lincoln, England, with
an inscription in younger fuþark runes, reading: kamb:koþan:kiari:þorfastr,
which means ‘Þorfastr made a good comb’.
18
Schmidt, Nedoma & Düwel 2010-2011, 123-186.
840
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
Fig. 5. Comb from Toornwerd, prov. Groningen, with runes
reading ‘kobu’. Courtesy of the Groninger Museum.
More combs have a runic inscription though not the word ‘comb’, for
instance Kantens, Ferwerd, Hoogebeintum (all Frisia), Amay (Wallonie),
Whitby (England), Vimose (Denmark), Lauchheim (Baden-Württemburg),
Setre (Norway), Belgorod (Russia). One may wonder why so many combs
were chosen for an inscription. Behind this unpretentious behavior of carving
runes in a humble object (perhaps the writers were showing off their knowledge of writing?) may have existed a broad application of script of which
nothing has survived. At this point runologists often refer to the hundreds
of wooden sticks with all kinds of short messages in runes, found in 1955
in Bergen, Norway, in the debris caused by a large fire. The wooden objects
were from the 13th and 14th century and preserved in a waterlogged layer
of mud under the streets. The texts represent a broad use of common texts:
“everything that could be expressed in writing”.19 But, of course, this reflects
runic use many centuries later and may not witness early medieval behaviour.
1.6. Writing systems; the emergence of different runic traditions
We saw that after the first period of Common Germanic in runic texts
in Scandinavia, runic writing spread with the migrating Germanic people
(fig. 1). First with the Goths and other East Germanic speaking tribes to
south-eastern parts of Europe. The initial phase of runic script was notably
homogeneous in the shape of the individual runes and the order in which they
occur. This standard older fuþark left traces in a large part of the Germanic
19
Spurkland 2005, 173.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
841
Tineke Looijenga
speaking world. It would seem that the language at that time (2nd-3rd c. AD)
was also rather homogeneous.
There is some discussion whether traces of East Germanic can be observed in some runic inscriptions (e.g. names ending in -s, such as marings
on the early 5th c. Szabadbattyán brooch from Hungary). The opinions are
divided which is also due to the small number of inscriptions from eastern
Europe. The older fuþark was commonly used and attested until the 6th c.;
from that time on more and more graphic changes appear, although the typical order remains the same (see below). In one case new runes were added
to the 24-characters of the older fuþark, in another case the rune row was
reduced to 16 characters: the so-called younger fuþark. Reducing the amount
of runes resulted in the fact that one rune had to represent several sounds,
such as happened in the development of the younger, Danish, fuþark in the 7th
century. The extension of the number of runes in the older fuþark to 26 and
ultimately to 31 characters happended in the Anglo-Saxon-Frisian fuþork.
An important migration and with it the spread of runic use was the one
of the Anglo-Saxons (a collective epithet for several West Germanic tribes),
who went in the 5th c. from the westcoast of Denmark and Schleswig-Holstein
along the coast of northern Germany and Frisia across the Germanic Ocean
(Northsea) to Britain. The story goes (Bede and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)20 that
they were first asked by one of the Celtic leaders of Britain, Vortigern, to come
and help against the savages from the North. The Roman army had left Britain
between 400 and 410, leaving the country to defend itself under the leadership of local chiefs. Tribes from the North, such as the Picts, saw their chance
to invade the relative rich and highly developed former Roman province.
Tradition tells us about the legendary brothers Hengest and Horsa coming
from across the sea, to fight the unwelcome savages. They were succesful, and
Vortigern asked them to come and stay and to take their kinsmen with them.
Needless to say that in the course of the 5th century several parts of Britain
were settled by Anglo-Saxons who brought their Germanic language with
them, and their writing system, the runes. In Britain, the Germanic dialects
of these immigrants underwent several linguistic changes, such as i-umlaut,
raising, fronting, breaking, syncope. This had effects on the pronunciation of
vowels and consonants, and subsequently new runes had to be added to the 24
signs of the older fuþark, and some runes got another value. The first expan-
20
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is preserved in several manuscripts from the 9th-11th c.
842
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
sion were two new runes, for ‘a’ (nr. 25) and ‘o’ (nr. 4), being graphic variants
of the old ‘a’ rune (nr. 26), which got the value ‘æ’. Later additions brought the
rune-row, now called fuþorc to a total of 31 runes.
Older fuþark (150-700)
Younger fuþark (725-1125)
The Anglo-Saxon-Frisian fuþork (5th c. - 9th c.)
Fig. 6. Evolution of fuþorc.
The development of the Anglo-Saxon fuþork in the 5th c. shows that a
need was felt for special characters to record spoken language and dialectical
varieties. Their solution was to adapt existing runes by adding an extra stroke,
as if it were an accent. The Anglo-Saxon fuþork left some traces on the Continent, namely in Frisia, where some migrating Anglo-Saxons stayed behind
and repopulated the almost deserted Frisian coast area. The Roman-time
Frisians had left in the 3rd and 4th centuries, so the area layed waste for about
a century. About 20 inscriptions from the 6th to 9th centuries are known from
Frisia; some contain the new runes for ‘o’ and ‘a’. This means that either some
of the linguistic changes must have started on the Continent, or that Frisians
and Anglo-Saxons stayed in contact with each other and shared a common
language and subsequent phonetic changes. The typical Anglo-Saxon-Frisian
rune row remained limited to Frisia and Britain - it was not adopted by the
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
843
Tineke Looijenga
Merovingians, for instance, although there were many contacts across the
British Channel between Anglo-Saxons and Merovingians. The Franks nevertheless knew runes, because a few 6th c. runic objects have been found, mainly
ring-swords with rather worn inscriptions on the pommel: Grenay (Pas-deCalais), Fréthun (Pas-de-Calais), St. Dizier (Champagne-Ardennes) (fig. 7);
the last one featuring the only clear legible inscription, the typical runic word
alu. Two other runic objects from Merovingian France are the brooches from
Chéhéry (Ardennes) and Charnay (Saône et Loire). The square headed brooch
from Charnay has a complete fuþark and a small sentence, translated as “may
Liano find Iddan”.
Fig. 7. Sword pommel from St. Dizier, featuring a runic
inscription and a ring, symbol of loyalty to the king
(Photo S. Culot, Inrap, courtesy Mme. dr. M.-C. Truc, Inrap).
1.7. Onomastic formulae
Onomastic formulae such as patronymics (personal name plus family
name plus father’s name) are rare, probably because Germanic names consist
of one name only. There is however that nice example from Blekinge, Sweden,
where we find a family with obvious related names, including a personal name
and the name of the father (see §1.5.4., the Blekinge inscriptions). Here we
find one Haþuwulaf son of Haeruwulf. And there is also a related man called
Hariwulaf. Haþuwolaf could write runes and he also could perform a sacrifice
in order to get a good harvest. He carved runes in the Istaby stone to the
memory of Hariwulaf, and he carved three staves fff in the Gummarp stone,
perhaps for the sake of obtaining wealth in the sense of livestock, cattle.
844
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
Runic inscriptions featuring a name are numerous. Since often only one
name is carved, it remains unclear whether this name is the name of the owner, the maker, the commissioner, or the giver of the object. Some instances are
discussed above (§1.5).
2. Current problems and main future challenges
2.1. Linguistic problems
In the previous sections some problems and challenges have already been
mentioned. In this one I will list them in order to get an overview:
a. The main problem is the reading and interpretation of runic inscriptions: it is very difficult to obtain consensus because a common base is
lacking.
b. The lack of consistent methodology and fair treatment of the evidence
is a problem. This belongs to the field of a scholarly approach to runic
studies. A basic problem is that we have no idea why, where and when the
runes were invented, and what their purpose was.
c. A sound argumentation is missing. It has all to do with the lack of
sufficient material. To quote Michael Barnes: “1. Claims are made based
on little more than the author’s conviction. 2. There is too scanty a knowledge of other disciplines, often coupled with a lack of intellectual rigour
demanded by those disciplines. 3. Conjecture is silently transformed into
certainty. 4. General principles are referred to or implied in support of
arguments, but the principles are not enunciated, are of questionable
validity, or are contradicted by the data.”21
d. The gap between the personal conviction of the runologist and a scientific objective attitude.
e. The division between the pragmatic and the romantic approaches;
also named the difference between the sceptical and the imaginative
runologists. To quote Ray Page “…the runologist needs two contrasting
qualities, imagination and scepticism. The first gives him insight into
possible meanings a letter group may express: the second restrains his
fancy and holds his erudition in the bonds of common sense. In practice,
of course, runologists tend to lean to one side or the other, to be primarily
imaginative or primarily sceptical. The imaginative runologist tends to
21
Barnes 1994, 12- 13.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
845
Tineke Looijenga
regard runic script as essentially magical, or magico-religious (Germanic paganism)… and many present-day dabblers in runes have found it
profitable to adduce the mystical significance and indeed power of the
script.”.22 The Danish scholar Erik Moltke wrote: “Runes are perfectly ordinary letters used for exactly the same purposes as the Latin characters
we employ today”.23
f. From the above follows that there still is an unbridgeable gap between
the believers in the magical nature of runic objects and runic texts and the
runologists who prefer an objective approach - which does not exclude
the notion that runic objects and texts can have a magical connotation.
It certainly deserves further research into the notion that writing itself in
a nearly completely illiterate culture may have had a ritual connotation,
and that the fact that spoken words could be “frozen” in writing and thus
adding value to an object, can be seen as a magical act.
All this has its effects on linguistic and epigraphic problems - runes are
sometimes dificult to decipher or are damaged or eroded - and therefore
subject of discussion and multi-interpretations. And since we do not know
why runes were designed instead of adopting an existing writing system such
as the Latin one, the interpretation problems will continue.
2.2. Epigraphic problems and foreign models
As has been described above, runes were designed after archaic Mediterranean models and when scrutinizing the shape of the runes, one may see
several forerunners: the Greek alphabet, the Etruscan and the Latin. Therefore, several theories have been proposed but nowadays nearly all runologists
agree on an archaic Italic forerunner, or just plainly the Roman alphabet, as
can be observed in many ancient scripts as well. The runes are often written
without word-divisions, from left to right, from right to left, up and down,
and boustrophedon. When there are word-divisions, they are mostly marked
by one or more dots, less by space. Diacritics were not used in runic writing that is not in the older fuþark inscriptions.
As far as the “private-public epigraphy” issue is concerned, the older
runic inscriptions are generally found in small, portable objects, and the inscriptions point to a use of the text in a private, intimate sphere. Texts meant
22
Page 1999, 12.
23
Moltke 1985, 69.
846
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
for the public (but who could read in the Dark Ages of the 2nd-7th c.?) are very
sparse. The huge inscriptions found on the standing stones of the pre-Viking
and Viking Age (7th-12th c.) are likely meant to be seen by the public and probably read by few. The Viking Age inscriptions are often memorials put up by
relatives and heirs — so they can be taken as publical statements.
Regarding the dating, many objects cannot be dated precisely by lack
of context or because the material of the object prevents a date (stone, for
instance). Other objects can be dated according to the context (a grave with
other datable objects), the style (brooches for instance), by comparison or
analogy, and sometimes by rune-forms.
2.2.1. Interpretation of certain genres; the question of runes being a
‘magical’ script, or not
Especially inscriptions of the complete or abbreviated rune-row itself
splits the two camps of runologists irreconcilably. Some cannot see why in
objects with no apparent connexion to anything magical, nor in context nor in
text, an interpretation cannot be anything else than magical. Here circle-reasoning is at stake: if you are pre-occupied by runes representing something
magical, you’ll find them. I myself prefer the logic of Occam’s razor: if there
exist two explanations for an occurrence, the one that requires least speculation is to be preferred. The more assumptions you have to make, the more
unlikely an explanation, unless there is convincing proof of something unusual that might point to there being something ritual/religious at stake. It is
therefore a bit baffling to see that serious runologists can be propagators of the
‘magical impact’ to accuse unbelievers in alleged ‘magical runic inscriptions’
of being “prejudiced, unconsidered and having individual opinions.”24
This fundamentally divergent attitude in runology is one of the main
current problems, and one of the main future challenges. The belief that some
magical meaning is involved can be related to the personal conviction of a
scholar. It will be very difficult for a critical scholar to follow his collegue a
long way in this belief. Even when they may agree upon meeting somewhere
in the middle, like agreeing that the use of script, any script, may have had a
very special meaning in an otherwise illiterate community, the step to agreeing upon magic purposes might be one too far. There is simply not enough
convincing evidence, in spite of the great many articles that have been written
24
Düwel & Heizmann 2006, 3-60.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
847
Tineke Looijenga
on the subject. Runology is tempting for expanding imagination. Interpretations depending on too many uncertainties must be avoided. A quote from R.
I. Page, a leading runologist in England, may illustrate this situation: “Epigraphists are often tempted to interpret as magical the inscription of which they
can make little straightforward sense. This is particularly true of runologists,
since they may be influenced by the theory of rune magic. The belief that there
is an essential connexion between the characters of the runic alphabet and
magical powers will affect one’s approach to inscriptions whose meaning is
difficult to determine, may modify one’s interpretation of inscriptions whose
meaning is tolerably clear, and is likely to influence one’s preference if there
are several interpretations all equally possible formally. If you believe, as many
scholars do, that the Germanic peoples held that the runes were in some way
magical, and that each rune either had its own magical power or could cause
the release of such power simply by being cut or even named, you will tend to
regard all early runic inscriptions as magical, no matter what their apparent
meaning.”25
One may compare this to the view of a leading runologist in Germany:
“(…) erlaubt es, die Runeninschriften auf Brakteaten als den Machttaten des
Brakteatengottes äquivalente Machtworte zu verstehen. Sie sind sowohl als semantisch verstehbare Wörter (alu, laukaR, salu etc.) realisiert — wobei neben
dem ausgeschriebenen Wort auch unterschiedliche Kürzungsformen uns Buchstabenumstellungen begegnen — als auch in Form von unverständliche Zeichenfolgen. Diese lassen sich gleichwohl als absichtsvoll eingesetztes Medium der
Kommunikation verstehen, bei der durch bestimmte arkanisierende Operationen
das göttliche Wort dem Zugriff dämonischer Mächte entzogen werden soll. Im
Kontext einer der Götterfürsten Odin zugeschriebenen Kommunikationsform
tritt auf Brakteaten auch die Futhark-Reihe (als ganze und in Verkürzung)
auf, die mehrfach unmittelbar an die Stelle (…) wo die zauberische Kur wirken
sollte, gesetzt wurde oder in direkte Nähe zum göttlichen Haupt. (…) liesse sich
das Futhark als Chiffre für den potenzierten Einsatz der in der Runenreihe
zusammengezwungene wirkungsmächtige (Heil(s)-Worte des Götterfürsten
verstehen.”.26
In translation: “(…) Makes it possible to understand the rune inscriptions on bracteates as power words equivalent to the acts of power of the
bracteate god. They are realized both as semantically understandable words
25
Page 1995, 105-126.
26
Düwel & Heizmann 2006, 44.
848
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
(alu, laukaR, salu etc.) — in addition to the word that is written out, different
forms of abbreviations and letters are encountered — as well as in the form of
incomprehensible character strings. Nonetheless, these can be understood as
a deliberately used medium of communication, in which the divine word is
to be withdrawn from the access of demonic powers through certain arcanizing operations. In the context of a form of communication ascribed to Odin,
the prince of gods, the Futhark series also appears on bracteates (as a whole
and in abbreviated form), which has been placed several times directly in the
place (...) where the magical cure was supposed to work, or in close proximity
to the divine head. (...) The futhark could be understood as a cipher for the
potentized use of the powerful (healing) words of the prince of gods that are
forced together in the rune row.”.
2.3. Writing system
The common older fuþark underwent several changes throughout the
centuries. This has to do with geographical features (migrations) and changes
in the language. In one case the alphabet was expanded with more graphs,
in another case the solution was found in diminishing the current alphabet
with several graphs. This has led to problems in transliteration, because one
graph could be used for several phonemes. Starting point for a runologist is
autopsy — personal inspection of the object and inscription. Any context
needs to be scrutinized: grave, grave-field, settlement site, stray find, deposit,
other objects of the same find-place, stylistic and material features, etcetera.
Runology as a discipline is supported by data from palaeography, linguistics
and archaeology.
2.3.1. Polemic graphemes
As has been argued above, among the toughest problems in runology is
the interpretation. Runologists seem never to agree with each other about a
reading of a new-found item, and subsequently many runic texts have very
different readings and interpretations. This is most unproductive and appears
to others as unscholarly behaviour. If a runic researcher comes up with good
argumentation why a certain graph should be read as so and so, and it makes
sense as regards the context and the interpretation of the text as a whole, it
should not be regarded as just a reason to disagree and to dismiss the reading
and to present immediately something else. There seems to be as many interpretions as there are runologists. This has been observed already a long time
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
849
Tineke Looijenga
ago and this runic lore is stubbornly retained. Of course, one may disagree
and come up with a better idea, based on solid arguments. But most of the
time people come up with something that suits them or their research better,
or just because they don’t like each other. A good example is the disputed
reading of the inscription on the early 5th c. Bergakker scabbard mount (river
estuary of Rhine and Meuse, The Netherlands). It shows an unknown graph,
a double Roman V, not attested anywhere else, so its value is unknown. The
sequence goes: haleþewas, followed by dots — the word divider. From the
context (the other runes in the inscription) it must represent a vowel, ‘e’ or
‘u’. This sequence could very well be a personal name, a good Germanic name
in the genitive, consisting of two parts: Haleþewas. There exist well-known
Germanic names ending in -þewaz (meaning ‘knight’, ‘servant’), also in runic
inscriptions. The unknown graph which I transliterate as ‘e’, occurs four times:
haleþewas : ann: kẹsjam: logẹns. Transcription of the inscription is in bold
lettering, with dots under the unknown runeforms. The second word, ann, is
perfectly clear as a verb, 1st or 3rd pres. ind. of the preterite present verb unnan,
‘grant’ or ‘grants’. So, the inscription consists of a subject, a personal name, a
verbform, and an object consisting of two, unknown, words.
Other runologists favoured transliterating the unknown graph as ‘u’,
comprehensible since its resemblance to Roman V. They admit that it delivered
no meaningful word, but it suited the rest of their interpretation as ‘u’ in the
two last words of the inscription. But what would *haþụþụwas mean? There
is no good reasoning why the unknown graph in the inscription should not
indicate ‘e’, and on the contrary denounce ‘u’, because there is no comparison
possible. So runologists should restrict to cautious attitudes and modes of expression. What is most disturbing though is that some runologists completely
ignore the archaeological context — in this case the object was manufactured
in north Gallia, in a Gallo-Roman workshop. The language, therefore, may
mirror a mixture of languages used at that time in the former Limes area. As
has been mentioned above, (§ 1.6.), there existed a runic tradition in Merovingian France, albeit modest for its few attestations — but this Bergakker object
may have been made and inscribed in Northern France (Gallia). The Franks
originated from an area near the North Sea and migrated southwards, passing
through the Limes area to Gallia (Northern France) in the 4th-6th centuries.
At the moment there exists no acceptable interpretation of the inscription. As
long as the question of which sound is meant by the unknown graph is not
solved, it is best not to speculate.
850
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
Fig. 8. The early 5th c. Bergakker inscription with the unknown graph double V. The runes are
at the back of a silver-gilt scabbard mount, part of a deposit consisting of many metal objects
(Looijenga 2003, 317 ff. Photo: courtesy of the Museum Het Valkhof, Nijmegen).
2.4. Edition problems
Edition problems are not really there. Transcription norms are shared by
all runologists. Transliterations are commonly in boldface. The aim is to reproduce the distinctive runes of a particular rune-row in the roman alphabet,
in order to make runic inscriptions more accessible to the researcher and the
public. A dot below a bold-face letter means an uncertain reading. An x means
that it is not possible to determine which rune was used. A ‘?’ is used in cases
where it is not clear whether there is a letter or a scratch. Latin Capitalis are
used to present Latin (Roman) letters, mostly found on bracteates. Interpretations are in italics.
2.5. Publication problems
Publication problems are also not existing. Articles on runes and their
interpretations are found in both linguistic and archaeological journals. Some
online databases are listed below:
- The Kiel Rune Project: <https://www.runenprojekt.uni-kiel.de/>
- RuneS: <https://adw-goe.de/forschung/forschungsprojekte-akademienprogramm/
runische-schriftlichkeit-in-den-germanischen-sprachen/>, <https://www.runesdb.eu/
project/>
- Scandinavian Runic Text Database: <https://www.runforum.nordiska.uu.se/srd/>
- Futhark, International Journal of Runic Studies, 1-7, <https://www.futhark-journal.com/>
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
851
Tineke Looijenga
b i b l i o g r a p h y
Ambrosiani 1987: B. Ambrosiani (ed.), Runor och runinskrifter. Föredrag vid
Riksantikvarieämbetets och Vitterhetsakademiens symposium 8-11 september 1985,
Stockholm 1987.
Antonsen 1975: E. H. Antonsen, A concise grammar of the older runic inscriptions, Tübingen
1975.
Axboe et alii 1984-1989: M. Axboe et alii, “Die Goldbrakteaten der Völkerwanderungszeit,
Ikonographischer Katalog”, Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften 24, München 1984-1989.
Bammesberger 1991: A. Bammesberger (ed.), Old English Runes and their Continental
Background, Heidelberg 1991.
Bammesberger & Waxenberger 2006: A. Bammesberger and G. Waxenberger (eds.), Das fuþark
und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen, Berlin-New York 2006.
Barnes 1994: M. P. Barnes, “On Types of Argumentation in Runic Studies”, in: Proceedings of
the Third International Symposium on Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Runrön 9, Uppsala
1994, 12-13.
Barnes 2012: M. P. Barnes, Runes, a handbook, Woodbridge 2012.
Bede, A History of the English Church and People [transl. Leo Shirley-Price], Harmondsworth
1986.
Bleck 2016: R. Bleck, Angelsächsische oder friesische Runen auf Goldstücken des 6. Und 7.
Jahrhunderts (Goldbrakteaten, Solidi und Tremisses), Göppingen 2016, 137-184.
Derolez 1998: R. Derolez, The Origin of the Runes: An Alternative Approach, Brussels 1998.
Düwel 1994: K. Düwel (ed.), Runische Schriftkultur in kontinental-skandinavischer undangelsächsischer Wechselbeziehung. Internationales Symposium in der Werner-ReimersStiftung vom 24. - 27. Juni 1992 in Bad Homburg, Berlin-New York 1994.
Düwel & Nowak 1998: K. Düwel and S. Nowak, Runeninschriften als Quellen interdisziplinärer
Forschung, Berlin-New York 1998.
Düwel 2001: K. Düwel, Runenkunde. 3. Auflage, Stuttgart-Weimar 2001.
Düwel & Heizmann 2006: K. Düwel and W. Heizmann, “Das ältere Fuþark: Überlieferung und
Wirkungsmöglichkeiten der Runenreihe”, in: A. Bammesberger and G. Waxenberger
(eds.), Das fuþark und seine einzelsprachlichen Weiterentwicklungen, Berlin-New York
2006, 3-60.
Findell 2012: M. Findell, Phonological evidence from the Continental Runic Inscriptions, BerlinNew York, 2012.
Garmonsway 1986: G. N. Garmonsway (transl. & ed.), The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, London
1986.
Graf 2010: M. H. Graf, Paraschriftliche Zeichen in südgermanischen Runeninschriften. Studien
zur Schriftkultur des kontinentalgermanischen Runenhorizonts, Zürich 2010.
Hills 2005: C. Hills, “Review of Axboe, M. Die Goldbrakteaten der VolkerwanderungszeitHerstellungsprobleme und Chronologie”, The Numismatic Chronicle 165, 398-401.
852
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
Germanic: the Runes
Hines & IJssenagger 2017: J. Hines and N. IJssenagger (eds.), Frisians and their North Sea
Neighbours, from the fifth century to the Viking Age, Woodbridge 2017.
Jacobsen & Moltke 1942: L. Jacobsen and E. Moltke, Danmarks Runeindskrifter, Copenhagen 1942.
Knirk 1994: J. E. Knirk (ed.), Proceedings of the Third International Symposium on Runes and
Runic Inscriptions, Grindaheim, Norway, 8-12 August 1990, Uppsala 1994.
Knirk & Williams 2010: J. E. Knirk and H. Williams (eds.) Futhark: International Journal of
Runic Studies 1: Containing selected papers from the Sixth International Symposium on
Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Lancaster, 11-16 August 2005, Oslo-Uppsala 2010.
Krause & Jankuhn 1966: W. Krause and H. Jankuhn, Die Runeninschriften im älteren Futhark,
Göttingen 1966.
Looijenga & Quak 1996: T. Looijenga and A. Quak (eds.), Frisian Runes and Neighbouring
Traditions. Proceedings from the First International Symposium on Frisian Runes at the
Fries Museum, Leeuwarden, 26-29 January 1994, Amsterdam-Atlanta 1996.
Looijenga 2003: T. Looijenga, Texts and Contexts of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions, LeidenBoston 2003.
Makaev 1996: È.A. Makaev, The Language of the Oldest Runic Inscriptions. A Linguistic and
Historical-Philological Analysis, Stockholm 1996.
Marold & Zimmermann: E. Marold and C. Zimmermann (eds.), Nordwestgermanisch, BerlinNew York 1995.
Moltke 1985: E. Moltke, Runes and their Origin, Denmark and Elsewhere, Copenhagen 1985.
Nielsen, 2000: H. F. Nielsen, The Early Runic Language of Scandinavia: Studies in Germanic
Dialect Geography, Heidelberg 2000.
Page 1995: R. I. Page, Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Woodbridge 1995.
Page 1999: R. I. Page, An Introduction to English Runes, Woodbridge 1999².
Pollington 2016: S. Pollington, Runes, Literacy in the Germanic Iron Age, Milton Keynes 2016.
Schmidt, Nedoma & Düwel 2010-2011: C. G. Schmidt, R. Nedoma and K. Düwel, “Die
Runeninschrift auf dem Kamm von Frienstedt, Stadt Erfurt”, Die Sprache. Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft 49, 2010-2011, 123-186.
Siller 2011: M. Siller, “Storie del Mediterraneo antico nell’Europa del Nord medievale: The Franks
Casket (British Museum, VII secolo)”, in: Ernst Robert Curtius, e l’identità culturelle dell’
Europa, Atti del XXXVII Convegno Interuniversitario. (Bressanone/Innsbruck, 13-16 luglio
2009), Padova 2011, 293-300.
Siller 2018: M. Siller, “Aigil, Ægili, Egill, Aïlrun, Ǫlrún - des Rätsels Lösung? Ein Vorbericht”,
in: Synergien- 25 Jahre Germanistik und DAAD and der Philosoph Konstantin-Universität
Nitra, Košice 2018, 148.
Stoklund et al. 2006: M. Stoklund, M. Lerche Nielsen, M. Holmberg and G. Fellows-Jensen
(eds.), Runes and their Secrets, Studies in runology, Copenhagen 2006.
Spurkland 2005: T. Spurkland, Norwegian Runes and Runic Inscriptions, Woodbridge 2005.
Sveriges Runinskrifter: utgivna av Kungliga Vitterhets Historie och Antikvitets Akademien, 1900
- 2009, Stockholm. Div. authors.
Waxenberger, Kazazzi & Hines 2020: G. Waxenberger, K. Kazzazi and J. Hines (eds.), Old
English Runes: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Approaches and Methodologies, BerlinNew York 2020 forthcoming.
Wicker 2015: N. L. Wicker, “Bracteate inscriptions and Context Analysis in the Lught og
Alternatives to Hauck’s Iconographic interpretations”, Futhark International Journal of
Runic studies 5, 2015, 25-43.
p a l a e o h i s p a n i c a 20 | 2020 | pp. 819-853
853